M.Dancer Posted September 23, 2010 Report Posted September 23, 2010 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. France was a colonial power. Roosevelt and Churchill guarenteed her her possessions, Churchill of course was biased given that by guarenteeing France her possessions, he was gaurenteeing Britains as well. Turns out that both lost their possesions. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
capricorn Posted September 23, 2010 Author Report Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) Well, there you go. Robert Fyfe reporting from the UN on CTV's Power Play, just said that Portuguese delegates were going around saying that even Canada's leader of the opposition doesn't think Canada deserves a UNSC seat. Portugal is one of three countries, the other being Germany vying for the coveted seat. Is anyone at all surprised at this turn of events? Let's see if the MSM reports on this in the coming hours. In his quest to bump Harper from the PM's chair, Ignatieff is becoming a real liability to this Country. Edited September 23, 2010 by capricorn Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Wild Bill Posted September 23, 2010 Report Posted September 23, 2010 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. Dave, after WWII Canada was a respected member of the Allied countries. We had the 3rd largest navy in the world and a respectably manned and equipped army and air force. We had hit well above our weight and at the UN we were well respected. That was then and this is now! We're the guys that send the token force. Highly trained and often with specialized skills, but relatively few of them. Nothing to speak of with our navy but a few frigates. No destroyers and certainly no aircraft carriers. A few old helicopters that are in maintenance hangers many more hours than they actually fly. When the balloon goes up our F-18s can't fly combat missions because the electronics are so old they can't be counted on to have secure scrambled communications from the enemy and so we can't participate with our Allies. We send a couple of our frigates and a "coffee truck" supply ship. Actually, our supply ship is so old it is due to be decommissioned very shortly. Why the hell should we have a permanent seat? Maybe if we had the military of France we would be respected enough to have a seat like they do! Remember, this is the Security Council seat we're talking here, not the "nice guys who give us lots of foreign aid" council! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
nicky10013 Posted September 23, 2010 Report Posted September 23, 2010 Well, there you go. Robert Fyfe reporting from the UN on CTV's Power Play, just said that Portuguese delegates were going around saying that even Canada's leader of the opposition doesn't think Canada deserves a UNSC seat. Portugal is one of three countries, the other being Germany vying for the coveted seat. Is anyone at all surprised at this turn of events? Let's see if the MSM reports on this in the coming hours. In his quest to bump Harper from the PM's chair, Ignatieff is becoming a real liability to this Country. What does Canada gain from a seat on the UN? Does it get us more jobs? No. Does it bolster our economy? No. It's purely a prestige thing that comes along every 10 years. Considering the UN Security Council is so important now speaks far more to domestic policy than any international prestige. Considering Harper skipped the UN general assembly to make a speech at Tim Horton's which shows you his real dedication to the UN, it isn't Ignatieff's motives we should be questioning. Quote
Smallc Posted September 23, 2010 Report Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) Dave, after WWII Canada was a respected member of the Allied countries. We had the 3rd largest navy in the world and a respectably manned and equipped army and air force. We had hit well above our weight and at the UN we were well respected. That was then and this is now! We're the guys that send the token force. Highly trained and often with specialized skills, but relatively few of them. Nothing to speak of with our navy but a few frigates. No destroyers and certainly no aircraft carriers. A few old helicopters that are in maintenance hangers many more hours than they actually fly. When the balloon goes up our F-18s can't fly combat missions because the electronics are so old they can't be counted on to have secure scrambled communications from the enemy and so we can't participate with our Allies. We send a couple of our frigates and a "coffee truck" supply ship. Actually, our supply ship is so old it is due to be decommissioned very shortly. Why the hell should we have a permanent seat? Maybe if we had the military of France we would be respected enough to have a seat like they do! Remember, this is the Security Council seat we're talking here, not the "nice guys who give us lots of foreign aid" council! 1. We still have destroyers (for now) 2. The helicopter replacements are behind schedule, but will start arriving in November. 3. Our F-18s just underwent a multi billion dollar upgrade that brings them into modern (if no the most modern) standards. In fact, the NORAD commander recently said that the CF-18, other than the F-22, was his most modern asset. 4. We have two supply ships, and they won't be decommissioned until there is a replacement, some time in the late 2010s. They are old, and the real problem is that they have a single hull right now...which is illegal in many ports. You're focusing on the negative aspects. What about our new equipment? Tanks, strategic and tactical aircraft, updated fighters, about to be updated frigates, ordered medium-heavy lift helicopters, new armoured equipment ordered and on the way. Do we still have problems? Yes. Are we the laughingstock of the world, as you make us out to be? Not even close. Edited September 23, 2010 by Smallc Quote
