Canada should lead a U.N. reform.

[dre]

There is no election process when it comes to the UN. These people are put in power by other people who possibly were not elected to their own positions either. No country should have a sole veto right where they can veto against the rest of the council.

Like I said... That was the only way there was ever going to be any UN at all. You can say it shouldnt be that way but thats how it is. The VETO was meant to prevent conflicts between UNSC members, and was the only way any major military powers ever would have joined in the first place.

The UN is a microcosm for the globe in that way. Some countries are more powerfull than others and will have more influence. Without the VETO the whole thing would have already fallen apart.

[dre]

You are 100% right, when a vote can be 14 for and 1 against and the one against wins than it is not a democratic vote.

Of COURSE its not a democratic vote. Its a reflection of the real balance and power. The US and Russia have more influence than New Guinnea... News at 11 .

Edited July 4, 2012 by dre

[Signals.Cpl]

Like I said... That was the only way there was ever going to be any UN at all. You can say it shouldnt be that way but thats how it is. The VETO was meant to prevent conflicts between UNSC members, and was the only way any major military powers ever would have joined in the first place.

The UN is a microcosm for the globe in that way. Some countries are more powerfull than others and will have more influence. Without the VETO the whole thing would have already fallen apart.

But when you give them the veto power nothing gets done. The best way is get a variety of countries with true democracy majority rule.

[Signals.Cpl]

Of COURSE its not a democratic vote. Its a reflection of the real balance and power. The US and Russia have more influence than New Guinnea... News at 11 .

Yeah but the veto power makes sure nothing important ever gets done.

[dre]

Yeah but the veto power makes sure nothing important ever gets done.

Lots of important stuff gets done. The UN is just a bunch of countries... they can agree on some things, and on some things they cant. And without the VETO the organization would simply fall apart the first time the UNSC engaged in enforcement activity that was against the interests of one of the major UN powers.

Its an imperfect thing, but its simply all thats doable given the geo political environment the UN operates in, and the disposition of its member states.

[wyly]

It has been 67 years

now go backward from 1939 and see how many periods of relative peace you can find in europe that come total 70 years...

I would put the reason for a lack of a major conflict the size of World War Two squarely at the feet of the USSR and the USA as they both posses and did possess enough firepower to destroy the world many times over and thus did everything possible to avoid such a war.

ahh no the UN was busy at work in all the little conflicts that were proxy wars between the US and USSR anyone of which could potentially escalate into a much broader war between superpowers(korean war)

What does magnitude have to do with anything anyway? In the UN charter it never specifies which wars it should stop:

little wars become big wars, preventing repeat of world war 2 the driving force, just as the League of Nations was the result of WW1 its' goal was to prevent another equally disastrous war(failed)...

nowhere in their charter does it to my knowledge specify that the UN was created to stop wars with more then X number of casualties...rather it was created to stop ALL wars, and seeing as it has failed miserably on that count I would say it has not done its main mission.

and our laws haven't stopped all crimes but that doesn't mean they have failed us so I guess we'll just have to keep all those laws courts and police...to expect all bad behavior will suddenly stop because you want it to is naive...

List 10 please..

the UN took part in 13 peacekeeping missions between 1947-85 and a number of more since, preventing conflicts from escalating to full-scale wars don't make memorable headlines...you can look them up...

We do not actively and openly put people above the law, in Canada if you commit a crime the judge sentences you, wether I agree with the stiffness of the sentence or not is a different matter but when you are sentenced you do the time for your crime whereas in the UN the ICJ was created to settle intentional disputes, but if one of the parties does not abide by the ruling of the court the only recourse is to go to the UNSC and ask for a resolution to enforce the ruling...guess which nations are exempt from international law, Ill give you a hint, there are 5 of them.

I didn't design the UN rules, compromises are made to make progress without them we have nothing...

[wyly]

Yeah but the veto power makes sure nothing important ever gets done.

I hate the Veto too but getting something done is better than nothing...not counting the old USSR the USA is the leader for veto use, china the least...

[wyly]

So is England a dictatorship because they have a Queen?

the King of Swaziland is a dictator.

[Signals.Cpl]

the King of Swaziland is a dictator.

