Printer friendly version of: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca/en/discussion/index.php?m=2995
 |
Conclusion: The World We WantThank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released. This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.
|
| |
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-11 22:37:24
I wouldn't want to place blame on Mr. Chrétien.
I rarely disagree with you, but in this case I think what you are suggesting is unwarranted.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:22:37
You're right. My heart still tells me that Chretien does do what he thinks is best for the country.
But, my point is, both sides can be accused of putting profits before people. So many grotesque motives have been ascribed to W and his gang without any serious reflection that its interesting to see how people react when that medicine is delivered back at them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-14 19:23:06
..."So many grotesque motives have been ascribed to W and his gang without any serious reflection"...
I completely agree.
George Bush Jr., Condi, Rumsfield, and Powell are good people who have to deal with terrible situations. I have a very high regard for all of them.
I also think Chrétien is also getting a bad deal; he has to think of Canada the nation first. That means dealing with the 3 million nationalists in Quebec who continually try to rip our country apart. (Although the connection to Chirac is a disconcerting topic best left for another day).
Anyhow, I don't see how Chrétien could have in public supported the war and won the election in Quebec from the nationals without U.N. approval. (I & many Canadians will feel comfortable saying this now that the Quebec election is over)
I also think Chrétien was inadvertently back-stabbed by undisciplined members of his party and the CBC.
I.e. The bastard comments. If it where not for those comments, the American public would have hardly noticed our problems with not being able to publicly support the effort in Iraq without the U.N. Our direct involvement on the terrorism front and "In-direct help" in Iraq would have been more than enough.
I think an opportunity to condemn Saddam for potential use of Chemical weapons in public was an error; our government should have done this, if for no reason other then to put extra pressure on lower Ranks in Iraq not to use them, fortunately enough pressure was brought to bare and it wasn’t a factor.
I don't think Carolyn Parrish can even comprehend why her self centered comments were so destructive. I have received a paper that is in circulation on this topic and it is very insightful, but I am not sure if I should post it at this time. It is incredibly harsh on her and after viewing the document I think rightfully so.
Also the fact that the CBC even ran the story in a time of nearing war is repulsive. I hear comments like this reverberate, “Why do our tax dollars go to the CBC? When the CBC doesn’t put the interests of Canada ‘before’ the interest of a dim-witted head line grabbing comment?”
I have to agree, as I have to question the value of tax dollars going to support supposedly Canadian National news cast that undermines our country with gossip drivel. (But I digress)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-15 11:15:16
I agree with you 100%.
Now that the Quebec election is over, Chretien can remove the shakles of separatism and return to the project of building a safer world.
This means that he should forget about idea that the UN decides what Canada does and does not do.
Let's get busy re-building Iraq. The potential for a better world is TOO great to let this slide into left-right debates here in our priveledged country.
Also, I think the CBC should be the next target - regime change at the CBC!
Afterall, they make no effort to represent the tax payers that keep the CBC ship afloat.
Choosing Eric Margolis as our "military expert" on the CBC was such a politcal decision that the whole credibility of the CBC is wiped out. Canadian? Yes. But trusted and connected? FAR FROM IT.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-16 01:34:13
We cannot get busy re-building Iraq. The USA is keeping tight control on that and so far has not even enlisted any of its coalition partners to participate. I hope they are planning on spending USA money
What is your problem with the CBC. I saw no bias on that station. The National Post only printed stories supporting the war. The CNN was a propaganda machine. They were showing Iraqi prisoners held by the USA. When the USA was upset over Iraq displaying the American POW ; it suddenly quit its minute by minute televising of the action and talked like they were so restrained and saintly.
Any one who doesn't agree with your position is uninformed and biased.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-16 14:01:24
I agree, the CBC was quite objective, forget CNN (too patriotic - they mostly tell one side of the story), and the National Post (completely radical, i never thought a canadian newspaper could have such acidic editorials)...
But don't forget that Al-Jazeera is the arabic equivalent of the CNN, so they also had a strong bias - opposite of CNN.
