Canada should lead a U.N. reform.

[DogOnPorch]

I thought Mugabe getting an UN Tourism ambassador position was pretty funny. Well, they might just out-do themselves...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/05/hillel-neuer-syria-is-heading-for-a-seat-on-un-human-rights-council/

[Guest Derek L]

Where did I suggest we restrict voting privileges?

I’ll ask again because the passage you quoted doesn’t speak of restrictions, but was a question to you……..As I’ve stated, I’m fine with the status quo.

Well you seem to criticize every Idea, you don't think they should get equal vote because they are the guys with a jeep and 10 soldiers yet the nation with the strongest military shouldn't get more votes BECAUSE of their investment?

Again, I’m not the one calling for changes to the United Nations……….Unless you consider Canada reducing our funding commitment groundbreaking.

Good luck trying that theory out in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and the dozen's of other nations which are in a state of conflict. 50 Billion spend on policing those nations and 20 billion spend on aid to those nations goes a lot further than 100 billion of aid to those nations.

Read the section on foreign aide in the Bush Doctrine……..Quite obviously targeted aide would only be focused on stable environments, the shitholes left to wither on the vine……..If they make a stink, thus threatening any of our interests, whack-a-mole.

Do you believe that Canada should withdraw from every integration organization? NATO, G-8, G-20 the UN?

No, just NATO, with a reduction in funding to the UN and the third world.

And that is well within your rights to believe, but in our world we cannot do that, look at the UN in the 1930's when they were in self imposed isolation, they didn't care about Europe and can you guess what happened there? The wars in one corner of the world affect the people in the other.

Who’s talking isolation? I’ve no problem with Canada intervening overseas if our economic interests are threatened.

Nowhere did I state that this idea is meant as a "global defence force" It is meant as a means to provide soldiers to missions in immediate need, rather than having the UNSG sitting on the corner and begging for funding for the mission, then equipment for the mission, then soldiers for the mission, and even if you get the money for the mission, you get a mixed bag of nations providing soldiers that are at some times the polar opposites in training, knowledge and abilities and come in different states of readiness with regard to equipment. The UN should have its own force to draw on for PK missions because then and only then can we know that the Bangladeshi soldier and the Canadian soldier are of equal abilities because they have met the same stringent standard and have received the exact same training, and are armed with the same equipment.And most importantly the soldiers will answer to the UN rather than their respective government in order to avoid situations where you have say a CANBAT that has to ask permission from the PM for every mission, permission which comes after the mission was accomplished by others.

So you want to make it more complex and instead of “getting permission” form our own elected officials, you would differ to the opinions of nearly 200 nations……….

Yeah, the right reasons. American Soldiers join the US Military for a variety of reasons, just like in Canada some most join for honourable reasons while a smaller group join for not so honourable reasons. With mercenaries it is the inverse, most do it for the less than honourable reasons and are working outside the rules and regulations of the military structure

Making a buck isn’t honourable? I won’t bother asking you for proof demonstrating the varying degrees of “honour” amongst professional forces and defence contractors………

Well I'm sorry but it seems to me that you don't consider them capable of holding the "power" of an equal vote, you look down on anyone who does not have the ability to financially match the west, well the Third world Nations has people that would be more than willing to help, the funds are provided predominately by the west, and the risk is taken by all, and all are more than capable of learning.

How well did arming and training the South Vietnamese do? Or what of the Iraqis or the ANA?

Since Canada only has so much money to spend on defence (And everything else) said money should be focused on Canadians first………We spend (Or spent) hundreds of millions, if not billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars building schools, hospitals, water treatment etc throughout the third world, yet we have Canadians here living in third world conditions…….We need to get our priorities straight and spend that money at home before giving handouts to Pakistan, India and China etc just as we need to look at the dollars spent in Africa and to see that little has progressed in that money pit.

[waldo]

I thought Mugabe getting an UN Tourism ambassador position was pretty funny.

you sir... are spreading a falsehood! Please edit your post to correct your mistake - carry on.

[DogOnPorch]

Where are they holding the conference again?