capricorn Posted September 23, 2010 Author Report Posted September 23, 2010 What does Canada gain from a seat on the UN? Does it get us more jobs? No. Does it bolster our economy? No. It's purely a prestige thing that comes along every 10 years. I'm no fan of the UN. IMO having a seat at the UNSC is mostly to increase a country's standing in the international community and recognition for past acts related to causes near and dear to the UN. I thought Canada at the UNSC was very important for Liberals. You know, Pearson's legacy and all. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
nicky10013 Posted September 23, 2010 Report Posted September 23, 2010 (edited) I'm no fan of the UN. IMO having a seat at the UNSC is mostly to increase a country's standing in the international community and recognition for past acts related to causes near and dear to the UN. I thought Canada at the UNSC was very important for Liberals. You know, Pearson's legacy and all. I think it's important. However, I think it's being done for all the wrong reasons. We're going to get a seat and Canadians are going to forget about it until Harper pulls it out of his bag in the next election to say "look what we did!" Even though he's done next to nothing to get it and it doesn't mean anything for the Canadian people. Like I said, I'd rather have people on the UNSC who actually want to move forward and to speak to issues rather than a government who only sees political gain out of it. If this government really cared about the UN and it's place in the UN and the world, Harper wouldn't have skipped it last year to go to Tims. Funny, Harper strangely now has respect for the UN when it can help him. But the UN remembers. Look at all those empty seats during his speach. http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef0133f4819d23970b-320wi Edited September 23, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote
Wild Bill Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) 1. We still have destroyers (for now) 2. The helicopter replacements are behind schedule, but will start arriving in November. 3. Our F-18s just underwent a multi billion dollar upgrade that brings them into modern (if no the most modern) standards. In fact, the NORAD commander recently said that the CF-18, other than the F-22, was his most modern asset. 4. We have two supply ships, and they won't be decommissioned until there is a replacement, some time in the late 2010s. They are old, and the real problem is that they have a single hull right now...which is illegal in many ports. You're focusing on the negative aspects. What about our new equipment? Tanks, strategic and tactical aircraft, updated fighters, about to be updated frigates, ordered medium-heavy lift helicopters, new armoured equipment ordered and on the way. Do we still have problems? Yes. Are we the laughingstock of the world, as you make us out to be? Not even close. Portugal has as much or more of a military as we do. Perhaps more, considering we usually have more than half of our navy in port because we lack the manpower and the budget for fuel to have them at sea. They have at least as much right to that Security Council seat as we do, perhaps more! Also, I think you miss my point. Are we the laughing stock of the world? In what context? My comparison is between what we have today and the position we had before. We are not a laughingstock but we are NOT counted as big a player as we used to be! That's only common sense. Edited September 24, 2010 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) My comparison is between what we have today and the position we had before. We are not a laughingstock but we are NOT counted as big a player as we used to be! That's only common sense. All countries have smaller militaries than during WWII or the Cold War. We're no different. We always have ships at sea and we always have at least 1 deployed abroad. The navy is currently the only branch with manpower problems, so you're right there. Anyway, Portugal is broke, and is slashing spending across the board. We aren't. We have a growing military budget, and a capable force in transition. I'd read up on the Portuguese military if I were you. Edited September 24, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Topaz Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 AS it was pointed out today, Harper never had a good thing to say about the UN and now he's demanding a seat on the security council? When it was his turn to speak, most of the delegates went to lunch,but Harper a few, better than the head of Iran had. Quote
betsy Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 This man is not fit to lead Canada. Definitely not. For all his education and apparent reputation as an intellectual....that he'd bomb so many times. Talking without even realizing what's coming out of his mouth. Like when he crowed yesterday after the gun registry vote: that it showed the Liberals are "united." He whipped his MPs with threat of being removed from caucus! He should've avoided using that word, "united?" And now....the full implication of what he said about the security council. This is no longer any domestic squabbling. Ignatieff is an embarassment! Quote
betsy Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 Well, there you go. Robert Fyfe reporting from the UN on CTV's Power Play, just said that Portuguese delegates were going around saying that even Canada's leader of the opposition doesn't think Canada deserves a UNSC seat. Ignatieff should be asked to step down. This is serious. Let's see if the MSM reports on this in the coming hours. I'm betting this will be downplayed by most media. Quote
