carepov

I think that we should more or less continue with our current refugee policies with some incremental improvements. How about you, how do you recommend we manage the refugee camp of 500,000 people in Kenya?

OK, which NGO does this, could you please give an example? I gave examples of missions with humanitarian motives, not necessarily only humanitarian. Some disasters, some successes, mostly debatable results. Bullsh*t So you are saying that if we cared more for others nothing would change? Do you think that more sympathy would make the world a worse place? Explain how that works. And how can we force certain countries to have more sympathy and stop supporting suffering? 1. If the West cared about the Tutsis, we could have helped stop the massacre of 800,000 people 2. I meant that we can stop our own actions that increase suffering (e.g. perhaps war in Iraq, selling arms to oppressive regimes...) 3. I have no good answer to your last question... hmmm...

No, says the article that you referenced. We agree that improved security is needed. These people are not "security issues". There are 500,000 people that fled their homes in Somalia and are now living in a camp in Kenya. Many are women and children. Some people are "security issues" and we should continue to do our best to leave them behind. We have been doing this for years, and while there are improvements to be made, our system is working well. This would be to no one's benefit.

I agree and never said otherwise. I call "bullshit"! Do you actually think that aid even comes close to $1,546,529,200,000 or 2.2% of global GDP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures There are good people and bad, there are good organizations and bad... How about we pick one NGO and discuss? Obviously Somalia was a disaster and we left - but what was the original "will to act" based on? Kuwait? Liberia? East Timor? Kosovo? Afghanistan? Libya? Haiti? The motives of any intervention are always debatable and the success in terms of humanitarian objectives is mixed. Again all I am saying is: "If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place." -Having more sympathy in international relations will: 1. help drive us towards actions that reduce suffering 2. help prevent actions that cause an increase in suffering

This comment makes no sense to me. These people are refugees - they have already lost their homeland. My plan is to first feel sorry for them then to feel superior to all of you that don't (joke). Seriously, I would like to acknowledge the good work being done by the aid agencies, I'm assuming mostly UN in this case, and help them do better. Improved security would obviously be a priority. In due process, I would like to see Canada resettle a fair share (roughly the same numbers that we admit now) of these people and welcome them. As much as it would be great to solve the root cause and prevent the refugee problem - I have no idea how.

Case in point for what? What would you recommend to be done with these 500,000 people?

Good question, I will look it up and am sure it will make for a good discussion. I 100 % disagree. The best word to describe the West's attitude towards the Tutsis was: apathy. I think that Romeo Dallaire would take my side of this debate. To get sympathy into our international relations will take more sympathetic people - of course sympathy plays a part!

You may be right in some cases, but what about those that have been living in camps for months/years, surely the vast majority are authentic refugees, no? OK, I am looking forward to it but not now though... I have also felt that many NGO's should merge to be more efficient. I agree on most of your viewpoints here. I will start a discussion on AI soon. Again, I agree but that was not my point. All I am saying is: "If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place." Do you agree? Also, of course a country can (and should) develop a will to act based on self-interest and humanitarian reasons.

OK sorry I misunderstood.

I will maintain that the issue is too complex to paint a sweeping picture. What you say is true in some cases but not in others. You cannot even isolate cases with or without natural disasters because political/military/geographic issues are so often inter-related (e.g.: Haiti) I would rather discuss more specific questions, for example: -Should Canada accept refugees from Somalia, if so how many? -Do you agree with today's policies toward Haiti? -or Zimbabwe -Canadian aboriginals... or...? -What do you think about the work done by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)? - or the WHO? or Development et Paix...or Amnesty International... or...? You are right sympathy in itself solves nothing however sympathy is a pre-requisite to helping others.

You are exaggerating. Our system is not drained by refugees.

What happens when local warlords block the food aid or use the food aid to hold civilians hostage? What happens when you send food aid to a country like Sudan and they don't have the infrastructure to receive all of it so it has to go through neighbours to the north or east or south... how do you ensure that the 30 billion of aid will get to the people in need rather then end up in the storage facilities of the local warlord? In the facilities of the guy who will use the food as a weapon against his enemies? These are all very good points and questions from both sides. I would like to make four points: 1. We should avoid over-generalizing every country is different - even every village. 2. We cannot help everyone, this should not stop us from helping where we can 3. There are many recent successes of international aid and development and there are many NGOs doing good work 4. No matter what the situation, we should sympathize with the powerless victims

Sorry I mis-typed. There are refugee frauds and yes most recently the Roma from Hungary and a few years ago the Czech Rep, most mexicans probably too. These people should be ineligible and I am in favour of Kenny's plan to fast-track these out of the system. I meant that most refugees are not frauds and that many of these people would be dead if they stayed in their home country.

