"Admissibility of travelers seeking to enter Canada is considered on a case-by-case basis on the specific facts presented by the applicant in each case," he said. "Several factors are used in determining admissibility into Canada, including involvement in criminal activity, in human rights violations, in organized crime, security, health or financial reasons."
.... sounds like a policy we should use on our southern border, if we could ever seal it and get them to enter in specific areas, which will never happen in my lifetime
sounds like a policy we should use on our southern border, if we could ever seal it and get them to enter in specific areas, which will never happen in my lifetime
we need to get hard on it and perhaps take deadly force to seal it
.... sounds like a policy we should use on our southern border, if we could ever seal it and get them to enter in specific areas, which will never happen in my lifetime
Canada's government isn't corrupt, people actually want to live there. Can't say as much for Mexico. The Mexican government wants illegal immigration. It is there second largest source of income.
Corporate conglomerates, unions, chambers of commerce and politicians expecting a payback all want illegal immigration to continue. These special interest groups are so powerful that our southern border will never be sealed until we change our politicians in office. Our politicians owe too much to the special interest groups to go against them.
Here is Ann Wright's resignation letter from the State Dept. I have snipped her self adulatory fluff for brevity:
quote:
Mary A. Wright's resignation letterMarch 21, 2003 The following is a copy of Mary (Ann) Wright's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. ....... March 19, 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell US Department of State Washington, DC 20521 Dear Secretary Powell: .............
I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them. I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so. I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community's demand that Saddam's regime destroy weapons of mass destruction. However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. .........
America's action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then, America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as we did ten years ago. I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted. I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a "preemptive attack" against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to "preemptively attack" America and American citizens. The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/ Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic "holy soil" of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens. Although I strongly believe the time in not yet right for military action in Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without destruction of the Iraqi peoples' homes and livelihood. I strongly urge the Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and this is not yet the time for military action. I disagree with the Administration's lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the Administration's long-needed "Roadmap for Peace" will have the human resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward peace. I disagree with the Administration's lack of policy on North Korea Additionally, I cannot support the Administration's position on North Korea. With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration's lack of substantive discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is dangerous for us to continue to neglect. I disagree with the Administration's policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America Further, I cannot support the Administration's unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration's secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens. Resignation I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration's policies. ................ Very Respectfully, Mary A. Wright, FO-01 Deputy Chief of Mission US Embassy Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
At least she acknowledged the presence of WMD's in Saddam's Iraq. I wonder what her position is with "Code Pink"?
I agreed with most what Ann Wright said in her resignation letter. I too was not for invaded Iraq back in 2003. It wasn't necessary, even if Saddam had WMD at the ready. He wouldn't have used them. He already experienced the wrath of the U.S. and the coalition back in 1991. We would have had world support had we waited. But, we went in, so we need to finish the job. Leaving Iraq after we tore it to hell is not the right thing to do. All that will accomplish is more hatred for Americans, just as Ann Wright said. She wasn't too far off. I just think her current tactics leave a lot to be desired. She needs to remember that she was a soldier and their are soldiers still fighting.
It wasn't necessary, even if Saddam had WMD at the ready. He wouldn't have used them. He already experienced the wrath of the U.S. and the coalition back in 1991. We would have had world support had we waited. But, we went in, so we need to finish the job. Leaving Iraq after we tore it to hell is not the right thing to do.
Well, we didn't leave; so what's your point? Quite possible, if we had left the Iraqi's would have been so busy rebuilding on their own and with UN support, that the insurgency wouldn't have statrted.
Perhaps you aren't aware of the following UNSC resolution:
quote:
Resolution 1441 (2002) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on 8 November 2002 The Security Council, Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully, Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area, Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
In the end' of course, these nitwits simply want attention.
My opinion? let them go anywhere they want. Their problem should be getting back into our country, once were rid of them. Help the welfare rolls, let them go and keep them out, onve gone!
She is just another nitwit who believes that the UN can take care of all the worlds problems. LEt me see. The UN is staffed and run by a bunch of third world suits who use the orginization to enrich themselves. It is nothing more than a bank to many of its staffers. However she can depend on the UN to solve all the worlds problems, not in this lifetime.
The UN will always seek a peaceful resolve, thats its purpose. President Bush wanted justice, not peace. Many of the Countries envolved have a lot of investments in the Middle East. The war is not in they're best interests due to financial ties. In this case, President's Bush acted correctly. The UN should restrict weapon systems and technology to Countries hell bent on anothers destruction. If President's Bush had a say in it none of those Countries envolved would have been armed in the first place. Our present Leaders inherite problems caused by other Leaders when they take Office.
The main topic, are peace activists criminals? No, they are retired Officers that served in an Embacy, hense they're ties to the UN and they're character motivation for peace. Canada will allow them in, my opinion. They're only crime is to want a peaceful resolve so many on both sides are not killed. If the Government and many of its people were not backing Terrorism in the Middle East, Peace would be easy to achieve. Let them talk, some words of wisdom maybe gained from it.
You sir, seem to have a very, well, to be polite, lets say "trusting" opinion of the structure and control of the so called "United Nations" and its actions.