betsy Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 How? Harpers first conference as Prime Minister with foreign leaders (I can't remember the name of that conference)....when he refused to sign unless Israel was also written and recognized as a victim (?) or something like that. He was able to get all those leaders to capitulate to his demand As far as I could remember, all I heard from the Liberal leaders from Chretien to Martin was...."everybody is doing it, so we have to do it too." The Liberals were never leaders on the international stage....they were followers! Harper managed to get a good relationship with our nextdoor trading partners. He was diplomatic....whereas the Liberals behaved so crudely towards the USA. That pathetic Liberal woman MP who danced on the American flag....with Chretien making excuses for such kind of behaviour! Mind you what do you expect from this bully who couldn't control his own self and choked a protester....his picture on the front pages of all newspapers worldwide! The Liberals I remember are crass! And by the looks of it....they're still that way. Quote
capricorn Posted September 24, 2010 Author Report Posted September 24, 2010 Ignatieff should be asked to step down. This is serious. Ignatieff's comments are now filtering down to the foreign press. Canadian opposition leader Michael Ignatieff, meanwhile, questioned whether Canada led by Harper deserves a rotating seat on the Security Council."This is a government that for four years has basically ignored the United Nations and now is suddenly showing up saying, ?Hey, put us on the council," Ignatieff said Monday. "I know how important it is for Canada to get a seat on the Security Council but Canadians have to ask a tough question: Has this government earned that place? We're not convinced it has." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i1E_1nIlrO-y3VJYKwc4Sm-GsmAA I'm betting this will be downplayed by most media. Betsy, never mind downplayed. IMO it will mostly be ignored. But Delacourt has no problem ridiculing Harper for something totally out of his control. A small photo comparison of the speakers and the crowds at the current session of the United Nations, as sent to me this afternoon by a UN watcher. Perhaps the audience was detained at the bathroom at around 2ish. http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/09/come-to-think-of-it-the-crowds-are-bigger-at-tims.html How petty can a so-called journalist get? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Smallc Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 Harpers time got used up by Obama and others...and so his speech was pushed back to during lunch. It should have been a full chamber. Quote
myata Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 Should Ignatieff have said it aloud? Not so sure about that. Is it so very obvious without saying one single word? - Afghanistan, Middle East, Climate change, (ideology sensitive) maternal health - facts speak for themselves. It's been a long while since this country had an independent leadership position on any international issue of essence. Harper's cute little international publicity stunts (courtesy of: Canadian taxpayer) are obviously no replacement for such position, no matter how he's stretching to jump. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
capricorn Posted September 24, 2010 Author Report Posted September 24, 2010 Should Ignatieff have said it aloud? Not so sure about that. If I said your father is a basket case, would it make you feel better if I didn't say it out loud? Is it so very obvious without saying one single word? - Afghanistan, Middle East, Climate change, (ideology sensitive) maternal health - facts speak for themselves. myata facts are so very intriguing. Especially when they're presented without saying one single word that is enlightening. It's been a long while since this country had an independent leadership position on any international issue of essence. Well GG Michaelle Jean did eat raw seal meat. That should count for something. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
betsy Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) With a seat in the security council, we can have say.....what with all the dollars that we've been giving....and with the seats usually occupied by some despotic, corrupt dictators! Ignatieff does not reaize how serious this is is. If we ever lose this seat, the only consolation I get is that Canada will be reminded how the Liberals underminded our bid as a nation to having that seat in the council! If there is ever a proof that the Liberals are putting their own party ahead of the nation...this is it! And it better be used in every campaign election! Edited September 24, 2010 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) deleted. double posting. Edited September 24, 2010 by betsy Quote
myata Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 With a seat in the security council, we can have say.....what with all the dollars that we've been giving....and with the seats usually occupied by some despotic, corrupt dictators! Ignatieff does not reaize how serious this is is. And I wonder what this tightly held secret would be? And why did it have to wait in obscurity for so long? Seriously, representation on the world' most powerful decision making body requires more than near accomplished parrotting of one big superpower. As, given the earlier illustrated recent international record, the rest of the world could see Canada's international stance. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