The honour was made official when UNWTO head, Taleb Rifai, arrived at the Falls for a ceremony to name Zimbabwe and Zambia co-hosts of the 2013 conference. Also on hand were Mr Mugabe and President Michael Sata of Zambia. The UNWTO denied reports the leaders were being made official UN "tourism ambassadors", saying that an open letter merely invited them to champion tourism. Nonetheless, Mr Mugabe embraced the accolade.

"We will spare no effort in delivering to you and the whole global tourism family a uniquely African experience," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-chooses-robert-mugabe-as-a-leader-for-tourism-7801085.html

lol...we didn't mean ambassador....we meant champion of tourism.

Hey...did you hear the last big 'Rhodesian' farmer was murdered in his home the other day? Onward and upward!

[waldo]

I thought Mugabe getting an UN Tourism ambassador position was pretty funny.

you sir... are spreading a falsehood! Please edit your post to correct your mistake - carry on.

Where are they holding the conference again?

lol...we didn't mean ambassador....we meant champion of tourism.

you know the answer to where the conference is being co-located - your own link speaks to, "Zimbabwe and Zambia as co-hosts of the 2013 conference.

is this your 2 emoticon level way of acknowledging that you were incorrect... that you were spreading a falsehood? Show some integrity and correct your initial post, hey?

[DogOnPorch]

Cool that you support Mugabe. He needs friends. So...any comments re: the murder of the last big shot Rhodesian farmer in his own home? Regretable? Needed to happen? What??

Edited July 6, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[kraychik]

Why should the UN be reformed? The entire premise of the UN is flawed, it is essentially League of Nations 2.0, except it is far worse than its predecessor considering its scope of influence is greater and growing every day. What the UN needs is abolition, and Canada should lead the way by ceasing funding to this monstrosity immediately. The UN isn't simply irrelevant, flawed, or broken. It is, on balance, harmful to the interests of freedom and prosperity. It doesn't need reform, it needs abolition.

Considering that the current POTUS is a radical leftist intent on increasing American involvement with this evil organization, acquiescing to the pressures of anti-freedom elements (Islamists, socialists, communists, etc) in order to make nice these forces, concurrently eroding American sovereignty and the broader interest of promoting freedom and prosperity around the world, the role for global leadership on this front falls on the shoulders of countries like Canada.

[kraychik]

how do you make something relevent that very few nations pay attention to in the first place

That's not really true, considering that the UN is primarily funded by the USA and Europe, as well as Canada and Australia. Free nations around the world are funding an anti-freedom force embodied in the UN. Canada shoots itself in the foot by funding this abomination year after year. Unfortunately, an overwhelming number of Canadians still have a positive view of the UN and its mandate, and even a small portion of those who have a negative view of the UN believe that this is because the UN has too little influence. What Canada needs is an information campaign telling the ugly truth about the UN, so as to wake Canadians up to the evil of this organization. Canadian political leadership cannot move strongly against the UN while such a large portion of the electorate is still brainwashed regarding the imaginary good work of the UN. Canadians need a reality check, and then our political establishment can make the moral choice to withdraw from the UN.

[kraychik]

For starters you remove the Veto power from permanent members, then expand the Security Council to reflect the current economic/military powers and expand the permanent members of the UNSC. Scrap every UN department and start rebuilding from the ground up making sure that different departments have improved lines of communication in order to solve problems and use resources in the most efficient way possible.

Unfortunately this will not happen as most nations are interested in a weak and useless UN that they can point to and blame for not acting.

So it's your contention that the UN be given more power and influence? If this is what you're saying, and it's pretty clear that it is, you are advancing the leftist argument in support of further erosion of Canadian sovereignty and placing our interests in the hands of our enemies. Unfortunately, this suicidal attitude is very prevalent in Canada.

[kraychik]

Two things, would you really want the majority of those 188 other nations having an equal voice?

Second, the mention of an armed and organized military under the control of a One World Government sounds unnerving to say the least………..Some might get positive visions of Star Trek like results and others, (and I find the more likely outcome) the return of Jesus with a vengeance…….

