Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 The Liberal record precedes the BQ by quite a ways. That was my point. Every election they swept Quebec, then needed to only get a reasonable number of seats in the rest of Canada. The Tories had to sweep TROC to get in. That is why the Liberals got in so much over the past fifty years. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 No, I don't think it's the least bit important. What international influence does Finland or Sweden have? Doesn't matter to them. It was a fair question, still unanswered. Apart from flying cover for economic and geopolitical interests, why does this "influence" matter to Canada ? What purpose is served ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Posted February 17, 2016 I don't think they say what you seem to think they say. I can give you more easily: http://www.bmiresearch.com/sites/default/files/Infrastructure%20Investor%20-%20Multiplier%20Effect%20-%20Petroleka.pdf http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low-income-families-to-boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 What do you mean by 'trickle down'? If you mean cuts in the taxes of rich people I suppose that's possible. But that's a pretty low bar. Trickle down essentially means you allow the money to flow into the pockets of a few, hoping they will spend some to keep a few people employed. Perhaps you need a primer on it. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 That was my point. Every election they swept Quebec, then needed to only get a reasonable number of seats in the rest of Canada. The Tories had to sweep TROC to get in. That is why the Liberals got in so much over the past fifty years. Do you think the BQ has been around for 50 years? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 No, I don't think it's the least bit important. What international influence does Finland or Sweden have? Doesn't matter to them. Influencing the creation and modification of international law is not important to you. That's fine. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Harper's platform, as you pointed out, wasn't offering much new at all. He and Mulcair were restrained somewhat by their promises to balance the budget.I guess you forgot Harper's spending promises:- Increase parental leave to 18 months and create leave for self-employed parents. - Give $1 Billion to the auto industry to help with TPP - Create a Gang Registry and spend $2.5 million to keep kids away from them - $700 million for light-rail transit in Surrey, BC - $8 Million a year for five years for RCMP human trafficking teams in major cities plus $20 million for a federal human trafficking strategy - Create a $100 million manufacturing technology demonstration fund - $2000 single seniors tax credit for 1.6 million people - $10 million to the Kanishka Project to counter extremism - $20 million to the lobster industry, $15 million of which was to "promote" lobster abroad - Contribution supplements for people saving in educational savings plans - $15 million a year endowment to support museums - $9 Million to attract American hunters to Canadian wildlife habitats - $75 million for federal loans on foreign credential programs - $200 million to expand broadband internet access - Tax breaks on membership dues for Kiwanis, Lions Club, and the Legion - $15 million for BC estuaries - $163 million to add 6000 people to the Forces (despite cutbacks to veterans services) Do I need to go on? Please, tell us all how fiscally reserved Harper is. I haven't even touched on the myriad tax credits for apprenticeships and home renovations and everything else under the sun. Edited February 17, 2016 by cybercoma Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 But it's not just GDP that matters....but domestic spending on capabilities that the UN has leveraged in the past (military interventions, natural disasters, WHO research, food distribution, NGOs, etc). Here, Canada comes up way short, similar to NATO spending as a percentage of GDP. That's why Chretien was laughed at (e.g. Rwanda). I'd love to see your numbers that show this as so far I have shown you what the percentages in relation to GDP that suggest otherwise. Again, each country is suppose to do its share and Canada like other smaller countries has a smaller share and therefore should have smaller influence. There is much more to the UN than UNSC resolution vetoes. The United States has been able to use the UN for its own nation state interests without permanent member state approval (see NATO, Iraq War, etc.). Nato and the Iraq war are not the UN which is where you expressed your 'influence' argument. In fact Iraq was anti-UN which really must have sucked since the US spends so much money on the UN and then to not have their backing. Again, you can argue about total influence which is different that influence within the UN and at this point any major decision can be overruled by veto. According to the following website, vetoed motions have occurred 236 times in the history of the UN. Of those times Russia/USSR was 103 (44%) where as the US has done it 79 times (33%)....yet Russia pays way less. http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 But Russia puts its money directly into the pockets of foreign dictators while Canada tries to do charity work. Thus Russia has massively more influence around the world than Canada. True...but again the discussion is about influence withing the UN. Not that it really matters either way. Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Influencing the creation and modification of international law is not important to you. That's fine. How much influence do you think Canada has or should have. We have been at the table for 12 of the 70 years this has been running and in those 12 years we are one of 10 other non-permanent countries sharing the scraps of what the five permanent votes let us have. I don't have a problem with contributing to the UN or even making a bid but don't over-glorify the situation. Quote