And those of Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Spain,Japan and a number of others are not. Lumping kingdoms with dictatorships is not possible because as many of the Monarchies might actually be dictatorships and equal number are not.

[Signals.Cpl]

Lots of important stuff gets done. The UN is just a bunch of countries... they can agree on some things, and on some things they cant. And without the VETO the organization would simply fall apart the first time the UNSC engaged in enforcement activity that was against the interests of one of the major UN powers.

You mean how it fell apart after the Peace enforcement in Korea? The USSR boycotted the UN and they did not get a chance to exercise their veto power, yet the UN survived. Veto power means that Russia can protect nations like Syria and Iran from repercussions when they do something against international law and at the same time they the veto powers are above the law.

Its an imperfect thing, but its simply all thats doable given the geo political environment the UN operates in, and the disposition of its member states.

Expanding the UNSC to include 7-9 major economic powers as permanent members, and expanding the slots for voted members means that democracy can prevail. If you are worried about what one side will do should they lose a vote it means that you as well recognize the fact that the UN does not deal with the important decisions but instead waters them down to resolutions that have no bark nor bite.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest Derek L]

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)

You would want Sudan, Venezuela and Haiti to have an equal voice with Canada, the Netherlands and Japan?

A what would be the outcome when the “Third World” countries put forth a motion and pass a resolution that would see the “First World” pay a greater collective sum of their GDP into third world developmental aide?

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.

Ahh and this brings us back to our earlier discussion on the utility of NATO……..Who’s this 10k person force going to be made up of? Who’s going to make up the funding of the poorer nations? And what if said multinational force is to be deployed, and a given percentage of the contributing nations vote against said deployment and refuse to send their forces? It’s like NATO, but only worse………

[Signals.Cpl]

now go backward from 1939 and see how many periods of relative peace you can find in europe that come total 70 years...

UN=World Organization rather than European Organization.

And peace in Europe had more to do with the massive arsenals of Nuclear weapons and the close to 10,000,000 soldiers on both sides with tens of thousands of tanks and other military hardware rather then the UN.

Tell me though, how does Czechoslovakia, Hungary and N. Ireland figure in to your 70 years of peace? Where was the Un then?

ahh no the UN was busy at work in all the little conflicts that were proxy wars between the US and USSR anyone of which could potentially escalate into a much broader war between superpowers(korean war)

The Korean War was not between superpowers, the Soviet Union was not involved in that war directly, and how many of those missions were successful?

little wars become big wars, preventing repeat of world war 2 the driving force, just as the League of Nations was the result of WW1 its' goal was to prevent another equally disastrous war(failed)...

Please be more specific as to which little wars they prevented from expanding?

and our laws haven't stopped all crimes but that doesn't mean they have failed us so I guess we'll just have to keep all those laws courts and police...to expect all bad behavior will suddenly stop because you want it to is naive...

Yes, but you seem to ignore that Russia, USA, France , England and China are not obligated in any way shape or form to accept ICJ Rulings thereby placing those 5 nations and any close allies that they might stand up for above the law.

the UN took part in 13 peacekeeping missions between 1947-85 and a number of more since, preventing conflicts from escalating to full-scale wars don't make memorable headlines...you can look them up...

List the successful missions where they prevented war or stopped war. Most of the missions the UN participated in were decided by the superpowers rather than the UN.

I didn't design the UN rules, compromises are made to make progress without them we have nothing...

In everyday life compromise means one thing, in the UN compromise means the watering down of any resolution in order to please every veto member which in turn means that when action is DESPERATELY needed, the UNSC plays with the resolution until it is satisfactory to everyone and turns around and removes every action until the resolution is uses "stern language"... I mean really that seems like the best way to deal with genocides don't you?

[Signals.Cpl]

I hate the Veto too but getting something done is better than nothing...not counting the old USSR the USA is the leader for veto use, china the least...

That is the thing NOTHING gets done... in Rwanda the discussion was going on for the 100 days that the genocide was going on, once the RPF solved the problem the UN tripped over itself to send in peacekeepers and support. It is a useless organization around 80% to blame is the Veto, lack of funds and bloated bureaucracy would be tied for second.