Revelation 13:1

Agreed. The ideal scenario for the UN envisioned by Signals.Cpl is frightening, one where Canada's voice is further diluted by the introduction of "equality" for inferior third-world societies like Zimbabwe, Yemen, or Cambodia. It would be a dark day for freedom and prosperity around the world should even more power be given to the forces of tyranny, as Signals.Cpl clearly desires.

[kraychik]

Yes, if we want them to participate in solving global problems they need to have an equal voice. There would of course be a restructured security council in order to make decision making more fluid and quicker but without the veto power in play, as well there would be certain limitation placed on nations that don't meet a certain set of standards(eg. not committing genocide against your own people)

There's no such thing as a "global problem". Every single problem that affects an individual can be said to be a broader, or "global", problem. Considering we're all interlinked in one way or another (societies and economies are like ecosystems, all components affect one another to one degree or another), this "global problem" rhetoric can be attached to every problem. This is, of course, exactly what happens. The UN's tentacles are trying to wrap themselves around everything: food, housing, healthcare, education, historical sites, the projection of military power, control of natural resources, basic freedoms (or lack thereof) regarding speech and expression, the environment, and so on. There is *nothing* that the UN and other leftists like yourself will *not* define as a "global problem", and that's why people like yourself need to be kept as far away as possible from roles of political leadership as possible.

By UN Armed Forces I mean a force that has its own equipment and troops part peacekeepers/observers part heavily armed peacemakers. I can't foresee at least in the near future a world government maintaining a force that replaces the militaries of the member states more of a force where should a mission require 10,000 heavily armed soldiers the SC can deploy them without having to beg its member states for everything from transport to flashlights and from weapons to soldiers. And I am in no way talking about a force to rival say the US, more of a force that maintains a certain standard and can be deployed to hot spots in order to prevent or limit a conflict.

As Derek L has already stated, this is a frightening scenario that you envision.

Edited July 6, 2012 by kraychik

[bleeding heart]

There is *nothing* that the UN and other leftists like yourself will *not* define as a "global problem", and that's why people like yourself need to be kept as far away as possible from roles of political leadership as possible.

When our good friend Signals is derided (and quite venomously) as a "leftist," we start to get a hint of the fringe viewpoint we're dealing with here.

[kraychik]

When our good friend Signals is derided (and quite venomously) as a "leftist," we start to get a hint of the fringe viewpoint we're dealing with here.

"Venomously"? You're using your interpretive skills again, I see. His viewpoint on this issue is clearly leftist, and I'm characterizing him accurately with respect to this. Desiring a greater centralization of control over the projection of military power in the hands of the UN at the expense of sovereign free states is pure leftism. There's not other way to describe it.

[bleeding heart]

"Venomously"? You're using your interpretive skills again, I see.

Mmmm. Unlike yourself, who writes unadorned, objective "truth," which fascinatingly tends in every case towards the Rightish pole of the political spectrum.

His viewpoint on this issue is clearly leftist, and I'm characterizing him accurately with respect to this. Desiring a greater centralization of control over the projection of military power in the hands of the UN at the expense of sovereign free states is pure leftism. There's not other way to describe it.

First of all, I think you need to specifically delineate "leftism"--especially "pure leftism" (surely a matter of "interpretation," despite, as you say, our shared understanding of English...perhaps you forgot that this is unwarranted?)--and what it means, what it is, and why it is so horrible. You are right now taking it as a given. If it is a given, the explanation should be simple for you.

Next, you might explain how this baleful entity--"the Left"--it is different from the Right, the Centre, and so on.

Edited July 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

His viewpoint on this issue is clearly leftist, and I'm characterizing him accurately with respect to this. Desiring a greater centralization of control over the projection of military power in the hands of the UN at the expense of sovereign free states is pure leftism. There's not other way to describe it.

If you believe this then you know absolutely nothing about the various centralization/globalization attempts.

[Signals.Cpl]

When our good friend Signals is derided (and quite venomously) as a "leftist," we start to get a hint of the fringe viewpoint we're dealing with here.

Are you saying I cannot or am not allowed to agree or support "leftist" ideas?

