|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
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: pineson
Date: 2003-02-17 19:20:17
While there are roles for all nations to play in the global arena, Canada has no "right" to participate at the highest levels.
It is time for our nation to refocus on what are our realities and redefine our priorities. Until such time as we can "walk the walk" we should not "talk the talk".
At this moment in the history of the world it would be better for our government to be silent and thought fools than for there to be statements made that prove we are but fools.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 07:51:59
Canada does have a right and a duty to participate at all levels.
We should be proud to act as a model of a diverse, multicultural/ multi-religious country that can work and cooperate together for peace.
Canada should speak up more and promote our model of a nation that can allow all religions and cultures that can live together in peace and respect.
At this time; I am very proud to be Canadian. I hope we will always keep our integrity and independence.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-03 11:44:08
Fatmomma, I agree 100% that Canada's most significant contribution to world peace is to put to rest the argument, that France, Russia and China like to promote:
Certain cultures just can't handle democracy.
I find it a disgusting thought and we have to prove that every individual of every way of life thrives under democracy.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-03 22:42:57
I think any culture can handle democracy; but I also believe you cannot thrust instant democracy on a country and expect it to work. It takes time for them to accept and understand the democratic way. Unless it is introduced gradually; it tends to become democracy in name only. They need to learn much about running a country or poor decisions will cause severe economic problems; which will be blamed on democracy. Zimbabwe is an example of a democracy in name only.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-04 11:45:43
I agree 100% with your Zimbabwe comments. It used to be a democracy but is not any more. Interestingly, the empoverishment of that country (where famine is now a catastrophic reality) is almost directly related to Mugabe's rule.
Much like in Iraq, where the per capita GDP has shrunk by 75% since Saddam took over.
Does democracy take time to set firm roots? Yes.
Does the US have to support democracy over that time without having a presence in the country? Yes.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-04 22:51:15
Iraq's per capita GDP has shrunk by 75% since Saddam took over. News Flash: Iraq was under sanctions; that is why it has a very low per capita GDP. The USA should get out of Iraq and allow an biased UN to nurture the post war Iraq. Even if the Americans had great intentions; Iraqis are very unlikely to trust or embrace any rule directed by their invaders. Those thumbs up they were giving do not mean the same as it does here.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-05 05:11:19
My personal opinion is i think the Iraqi people are waiting to see what the coalition will do before deciding ... I know that some Iraqi are quite resentful of this invasion, while others are happy... How everything is handled post-war will determine how most of the population will feel.
One thing i am surprised at, even though i only have hints of its, is how the state department and the Pentagon are fighting over the interim government... In my mind this 'infighting' should have been done before the start of the war, not now! I just hope the State Department will win this boxing match... For world stability's sake...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fritzpat
Date: 2003-04-12 14:57:11
This show the need for UN to handle very fast this part of the problem. The fact that US didn't wait for UN approval for their incursion should drive the UN to charge the USA for the costs of all their support.
I think that some government must get a "fine" to assume his irresponsability.
And of course another one should get before the International Tribunal for misgoverning and crime against his population.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:48:46
Its unrealistic to expect the UN to handle anything very fast!
If the UN can charge the US, I hope that a free Iraq charges the UN with doing nothing to help them.
I hope that when Congalese are freed, they get to charge the UN with doing nothing to help them.
I hope the Rwandans and Kosovars get to charge the UN with doing nothing to help them.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-15 09:13:16
You should be realistic, Cfallon. The UN does not nor cannot guarantee freedom and justice to all. It has not been given the power to act independently on its own. It requires the support and goodwill of the member countries. When these member countries are unwilling to act for the good of the world and will only act for the good of only their homeland; international fair justice is very limited. Until the world is prepared to transfer real power to the UN to have complete control and enforced funding it can only act with the goodwill of the countries contained within its structure.
Much like individual provinces or states; if we were allowed to withhold federal taxes or refuse to respect federal decisions ; our own countries would be ham strung and unable to act for the greater good of the country as a whole. The UN needs real power to act and collect funding before it can be held responsible or lacking in substance.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-15 11:34:56
The big difference between provinces and states in relation to a federal government compared against nations and the UN:
Federal and provincial governments are ELECTED. Oh, and quite critically, ELECTED BY THE SAME PEOPLE.
The UN is not elected and most of the countries that make up the UN do not represent their citizens - they represent regimes that live off the citizens.
So, my UN cannot consist of a bunch of dictators who I legitimize by meeting with them and acting according to their dictates.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-17 22:30:32
Because a country is not a democracy does not mean it does not represent its citizens. Lots of elected representatives do not represent their citizens wishes either. A democracy does not make its representitives necessarily better than some non democracies. Even in Canada and the USA many of these citizens who vote do not do so wisely or by being well informed. ( I believe, you criticized Chretien for listening to the voice of the people)
The only country that I hear dictating to other countries is America and Israel. Israel is a democracy but it has an extremely large file on its human rights violations.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: albertanfirst
Date: 2003-04-26 17:40:50
fatmomma,
if being well informed means watching cbc newsworld and reading noam chomsky, then you must be the most informed person in the country.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-27 02:26:44
My information does not come from watching any tv. Much of it comes form high ranking Americans. Such as "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" former USA intelligence agents; Ramsey Clark former Attorney General of the USA plus many others. I do not need others to form my opinions. I can see for myself the attitude and reaction of world leaders. I fully use the internet to check everything from several different sources before I draw my conclusions. Perhaps you should consider turning off CNN.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-05 13:49:53
News flash, it was people on the sidelines who were saying, “Give sanctions a chance”; (sound familar?)
It is these same hypocrites who now condemn sanctions that they in-part politically motivated.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-06 03:19:29
No barrett; not here. It was give the weapons inspectors more time. Myself, I am not so sure sanctions work that well. Sanctions should never include the necessities of life. Food or medical especially.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
|