[Signals.Cpl]

You would want Sudan, Venezuela and Haiti to have an equal voice with Canada, the Netherlands and Japan?

They already do get an equal vote in the GA, and they would get an equal vote in the SC if they were voted in...an equal vote unless one of the veto powers doesn't want to play that is.

A what would be the outcome when the “Third World” countries put forth a motion and pass a resolution that would see the “First World” pay a greater collective sum of their GDP into third world developmental aide?

Is it your opinion that the Veto power of the US, China, Russia, England and France is keeping them straight?

Ahh and this brings us back to our earlier discussion on the utility of NATO……..Who’s this 10k person force going to be made up of?

Everyone, every member state will be obligated to provide personnel provided they meet certain standards..ie Speak one of the defined main languages defined by DPKO etc... Understandably the bulk of the initial training will be done by the West, China, Russia and the more developed nations of Asia and South America, but generally volunteers would make up the force .

Who’s going to make up the funding of the poorer nations?

Rework the formula it doesn't make send that China would contribute less than Canada to the UN budget, while the US which invests disproportional amount in to the UN. Rework the formula so that everyone pays their fair share as opposed to having 10 nations pay 77% of the UN budget while major iconic/military powers do not pull their weight. We could make votes be based on contribution which would effectively make the US run the UN.

And what if said multinational force is to be deployed, and a given percentage of the contributing nations vote against said deployment and refuse to send their forces? It’s like NATO, but only worse………

If I become a member of the UN force I am released from the CF and transferred the the DPKO, the vote becomes a yay or nay on the mission without a vote on which troops to send to said mission. Just like the CF deployed soldiers to Afghanistan including the Vandoo's wether support in Quebec for the war was the lowest in Canada, the second an oath is sworn to the UN they are UN soldiers regardless of nationality.

[Guest Derek L]

They already do get an equal vote in the GA, and they would get an equal vote in the SC if they were voted in...an equal vote unless one of the veto powers doesn't want to play that is.

And you want more of the same?

Is it your opinion that the Veto power of the US, China, Russia, England and France is keeping them straight?

Have we been excessively gouged by them yet? Is not our contribution to foreign aide of our own choosing?

Rework the formula it doesn't make send that China would contribute less than Canada to the UN budget, while the US which invests disproportional amount in to the UN. Rework the formula so that everyone pays their fair share as opposed to having 10 nations pay 77% of the UN budget while major iconic/military powers do not pull their weight. We could make votes be based on contribution which would effectively make the US run the UN.

And you think the majority would be in favour of a “United States managed United Nations”?

If I become a member of the UN force I am released from the CF and transferred the the DPKO, the vote becomes a yay or nay on the mission without a vote on which troops to send to said mission. Just like the CF deployed soldiers to Afghanistan including the Vandoo's wether support in Quebec for the war was the lowest in Canada, the second an oath is sworn to the UN they are UN soldiers regardless of nationality.

I don’t see how you can separate the two (Home country & uniform), in that you don’t see a potential problem with a soldier in said UN force being used to mediate/resolve a conflict with his/hers country?

None the less, why not skip all the BS and fan it out to International Defence Contractors? You want “soldiers without borders”, why not go an already existing, and proven route?

Edited July 5, 2012 by Derek L

[Signals.Cpl]

And you want more of the same?

so in your opinion 10 countries should control 77% of the vote? Do we play with the formula for our own Parliament based on financial situation? Do we give Alberta more seats than their population requires because they have a stronger economy than say Newfoundland? Or do we give them equal seats based on population?

Have we been excessively gouged by them yet?

If we are gauged by anyone it is domestic, coming from within the population of each Western Nation as they have more power than the third world countries when it comes to extorting money for private causes.

Is not our contribution to foreign aide of our own choosing?

I am not talking about foreign aid, to me the primary and most important mission is to keep the peace and increase security throughout the world. In effect the UN would have the primary duty to maintain peace and thus separate the budgets, preauthorized strength keeps the military budget stable, while the rest is kept within the realm of national control thus it is in fact dependant on donation.

And you think the majority would be in favour of a “United States managed United Nations”?