In fact, many nations on the very laughable "Security" Council as permanent members are the very nations making massive profits through the sale of arms to nations like North Korea, Iran and other such states.
These nations, each individually contol an absolute veto over any action taken, thus to believe the UN will ever take any effective action against a terrorist state is very foolish, indeed.
Endless talk will change nothing, and the leadership of Iran openly and publicly laughs at such silly nonsense as they prepare for their war.
Are peace activists criminals? At the very least, they are simply very simple minded fools, in my opinion. "Peace" is not something you can "negotiate" with characters such as we are dealing with today. These are "religious" savages who very deliberatly murder children every single day. Who have had as their basic mission the conquest and the submission of the entire world to their primitive religious fantasy for well over a thousand years.
"Peace" sir, always comes through military power. A nation, to survive in this world, must be respected and yes, feared.
A nation seeking to be "loved" or "Liked" by mankind will suffer human contempt and become the target of the savage nations in this world. The human race has produced very few Saints, and uncounted millions of savage murderers.
You, sir, have no answers, and your ideas are very dangerous to our freedom and nation. Thank God reasonable people see how dangerously silly you and your kind are, and most simply ignore you.
The League of Nations was an utter failure, as is the UN, as will be all such nonsense forever.
You sir, seem to have a very, well, to be polite, lets say "trusting" opinion of the structure and control of the so called "United Nations" and its actions.
In fact, many nations on the very laughable "Security" Council as permanent members are the very nations making massive profits through the sale of arms to nations like North Korea, Iran and other such states.
These nations, each individually contol an absolute veto over any action taken, thus to believe the UN will ever take any effective action against a terrorist state is very foolish, indeed.
Endless talk will change nothing, and the leadership of Iran openly and publicly laughs at such silly nonsense as they prepare for their war.
Are peace activists criminals? At the very least, they are simply very simple minded fools, in my opinion. "Peace" is not something you can "negotiate" with characters such as we are dealing with today. These are "religious" savages who very deliberatly murder children every single day. Who have had as their basic mission the conquest and the submission of the entire world to their primitive religious fantasy for well over a thousand years.
"Peace" sir, always comes through military power. A nation, to survive in this world, must be respected and yes, feared.
A nation seeking to be "loved" or "Liked" by mankind will suffer human contempt and become the target of the savage nations in this world. The human race has produced very few Saints, and uncounted millions of savage murderers.
You, sir, have no answers, and your ideas are very dangerous to our freedom and nation. Thank God reasonable people see how dangerously silly you and your kind are, and most simply ignore you.
The League of Nations was an utter failure, as is the UN, as will be all such nonsense forever.
Thats why I said President's Bush {both} acted correctly. I believe the representatives of the UN have lost they're credibility because they're Countries took the stance of arming Countries during the Cold War to stabilize that Country from Communist agression instead of acting like a NATO protective cooperation in the defense of agressors. The US is just as guilty for going along with it. Don't give a gun to an angry friend, stand by him.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 14219531,
But you see, the UN can't possibly perform as you suggest. It just has too many individual nations with their own interests as outlined in my prior note.
Unfortunately, we are the human race, and we are not Saints. We will never have an organization such as you hope for, in my opinion.
But you see, the UN can't possibly perform as you suggest. It just has too many individual nations with their own interests as outlined in my prior note.
Unfortunately, we are the human race, and we are not Saints. We will never have an organization such as you hope for, in my opinion.
My point is that as long as they are at a table sitting down and talking the effect will be more positive. You are correct about not putting to much faith in some of they're directives, due to personal interests.
Sorry, but I fail to see what possible "positive" or practical result will come from, for that matter ever has come from, these nations "sitting at a table and talking" for uncounted ages.
Seems as a practical matter, as they "talk" by whatever descriptive word, "negotiate" if you will, the situation always moves on to its ultimate end, and that end always favors those seeking power and profit.
True and practical negotiations develop when one side has gained a very favorable military advantage over the other. Just the history of the human race.
"Admissibility of travelers seeking to enter Canada is considered on a case-by-case basis on the specific facts presented by the applicant in each case," he said. "Several factors are used in determining admissibility into Canada, including involvement in criminal activity, in human rights violations, in organized crime, security, health or financial reasons."
.... sounds like a policy we should use on our southern border, if we could ever seal it and get them to enter in specific areas, which will never happen in my lifetime
These rules only work when Canadian border authorities are aware of someone to whom they might apply. On most occasions it's 'what are you bringing into Canada? Have a nice day. Don't forget to get your tax refunds when you leave.'
Unless, of course, you're some poxed-up rock star with dope convictions, or homeland security calls with a 'head's up!".
As in the latter case where the dames have been arrested for 'public disorders'. We can't have Yanks coming here to do public disorders, we have quite enough of our own, thank-kew.
sounds like a policy we should use on our southern border, if we could ever seal it and get them to enter in specific areas, which will never happen in my lifetime
we need to get hard on it and perhaps take deadly force to seal it
Landmines and watchtowers, eh outlaw? An Iron Curtain West?
