Tories drowned by calls attacking $2-million fake lake
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
bootlegga @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:50 am
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
$1:
bootlegga wrote:
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
Canada matters because we try not to elect half-witted leaders who would drop us into the middle of a war in Iraq for 7 + years and still have the nerve to call it "Mission Accomplished".Canada matters because we take our fiscal situation seriously and don't blow money on silly projects, till we had this new lake anyways.
If Canada 'matters' so much because of Afghanistan then why didn't the rest of the NATO members, whom supposed we're there to impress or something come along for the fun and games? and why is it that the US stil seems to think were a suburb of their country
All that being aid i believe that Canada does have a role and it's time we returned to the UN model of Peacekeeping, we tried it the American way of bombing the shit out of people and then expecting them to thank us, and shockingly enough they're not terribly grateful.
The US governments international integrity , trustworthiness and financial stability have all gone straight down the toilet in the last 10 years. Thank you im' quite happy without wanting to emulate their example.
That's just it, we haven't emulated the USA at all. We didn't go into Iraq. We didn't have a sub prime meltdown. Our banking system didn't almost collapse. In many ways, we took a different path.
If you find a peacekeeping mission that Canada can participate in, then I'm all for it. I thought peacekeeping was great, back in the day. The problem is that peacekeeping, as it existed in the 60s, 70s and 80s, no longer exists.
There are few places where both sides are willing to stop fighting and be separated by UN forces. Nowadays, if we want peace, we have to make it, which unfortunately involves bombing both sides until they agree to stop fighting, then sending in troops to keep them from fighting again.
BTW, pretty much everyone in NATO did go to Afghanistan (as well as many other nations including Australia, Finland, and Sweden to name a few)
http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbers- ... /index.php
You're right that Harper would have allowed a battalion of troops to go to Iraq if he had been in office, however, he was not in office at the time, and since getting into office has shown no inkling of wanting to either, so give it up already. He hasn't even shown any willingness to stay in Afghanistan, which is pretty restrained IMO.
If Canada wants to get noticed on the world stage, then we have to be there to help out with international crises, be they natural or man-made disasters. We've participated in missions without the US before and likely will again, and there's nothing wrong with that, Canadian foreign policy should seek to help Canada, not the US, China or anyone else (just like those nation's foreign policies benefit them and not us).
EyeBrock @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:52 am
Again, well said Boots.
andyt @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:53 am
I don't see what all this has to do with the summit. Why the hell are we spending 50 times the amount that the US spent on security to hold the same thing is the question in my mind. I have no problem with hosting it when our turn comes. But throwing money around to impress the world seems like a poor return on investment to me.
bootlegga @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:54 am
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
bootlegga bootlegga:
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
Fair enough and well articulated. My opinion remains that I don't care if the rest of the world "takes us seriously" or not. Just like I don't care if people take me, personally, seriously or not. I care about the opinions of those who judge me by my actions, not by those who are impressed when I cover the bar tab.
And that's fine if you aren't interested in the rest of the world.
However, I'd argue that many Canadians do care. And the actions that the world count are things like helping out in the 2004 tsunami, digging people out of rubble after an earthquake in Pakistan, and yes, even peacemaking in Afghanistan (different nations want our help in different ways).
bootlegga @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:01 am
andyt andyt:
I don't see what all this has to do with the summit. Why the hell are we spending 50 times the amount that the US spent on security to hold the same thing is the question in my mind. I have no problem with hosting it when our turn comes. But throwing money around to impress the world seems like a poor return on investment to me.
Like I said, who knows? My best guess is our security costs are higher. Or maybe we're only serving premium liquor/beer. Or maybe housing in Muskoka costs more than Pittsburgh. Or maybe we're giving away gold coins.
$1:
Sanjeev Chowdhury, director-general of the summit's management office, said 3,500 journalists have applied for accreditation to the summit, surpassing expectations by 1,500.
"A lot of people are coming there -- a captive audience -- to our media centre. This is a great opportunity for us to highlight the best of our country to these journalists," Chowdhury told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.
"A lot of people are coming there -- a captive audience -- to our media centre. This is a great opportunity for us to highlight the best of our country to these journalists," Chowdhury told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ts-100613/
HyperionTheEvil @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:55 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:
$1:
bootlegga wrote:
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
Canada matters because we try not to elect half-witted leaders who would drop us into the middle of a war in Iraq for 7 + years and still have the nerve to call it "Mission Accomplished".Canada matters because we take our fiscal situation seriously and don't blow money on silly projects, till we had this new lake anyways.
If Canada 'matters' so much because of Afghanistan then why didn't the rest of the NATO members, whom supposed we're there to impress or something come along for the fun and games? and why is it that the US stil seems to think were a suburb of their country
All that being aid i believe that Canada does have a role and it's time we returned to the UN model of Peacekeeping, we tried it the American way of bombing the shit out of people and then expecting them to thank us, and shockingly enough they're not terribly grateful.
The US governments international integrity , trustworthiness and financial stability have all gone straight down the toilet in the last 10 years. Thank you im' quite happy without wanting to emulate their example.
That's just it, we haven't emulated the USA at all. We didn't go into Iraq. We didn't have a sub prime meltdown. Our banking system didn't almost collapse. In many ways, we took a different path.
If you find a peacekeeping mission that Canada can participate in, then I'm all for it. I thought peacekeeping was great, back in the day. The problem is that peacekeeping, as it existed in the 60s, 70s and 80s, no longer exists.