No, but you can't have it both ways, you can't exclude one group because they don't donate enough money in to the organization thus we will limit their voice and tell them what their opinion is while the people who donate a good chunk of the budget for the WORLD organization do not get to have a voice based on their investment. Who gets equal voice and how do we go about deciding? Do we get a vote since we donate a little over 3% of the UN budget? What about India, do they get a voice while donating only around .5% of the UN budget? We either treat every nation as an equal wether they are or not and give them an equal voice so that they feel that they are responsible for their fate, or we have every third world nation blame the west for every action taken, and many third world nations have something that the west wants and that is soldiers, soldiers that would contribute to Peace Making and Peacekeeping in their own back yard.

I don’t see how you can separate the two (Home country & uniform), in that you don’t see a potential problem with a soldier in said UN force being used to mediate/resolve a conflict with his/hers country?

Simple concept actually, conflict of interest. You have personal stake in the conflict(home country you get reassigned). I was able to separate home country and uniform when I swore an oath, I was born in and lived in a country for 10 years before immigrating to Canada with my family, I have family in my home country but I know where my loyalty is and will remain, I understand that there is a difference but ultimately there are ways to deal with such issues before they become problems.

None the less, why not skip all the BS and fan it out to International Defence Contractors? You want “soldiers without borders”, why not go an already existing, and proven route?

I have no respect nor trust when it comes to mercenaries, when push comes to shove would you trust a mercenary to cover his arcs?

[Guest Derek L]

so in your opinion 10 countries should control 77% of the vote? Do we play with the formula for our own Parliament based on financial situation? Do we give Alberta more seats than their population requires because they have a stronger economy than say Newfoundland? Or do we give them equal seats based on population?

Hey, you’re the one that suggested:

Rework the formula it doesn't make send that China would contribute less than Canada to the UN budget, while the US which invests disproportional amount in to the UN. Rework the formula so that everyone pays their fair share as opposed to having 10 nations pay 77% of the UN budget while major iconic/military powers do not pull their weight. We could make votes be based on contribution which would effectively make the US run the UN.

If we are gauged by anyone it is domestic, coming from within the population of each Western Nation as they have more power than the third world countries when it comes to extorting money for private causes.

Are you suggesting Canada has been and/or is being extorted by another nation(s)? Are we not our own Country?

I am not talking about foreign aid, to me the primary and most important mission is to keep the peace and increase security throughout the world. In effect the UN would have the primary duty to maintain peace and thus separate the budgets, preauthorized strength keeps the military budget stable, while the rest is kept within the realm of national control thus it is in fact dependant on donation.

But why a separate budget? Surely if a UN military that transcends national boundaries is a good idea, why not include a mandatory “UN tax” (Progressive of course) that all people, in all countries, have to pay?

No, but you can't have it both ways, you can't exclude one group because they don't donate enough money in to the organization thus we will limit their voice and tell them what their opinion is while the people who donate a good chunk of the budget for the WORLD organization do not get to have a voice based on their investment. Who gets equal voice and how do we go about deciding? Do we get a vote since we donate a little over 3% of the UN budget? What about India, do they get a voice while donating only around .5% of the UN budget? We either treat every nation as an equal wether they are or not and give them an equal voice so that they feel that they are responsible for their fate, or we have every third world nation blame the west for every action taken, and many third world nations have something that the west wants and that is soldiers, soldiers that would contribute to Peace Making and Peacekeeping in their own back yard.

Again, it’s not my solution looking for a problem, you’re the one that suggested a US dominated United Nations.

Simple concept actually, conflict of interest. You have personal stake in the conflict(home country you get reassigned). I was able to separate home country and uniform when I swore an oath, I was born in and lived in a country for 10 years before immigrating to Canada with my family, I have family in my home country but I know where my loyalty is and will remain, I understand that there is a difference but ultimately there are ways to deal with such issues before they become problems.

That’s complete apples and oranges……..Show me on a map the country labelled “United Nations” where all the UN force members families and friends live……..As demonstrated, by yourself, the idea of swearing and oath to the United Nations is already full of barriers and conflicts of interest……….Simply put, there is no nation called the “United Nation” that taxes it’s populace to pay for said military force…..

