bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 So are you saying that Russia has no influence? Russia has less "influence" than the United States, but is still a permanent member. Canada has/is neither, but worships at the UN alter like it does. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Keep cycling buddy. You're almost back to the start.It seems to take a few cycles to get you tuned in to what was said. Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Russia has less "influence" than the United States, but is still a permanent member. According to you they should have barely more influence than Canada...based on their contributions. But again, the contributions don't dicate influence they are calculated based on: The [/size]General Assembly apportions peacekeeping expenses based on a special scale of assessments under a complex formula that Member States themselves have established. This formula takes into account, among other things, the relative economic wealth of Member States, with the five permanent members of the Security Council required to pay a larger share because of their special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.[/size] So even with Russia being required to pay a larger scale, they don't. China should certainly be in the top five but they aren't. Yet both have permanent seats and both obviously have enough influence to keep them without actually paying. Now...with respect to the US vs Canada situation, the US is 10x the population and does 10x the GDP. Add to it they are a permanent member, so they should kick in more. So with all that, why is the Canadian contribution more than 10% that of the US? Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 It seems to take a few cycles to get you tuned in to what was said When you are speaking...yes....it certainly does. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Russia has less "influence" than the United States, but is still a permanent member. Canada has/is neither, but worships at the UN alter like it does.I wouldn't actually go so far as to say the US worships at the UN altar. Especially since they seem to ignore international law when it suits their war plans etc. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) When you are speaking...yes....it certainly does. I'll try to simplify it for you from now on. Edited February 16, 2016 by On Guard for Thee Quote
overthere Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Gee, I wonder how those crazy left wing and right wing 'muricans fighting all the time still manage to keep their UN "influence". Might have something to do with the U.S. spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on the United Nations and deploying more "peacekeeping" forces than Canada. If Trudeau wants more "influence", write a big fat check...in US dollars, please. No problem at all writing a big fat cheque in any currency, no price is too high for a little loving. But cashing a Canadian cheque might be a problem in the near future... Edited February 16, 2016 by overthere Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 I'll try to simplify it for you from now on. How about just post it correctly? That would be a start. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 So even with Russia being required to pay a larger scale, they don't. China should certainly be in the top five but they aren't. Yet both have permanent seats and both obviously have enough influence to keep them without actually paying. They get to keep their permanent seats because that's how the UN was chartered, complete with Canada's "blessing". Yet neither have the "influence" of the United States. Now...with respect to the US vs Canada situation, the US is 10x the population and does 10x the GDP. Add to it they are a permanent member, so they should kick in more. So with all that, why is the Canadian contribution more than 10% that of the US? This has always been Canada's go-to excuse, but it doesn't work in these kind of penis measuring contests. Seems it doesn't matter what the topic is, Canada always manages to come up a little bit short, not even spending allocated funds. Example: Chretien begged for APCs and heavy-lift air transport in Rwanda...he had neither influence or the military means to get the job done. "Influence" doesn't come cheap. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Accountability Now Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 They get to keep their permanent seats because that's how the UN was chartered, complete with Canada's "blessing". Yet neither have the "influence" of the United States. Lol...they all have the power to VETO. So who is really getting the biggest bang for their buck? This has always been Canada's go-to excuse, but it doesn't work in these kind of penis measuring contests. Seems it doesn't matter what the topic is, Canada always manages to come up a little bit short, not even spending allocated funds. Excuse....no. Its called reality (a reality that is also in the charter). Each country is supposed to contribute according to its capabilities. And the cold hard facts show that the US should be leading the way and be more than 10x Canada in what they contribute. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 ....Excuse....no. Its called reality (a reality that is also in the charter). Each country is supposed to contribute according to its capabilities. And the cold hard facts show that the US should be leading the way and be more than 10x Canada in what they contribute. The US does contribute more when all UN funding is accounted for. Canada is more bark and less bite. Trudeau finds that he is now the prime minister of a country that has deadbeat "influence", so his big mouth ideas won't mean as much. "Canada is back"....show me the money. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 I know, and I said as much. What happened to Harper was terrible. i don't though, remember this level of derision when Harper first took office in 2006 (yes, there was the hidden agenda talk, but that's old politics - this is new). All that happened to Harper is that he became the focus of 15 years of frustration and people fed up with listening to conservatives and right-wingers throw around acerbic terms like "left-tard" and "lib-tard" and comparing lefties to some of the worst mass murderers in history if they disagreed with anything a conservative politician had to say. Referring to opposition as being with the terrorists was probably the last straw for many Canada. After a couple of short months of having their own crap handed back to them it's hard not to feel a little contemptuous for the thin-skinned hard-done-by conservatives who are now whining about how unfair it all is Cry me a river. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 John Maynard Keynes for one. Really? You think Keynesian economics has been proven to work? Where? I'm not talking about in formulas, but in reality, in the real world. 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 Which is perhaps why his party has ruled more than the other two. His party has ruled more than the other two because it has always, until the BQ interrupted it, been willing to count on taking almost all Quebec's seats. The Conservatives rarely got more than a handful, so the only way they could take power was to have an overwhelming majority everywhere else. 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 These people, among others: http://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11 http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/oct/29/quantitative-easing-policy-stimulus-janet-yellen-ecb I don't think they say what you seem to think they say. The first paper is based on local GDP based on money coming in from the national level. Of course that raises local GDP. Why wouldn't it? But is the impact at the national level, especially when considering the consequences of borrowing and higher taxes? In any event, for every paper which says Keynesian economics works there are a number which say it doesn't. I have not seen a case where it worked. I don't believe it worked when the conservatives did it and they had a far higher amount of stimulus. Little of the Liberal stimulus, such as it is, is focused on roads, highways and bridges anyway. The second analyses quantitative easing, which I certainly agree was a pretty poor example of stimulus for anything other than the stock market. 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 So you do understand that not having a seat does in fact means our influence equals "none"? Just trying to catch you up to what you seemed to misinterpret. What influence do you think Canada needs and how would it help Canada? 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
Accountability Now Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 The US does contribute more when all UN funding is accounted for. Not when you take the GDP into consideration, which the UN certainly does. Of course, you seem to be shying away from the simple fact that all permanent members have a VETO even though Russia only contributes marginally more than Canada. What happened to your 'money' equals 'influence' mantra? So for all those dollars that the US pours in, it just takes one VETO from Russia....then what? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Obviously, Trudeau wants Canada to get back its perceived influence as "honest broker" and "peacekeeper" that was so "horribly damaged" by PM Harper. Then the Liberals can proudly trumpet their good guy, human rights brand of influence for domestic political advantage compared to "having a seat at the table" for the Conservatives. Michael Ignatieff can write another book. It's fun to watch the political infighting over what little "influence" Canada actually has. Success with either strategy will still cost lots of money, and that's when things get awful quiet in Ottawa. "Influence" ain't cheap. Edited February 17, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Not when you take the GDP into consideration, which the UN certainly does. 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). Remember Canada's DART fiasco after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami ? Of course, you seem to be shying away from the simple fact that all permanent members have a VETO even though Russia only contributes marginally more than Canada. What happened to your 'money' equals 'influence' mantra? So for all those dollars that the US pours in, it just takes one VETO from Russia....then what? 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.). Edited February 17, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 His party has ruled more than the other two because it has always, until the BQ interrupted it, been willing to count on taking almost all Quebec's seats. The Conservatives rarely got more than a handful, so the only way they could take power was to have an overwhelming majority everywhere else.The Liberal record precedes the BQ by quite a ways. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 What influence do you think Canada needs and how would it help Canada?You think influence on the world stage is not important? Having a say in international law may help to make the world safer. And when other countries respect us, it tends to be good for business. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 Really? You think Keynesian economics has been proven to work? Where? I'm not talking about in formulas, but in reality, in the real world. It has been proven to work better than trickle down. Quote
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 I'm not sure I agree with you on the money equaling influence idea. If that were the case, then Japan and Germany would be permanent members. Heck, Russia is barely above Canada! 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. 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 It has been proven to work better than trickle down. 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. 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 You think influence on the world stage is not important? Having a say in international law may help to make the world safer. And when other countries respect us, it tends to be good for business. No, I don't think it's the least bit important. What international influence does Finland or Sweden have? Doesn't matter to 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
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.