There are few places where both sides are willing to stop fighting and be separated by UN forces. Nowadays, if we want peace, we have to make it, which unfortunately involves bombing both sides until they agree to stop fighting, then sending in troops to keep them from fighting again.
BTW, pretty much everyone in NATO did go to Afghanistan (as well as many other nations including Australia, Finland, and Sweden to name a few)
http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbers- ... /index.php
You're right that Harper would have allowed a battalion of troops to go to Iraq if he had been in office, however, he was not in office at the time, and since getting into office has shown no inkling of wanting to either, so give it up already. He hasn't even shown any willingness to stay in Afghanistan, which is pretty restrained IMO.
If Canada wants to get noticed on the world stage, then we have to be there to help out with international crises, be they natural or man-made disasters. We've participated in missions without the US before and likely will again, and there's nothing wrong with that, Canadian foreign policy should seek to help Canada, not the US, China or anyone else (just like those nation's foreign policies benefit them and not us).
Inernatonal crises abosolutely, natural disasters and what not
But we absolutely have to say out of the "Peace-making" game. Afghanistan was an is a disaster because of piss poor ideological planning int he US. It's simply proven again that the only way you can have peace between two faction is when they both want peace.
If you're going to impose it that means somewhere along the road one must take sides and frankly we've gone dep enough
Curtman @ Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:11 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
Like I said, who knows? My best guess is our security costs are higher.
VIC TOEWS VIC TOEWS:
Well we did, in fact, use the army in the Olympics. It’s quite another thing when you start bringing the army in a civilian context, into a civilian setting.
...
We don’t resort to the military in our streets unless we come to very extreme circumstances.
...
We don’t resort to the military in our streets unless we come to very extreme circumstances.
Oh my God, did he just say people would get upset about having the army in the streets? With guns?
Hahahaha
fifeboy @ Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:50 am
Curtman Curtman:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Like I said, who knows? My best guess is our security costs are higher.
VIC TOEWS VIC TOEWS:
Well we did, in fact, use the army in the Olympics. It’s quite another thing when you start bringing the army in a civilian context, into a civilian setting.
...
We don’t resort to the military in our streets unless we come to very extreme circumstances.
...
We don’t resort to the military in our streets unless we come to very extreme circumstances.
Oh my God, did he just say people would get upset about having the army in the streets? With guns?
Hahahaha
That is a good one.
Apollo @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:14 am
Curtman Curtman:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Like I said, who knows? My best guess is our security costs are higher.
VIC TOEWS VIC TOEWS:
Well we did, in fact, use the army in the Olympics. It’s quite another thing when you start bringing the army in a civilian context, into a civilian setting.
...
We don’t resort to the military in our streets unless we come to very extreme circumstances.
...
We don’t resort to the military in our streets unless we come to very extreme circumstances.
Oh my God, did he just say people would get upset about having the army in the streets? With guns?
Hahahaha
Whats even funnier is that only the Liberal party has used the war measures act in all of Canadian history.
Lemmy @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:24 pm
Apollo Apollo:
Whats even funnier is that only the Liberal party has used the war measures act in all of Canadian history.
What's even funnier is when a dumbass can't be bothered to check a simple fact before posting something that is completely wrong.
Apollo @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:36 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Apollo Apollo:
Whats even funnier is that only the Liberal party has used the war measures act in all of Canadian history.
What's even funnier is when a dumbass can't be bothered to check a simple fact before posting something that is completely wrong.
Are you serious? During the October Crisis in 1970 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act suspending civil liberties. I know its hard to beleive that your beloved Liberals created a Police State but the truth hurts don't it?
Public_Domain @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:41 pm
Lemmy @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:46 pm
Apollo Apollo:
Are you serious? During the October Crisis in 1970 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act suspending civil liberties. I know its hard to beleive that your beloved Liberals created a Police State but the truth hurts don't it?
Dude:
Apollo Apollo:
only the Liberal party has used the war measures act in all of Canadian history.
You might want to read up on Robert Borden, dumbass. And I'm not a Liberal.
Apollo @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:57 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Apollo Apollo:
Are you serious? During the October Crisis in 1970 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act suspending civil liberties. I know its hard to beleive that your beloved Liberals created a Police State but the truth hurts don't it?
Dude:
Apollo Apollo:
only the Liberal party has used the war measures act in all of Canadian history.
You might want to read up on Robert Borden, dumbass. And I'm not a Liberal.
Then I should have thrown in a disclaimer. The Liberal party is the only party in Canada to use the war measures act in almost 100 years.
Apollo @ Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:05 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Apollo Apollo:
Whats even funnier is that only the Liberal party has used the war measures act in all of Canadian history.
Wrong. Not in support of the Liberals, but it's cute how you
guys throw around martial law like it's no big deal.
Then when someone says "hey wait, aren't we free"
I always hear 'Blah blah blah Liberals did it, so that
makes it cool and okay 4 decades and generations later'
No it doesn't make it cool. The whole left is obsessed with painting Conservatives and Harper as something they are not. I'm simply pointing out how silly you are when you guys are guilty of the crap you are accusing the Conservatives of.
Too American - Iggy is an American citizen. Harper is 100% Canadian. Born and raised.
Keep our healthcare public - Both Layton and Martin used private health clinics. Harper never has.
Conservatives are pro-war - Liberals send Canada into combat in Afghanistan
Conservatives are too pro business - Martin and CSL nuff said
Harper will create a police state (Libs even made a commercial about it) - Liberals already did it "in my lifetime" Ontario Liberals just gave police special arresting provisions for the G20
I could go on but I could spend the entire night proving the hypocrisy of the left.
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next