charter.rights Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 If we ever lose this seat, the only consolation I get is that Canada will be reminded how the Liberals underminded our bid as a nation to having that seat in the council! Canada cannot be trusted. I am reminded how the Conservatives continue to undermine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - a document mostly authored by Canada but continually ignored by Stephen Harper. Harper and the Conservatives are dangerous. They have proven that in the short term minority governments they have held. The have spent over $100 billion as if it was their own cash, and much of it is unaccounted for, or has been given without a proper tender procedure. They propose to spend money on useless fighter jet without so much as shopping around for the best deal. Time to boot their asses back into the opposition where they can do what they are good at.....nothing. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Wild Bill Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 All countries have smaller militaries than during WWII or the Cold War. We're no different. We always have ships at sea and we always have at least 1 deployed abroad. The navy is currently the only branch with manpower problems, so you're right there. Anyway, Portugal is broke, and is slashing spending across the board. We aren't. We have a growing military budget, and a capable force in transition. I'd read up on the Portuguese military if I were you. I did read up on it! Perhaps you should broaden your references. I still can't follow your reasoning. True, we are increasing our military budget but the world has not seen all the results yet. They have seen us decline as a military power for decades. No one is going to take the time to investigate if we are finally turning that around. They look at what we are today and what we have been for some time. As for Portugal, the same points apply in reverse. It will take some time for the world to note they have shrunk as a military power. The Security Council seat is up for grabs TODAY! How can you consider a country to sit on the Security Council if it does not have the resources to actually help deal with security issues? You might not expect it to take the lead but certainly you would expect a country to be able to give a significant contribution. A few JTF sharp shooters, admittedly perhaps the best in the world, are of marginal use when you face thousands of ships, tanks, planes and artillery. They have a very useful role at times but not usually a pivotal one. For some decades now Canada has been like the one relative who, when it is being decided who is bringing what to the family picnic, always brings the salad while others bring the steaks! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) For some decades now Canada has been like the one relative who, when it is being decided who is bringing what to the family picnic, always brings the salad while others bring the steaks! Well, it's too bad you feel that way...especially since it's untrue. Portugal has a smaller military than us now. They have for quite some time. Canada has a growing military, and if you think that we took "salad" to Afghanistan and Haiti, you're definitely not paying attention....and that's being kind. Edited September 24, 2010 by Smallc Quote
myata Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 If we ever lose this seat, the only consolation I get is that Canada will be reminded how the Liberals underminded our bid as a nation to having that seat in the council! Yes, it would be about as credible as other positions demonstrated by this government, like e.g: - propping impotent and corrupt government by bayonet would promote peace and democracy - undermining international agreements leads to progress on the issue - unconditional unilateral support in a long and complex conflict would encourage its resolution - preventing access to common forms of familty planning is great leadership in maternal health and so on, list can be extended on and on. And lack of any independent position, or in fact open contempt for international community where it wouldn't suit this government's political agenda would have nothing to do with it. At all. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Oleg Bach Posted September 24, 2010 Report Posted September 24, 2010 Of course, Ignatieff is known for his nuanced policy positions and statements, so to that he added. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/canada-may-not-deserve-un-security-council-seat-thanks-to-harper-ignatieff-103313664.html He comes out looking short sighted and not at all statesman like. This was a missed opportunity for Ignatieff. Rather than make this an attack against the government, he could have pointed out that if Canada wins a seat at the Security Council, it would be because of past Liberal leaders paving the way. But no, he chose the partisan route on the back of such an important step for this country. This man is not fit to lead Canada. You have that right! The term "elite" is really misused these days. We have this perception that if a person is highly educated or rich then some how that person is superiour. Iggy has the letters after his name and I am sure a nice bank account ...but is he superiour to most Canadians? So far he has not shown any signs of having any real power that is generated strickly out of what he is as a human being..in fact..If Iggy was tossed back in time to old Russia - he would NOT have been a good swordsman - NOT have been a great writer or statesman - he by his name is priestly class..and probably pre-disposed to that line of work-- He would make a good Pope...he certainly knows how to look sinister in the name of God....Iggy is NOT elite - there is no proof of such a title thus far. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.