The_Squid Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 I hardly believe Portugal can contribute as much (or even close) as Canada could. The UN vote is in no way objective. Little guys push their own agendas. Of course they do not like Canada cares about Canadian interest first. Portugal is one of those little guys and thus received this choice of solidarity or indifference. Since you are making the claim, please tell us why Portugal couldn't contribute to the UN Security Council as much as Canada could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 Blindly supporting Israel isn't having a spine, it's being blind. We should support Israel on some things, Palestinians on others, and condemnig both for their use of violence. Conservatives, on just about everything seperate reality into opposing dualities which often don't exist. In this case, the good is represented by "democratic" Israel and the bad obviously by the muslims. Unfortunately, despite being a democracy, the world isn't black and white and Israel committs very real human rights abuses just the same as Palestinians. If we're true to our ideals in that we should support human rights and the development of democracy, we should be chastising both parties. which is all on lost on Harperites, totally out of touch with what the rest of the world sees as a blatant injustice...The fact that the UN says Portugal has done more shows you how bad our international reputation really does. What I think compared to that means nothing. we're "legends in our own minds"...what's wrong with Portugal?Oh please, Obama wanted a deal. We, on the other hand, didn't and went and negotiated in bad faith. Countries remember that kind of crap.probably a lot of smaller reasons that when added together made the difference...climate change for some, pro Israel or anti-palestine for others, involvement in Afghanistan for others, others simply preferred a Latino country like themselves and still others not wanting a country lead by a GWB clone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 which is all on lost on Harperites, totally out of touch with what the rest of the world sees as a blatant injustice... we're "legends in our own minds"...what's wrong with Portugal? probably a lot of smaller reasons that when added together made the difference...climate change for some, pro Israel or anti-palestine for others, involvement in Afghanistan for others, others simply preferred a Latino country like themselves and still others not wanting a country lead by a GWB clone... GWB clone? is that what heather mallick said today? What a ridiculous, juvenile comment. But coming from you, it isn't a surprise. try to touch reality buddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 I hardly believe Portugal can contribute as much (or even close) as Canada could. The UN vote is in no way objective. Little guys push their own agendas. Of course they do not like Canada cares about Canadian interest first. Portugal is one of those little guys and thus received this choice of solidarity or indifference. we are a "little guy", California has more economic clout than we do...and what's wrong with "little guys" standing together vs the VETO Gang, those little guys represent 70% of the planet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 Ahahaha wow. Got nothing to come back with so call the person you disagree with a hate monger. Congrats, you're an idiot. No, I'm observant. Your posts have been filled with ideological bile since the day you got here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) Blindly supporting Israel isn't having a spine, it's being blind. Bullshit. We're not blindly supporting Israel. We're simply opposing the endless stream of repetitive, one-sided, idiotic resolutions the Muslim block keeps bringing forth. We should support Israel on some things, Palestinians on others, and condemnig both for their use of violence. Ah yes, the Palestinians fire rockets into Israel for weeks, the Israelis finally bomb some rocket sites, and we should condemn both sides. No, sorry, that's spinelessness, not neutrality. In this case, the good is represented by "democratic" Israel and the bad obviously by the muslims. Unfortunately, despite being a democracy, the world isn't black and white and Israel committs very real human rights abuses just the same as Palestinians. Really? Can you tell me how many U.N. resolutions condemned Isreal's human rights abuses over the last ten years vs how many condenmed Palestinians' human rights abuses? Just for the hell of it, how many condemned human rights abuses in other Muslim states? Would it surprise you if I suggested that more than 100 times as many resolutions condemned Israel as condemned the entire 60 members of the Muslim block combined? The fact that the UN says Portugal has done more shows you how bad our internatioanl reputation really does. The fact you think the UN, a collection of states which, for the most part, have absolutely no respect for human rights, is rewarding Portugal for its respect for human rights is ludicrously silly. Libya - a country with well documented ties to terrorist organizations and an abysmal human rights record has been elected by a majority of its fellow U.N. members to serve on the United Nations' Human Rights Council. In a secret ballot Libya received 155 votes and will serve a three year term. :lol: :lol: Oh if ONLY our reputation was as good as Libya! Edited October 12, 2010 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 I've asked other posters but never seem to get an answer. What do you mean by progressive? Progessive as in understanding that the world/Canada is dynamic and is made up of shades of grey and things are not black and white. Or... Progressive in that they support social justice causes and tolerance for peoples choices etc. Progressive in embracing all people, even if they are different from you or have differing beliefs or values. How's that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 I knew Canada wouldn't get a seat and reason is Canada is too close to the US or in other words it would be another vote for the US. You have to remember how other countries felt about the US under GW and there'e still that feeling out there. again, Harper is not taking the blame for losing by his foreign policies, BUT true to form, its Michael`s fault for saying what he did about Canada and the UN. IF Michael has THAT much POWER in what he says, then I say