LesterDC

The use of sanctions and peacekeeping forces doesn't sound like a bad idea

Or we could have world governments agree to international terms through the UN... and if you break these terms, you are in trouble

loooooool do you know anything?

Yes, I can see that point. However, it still stands - that wasn't what the Bush administration told the American people

Like I said, we might not be doing a very good job at it but the concept is very viable to me. Anyhow, as little as it was, Canada did have a role in the Darfur Crisis

The Gulf War had nothing to do with harbouring terrorists and WMD's.. Like I said, why couldn't Bush tell the truth?

Oh and by the way, the 1999 bombing was not out of the blue. The Yugoslavian conflict had** already been going on for about 8 years before the action..

Well no, NATO does not have a license to murder and it is not a perfect organization. However, at least it gives the decision more validity. At least Chretien's motives were rooted within the international community. On the other hand, only god knew what Bush's motives were.. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; if you do not believe in peacekeeping, then that is your opinion. As for me, I do believe in the "R2P" (Responsibility to Protect) concept and its implications. Are we doing a very good job at it? Maybe, maybe not. On the most part, I would like to think that we could be doing a lot worse. Anyhow, when you see the situation in Darfur, can you really say that "peacekeeping" is just "utter pap" for the masses?

yes there is

I'm sorry, but we have been through this before. At least Chretien acted on a NATO notion. Heck, if you don't even want to give him that, at least Chretien didn't turn around and tell his citizens that Serbia had WMD's and was harbouring terrorists.. Like I said, I have no problem with "peacekeeping" and perhaps preemptive attacks against extremely potential aggressors. But you know what? If Bush was truly sincere about it, why did he have to lie about it?

Ay, but there's the rub.. The North American teenage girl has the freedom to decide between developing an eating disorder and self esteem issues. As influenced as it is, the choice is ultimately her decision. On the other hand, this little girl could not do anything at all to prevent this from happening. She her decisions are oppressed by a higher power. She did nothing to provoke this nor did she consent to this. So you tell me, is there a big difference? Oh, would you rather have some fanatical and pious leaders interpreting some book for their own causes? Making them law and oppressing others based on their personal interpretations? Let me tell you this - I am quite proud of our secular government. It shows how a spiritual relationship should only concern a man and his God - no other. In a secular world, Muslims and Christians are able to get along with each other..

While I found your post most amusing (no sarcasm there), I do not believe that we have to wait for a country to obtain WMD's before we should take action. Mind you, this does not mean that my philosophy indefinitely converges with Bush policies. As much as you want to justify it, lying to the population is just always the easiest way out. Anyhow, the dilemma stands as this: should we put our country's reputation at stake for intervening or should we sit back and see what the international repercussions will be if we do not act. Surely we don't want Iraq to be marching off to Kuwait again.. Especially if they successfully got their hands on some actual WMD's..

Alright, I like Iggy. However, I was also quite disappointed about how the Liberal Party decided to keep the decision exclusively within the caucus instead of making the decision a more open Liberal Party vote. So you tell me, why shouldn't we have it Rae's way?

Go Iggy

Don't worry, it ain't all of us.. I sure don't think like that

Canada is NOT better off without Quebec.. Our Francophone culture is just as important as our Anglophone culture

Ah well... I dug something up that will shed some light on this matter.. http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/1.htm well what do you know, from NATO.int itself.. This is a good and thorough history of NATO. This is the difference between a broad paragraph of history and a good couple of pages: Key quotes: On the security council: "The Charter was founded on two assumptions. First, that the five Powers holding permanent seats in the Security Council - China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union - would be able to reach lasting agreement on major matter " then, "were again faced by another peril, coming this time from Communist Russia. " Failure through the U.N.: "The Western Powers, remembering the splendid fighting qualities of the Red Army and the sufferings of the Soviet people at the hands of the Nazi invaders, went to the very limit of conciliation in their efforts to reach an accommodation with the Soviet Government, and to make the United Nations an effective instrument for the preservation of world peace. They met with nothing but obstruction." Already quoted before, but here it is again: Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September, 1947, Mr. St. Laurent expressed the concern of the peace-loving nations at the inability of the Security Council to ensure their protection. 'If forced', he said, 'these nations may seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace-loving states willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for a greater measure of national security". So therefore, while NATO was based off of U.N. principles (collective security, order and what the NATO charter called the "framework"), it was created due to the disappointment and inability of the U.N. (security council, ineffectiveness). If the U.N. proved to be effective with western terms, then there would have been no reason to create NATO.

true true.. Layton would probably be the better "politician"

Yep. That is what the House was talking about earlier.. There was nothing in the platform that informed the voters that they would be forming a coalition.

= What's wrong with Canada

Maybe... However, the carbon tax plan was his idea. I know that he scrapped it, but he still came up with it before..

Thread over

kind of sounds like Diefenbaker

I got the book, pages 28 to 47 explicitly talks about what we are talking about.. On top of that, references are all over the book.. Beats your paragraph of broad info

Oh but he was.. Canada, Britian and the USA were the "top players".. Arguably France as well.. Anyhow, the top Canadian diplomats involved in this were Pearson (naturally, since he was the Sec. of State at the time), Escott Reid, Hume Wrong.. and of course St. Laurent was quite vital as well, he being Prime Minister and allowing the diplomats to freely do their work On the American side, you had people like Dean Acheson, Truman, Kennan, Marshall, Vandenberg The Brits had Gladwyn Jebb, Ernst Bevin and more..