|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-21 10:30:13
Did you know that governments have the right to have opinions??
There is a big difference when another country (such as the US) directly interferes in other countries, such as in Panama, Chile (Pinochet), etc...
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-21 15:05:57
I think they should not try to interfere with the decisions that the citizens of another country want to make if those governments make "non-interference" a guiding principle.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-21 19:46:58
Is it interference when one countries traditional system of forestry allotment or grain sales are declared illegal by another country's government?
Is it interference when one country's election results are declared invalid and the country is blacklisted and then covertly undermined by another?
Or is interference only a principle that applies selectively and opportunistically?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-22 16:40:38
Interference is the corner stone of the UN mandate.
I think it would be a big mistake of us to eliminate the concept of elections monitoring in fledging democracies under the UN banner. I think that was one of the things the UN could do very constructively. I'm sorry Canada speaks to protect the UN, but acts to kill it.
And interference happens within Canada.
The Canada Health Act ensures the Canadian government can interfere with a province's jurisdiction.
We want free trade, then we create a legal framework for that freedom which allows parties in agreement to accuse the other's of illegal trade practices.
That's fair and just.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-23 15:49:01
OK Fallon can you explain your shaky theories. You say " Canada speaks to protect the UN but acts to kill it ". How did you come to that conclusion? Canada agreed to support and abide by the UN decision. Canada pays its dues to support the UN.
The USA has not been paying their dues to the UN. The USA circumvented the UN decision and invaded Iraq against the wishes of a majority of the UN.
"The Canadian Health Act ensures the Canadian government can "interfere" with provincial jurisdiction." So??
Do you not believe that our federal government is not right to ensure that all Canadians recieve adequate health care? When they provide funding; it is their responsibility to ensure it is used for the purpose it was given for.
Now your statement "free trade allows parties in agreement to accuse the other of illegal trade practices." Yes, there is a mechanism to address problems but it should not be used frivolously to delay and interrupt trade without just cause.
Just one more question. Are you a Canadian?
I would like to ensure you that I am not "Anti-American; we have had and will again have good relations with the USA. I just do not agree with the direction that the present American leadership is taking.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-24 13:25:48
Fatmomma, I am a Canadian. I just happen to be a Canadian who remembers that the history of the world and our country did not start with the election of Trudeau as our PM.
Now, on to your questions:
1) Canada killed the UN because this was a case where the UN should have acted and it didn't. Canada endorsed this failure, which over time will help to de-legitimize the UN in the minds of democratic thinking people. I'll admit, Canada made efforts more significant than any other of its new allies (Germany, France, China, Russia).
2) On the Canada health act, I was making the point that governments interfere in the jurisdiction of other governments - even within a nation.
I love the Canada Health Act and look forward to the day when all North Americans (US, CANADA, MEXICO) enjoy universal health coverage.
However, this goal is now harder to achieve because we have acted in a way that will discredit all Canadian-specific policies on this continent, the good with the bad.
I don't believe Canada and the shifty public opinion it acts on have done anyone any good in this crisis.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-24 14:21:53
"Canada killed the UN because this was a case where the UN should have acted and it didn't. "
Again, of course, i disagree with your statement because it is false. Inspections for disarmement should have continued... Inspections were working... The inspectors told us so. If Bush wanted a regime change he should have said so from the start, at least to be honest with everyone. And I really, really don't understand how you can write a statement like you did, its beyond me, its like we were not living on the same planet :)...
If you are refering to the Rwanda conflict (I'm sure you're not), i agree Canada partially killed the UN, because they should never have participated in that 'peace-keeping mission', since nobody cared... You know, that Romeo Dallaire said that there were some UN diplomats asking all kinds of statistics on how many deaths there were each day, Romeo asked why they were asking those kinds of questions... You know the answer ? 'The death of one soldier from an industrialized country, is about equal to 1000 deaths of Africans...' So they wanted to know if the increase in soldiers was worth it...), Do you know who blocked more involvement in the Rwanda mission, the US, among others...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-25 13:10:09
The whole problem with "facts" is that we are selective in which facts we use to support our case. This is done on all sides of all debates.
For example, look what you did with Rwanda. you mention that our failure to act was a result of the US (among others) blocking action. But, in other places, you single out Bush (as in, you are anti-Bush).
Being anti-Bush and chiding the US, under Clinton, for not taking action in Rwanda suggests that:
1 - you are not just anti-Bush, but anti-US (for valid reasons).
2 - you think Bush had influence over Clinton and Bush was responsible for this inaction.
See, isolating your comments to Bush and then bringing up the Rwandan catastrophe, distorts the picture of reality somewhat.
Are we on the same planet? I think so.
But then again, it would explain why everywhere I go, the earth is red!:)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 04:33:17
I try to be non-biased with my facts as much as possible, thats why I don't believe much of anything i read or hear unless i cross-reference it in several places.
I am mostly against the foreign policies of the great powers, and the US being a superpower, its quite normal that i am opposed more vehemently against their foreign policiy as a whole. When i attack the US government's position in this discussion group, and i bring facts up its because someone is defending their current foregin policy...
I have BIG problems with other powers also, but they don't come in this discussion group, since most people are discussing the Iraq conflict.
If this discussion group start discussing the recent Ivory Coast conflict, I'll be strongly opposed to the position of France, my positions are mostly based on legal facts.
And a proof that I am not anti-US as you seem to state, is that I agree on their attack of Afghanistan, it was legal and quite justified, I was also for the 1991 Gulf War. When Clinton decided to go into Somalia, i also agreed, but it was a fiasco, so from then on, Clinton, like the current US government, only cared about their own interests even if it meant acting unilateraly...
As for Rwanda, its not the US's fault, its EVERYONE's fault, Canada, US, France, the UN and more particularly Belgium... I'm just stating that the US is not without blame here.
The great powers of today should either always be multilateral or completely be isolationist... Not be one or the other when it suits them!!... Thats the current problem with the US, they are both at the same time, which makes no sense! You simply cannot have foreign policy which changes so abruptly...
Reply to this message
|
|
