The Federal Republic of Canada

[Sir Bandelot]

We keep getting sucked in by the UN period! And need to change this scenerio somehow.

So the Central Party of Canada does not support the United Nations?

[jbg]

Go spit your stupidities elsewhere!

Like yours aren't rather abundant?

[WestViking]

I think that to declare war, one has to have very worrisome secret information about the enemy.

Or be attacked or have a close ally attacked. A declaration of war can be a reaction as well as an action.

[jbg]

Or be attacked or have a close ally attacked. A declaration of war can be a reaction as well as an action.

Too logical a reason given post you're responding to.

[benny]

Or be attacked or have a close ally attacked. A declaration of war can be a reaction as well as an action.

In between states, (international) relations are most importantly about exchanging, voluntarily if possible and if not forcibly, intelligence (secret) information about one another.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In between states, (international) relations are most importantly about exchanging, voluntarily if possible and if not forcibly, intelligence (secret) information about one another.

International diplomacy involves far more aspects than you would believe.

[CAMP]

So the Central Party of Canada does not support the United Nations?

That's not what I said. What I expressed is that Canada has become a more aggressive nation because we have moved past peacekeeping into the realm of aggression. The concept of the UN is a good thing. Is the UN being controlled by an aggressive nation or nations? Perhaps a subject for another thread. Other countries don't seem to want to be involved in Afghanistan why is that? They are members of the UN. Are we the UN doormats?

We need to get Canada back to where we were, and that is known as peacekeepers.

Our country must smarten up when it comes to why we choose to enter a UN mission. Ask the questions that need to be asked and sort out the truths and propaganda about the situation.

Edited July 12, 2009 by CAMP

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's not what I said. What I expressed is that Canada has become a more aggressive nation because we have moved past peacekeeping into the realm of aggression. The concept of the UN is a good thing. Is the UN being controlled by an aggressive nation or nations? Perhaps a subject for another thread. Other countries don't seem to want to be involved in Afghanistan why is that? They are members of the UN. Are we the UN doormats?

We need to get Canada back to where we were, and that is known as peacekeepers.

Our country must smarten up when it comes to why we choose to enter a UN mission. Ask the questions that need to be asked and sort out the truths and propaganda about the situation.

Our current engagement was never planned to be a peacekeeping role. It was a solid response to the American call to arms against terrorism. From the get go we were there to fight terrorism, a worthy goal and we are putting in a worthy effort in this regard. That fight must continue until such time as terrorism comes to an end. Canada must remain involved in this fight, and the end to our mission needs to be reconsidered very quickly.

Canada needs to stand for something, and be seen doing so by the international community.

[CAMP]

Our current engagement was never planned to be a peacekeeping role. It was a solid response to the American call to arms against terrorism. From the get go we were there to fight terrorism, a worthy goal and we are putting in a worthy effort in this regard. That fight must continue until such time as terrorism comes to an end. Canada must remain involved in this fight, and the end to our mission needs to be reconsidered very quickly.

Canada needs to stand for something, and be seen doing so by the international community.

Canada has been seen doing so by the UN. Canada did stand for something a while ago. (Peacekeepers)

Now I'm not so sure anymore.

Why did the terrorists choose to pick on the US. Perhaps because of how they have treated various countries previously. The US would go a long way in learning how to nurture these countries instead of being a bully.

I guess the big question would be .. how did this whole thing start? When the towers fell, or look further back.

You will never eradicate terrorism. I wish it could be but reality says otherwise. You can cripple it from reaching your borders at a high cost by waging war in their back yard. (This is where we are now) But you will always be hated even more for that generations later, and by people of other countries sympathetic to a terrorists cause.

Unfortunately the Taliban is a religion and a culture over there. I don't agree with it but it has existed for many years along with many other religious spins of the same nature. The US has had a very sorted past in the history of Afghanistan. They could have chose the diplomatic path with Afghans many years ago but didn't. Obviously terrorists are able to hide and continue their exploit's in other countries. Does the UN need to invade all these other countries? When will it stop?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has been seen doing so by the UN. Canada did stand for something a while ago. (Peacekeepers)

Now I'm not so sure anymore.

Peacekeeping is only one mission profile; Canada has certainly been otherwise in the past for Commonwealth, UN and NATO missions.

Why did the terrorists choose to pick on the US. Perhaps because of how they have treated various countries previously. The US would go a long way in learning how to nurture these countries instead of being a bully.

I guess the big question would be .. how did this whole thing start?

Terrorists have chosen many nations as targets.

You will never eradicate terrorism. I wish it could be but reality says otherwise. You can cripple it from reaching your borders at a high cost by waging war in their back yard. (This is where we are now)

Yep...that is the plan.

But you will always be hated even more for that generations later, and by people of other countries sympathetic to a terrorists cause.

Still waiting for Serbian, Haitian, and Vietnamese terrorists.

Unfortunately the Taliban is a religion and a culture over there. I don't agree with it but it has existed for many years along with many other religious spins of the same nature. The US has had a very sorted past in the history of Afghanistan. They could have chose the diplomatic path with Afghans many years ago but didn't. Obviously terrorists are able to hide and continue their exploit's in other countries. Does the UN need to invade all these other countries? When will it stop?

So how many more terrorists are welcomed to hide in Canada (or the USA)?

[CAMP]

Peacekeeping is only one mission profile; Canada has certainly been otherwise in the past for Commonwealth, UN and NATO missions.

Terrorists have chosen many nations as targets.

Yep...that is the plan.