[Guest Peeves]

That's not really true, considering that the UN is primarily funded by the USA and Europe, as well as Canada and Australia. Free nations around the world are funding an anti-freedom force embodied in the UN. Canada shoots itself in the foot by funding this abomination year after year. Unfortunately, an overwhelming number of Canadians still have a positive view of the UN and its mandate, and even a small portion of those who have a negative view of the UN believe that this is because the UN has too little influence. What Canada needs is an information campaign telling the ugly truth about the UN, so as to wake Canadians up to the evil of this organization. Canadian political leadership cannot move strongly against the UN while such a large portion of the electorate is still brainwashed regarding the imaginary good work of the UN. Canadians need a reality check, and then our political establishment can make the moral choice to withdraw from the UN.

Add applaud emoticon. BTW I rec'd a reply from the P.M. office;

Dear Mr. - - - - - -

I would like to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail regarding Canada's membership in the United Nations.

Please be assured that your comments have been carefully reviewed. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your message to the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who, I am certain, will also appreciate being made aware of your interest in this matter.

Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.

M. Bredeson

Executive Correspondence Officer

for the Prime Minister's Office

Agent de correspondance

de la haute direction pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre

[kraychik]

Are you saying I cannot or am not allowed to agree or support "leftist" ideas?

Where did I say you couldn't support whatever you want to support? All I did was challenge the absurdity of your envisioned ideal scenario for the UN.

[Signals.Cpl]

Where did I say you couldn't support whatever you want to support? All I did was challenge the absurdity of your envisioned ideal scenario for the UN.

Do you realize I directed the question at bleeding heart?

[bleeding heart]

Are you saying I cannot or am not allowed to agree or support "leftist" ideas?

No. I'm saying that when silly little reactionaries stumble about in their self-induced darkness, screeching "the Left! The Left!", as it is their favourite, obssessive topic, everything they say about good folks like you is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Edited July 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Do you realize I directed the question at bleeding heart?

No, my mistake. Still, your ideal scenario for the UN is frightening.

[kraychik]

No. I'm saying that when silly little reactionaries stumble about in their self-induced darkness, screeching "the Left! The Left!", as it is their favourite, obssessive topic, everything they say about good folks like you is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Not sure why you're huffing and puffing. Signals.Cpl is clearly advocating a leftist viewpoint. I am accurately describing it as such. This has everything to do with the right-left paradigm.

[bleeding heart]

Not sure why you're huffing and puffing. Signals.Cpl is clearly advocating a leftist viewpoint. I am accurately describing it as such. This has everything to do with the right-left paradigm.

Everything you see, up to and including price differentials, MLW posters more nuanced than you, and pee-wee hockey belongs to your (largely fallacious) "right-left paradigm."

And you have refrained from carefully delineating any of what you mean by any of this, including the profound distinctions between this "left" entity and the Right and the Centre.

[kraychik]

Everything you see, up to and including price differentials, MLW posters more nuanced than you, and pee-wee hockey belongs to your (largely fallacious) "right-left paradigm."

And you have refrained from carefully delineating any of what you mean by any of this, including the profound distinctions between this "left" entity and the Right and the Centre.

So the "left" is now such a nonsense term that it is put in quotation marks? It's not my problem if you don't understand what leftism entails. Opinions on most political issues, and even historical narratives, are greatly divided along the right-left paradigm. This includes attitudes towards the UN, economic issues, and everything in between. A person's association with the left or the right, which is far easier to establish than you are willing to admit (you probably believe, like most leftists, that you're nuanced, complex, layered, and beyond such a simplistic label as "the left"), provides a high level of accuracy in predicting their attitude towards these and other issues. After only reading a few of your posts, I can already see right through you. You're far more transparent than you want to believe. I don't try to deny my ideological point-of-departure, so it's amusing to see you delude yourself into thinking you're beyond labels. Let me guess, you're "objective" and "balanced", right?

[dre]

No. I'm saying that when silly little reactionaries stumble about in their self-induced darkness, screeching "the Left! The Left!", as it is their favourite, obssessive topic, everything they say about good folks like you is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Globalism is not a liberal idea ANYWAYS.