|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Les trois piliersThank 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. Ce forum est bilingue, et les participants peuvent rédiger leurs commentaires dans la langue de leur choix. |
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-24 23:52:25
This is not about softwood lumber. It is about invading a country that is disarming under the eyes of UN inspectors. The majority of countries in the UN believed this process should be given time to work. The USA belongs and helped form the USA and agreed to abide their decisions. Canada owes her loyalty to her citizens not to get involved in what could be seen as a war crime. I am sure most Canadians feel regrets for American soldiers but that does not mean we should send our soldiers to risk their lives in an unjust war. When America is the victim and not the aggressor; Canada will be there.
Répondre à ce message
|
Voir en contexte du sujet
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-25 12:46:02
Well, certainly American troops would be safer (if only slightly) if they had the cover of our snipers and JTF2.
The majority of countries in the UN are not countries, they are illegitimate and despotic regimes who do not represent their citizens but actually rob and rape their citizens.
We cannot have a legitimate UN until all countries have governments that represent their citizens. Until such time, what the UN santions and does not sanction is insignificant.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-25 13:56:26
" We cannot have a legitimate UN until all countries have governments that represent their citizens. Until such time, what the UN santions and does not sanction is insignificant."
___________________________________
I understand your sentiments but disagree with your last sentence. I don't think that UN sanctions are insignificant. Admittedly, they could be better. What hurts the UN more than anything is countries acting unilaterally. The US is notorious for this, although they aren't alone.
The UN will improve vastly when the US learns diplomacy. (Don't hold your breath waiting.) As long as the US prefers to use its military, all other options will take a back seat.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-26 22:09:27
The countries within the UN are countries; they may not all be democracies. It is extremely important to have as many countries as possible within the UN. If countries such as China (not a democracy) were not represented; the UN would be very ineffectiveand have no purpose. These countries right or wrong do represent their people. If the UN was composed of only legitimate democracies and excluded countries that have or cause problems it would be a just a coalition of countries to control undemocratic countries. With these countries within the UN, they can be worked with and encouraged to be more democratic and fair to their people.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-12 01:07:41
What about countries that 'pay lip service' to the UN and not their dues and do not adhere to, or choose to veto resolutions?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-12 15:25:28
Countries that do not pay their dues should not have a veto. The USA does not pay its dues but actively uses its veto and doesn't adhere to resolutions and by backing and funding Israel allows them to ignore resolutions.
If the UN isn't changed immediately to reflect this changing world and with some hope of enforcement; It may become a charity to rebuild after the USA destruction.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fritzpat
Date: 2003-04-12 14:25:13
Who install those despotic and illegal government?And about China, their governement have all my respect, they are changing from communism to capitalism with all the problems it occurs(criminalty) and this with over a billion people to manage.
Americans are not friends, they're only business contacts.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-13 14:57:42
I think, with me, you are about the only one who doesn't scream at China. China will go through changes, and it will take much time, it will become soemthing in between extreme socialism and democracy...
Even though the Human Rights of China is not perfect, it will change for the better in time...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-13 20:37:50
I have no big problem with China especially now. I hope it becomes more involved in world affairs. China may be our best hope to slow down American aggression. America sees itself as the only super power and is using that position to control world affairs. The Americans are even trying to destroy the effectiveness of the UN.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-14 05:20:47
China should progressely remove censorship (especially regarding religious groups)... so there are less violation of basic human rights.
China will become a superpower over time, maybe not the military superpower, but with 1 billion people, and the country going through market economy, nobody will resist them...
Currently, the US has a GNP of 10000 Million US$ while China as 6000 Million US$ ... Its only a matter of time before the US loses out.
I don't think China should become more active on the world stage, i like isolationists very much - i think it represents wisdom over imperialism. But with all US copanies wanting to get in China, i can tell you that China can ask the US for almost anything...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-15 11:32:08
I would like to know what Chinese Canadians would think of your respect for the communist regime.
My brother-in-law's father paddled an inner tube to Hong Kong to escape the regime and no one in that family would agree with your statements. But that's just anecdotal.
China's economy is the size of Canada's. I think China is a LONG way from catching the US. But, is catching the US a bad thing? Even for the US? I don't think so.
For now, any gains in the Chinese economy will not hurt the US, rather it will hurt Central and South America as these regions produce a similar range of products at higher labor costs. For example, labor in El Salvador is about twice that of labor in China - mainly because you can't hire 6 year olds in El Salvador.
Any shift to China in trade terms hurts people we don't want to hurt.
China is isolationist only because it wants to reserve the right to crush protestors with tanks.
There is nothing benign in China's isolationism.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 13:22:15
I never said China was perfect, but compared to others...
From the CIA world factbook 2002:
GDP (2002), estimated:
United States: 10082 Billion US$
China: 6000 Billion US$ (8% growth)
Japan: 3550 Billion US$ (-0.3% growth)
Canada: 923 Billion US$ (3.5% growth)
I simply don't know how you compare Canada's economy with China's...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-16 21:41:34
But codco, China's trade power will make it more active. It need not be military active. Economic concessions can be very powerful too and influence a lot of decisions. I would like it fine if everyone would reduce arms but America seems headed the other way now.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 13:23:09
I don't like if a power becomes too active on the world stage, but this is my personal opinion...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-17 22:08:42
normally, I would agree with you but we need someone with power to hold back the Americans from doing anything they please. Bush is busy ordering countries around way too much for my peace of mind.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-18 08:44:33
Yes, but China should not do the same as the US... I understand your point of counterbalance, but I'm sure the hawks in Washington are already worried about China's power.... So thats enough for me! :)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
|