Anyways, I thank you for putting the facts straight fatmomma.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 00:19:33
So you are saying that CBC News should have run the Bastard comments in times of war?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 02:27:05
Why not? The goal of news is to report the facts whatever they are. I'm totally against censorship.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 16:30:26
I'm against censorship, but does a liberal party member (Carolyn) have a right to a private opinion without it been placed on the Canadian National news?
Particularly when a war is imminent, is the Bastard comment relevant? Is there no consideration at the CBC on how these types of comments would be used in Baghdad propaganda, a place where allied troops were working to convince Iraqis to trust them?
It is another burden to deal with during negotiations when your “friends” are calling you Morons and Bastards…. No?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-18 08:33:54
"I'm against censorship, but does a liberal party member (Carolyn) have a right to a private opinion without it been placed on the Canadian National news? "
But thats not the problem of the CBC, thats the problem of the MP which was overheard, no? She should have kept the comment to herself, or at least to the caucus(is this the right word in English?), but since she said it publicly, then it should be reported as such... News should give the facts, even though these facts might be quite bad!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-17 12:00:34
Actually, CNN has kept shocking secrets of the madness of Saddam's regime to ensure they have access to Bagdhad.
Also, CNN is Ted Turner's baby and to say that it is a propaganda machine for Bush is not accurate: they are democrats!
The National Post was biased, but it never pretended to be otherwise.
CBC pretends to be a media source for all Canadians. But it only represents the left-wing perspective.
(Look at Counterspin, Sunday Morning, the National, etc..)
Anyone who disagrees with me is biased. Anyone who agrees with me is biased. That's the definition of biased! :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 13:03:38
"Also, CNN is Ted Turner's baby "
Yes, but he no longer is president of CNN, so its quite possible that now CNN his republican (I'm not saying it is, i'm just saying its possible)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-21 09:46:37
He's still the biggest or in the top 3 shareholders...
Connie Chung and Larry King are hardly Republicans.
But I get your point.. :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-18 00:15:50
I want a newspaper or news broadcast to give me the facts only. Editorial and opinion should be kept separate. I was
disgusted with the Vancouver Province; it gave a headline account of all the bodies that were found in the "torture rooms" in Iraq. This story appeared a day after it was confirmed that the 15 year old corpses were repatriated bodies returned by Iran. I never saw any correction for the story; if there was one it was tiny and unnoticeable. This type of newsreporting leaves many people still believing this nonsense as the truth.
I expect that kind of reporting from tabloids not my daily newspaper.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-18 12:17:16
Only biased, when they only present one side or only give lip service to other point of view.
I want my news to be the news not editorial or opinion. That can be aired but on a separate program. Just the facts please. If there is a need for opinion both sides should be allowed to present their views.
I am finding too much opinion being presented as facts.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-21 10:08:06
The issue is also what facts and in what priority.
Some facts don't get aired because they don't support that particular media outlets point of view - or some get buried.
I think we'll never get around the problem of blurring fact and opinion.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-21 20:34:22
you are right on here. That is probably why we all have a different outlook on things, I have learnt to look for 3 sources before I repeat anthing. Stories change so often; others get dropped without comment when they are proven incorrect. I am sure there are lots of things happening that no one talks about. I am sure we all wish for peace so we can get on with our own life and let the politicians worry about the day to day running of government.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-22 09:33:42
Look at us: complete agreement!
We all want peace and to get on with our lives. We want to know everyone on the planet can do the same.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-15 23:53:47
You are very wrong cfallon. The motives attributed to Bush and gang has lots of merit. There is lots of evidence suggesting this invasion was planned well ahead of 9/11. There was fraudulent evidence given to the UN by Bush and Blair; they probably didn't do the forgery but I can't believe they weren't aware that they were forgeries. The campaigned for this invasion of Iraq to remove Iraq"s WMD
while Iraq was cooperating and destroying weapons. No WMD have surfaced; Iraq equipment all old and poor condition. Now suddenly it has become a campaign to "Liberate the Iraqi citizens". I did serious reflection and research. I began by believing Bush unwise but came away with a much worse understanding of his actions. What you see and believe; I cannot but wish I could.
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