I have no respect nor trust when it comes to mercenaries, when push comes to shove would you trust a mercenary to cover his arcs?

Well that’s a personal prejudice you should get over in your brave new “United” world….“Mercenaries” have been used for centuries, as such, their employment has demonstrated (If desired) to an effect that transcends, race, colour and creed….or not…..Depends on what the “buyer” wishes.

I would put more stock in former SAS/SEALS/Spetsnaz etc then regulars from Ethiopia or Bolivia….Of course, that’s just me.

[carepov]

Given the most recent condemnation of Canada by (UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay), I think it's time to follow Conrad Black's suggestion re our leading a charge for reform.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/30/conrad-black-the-end-of-canadas-love-affair-with-the-un/

So indeed! Why not NOW

I plan on writing our P.M.

I can think of a very good reason "Why not now"- Canada's reputation at the UN is in the dumps. Almost no country will even listen to us, never mind follow our lead. I don't that Canada ever had enormous influence but what little we has been pissed away by our government. The proof came in the last vote for a Security Council seat.

To attempt to pre-empt any accusations of partisanship I will say two good things about our government's foreign affairs policies:

1. They have shown strong leadership in the economic sphere (G7 and G20 etc...)

2. I am less embarrassed to be represented by Steven Harper compared to Jean Chrétien

[Signals.Cpl]

Hey, you’re the one that suggested:

You suggested that we should restrict votes to certain countries because the smaller nations of the third world cannot offer much in the way of money, so the flip side of that is to award seats/votes based how much money you put in to the organization.I support equal membership regardless of the contribution simply because then nations get a say in what goes on in their region rather than simply blame the west for every action taken and are equal members in front of the law.

Are you suggesting Canada has been and/or is being extorted by another nation(s)? Are we not our own Country?

What I meant to say was that the only people who are extorting our government and citizens for aid are in fact our own citizens.

But why a separate budget? Surely if a UN military that transcends national boundaries is a good idea, why not include a mandatory “UN tax” (Progressive of course) that all people, in all countries, have to pay?

I mean it as a division of responsibilities, the military aspect should be the priority and for which the nations would be responsible to give their annual contribution for, the idea is to separate the budgets in order to have a consistent budget for the resources that the UN MUST maintain while international aid remains completely voluntary depending on the wishes of the individual nations. Our priority should be to support the UN in maintaining peace because we will benefit greatly just like every other western nation, we do not however have any sort of obligation to develop those nations, our responsibility ends with providing security for them anything else is completely voluntary and a GC vote cannot and should not force western nations to ever larger investments in Third World development.

Again, it’s not my solution looking for a problem, you’re the one that suggested a US dominated United Nations.

Well want is your solution? How would you suggest we split up votes?

That’s complete apples and oranges……..Show me on a map the country labelled “United Nations” where all the UN force members families and friends live……..As demonstrated, by yourself, the idea of swearing and oath to the United Nations is already full of barriers and conflicts of interest……….Simply put, there is no nation called the “United Nation” that taxes it’s populace to pay for said military force…..

So what is your suggestion? Large Alliances to maintain peace obviously don't work as has been proven over and over again for thousands of years, you don't want us to remain in NATO, you don't want the UN to maintain a force that is able to deal with mid-sized conflicts that otherwise well-meaning albeit uninformed Canadians would prefer to send CF personnel to die in conflicts where the ROE's make it hard to defend yourself and force the PK's to watch rapes and murders go on around them without giving them the chance to do something.

After the Napoleonic Wars Europe tried the Congress system and it held out for almost 100 years, after World War One the Allies created a world organization that was meant to keep the peace and prevent further bloodshed, that organization was deeply flawed, during World War 2 the Allies created the United Nations in order to keep the peace post-war, and that organization was better but still deeply flawed. We could continue with this flawed organization and send more soldiers and wealth in pointless conflicts that the UN does not have the means or will to stop or we could find a solution here and now and solve it .

Well that’s a personal prejudice you should get over in your brave new “United” world….“Mercenaries” have been used for centuries, as such, their employment has demonstrated (If desired) to an effect that transcends, race, colour and creed….or not…..Depends on what the “buyer” wishes.

