Ignatieff needs lesson in statesmanship

[nicky10013]

Nice. Nicky makes a claim that Harper is a failure on the international stage without offering anything to substantiate the claim. Then smallc disagrees and Nicky asks smallc for proof. OK.

See above. Perhaps I knew what answers were coming?

[capricorn]

See above. Perhaps I knew what answers were coming?

I see. Cunning nicky set a trap for smallc. OK.

Correction. Cunning nicky set a trap for anyone who disagreed with nicky to fall into.

Edited September 22, 2010 by capricorn

[Smallc]

Reported in the Globe and Mail.

Well they're wrong. There may have been reporters on the plane, but there was never supposed to be aid on it anyway...only people and surveillance equipment.

If this is about international relations, which the last time I checked it was, any time you're rebuked by 7 of the 8 most powerful countries in the world and they have to take up the slack because you're pushing a partisan agenda, that's not successful. International relations is about endearing us to other nation states so we can get benefit from it. No matter how good it looks at home, if we piss off other nations, it's a failure, end of story.

We weren't rebuked. Other countries signed on, and their broke asses even gave some money.

I have a subscription to the Economist, Foreign Affairs, I read newsweek and the NYT. Harper never gets the credit, just Canada. Indeed, a few articles have specifically given the praise to Paul Martin. Afterall, he's the politician who most deserves it.

Canada gets the credit, generally. Canada's government is currently led by Mr. Harper.

Of course it was the image that was presented. In terms of domestic media consumption, image means nothing.

It means everything.

We should've been where we are with China right now 4 years ago.

But we're there now, and it looks good for the Conservatives.

It can, we'll see how that goes.

Yes, we will.

We're failing big time.

That's debatable.

When most of these things are rated classified, how do we really know?

Well, I'll throw that right back at you.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper+apologizes+criticizing+Ignatieff/1778259/story.html

Like I said, no one remembers.

Also inappropriate.

Taking a position on something and saying that it's wrong isn't inappropriate.

Foreign aid has been capped but most of it has been moved into Afghanistan when it could be far more useful going to other countries, effectively slashing it for countries that need it the most - IE subsaharan Africa.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries on earth...as is our second largest recipient, Haiti. Like I said, I doubt many people share your view on this.

[nicky10013]

I see. Cunning nicky set a trap for smallc. OK.

Correction. Cunning nicky set a trap for anyone who disagreed with nicky to fall into.

In terms of Harper and international relations, it's kind of easy

[nicky10013]

Well they're wrong. There may have been reporters on the plane, but there was never supposed to be aid on it anyway...only people and surveillance equipment.

Okie dokie.

We weren't rebuked. Other countries signed on, and their broke asses even gave some money.

The all released statements saying the proposal wasn't even close to what it needed to be. If that's not a rebuke, I don't know what one is.

Canada gets the credit, generally. Canada's government is currently led by Mr. Harper.

For Harper on the international stage, that doesn't mean much. World leaders get credit all the time, the fact that he isn't getting any speaks quite a bit.

It means everything.

No, it really doesn't. How many international politicians read the Globe or the Star?

But we're there now, and it looks good for the Conservatives.

Not when Ignatieff has been to China more than Harper has in the past year.

That's debatable.

How? The government is corrupt from the top to the bottom, there was massive electoral fraud just a couple of days ago and there are still massive human rights abuses even with our occupation. We're failing.

Well, I'll throw that right back at you.

Why? The reports available from the EU, NATO and the UN in terms of our handling of prisoner detainees were are negative. To assume that the classified ones praised us is highly unlikely. Though I can't say for sure, it's super highly unlikely. Considering how partisan this government is, if there was a positive report anywhere detailing detainees, it would've been released a year ago.

Like I said, no one remembers.

Until the Italians say ahhhhhh the idiot is back!

Taking a position on something and saying that it's wrong isn't inappropriate.

Internationally, when you're country's policy is to remain neutral, you bet it is.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries on earth...as is our second largest recipient, Haiti. Like I said, I doubt many people share your view on this.

They're also gigantic recipients of aid from other states. Why? Maybe it's because our troops are there, which is a form of aid in and of itself. I'm not arguing we need to completely divest Afghanistan of aid money. My only point is that they're recieving multiple forms of aid while countries which need it aren't getting much if any at all simply because we invaded the country we're helping. It's a myopic view of how aid should be distributed and could cause us troubles in the future.

Edited September 22, 2010 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

Okie dokie.

It's true, that's the way DART always works. That's what happened n 2008 when we almost send DART to Haiti.

The all released statements saying the proposal wasn't even close to what it needed to be. If that's not a rebuke, I don't know what one is.

And then they gave money to it.

For Harper on the international stage, that doesn't mean much. World leaders get credit all the time, the fact that he isn't getting any speaks quite a bit.

His name comes up in CNN, AP, the BBC, and AFP when talking about Canada.

No, it really doesn't. How many international politicians read the Globe or the Star?

It's not only there....but we're also talking about the perception of their international prowess in Canada.

Not when Ignatieff has been to China more than Harper has in the past year.

So? That's like the opposite of just visiting...and just as dumb.

How? The government is corrupt from the top to the bottom, there was massive electoral fraud just a couple of days ago and there are

There are also many positive things happening, but of course you know that.

Internationally, when you're country's policy is to remain neutral, you bet it is.

That's obviously not our policy anymore. It's probably the right move, too.

They're also gigantic recipients of aid from other states. Why? Maybe it's because our troops are there, which is a form of aid in and of itself. I'm not arguing we need to completely divest Afghanistan of aid money. My only point is that they're recieving multiple forms of aid while countries which need it aren't getting much if any at all simply because we invaded the country we're helping. It's a myopic view of how aid should be distributed and could cause us troubles in the future.

