Ignatieff needs lesson in statesmanship

[nicky10013]

...it's a habit with bird brains

Gee, I'm not the one pretending I can't read. Foul language isn't a sign of immaturity or stupidity. Pulling childish game is.

[nicky10013]

Ummm, yo do realize that that is the Premier speaking, right? He's like, the equivalent of Harper.

No he isn't. Hu is.

Edited September 24, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

Foul language isn't a sign of immaturity or stupidity. .

Actually, it is.

Pulling childish game is

What ever that means I'm sure...

[Smallc]

No he isn't.

Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, leader of the Government of Canada. The Premier is the equivalent position in China. There is less equivalence (though there certainly is some) between the President of China and the Governor General or Queen.

The President of China is the head of state. The Prime Minister of Canada is not. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of government. The President of China is not.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Smallc

[M.Dancer]

No he isn't. Hu is.

Hu is the head of state. Harper is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

The Premier is the highest administrative position in the Government of the People's Republic of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Republic_of_China#Powers

[nicky10013]

Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, leader of the Government of Canada. The Premier is the equivalent position in China. There is less equivalence (though there certainly is some) between the President of China and the Governor General or Queen.

The President of China is the head of state. The Prime Minister of Canada is not. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of government. The President of China is not.

Ok, so...in the world where all titles mean the same thing, this is relevant. In the real world, this means nothing.

Wen Jiabao is subordinate to Hu. Hu as opposed to the GG, actually has power. Hu is the most important person in the Chinese government by far.

[nicky10013]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Republic_of_China#Powers

Maybe try looking up the right country. Just a suggestion.

[Smallc]

Ok, so...in the world where all titles mean the same thing, this is relevant. In the real world, this means nothing.

Wen Jiabao is subordinate to Hu. Hu as opposed to the GG, actually has power. Hu is the most important person in the Chinese government by far.

He's the most important person in China. The most important person in the Chinese government is Wen Jiabao. The Prime Minister is still subordinate to the Governor General, who has extensive powers that are mostly only used on advice. The Chinese President is actually similar in that he most likely acts on the advice of the Chinese government.

[nicky10013]

He's the most important person in China. The most important person in the Chinese government is Wen Jiabao. The Prime Minister is still subordinate to the Governor General, who has extensive powers that are mostly only used on advice. The Chinese President is actually similar in that he most likely acts on the advice of the Chinese government.

No he doesn't. He's the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and also Paramount Leader. That means he makes most of the decisions and the primier just implements them.

[Smallc]

No he doesn't. He's the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and also Paramount Leader. That means he makes most of the decisions and the primier just implements them.

So he doesn't follow the advice of the government economic advisers, who communicate through the Premier, then? Right.

Anyway, you're getting away from the point. You were trying to claim that the Premier of China is someone who isn't all that important. You're wrong. He's the head of government of China.

[nicky10013]

So he doesn't follow the advice of the government economic advisers, who communicate through the Premier, then? Right.

Anyway, you're getting away from the point. You were trying to claim that the Premier of China is someone who isn't all that important. You're wrong. He's the head of government of China.

Which is why when Hu himself spoke last year about Climate Change, the chamber looked much more full.

[PIK]

So people here think ugaanda or panama is more suited the canada, who is the 7th in the m oney we pay and we pay the m oney,does everyone else pay on time,I don't think.

[nicky10013]

So people here think ugaanda or panama is more suited the canada, who is the 7th in the m oney we pay and we pay the m oney,does everyone else pay on time,I don't think.

See Dancer, I could pull the same childish crap as you and say I don't understand what he wrote. I'm not going to do that though.

Canada may pay the 7th most amount (I haven't seen the figures so I'm not evern sure that' accurate) however, the point here is that Uganda and Panama probably has more respect for the UN than Harper does.

[Smallc]

Canada may pay the 7th most amount (I haven't seen the figures so I'm not evern sure that' accurate) however, the point here is that Uganda and Panama probably has more respect for the UN than Harper does.

If they do, the UNGA is quite foolish.

[nicky10013]

If they do, the UNGA is quite foolish.

How is the General Assembly foolish in the context of Uganda and Panama having more respect for the UN than Harper?