Still waiting for Serbian, Haitian, and Vietnamese terrorists.

So how many more terrorists are welcomed to hide in Canada (or the USA)?

Terrorists will always attack their adversaries. They are not likely to attack a country that has no desire to change their beliefs.

When Canada has been involved has it been over a religious way of life and culture or has it been because of the system of government?

Vietnam - Communism ( And who won?) non religious

Serbia - atrocities ( This was a noble cause for real)

Haitian - You figure this one out!

Terrorists are zealous people, usually religious. Zealous people usually will do terrorist type acts to the extreme and continue indefinitely until they achieve their goal. A war you cannot win through force unless you're willing to eradicate.

No terrorists are welcome in Canada or the USA. But that doesn't stop them from infiltrating us and causing problems, and they will again unfortunately.

Edited July 12, 2009 by CAMP

[bush_cheney2004]

Terrorists will always attack their adversaries. They are not likely to attack a country that has no desire to change their beliefs.

"Terrorism" is very pervasive....and can emerge nearly anywhere. It is more likely in situations where "political" beliefs cannot be changed or reconciled.

When Canada has been involved has it been over a religious way of life and culture or has it been because of the system of government?

Both.

Vietnam - Communism ( And who won?) non religious

Serbia - atrocities ( This was a noble cause for real)

Haitian - You figure this one out!

Sorry...I thought you actually knew Canada's history on such matters.

Terrorists are zealous people, usually religious. Zealous people usually will do terrorist type acts to the extreme and continue indefinitely until they achieve their goal. A war you cannot win through force unless you're willing to eradicate.

How many Kamikaze pilots are still flying today?

No terrorists are welcome in Canada or the USA. But that doesn't stop them from infiltrating us and causing problems, and they will again unfortunately.

That doesn't mean rolling over and giving up.

[CAMP]

"Terrorism" is very pervasive....and can emerge nearly anywhere. It is more likely in situations where "political" beliefs cannot be changed or reconciled.

Both.

Sorry...I thought you actually knew Canada's history on such matters.

How many Kamikaze pilots are still flying today?

That doesn't mean rolling over and giving up.

There is a big difference between giving up and using diplomacy and understanding to achieve peace. At least exhaust these avenues before banging your chest

[bush_cheney2004]

There is a big difference between giving up and using diplomacy and understanding to achieve peace. At least exhaust these avenues before banging your chest

"Achieve peace" after an attack? Brilliant! The Taliban was solicited for "peaceful" resolution to the matter of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and Osama Bin Hidin'. They declined.

You might want to do some homework on "peacekeeping" missions and chest banging as well.

[benny]

International diplomacy involves far more aspects than you would believe.

Not all aspects are equally important.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not all aspects are equally important.

Of course not. In the end, importance is determined by the leaders, who act on their own initiative and desire. Even so, the definition of equal is merely a perception in the eyes of the leaders.

[benny]

Of course not. In the end, importance is determined by the leaders, who act on their own initiative and desire. Even so, the definition of equal is merely a perception in the eyes of the leaders.

Leadership is merely a perception/illusion in the eyes of the followers.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Leadership is merely a perception/illusion in the eyes of the followers.

Nonsense, leadership is the manifested initiative of action by the individual in response to stimulus. Not all individuals respond in this manner, in fact it is a rare quality. This is the fight version of the flight or flight response so ingrained into the human brain. Doing something isn't the name of the game it is doing something besides merely running away. Sometimes it is best to run, but that is the flight response based on fear. The other side of the coin is based on courage, which is often manifested in anger, but not always and here again here a rare response.

Most humans are followers not leaders. Following takes both less effort and less thought. The leaders are more often willing to put in greater effort and think about courses of action instead of blind flight. Leaders are defined by actions and followers are defined by inactions.

[benny]

Nonsense, leadership is the manifested initiative of action by the individual in response to stimulus. Not all individuals respond in this manner, in fact it is a rare quality. This is the fight version of the flight or flight response so ingrained into the human brain. Doing something isn't the name of the game it is doing something besides merely running away. Sometimes it is best to run, but that is the flight response based on fear. The other side of the coin is based on courage, which is often manifested in anger, but not always and here again here a rare response.

Most humans are followers not leaders. Following takes both less effort and less thought. The leaders are more often willing to put in greater effort and think about courses of action instead of blind flight. Leaders are defined by actions and followers are defined by inactions.

A leader is more of a motivator than anything else.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A leader is more of a motivator than anything else.

They are self motivated first, then act in a manner that serves to inspire others. They are different than most of the rest of the citizens.

[benny]

They are self motivated first, then act in a manner that serves to inspire others. They are different than most of the rest of the citizens.

They may only happen to have a charisma.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

They may only happen to have a charisma.

Not very damned likely. Charm alone will never carry the day, try talking your way out of something, it simply will not always work. Leaders are not common, good ones rare, and great leaders come once in a generation. If charisma made leaders the televangelists would rule the world. There would be a lot of used car salesman as Presidents.

[benny]

Not very damned likely. Charm alone will never carry the day, try talking your way out of something, it simply will not always work. Leaders are not common, good ones rare, and great leaders come once in a generation. If charisma made leaders the televangelists would rule the world. There would be a lot of used car salesman as Presidents.

Jesus is the only leader we will ever need.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Jesus is the only leader we will ever need.

Okay fine. I will vote for him the minute he shows up, but until then.............

[benny]

Okay fine. I will vote for him the minute he shows up, but until then.............

Voting is more about emptying the place of the leader than filling it.