the wrong guy is PM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted October 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 This is the first time in 10 years that that Canada has tried for this spot.U.N. block voting, support for the underdog (Portugal), the EU, the Latin factor and so on probably had the most to do with Portugal winning the seat. One must not discount the the "brisk trade in votes" just prior to the election either. Canada has nothing to be ashamed of, standing by a country (Israel) continually under threat of annihilation when most of those bigots at the U.N. would like to see it happen themselves. We need to stand up for what we have done and stand by our record. The CPC has doubled foreign aid, boosted the International Assistance Envelope by eight per cent, or double the 2001 level and our work in Haiti was exemplary, plus the maternal health initiative. Too bad people tend to listen to the left wing propaganda. IMO there's a good analysis in the G&M today on how this smarmy business is conducted on the East River. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-security-council-bid-goes-down-to-the-wire/article1752586/?cmpid=nl-news1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 One more reason to dislike the UN General Assembly. A bunch of corrupt, religious, dictatorships going against a country that actually showed some principled stances. I'll put this question forward. If the US was not a permanent member of the council, do you think they would ever get on it? Probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 One more reason to dislike the UN General Assembly. A bunch of corrupt, religious, dictatorships going against a country that actually showed some principled stances. I'll put this question forward. If the US was not a permanent member of the council, do you think they would ever get on it? Probably not. it wouldn't deserve to get on the security council based on it's record of terror attacks and invasions ...the biggest problem to an effective UN is the veto and permanent seats held by the gang of five they have no incentive to behave themselves while expecting other countries to toe the line, or "do as we say, not as we do"...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 I knew Canada wouldn't get a seat Congratulations! Harper is not taking the blame for losing by his foreign policies, BUT true to form, its Michael`s fault for saying what he did about Canada and the UN. Ignatieff was very vocal in stating that the Canadian government did not deserve a seat at the UNSC. His only motive was to score political points on the domestic front. And because he is so intelligent, he must have damned well known his comments would find their way in the foreign press but that didn't stop him. Therefore, it is fair game for Harper to blame Ignatieff for Canada losing the vote to gain political advantage at home. Ignatieff opened the door and he will answer for it big time. IF Michael has THAT much POWER in what he says, then I say the wrong guy is PM! Ignatieff doesn't disappoint in his power to make a fool of himself. As a result of this, I expect his leadership numbers will take a tumble, as if they could be any lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 what's wrong with Portugal? Nothing. But adding Portugal to Europe's seat count could give that region a little too much clout on the UNSC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 I've asked other posters but never seem to get an answer. What do you mean by progressive? Mindless slobbering over the latest cause celebre, obsequiousness pandering to the alter of victim-hood, post colonial condescension towards post colonial cons artists and finally, an ability to argue that to raise taxes for the good of all in government can only be argued against if the contra side are racist scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 I really like how you continually bash the Liberals. The sad thing is that if you want a government that is in the least bit progressive, the Liberals are who you should be supporting. The NDP will never form a federal government. Sorry. If you think Liberals under their current leader are progressive at all then I got a bridge to sell you. What a bunch of Bull. Last I saw the Conservatives are the ones talking about increasing healthcare transfers after the Liberals cut them to something like 12% from 30%. Seriously with the Cons and Liberals you pick which progressive issues you care about. With the NDP it isn't so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 it wouldn't deserve to get on the security council based on it's record of terror attacks and invasions ...the biggest problem to an effective UN is the veto and permanent seats held by the gang of five they have no incentive to behave themselves while expecting other countries to toe the line, or "do as we say, not as we do"...... What drool. The security council is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It's supposed to be the biggest, most important, most influential nations. At least insofar as permanent members go. You hate the Americans so you think they don't deserve to be on it, but who would you choose? Probably nations which have far, far, far worse abuses on their records. And the lack of a veto on the security council would destroy the UN. Because the first thing that would happen would be all the tinpot dictators would vote outrageous resolutions demanding redistribution of money, attacks on Israel, etc.. The western nations would simply quit the place, and it would fall into the sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne McQ. Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 (edited) Well, should Canada get a seat on the council and if not why not - well maybe we are not anti Israeli enough for the U.N. But really. why would Ignatieff actually make a bizarre speech to the the U.N. saying that the Conservative government deserve the Security Council spot? Well, maybe because if we don't get it, he could then rail at the gov't for not being good enough for the U.N. One has to wonder what if Iggy has any brains at all. You basically answered your own question regarding the bizarre motives that drives Iggy, and the Liberal Party of Canada, and lets not forget the NDP, The Greens or that group of separatists from that other country, Quebec. All seem to be against anything the Conservatives suggest. My wish is that the clowns in the opposition would get to work for a change and instead of spending all of their waking hours looking for ghosts in closets. We pay these clowns to move legislation forward that will improve the safety and security, as well as the welfare of Canadians. We don't pay them to act like kindergarten children, insulting, catcalling and shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with their socialist agenda. Just get to work for a change, or resign and go find a job in the real world, the private sector. Were they to act this childish in the private sector, they would be fired before the first day was over. Grow up people, and do the jobs you are being paid to do! Edited October 13, 2010 by Wayne McQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 Nothing. But adding Portugal to Europe's seat count could give that region a little too much clout on the UNSC. which is irrelevant because 5 members have the veto...the usa which is from our region has used it's veto often which renders portugal's vote void... so it matters nothing where the additional security seat come from as we add zero clout to our region... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 which is irrelevant because 5 members have the veto...the usa which is from our region has used it's veto often which renders portugal's vote void... so it matters nothing where the additional security seat come from as we add zero clout to our region... Actually, the non-permanent members can exercise veto if they form a block to oppose the Big Five permanent members. It is virtually impossible for the 10 non-permanent members of the council to stall measures on which all of the big five agree. They require seven votes in order to block a resolution.However, as Brazil and Turkey illustrated by their opposition to a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran this year, the emerging powers are now less disposed to accept the reality of “big power” rule without a struggle. The new council will include up to half the Group of 20, an institution that has come to overshadow the UN as a forum for international decision-making on economic issues. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3002844-d485-11df-b230-00144feabdc0.html So no, Portugal's voice is not necessarily "void". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 Actually, the non-permanent members can exercise veto if they form a block to oppose the Big Five permanent members. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3002844-d485-11df-b230-00144feabdc0.html So no, Portugal's voice is not necessarily "void". as useful as tits on a bull... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 as useful as tits on a bull... Colloquialism can be useful and at times amusing. But could you be more specific in what you're trying to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 No one is arguing that. What people is arguing is perhaps if we hadn't given up on Africa, given up on maternal health, given up on climate change, even given up on the UN which was blatantly obvious as Harper skipped last year to go to Tim Hortons then maybe we'd have a seat and have a chance to shape the discourse. No where does that have us crawling on our belly to dictatorships. I've said this before and I'll say this again. The only time foreign affaris have figured into what the government wants to accomplish is when it can score domestic political points. Despite the anti-islamic talking points, this vote is a slap in the face to Harper and his foreign policy choices. Yes it is Harper's foreign policy that made us lose the seat. But why do you include all these things, yet deny the Harper gov's pro-Israel policies/stances is part of this same foreign policy? You do realize that Muslim countries also have a vote, and have some solidarity at that. All of these things, good or bad, are a part of Harper's foreign policy, which was unquestionably the main factor of why Canada lost the seat. It would be no different had they won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 (edited) which is irrelevant because 5 members have the veto...the usa which is from our region has used it's veto often which renders portugal's vote void... so it matters nothing where the additional security seat come from as we add zero clout to our region... Do you realize that permanent members can't use their veto power on particular UNSC votes. They may not be the most important votes, but being a non-permanent member on the council still wields power. Edited October 13, 2010 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 So do we agree that the Conservatives screwed up the appointment to the UNSC because of poor foreign and domestic policy? The CBC did off-camera interviews both before and after the vote and 90% of the respondents said they did not even know what Ignatieff said. They admitted that Canada's stance on Israel had an influence on how many of them voted. Of course it doesn't help as well that Canada is in a squabble (that we lost) with the United Arab Emerites. Pissing off the Arabs has the same effect as killing their support. It wouldn't have worked out anyway for Harper. With his record on ignoring human rights, his refusal to abide by Parliamentary supremacy and his self-serving manipulation of democratic process here at home is enough to tell anyone that he is an unreliable and untrustworthy candidate to judge others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 Canada announced a new deal strengthening the trade relationship with Israel less than a day before the vote: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Insiders+surprised+Israel+trade+announcement+ahead+seat+vote/3654742/story.html Obviously, this detracted from any potential votes among the Muslim bloc and their supporters. Given the timing, it seems that there are only a few possibilities: 1) the government deliberately wanted to make a statement that Canada will support Israel even at the cost of international clout and convenience 2) the government wanted the UN seat but was stupid enough to make a mistake like announcing this deal the day before, indicating utter incompetence 3) the government did not want the UN seat, maybe they wanted to lose so they'd have something to blame on Ignatieff, or maybe Harper disdains the UN as much as some posters here do, so they deliberately released this announcement to sabotage their own chances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.