[Smallc]

How is the General Assembly foolish in the context of Uganda and Panama having more respect for the UN than Harper?

Sorry, I read the for as a from. Still though, whether or not Harper has respect for the UN really doesn't matter.

[nicky10013]

Sorry, I read the for as a from. Still though, whether or not Harper has respect for the UN really doesn't matter.

You bet it does. I want someone who will actually respect the institutions and respect the reason why the UN is here in the first place. I don't want it in the hands of ideologues who only want it right now because they can use it politically in the future. The UN is more than that.

[Smallc]

The UN is more than that.

Overall, the UN, especially the General Assembly, isn't all that super. There is a great deal of corruption in the countries represented at the GA as well as some UN agencies.

[nicky10013]

Overall, the UN, especially the General Assembly, isn't all that super. There is a great deal of corruption in the countries represented at the GA as well as some UN agencies.

That was never the argument. That aside:

There is corruption in every country and most countries sit in the GA. So, to say that domestic corruption is somehow the fault of the UN is ridiculous at best.

Despite the actual corruption that actually takes place at the UN, the mission of the UN goes beyond that. There needs to be reform, but even that is something Harper has never commented on. He's stayed quiet and stayed away until he realized he was going to get something he could use domestically. Considering the fact that Canada over the next 2 years is going to have to vote on some incredibly serious issues without any semblence of a principled foreign policy is scary.

[Smallc]

Like I've said before, I don't think that many people would agree that we don't have a principled foreign policy. You simply don't like the principles. We intervene and we take sides now...but that didn't start with Harper, it started with Martin, and even Chretien to an extent.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

Like I've said before, I don't think that many people would agree that we don't have a principled foreign policy. You simply don't like the principles. We intervene and we take sides now...but that didn't start with Harper, it started with Martin, and even Chretien to an extent.

Don't get me wrong. We should be intervening where intervention is necessary. However, there's no solid principle behind our foreign policy. We're not driven by liberalism. Hell, I doubt we're even driven by self interest considering how screwed we got over the softwood "deal" we cut with the Americans.

Lloyd Axworthy's foreign policy is what I'm talking about. There were set goals behind the policies they pursued. Not the case with this government.

[Smallc]

There is a set of goals, not the least of which is returning Canada to its status as a "middle power".

[nicky10013]

There is a set of goals, not the least of which is returning Canada to its status as a "middle power".

The goals, if any, are "what looks good on domestic television" which completely defeats the purpose of a foreign policy.

[Smallc]

The goals, if any, are "what looks good on domestic television" which completely defeats the purpose of a foreign policy.

Does it really? Most government policies, anywhere, are mainly aimed at domestic consumption.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

Does it really? Most government policies, anywhere, are mainly aimed at domestic consumption.

The most public ones. Governments are resonsible for hundreds of policies that never see the light of day in the domestic press simply because they're not as pressing to every day life. Foreign Affairs usually fills that void. There are many decisions made without the public knowing concerning things like security and trade and no one is the wiser.

Furthermore, the notion that the Conservatives are trying to return to Canada the status of middle power shows who really has been undermining Canada's place in the world. The refrain from the CPC is that Canada needs to return to this thing that we've frankly always been and they always resort to the military angle. We've always been and most likely will be for the next 100 years a middle power simply due to the size of our economy. The lack of attention we've paid over the past 4 years to things like climate change negotiations (VERY important in other parts of the world) and international organizations has done more to damage our reputation abroad than the liberal bogeyman they need to destroy (I have a friend who is in DFAIT and he says our international reputation has gone into a nose dive). They've created a narrative and made Canadians believe that we've been a lot worse off than we actually are in terms of international prestige so they can use it politically.

Indeed, a lot of the things they're currently pushing in quite an aggressive manner, such as arctic sovereignty, are in the end hurting our relations with countries like Denmark and Russia and to an extent the United States. In the world community today, one that is very interconnected, to shun these organizations and to act in an aggressive and if you're seen as obstructionist (Copenhagen) in the end you're hurting yourself on the world stage for some domestic political gain. Like I said, we won't lose that status but it just makes everything that much harder for ourselves.