The way Canadian aid is delivered has been refocused. Fewer, targeted countries will get more money. It may be a better or worse way to do things, depending on your perspective.

[Topaz]

So we gt a chair on the UNSC and we probably vote the way the US will probably ask us to and not what may be what is best for Canada.

[PIK]

nonsense - Harper Conservative policies have eroded... seriously eroded... the positioning of Canada within the international arena. Pointing it out is most apropos.

LOL Haiti, afghanistan, is enough to earn that spot. And remember how the libs (chretien especially),saying how he has hurt relations with china by getting tough with them, I would like to ask the libs how come you did not double the grain sales and how come the libs ccould not get us on the favourite tourist site list with china. 100 million people travelling the world and it took harper to get them to come here.

[Smallc]

So we gt a chair on the UNSC and we probably vote the way the US will probably ask us to and not what may be what is best for Canada.

And what evidence do you base that on? Iraq?

Edited September 22, 2010 by Smallc

[M.Dancer]

And what evidence do you baste that on? Iraq?

just because it's Topaz you are replying to, doesn't mean you have to spell like her...

[Topaz]

And what evidence do you baste that on? Iraq?

Just the way the Tories gave back a billion to the US lumber industry, the way the fighter jets are being handled and why we needed them etc.

[Topaz]

just because it's Topaz you are replying to, doesn't mean you have to spell like her...

[/

Dancer be nice.

[Smallc]

just because it's Topaz you are replying to, doesn't mean you have to spell like her...

Sorry...cooking...

[capricorn]

Sorry...cooking...

Baste...cook...

[scribblet]

Done like dinner - as in Ignatieff I'm surprised they haven't turfed him out yet and anointed Bob Rae -

[Smallc]

Baste...cook...

I know....

[Dave_ON]

But if you think a patter is needed...here's a few

Brazil: 10 terms

1946 – 1947, 1951 – 1952, 1954 – 1955, 1963 – 1964, 1967 – 1968, 1988 – 1989, 1993 – 1994, 1998 – 1999, 2004 – 2005, 2010 – 2011

Argentina: 8 terms1948 – 1949, 1959 – 1960, 1966 – 1967, 1971 – 1972, 1987 – 1988, 1994 – 1995, 1999 – 2000, 2005 – 2006

Japan: 10 terms

1958 – 1959, 1966 – 1967, 1971 – 1972, 1975 – 1976, 1981 – 1982, 1987 – 1988, 1992 – 1993, 1997 – 1998, 2005 – 2006, 2009 – 2010

So yes, it would be a coup..we would then have more terms than Colombia ...

Canada isn't competing for a seat with any of the above countries you've listed. It's divided into regions. Canada is in the "Western Europe and Others" region. Japan falls into Asia and the other two are South America of course.

The reason Canada is lumped in as "others" is the US has a perm. seat, so that leaves just us Mexico and Greenland. So if you are going to try and find a pattern or suggest a grounds for comparison you need to list the number of times Western European countries had 2 year term seats. We're currently competing with Germany who is likely to take the first ballot and Portugal, and Canada is favored to win 2nd ballot.

Oddly enough so does France which perplexes me somewhat. I guess we should have surrendered in WWII and than we'd have a perm seat also.

[M.Dancer]

The reason Canada is lumped in as "others" is the US has a perm. seat, so that leaves just us Mexico and Greenland.

Greenland? You think Greenland is eligible for a seat?

[Dave_ON]

Greenland? You think Greenland is eligible for a seat?

Greenland is in our region, there seat eligibility is not at issue, they too are lumped under the "others" portion.

The fact remains your comparison with other countries that aren't in our region is somewhat pointless.

[M.Dancer]

Greenland is in our region, there seat eligibility is not at issue, they too are lumped under the "others" portion.

The fact remains your comparison with other countries that aren't in our region is somewhat pointless.

I am well aware that Greenland is in North America...what puzzles me is why you think that Greenland is in the game.

[g_bambino]

The reason Canada is lumped in as "others" is the US has a perm. seat, so that leaves just us Mexico and Greenland.

When did Greenland gain independence and both Central America and the Caribbean disappear?

[Dave_ON]

I am well aware that Greenland is in North America...what puzzles me is why you think that Greenland is in the game.

Rather immaterial to the question, why are you listing countries and their terms that aren't in our region? Unless you're attempting to make some other point that I'm missing.

[M.Dancer]

Rather immaterial to the question, why are you listing countries and their terms that aren't in our region? Unless you're attempting to make some other point that I'm missing.

Try this..

17 members in our group have sat on the UNSC. Italy has been chosen 6 times.

19 members in the Latin American Group have sat.

Brazil 10 times

Argentina 8 times

Colombia 6 times

We have been under represented.

[Dave_ON]

When did Greenland gain independence and both Central America and the Caribbean disappear?

Greenland is still under Denmark and yes I erred in listing it separately. My intent was since it is technically in NA it's under the "others" portion as opposed to Western Europe. So politically speaking I concede that both you and MDancer are quite correct, Greenland would be under the umbrella of Denmark.

As for central America and the Caribbean, in terms of the security council regions, They're in their own group Latin America and the Caribbean. The other regional groups are "Western Europe and Others" Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Now that we've gotten over the Greenland issue, perhaps MDance can enlighten me as to the point he was attempting to make earlier.

[Dave_ON]

Try this..

17 members in our group have sat on the UNSC. Italy has been chosen 6 times.

We have been under represented.

Agreed on this point, and it is still beyond me as to why it is France has a permanent seat at the table whereas Canada does not. Let's compare our respective contributions to WWII. The US, UK and Russia I get, France not so much.