And what happens when the buyer(UN) does not offer as much as the warlord? Suddenly those "people" pack up and leave and we are in a worse situation than originally.

I would put more stock in former SAS/SEALS/Spetsnaz etc then regulars from Ethiopia or Bolivia….Of course, that’s just me.

I dont understand what that has to do with anything? We are not talking about picking a bunch of Ethiopians and putting them in a nice shiny new uniform and saying they are now UN soldiers. Recruit them, train them and equip them to the exact same standard, unless of course you think that Ethiopians or other third world people are not equal to first world people and thus cannot learn.

I would rather know that those people we send to maintain pace are there for the right reason, and are trained to the same standard rather than having superior troops who are more expensive and less trustworthy. We need to build an institution that we can trust to maintain high standards rather then hire some people who might switch sides at first convenience.

[bud]

I plan on writing our P.M.

well, you have the israeli government finally listening to you, i don't see why the canadian government wouldn't be all over your genius thoughts and ideas.

[Guest Derek L]

You suggested that we should restrict votes to certain countries because the smaller nations of the third world cannot offer much in the way of money, so the flip side of that is to award seats/votes based how much money you put in to the organization.I support equal membership regardless of the contribution simply because then nations get a say in what goes on in their region rather than simply blame the west for every action taken and are equal members in front of the law.

Where did I suggest we restrict voting privileges? I’m not the one suggesting reworking the UN Charter with a system based on clout deemed by the amount of money paid, nor a system where a backwards third world dictatorship has the same clout as the United States…………Thems your ideas partner.

I mean it as a division of responsibilities, the military aspect should be the priority and for which the nations would be responsible to give their annual contribution for, the idea is to separate the budgets in order to have a consistent budget for the resources that the UN MUST maintain while international aid remains completely voluntary depending on the wishes of the individual nations. Our priority should be to support the UN in maintaining peace because we will benefit greatly just like every other western nation, we do not however have any sort of obligation to develop those nations, our responsibility ends with providing security for them anything else is completely voluntary and a GC vote cannot and should not force western nations to ever larger investments in Third World development.

Me thinks you’re putting the cart before the horse………..If we (The West) so desired to, $100 Billion spent on food, medicine and clean water initiatives would go further in terms of third world development then $ 100 Billion spent on policing Third World Shit holes………

Well want is your solution? How would you suggest we split up votes?

I'm content with the system as is, but with an underlying preference to see a reduction in Canadian tax dollars spent on foreign programs, including the UN.

So what is your suggestion? Large Alliances to maintain peace obviously don't work as has been proven over and over again for thousands of years, you don't want us to remain in NATO, you don't want the UN to maintain a force that is able to deal with mid-sized conflicts that otherwise well-meaning albeit uninformed Canadians would prefer to send CF personnel to die in conflicts where the ROE's make it hard to defend yourself and force the PK's to watch rapes and murders go on around them without giving them the chance to do something.

After the Napoleonic Wars Europe tried the Congress system and it held out for almost 100 years, after World War One the Allies created a world organization that was meant to keep the peace and prevent further bloodshed, that organization was deeply flawed, during World War 2 the Allies created the United Nations in order to keep the peace post-war, and that organization was better but still deeply flawed. We could continue with this flawed organization and send more soldiers and wealth in pointless conflicts that the UN does not have the means or will to stop or we could find a solution here and now and solve it .

I’ve made my beliefs clear during the discussion we had on NATO……….I feel, going forward, Canada should only intervene in foreign maters when it’s in our direct interests to do so………..As I’ve said in reference to Europe, I don’t really care what they do in Africa……..Allow me to pay homage to Chuck Darwin and Natural Selection……

And what happens when the buyer(UN) does not offer as much as the warlord? Suddenly those "people" pack up and leave and we are in a worse situation than originally.

They're shit out of luck.........Joking aside, I thought you suggested the “United World” would be contributing to the collective defence force, surely the Worlds nations could out spend a warlord…..

I dont understand what that has to do with anything? We are not talking about picking a bunch of Ethiopians and putting them in a nice shiny new uniform and saying they are now UN soldiers. Recruit them, train them and equip them to the exact same standard, unless of course you think that Ethiopians or other third world people are not equal to first world people and thus cannot learn.