I already said that I more or less agree with the status quo I 100% agree: "We don't have the resources to bring all the children in need to Canada" There are some refugee frauds, but for the most part it would not be a bennefit to leave them in their home country becaus ethey would end up dead.

I'm not saying that and I am not accusing anyone - but I was concerned about the following comments: Some comments could be sarcastic jokes, again I am not judging - just concerned.

The refugee system we have is far from perfect. And again, I do not claim to have the solution. We should be helping in any way that we practically can - and one way is to accept some refugees. It is not an either/or choice it fact doing both is probably more effective, refugees established in Canada can perhaps one day help re-build their former homeland.

Like I said before, there are a lot of failures and also a lot of successes. I see nothing wrong with giving at home or even not giving at all. I just cannot understand or tolerate a lack of sympathy for any child of any country.

Thanks for mentioning Lotta Hitschmanova, I had never heard of her and am looking forward to learning more about her. When it comes to issues related to international development/starving children there is very little that is "obvious". Some things are working and some things aren't. It's great that you have been generous in helping others, please keep it up and encourage others too.

I don't have a solution - I don't even understand the problem! All I know is that most people suffering in Somalia - and certainly all small children - bear no responsibility for the situation that they are in. They are suffering only because they had the misfortune of being born in the wrong place. We in Canada have the capacity to help ease some of this suffering without giving up our comfort. Just to be clear, I am not advocating opening up our borders wide open, our current intake of refugees seems about right. I am angered when people suggest that we stop taking in refugees. I am also disgusted when people demonstrate a lack of compassion for children and other powerless victims.

This barbaric crime is beyond my ability to understand and describe properly. I have the deepest sympathy for the victim, his family and friends. I am enraged at primarily the leaders that would allow this but also at all the willing participants and spectators. It sickens me that crimes of this nature happen and go unpunished. I do not hold every Somali responsible for this crime - and especially not 3-year old children.

What are you trying to say? I am curious, please have a look at the first picture in this report and let me know what you think: http://www.msf.ca/news-media/news/2011/11/people-caught-between-epidemics-malnutrition-and-conflict/

I more or less agree, and am likewise baffled and disappointed in the public’s apathy. I also agree that our so-called "nice" leaders are no better than the "evil" ones. The one exception is GW Bush - perhaps the worst Administration ever. I would like to add a point however in defence of the USA: In terms of foreign intervention, they seem to be the "least worst" of any major super-power in history. If you can think of a "less-evil" super-power at any point in history please let me know. Similarly their apparent hypocrisy in supporting one oppressive regime and isolating another has been standard practice forever, no? I support both. In most situations it is not an either/or question. When deciding weather or not to intervene in a country (e.g. ...Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria) the first question must be: 1. Do we have the capacity to achieve our (humanitarian and/or self-interest) objectives ? Then we should be asking: 2. Will intervention worsen the situation? IMO, invading Afganistan was probably a good idea but Iraq ruined both campaigns. Regarding the support of dictators and oppressive regimes, it all depends on the situation. I generally support today's US polcies towards China, Burma, North Korea, the policy on Cuba is stupid but perhaps the Administration "has no choice" if they want to hold onto Florida. I have no idea how I would handle Sudan, Libya, Egypt and Syria. What do you think?

I have enough business experience to know there is far more uncertainty in the real world than what you and other posters are claiming. Maybe and maybe not. Sometimes this happens and sometimes it doesn't. First, there is no such thing as a "monopoly agreement between players", perhaps you mean oligopoly. Second, of the $5 Billion, how much would you guess is on supply-managed products like dairy? 5% maybe? 10% tops? OK what about the other 90-95%, why are these products cheaper in the US? To me, this reasoning suggests that there is a strong possiblity that, in the real world, ending supply-mangement will bring no significant savings for the Canadian consumer.

I think that you are misunderstanding me, I am not ignoring anything and there is nothing I want to read into. These days I dislike all political parties pretty much equally. My general premise is not: "conservatives" do not reduce government It is more like: there is no significant difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" Overall I am a fiscal conservative and hate all wasteful spending. Q: Which party should I support? A: There is no clear answer. Despite the widely held assertion (I call it a myth) that Conservative/Republicans are more responsible financial managers - I could make a case for the Liberals/Democrats - it's a toss up, I really don't know who to support.

Hi Fletch 27, Do you realize that the latest proposal to end supply-management is coming from Martha Hall Findlay and that the CPC is defending the status quo?