Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I think that would vary with the situation. To go to war against the wishes of most of the world we should need 99% support within the country. To act in support of the UN? 50% might actually be a little high.

Keep in mind that wars, by definition, affect people outside of our borders. Since they they do not get to vote for our leaders, we must respect their opinions as well.

   

Do you really think there's going to be a plebiscite or referendum each time the question of war comes up?

The United Nations does not represent the world - those they do represent, the do so badly. How many times did Saddam spit in their faces - throw out their inspectors, invade Iran and Kuwait, gas and torture, maim and kill his own, and break UN sanctions such as fly zones repeatedly.

If the UN had done the job they are paid to instead of lining their own collective pockets, the US, Canada, Spain, Poland, Belgium, Russia, Japan, . . . . . might be there as a collective peacekeeping force instead of the situation they find themselves in today.

Attitudes today are very reminiscent of the late 1930s.

   

The UN represents the vast majority of people on this earth. They do far more than peace-keeping and military-related things. To see them as nothing more than a referee in international disputes is simplistic and ill-informed.

Canada has a long tradition of working through multilateral institutions. The UN is the most far-reaching and effective of those institutions. It does need some work. The security council needs to rethought and/or shut down. Vetos certainly have to go. The domination of a few wealthy and powerful nations over smaller nations needs to go. Member nations, including Canada, need to devote more time, energy, and money to the UN. International law needs to be applied equally to all nations.

It's really funny...Kofi Annan has spoken about needing to do those things. Those that most criticise the UN are the same ones most responsible for opposing the changes.

   

Meanwhile, all is not well on the Iraqi front.

Not that the cbc would know of course.

While CTV newsnet interrupted the pmpm speech to provide coverage of the hotel bombing/rocket attack in Baghdad - not a whisper from cbc.

As cbc radio continues to yak about a big bicycle.

Reminds me of the Pepsodent commercial - 'Wonder where the yellow went . . . . substitue 'dollars' for 'yellow' . . . .

   

"An interruption"? So what??? I'll go you one better.
CNN has not even inserted a commercial break in it's live on-site coverage, since I started watching over a half-hour ago.
HOWEVER, if you go to CBC NewsWorld, THEYRE all over it like stink on a hog, too. At the same time, they are grilling Martin and his reaction to it (among other things), in a Press conference as I type.

BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR JOB.

If you want books, you go to the library - not Canadian Tire.
If you want thorough, in-depth News coverage, pay the bucks and get cable/satellite.
You dont get steak at McDonalds, and you dont blame McDonalds for not having it.

Just how much can you learn about whats on the mind of the average Canadian, from watching CTV?
Well, plenty - if you want to know how they feel about the Simpsons and Survivor....

   

Now there's an important subject!

   

LMAO!!! Thanks, Robair - my first good laugh of the day!

   

Clearly you are trying to commit a gross act of flummery.

Don't misrepresent.

What's with going back and inserting the above after you posted? Of course cbc began to cover it - after Hinspectore Clousseau of the Mothercorpse clued in and began sending smoke signals and beating drums. My point is, the corpse was late again AS USUAL


Your bromides speak volumes.

   

It's called "editting", karra; the process in which one continues to consider something, has resultant second or third thoughts to add, and does so...


Clearly, a concept with which you are only passingly familiar.


Oh, and to play your latest little game btw; only the dullard is impressed by a pompous vocabulary. I view it as nothing more than a cheap route to obfuscation. We can turn this thread into inane drivel, if you like. I would prefer not to.

Any idiot can own a thesaurus - it's the meat of the thought that matters; not the window-dressing....

   

Oh and no, I'm sorry to disappoint you, sweetie, by taking pre-empting your next slur - I didnt have to ponder anything for that last post; it was spontaneous and off the top of my head.

   

mmmm, would seem the dullard has a thesaurus too many and no dictionary or spell checker, si?

There's editing and then there's deliberately trying to mislead. Am I being politically correct enough here?

And then there's the inability to express oneself without an overabundant use of icons.

If you had posted a second time with the quotes outlined in my posting above, that would have been different - I would, in all likelihood have simply stated that I disagree with you.

But you didn't. Hence I take issue with your deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

My point is, the corpse was late recognizing breaking news yet again. For a billion+ dollars a year I expect better than that (wishful thinking I know) and if I was a Canadian taxpayer, this would be of concern to me. If it isn't to you, that's fine - the manner of your editing however is not.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding their late response and coverage.

Before you accuse me of being semantic or picayune, read your posts in the original order - I think you'll see why I made the effort to respond. And maybe give some thought to the corpses' lame attempt at a 'reality' show. It seems to have escaped those at the mothercorp there are currently about 50 horrible 'reality' shows on air. Yes indeed - your taxdullards at work.

'nuff said.

btw, where did you get those cliches - they're good.

   

I don't need to rely on cliche's - I can think for myself.

Which, of course, is why we are destined to rarely agree....


Oh, and by the way, the devices I used in the original post are not classified as cliche's - the term is "hyperbole".
Go back to school.

   

Yea, that can almost be as annoying as someone with the inability to express themselves without an overabundant use of made-up words.

We spoke engrish on this forum untill recently. Now it seems I need to become proficient in karra-speak. I wonder If I'm the only one that doesn't have a clue what you're getting at half the time...

   

No Robair - karra, conversely, is the only one who has a clue what she is trying to SAY.

I grow increasingly weary of toying with you, karra.... there's little sport in it.


Until the next time....

   

I just want to get this straight, Karra. There was an explosion in a war zone and you are upset because CBC didn't pre-empt coverage on their general service outlet to cover it, although they did carry blow-by-blow coverage on their news-specific television station and more than adequate coverage on Radio 1. Have I got that right?

I know the coverage was on NewsWorld because we watched it on my boss' TV in his office. I know it was on Radio 1 because I heard it when I was out and when I got back to the studio I said, "Hey, there's a major hotel explosion in Iraq, can I watch your tv?"


For a little less than $30.00 per year, per Canadian, we get some of the most in-depth news coverage on the planet. My local paper costs me about six times more. My magazine subscriptions run to about 10 times more. For less than $30.00 a year I get CBC television, two radio stations, one Internet radio station, a good portion of NewsWorld paid for (there are cable fees) and, if I wanted, a good portion of whatever they call their documentary channel paid for (I haven't bothered with digital because that's the only channel I want).

$30.00 a year. Less than the cost of 24 beer. Less than the cost of a single meal in a decent restaurant. Less than a carton of smokes. I think we're getting pretty good value for the money here.

For that $30.00

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next