I would rather know that those people we send to maintain pace are there for the right reason, and are trained to the same standard rather than having superior troops who are more expensive and less trustworthy. We need to build an institution that we can trust to maintain high standards rather then hire some people who might switch sides at first convenience.

The “Right Reasons”? Dogma, like religion, can conjure up warm fuzzy feelings in oneself, but money makes the world go around………

As to your amateur allusion of racism, we could hire Gurkhas if it makes feel better……..

[Army Guy]

expect there is a clear distinction between the Canadians the UN right-to-food envoy is speaking to... and the types of Canadians you presume upon; i.e., those with an actual disposable income making 'inappropriate' choices. Perhaps the only cross-over might occur when he speaks to a secondary review element - obesity; where choices within that disposable income come into play.

What Canadians are you do you think he is talking about ? I've yet to come across a Canadian any Canadian that was starving to death, i've seen a few hungry ones but not starving....The type i was refering to were lower income, In my neiborhood it is hard to to spot upper, middle and lower class shopping in the same stores...not many to chose from...and you notice the types of things in their baskets....which is why i asked .....do you think it is more about choices...ie instead of buying a 40 dollar case of beer or a 90 dollar cartoon of cigs could it not be replaced with healthier food for their families....and if it is about these chioces why is that the governments fault....it is after all the type of nation we live in, we are free to make most chioces all by ourselfs....

As for obesity i agree the government could do more here , it is actually cheaper to by a big mac, big bag of chips, than it is a bag of apples, fruit, vegs....more education, new taxes etc..might change peoples minds...but when you look at the 3 classes i've seen far more obese persons in the middle and lower clases

And while i may not be one of those thinking Canadians i , disagree with you monies spent on this reveiw would have been better spent on nations and people actually starving to death, not a nation that biggest food decision of the day is what fast food joint should i go to....

[carepov]

What Canadians are you do you think he is talking about ?

I think that much of the report focussed on children - you seem to ignore the fact that they do not have a choice in what they eat. Yes, their parents should be fully responsible for their care and make the right choices for them - but this is not the reality of what is happening. If for no other reason than to reduce health care costs, Canadian Governments, Native and community leaders should figure out how to improve the nutritional intake of children and pregnant women.

I disagree with the way that our Federal Government rudely brushed off the report. Yes - as a whole the Canadian food system is very good, and I am quite sure that the UN Report did say that. However, there is certainly room for improvement. Also, there would be value in studying the parts of our system that are working well in order to make recommendations for other countries.

[Signals.Cpl]

Where did I suggest we restrict voting privileges?

You would want Sudan, Venezuela and Haiti to have an equal voice with Canada, the Netherlands and Japan?

I’m not the one suggesting reworking the UN Charter with a system based on clout deemed by the amount of money paid, nor a system where a backwards third world dictatorship has the same clout as the United States…………Thems your ideas partner.

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?

Me thinks you’re putting the cart before the horse………..If we (The West) so desired to, $100 Billion spent on food, medicine and clean water initiatives would go further in terms of third world development then $ 100 Billion spent on policing Third World Shit holes………

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.

I'm content with the system as is, but with an underlying preference to see a reduction in Canadian tax dollars spent on foreign programs, including the UN.

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

I’ve made my beliefs clear during the discussion we had on NATO……….I feel, going forward, Canada should only intervene in foreign maters when it’s in our direct interests to do so………..As I’ve said in reference to Europe, I don’t really care what they do in Africa……..Allow me to pay homage to Chuck Darwin and Natural Selection……

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.

They're shit out of luck.........Joking aside, I thought you suggested the “United World” would be contributing to the collective defence force, surely the Worlds nations could out spend a warlord…..

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.

The “Right Reasons”? Dogma, like religion, can conjure up warm fuzzy feelings in oneself, but money makes the world go around………

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

As to your amateur allusion of racism, we could hire Gurkhas if it makes feel better……..

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.

[Guest Peeves]

well, you have the israeli government finally listening to you, i don't see why the canadian government wouldn't be all over your genius thoughts and ideas.

Why thank you that's quite magnanimous of one so obsessed with Israeli's mere existence.