eyeball Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Influencing the creation and modification of international law is not important to you. That's fine.It's a fine idea but an impossible and unsustainable one given the nations most responsible for causing the messes the UN is intended to address also dictate what the UN can or can't do... I mean talk about foxes and chickens. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Trickle down essentially means you allow the money to flow into the pockets of a few, hoping they will spend some to keep a few people employed. Perhaps you need a primer on it. In other words it means exactly what I said it meant. So why would I need a primer? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Influencing the creation and modification of international law is not important to you. That's fine. There is no such thing as 'international law'. The only laws which apply between nations are the ones those nations specifically agree to be bound by, generally through the signing of treaties. We can sign or not sign those treaties, as members of the various commissions and agencies which develop them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 True...but again the discussion is about influence withing the UN. Not that it really matters either way. The UN does nothing of importance to Canada. Who cares what influence we have there? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 I can give you more easily: http://www.bmiresearch.com/sites/default/files/Infrastructure%20Investor%20-%20Multiplier%20Effect%20-%20Petroleka.pdf http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/15/focus-on-low-income-families-to-boost-economic-growth-says-imf-study I'm sure you can but so what? They're irrelevant to the point you seem to be trying to make in defending the impending Liberal deficit, almost none of which is set to be spent on actual infrastructure, and none of which is set to be spent on the poor. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Again, each country is suppose to do its share and Canada like other smaller countries has a smaller share and therefore should have smaller influence. But Canada has consistently wanted more "influence", despite its smaller contribution. The reason for this desired influence has not yet been demonstrated. Canada also lacks certain capabilities despite its G20 ranking in the world. Nato and the Iraq war are not the UN which is where you expressed your 'influence' argument. In fact Iraq was anti-UN Actually, the UN figured prominently in NATO and U.S. led coalition efforts in Iraq, to the point of UN approval of the US/UK occupation after the invasion was complete. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) I'm sure you can but so what? They're irrelevant to the point you seem to be trying to make in defending the impending Liberal deficit, almost none of which is set to be spent on actual infrastructure, and none of which is set to be spent on the poor. Almost the entire deficit will go to either the new child benefit or infrastructure. Edited February 17, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 The UN does nothing of importance to Canada. Who cares what influence we have there? I think it's important to stay involved but not to fantasize or obsess about our level of involvement and how that reflects on us. The reality is we've been a non-permanent seat holder 12 of 70 years. In that time our 'influence' is one of 10 other non-permanent seat holders and 5 permanents. Our interest should be minimal at best. Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 But Canada has consistently wanted more "influence", despite its smaller contribution. The reason for this desired influence has not yet been demonstrated. Canada also lacks certain capabilities despite its G20 ranking in the world. I agree. We are a minimal contributor and should have minimal influence. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 There is no such thing as 'international law'. The only laws which apply between nations are the ones those nations specifically agree to be bound by, generally through the signing of treaties. We can sign or not sign those treaties, as members of the various commissions and agencies which develop them. Ever heard of the Hague Conventions or maybe the Geneva Protocol? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 It's a fine idea but an impossible and unsustainable one given the nations most responsible for causing the messes the UN is intended to address also dictate what the UN can or can't do... I mean talk about foxes and chickens. Which is why we are better off with a seat at the table as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. Quote
PIK Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Noah Richler (sp) is the one that penned that quote about changing the country and the media ran with it, is my understanding. And justins brother/ advisor is a big supporter of Palestine and does not like Isreal. I would support the UN ,if it were the UN Pearson wanted. Where is the big UN armies that can pour into a war zone and end it before it is to late? Probably the biggest UN battle was the Yugoslavia and how long ago was that . Just like the biggest NATO battle ever fought was Canadians in Afghanistan. And if anyone has a hidden agenda , it is trudeau. Edited February 17, 2016 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Ever heard of the Hague Conventions or maybe the Geneva Protocol?Nations agree to them. That's why they're "conventions" and not laws. States are sovereign and therefore have no jurisdiction over other states except by force. Even those conventions are meaningless if no one is willing to use force to make good on them. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Nations agree to them. That's why they're "conventions" and not laws. States are sovereign and therefore have no jurisdiction over other states except by force. Even those conventions are meaningless if no one is willing to use force to make good on them. Many are in fact laws as they are upheld by treaties. Protocols are typically amendments to existing laws. Granted it may be difficult to enforce various ones unless by force, but then they did hang a lot of people out of a court in Nuremberg back in the day. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 And do you think if the Nazis were still in charge of Germany they would have sent their officers to that court? 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.