|
Participant: aseely
Date: 2003-02-20 02:55:56
I believe we are not living up to our international reputation as a country of peace, and a country whose foreign policy is based upon values and principles. There are two Canadian values that have been inadequately addressed by our national government, namely (1) a fundamental and vital commitment to peace, and (2) a belief that extreme inequality is both morally repugnant and counterproductive to the health of international society as a whole.
There is no doubt as to the merits of peace. Have we not yet learned? Canadians believe in peace. This was evident in the massive rallies in 76 cities and towns across our country on Feb 15’th. Canadians are immensely proud of our peacekeeping legacy. Can we not be more bold is supporting peace as a fundamental priniciple of international conduct? Canada might play a greater and more respected international role if we stood consistently for peace, in addition to providing resources to encourage and support peaceful resolutions. Why can we not pusue peace as aggressivle as others support war? Canada as aggressive peacekeeper - that is a tradition Canadians would embrace.
As for inequality, there is a growing, powerful literature indicating the harm induced by excessive inequality. In western countries, infant mortality is higher and life expectancy is lower in countries where there is greater inequality. Clearly, we are not all equal; but excessive inequality is not only spiritually impoverishing, but it actually harmful to our health. We know this in our hearts; our PrimeMinister even stated it in relation to Sep 11. Canadian society is built upon a belief that some sort of "social safety net" should be available to all, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because we all benefit from it being in place. I suggest this fundamentally Canadian concept needs to be firmly entrenched in our foreign policy agenda.
Regarding the “three pillars” of Canadian foreign policy, namely, “the protection of our security within a stable global framework; the promotion of prosperity and employment; and the promotion of the values and culture that Canadians cherish”, frankly, they strike me as somewhat devoid of substance. I believe that Canadians wish to participate in a greater fashion in contributing to world diplomacy, and in order to do so, greater leadership is required. Why not change the first pillar to the “protection of our security and promotion of world peace”, or simply “promotion of world peace” which implies guarding our security? The second pillar is too simple and positive; it is like wishing happiness for the world. It would be more accurately represented by “a commitment to reduce excessive and harmful inequality”. We must recognize that privilege is synonymous with responsibility; and we as the most privileged nation on earth must take responsibility for assisting those in need. We need to improve the prosperity and employment of those without, and in order to do so, we must reduce excessive, harmful world inequality. How harmful is defined will be difficult, but what is clear is that harmful inequality already exists. As for the third pillar, it might be more simply as “the promotion of Canadian values and culture”. I believe the “three pillars” represent an outstanding legacy, but they need to be updated.
True leadership is not just representing what people already believe, it is about presenting concepts that may not have been consciously realized, but nonetheless resonate with and unite a nation. we are squandering our international reputation as a country of peace and principle. We must speak louder and with a clearer, consistent voice, firmly rooted in a commitment to peace, and a commitment to a reduction in harmful world inequality. In this era of a communications revolution, the "soft power" of principles and truth may be a greater force than missiles and tanks. As Canadians, we must face the responsibility that comes with our privilege, and lead the world forward.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: simms
Date: 2003-03-04 13:21:51
I would argue that the second and third "pillars" are incongruous with statements such as "closer to home, the strengthening attachment to democracy in Latin America and the progress achieved toward a Free Trade Area of the Americas create the potential for Canada to become more closely linked with the hemisphere."
The proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) project has enormous potential to exacerbate precisely those inequalities which must now be curbed.
Since the inception of NAFTA, for example, thousands of jobs were lost as a result of the multinational companies' "race to the bottom" in search of the lowest wages available. This has only served to increase the gap between rich and poor (in all three countries involved) by lowering salaries and weakening labour and trade unions.
Furthermore, it is immensely deceitful to speak of promoting "the values and culture that Canadians cherish" while negotiating the terms of the FTAA (and other major agreements) behind closed doors and wholly without public input.
I believe that the government of Canada must therefore be wary of allowing corporate interests to side-track its population's obvious concern for democracy and social justice.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-12 01:16:17
If I were puting together a 'political hockey team' I would certainly have you on 'left-wing', simms. Economics and political expediency are two different animals, to be sure. When one tries to introduce values from one to another, one usually gets called names.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but only Religion, Money or Politics do the slinging".
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cougyr
Date: 2003-04-12 12:36:44
Sorry, Fleabag, I agree with Simms. These big trade deals have huge problems. NAFTA is a flawed document. What is hard for Canadians to grasp is that NAFTA has not been any better for US or Mexican workers than it has for Canadian workers. The problem is that NAFTA is only concerned with the welfare of trans national corporations. The really important stuff has been left out.
We need international trade deals that include protections for workers, the environment, resources, health standards, culture, the right of governments to pass local laws to protect their citizens, etc.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-12 21:30:35
I also agree with simms, as I am also a 'leftist'. There was and is nothing wrong with NAFTA as far as the US is concerned. One sided, in their favour, as usual. With regard to your last paragraph, I can only say that as much as I agree with these ideals, they are totally opposite the concerns of capitalism. Each one undermines profit, and therefore is evil according to Mammon.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-13 14:23:13
I am not a leftist, I consider myself center-right, and i think free trade agreements are good, as they help the world by removing tariffs. The main problem is that what is on paper never turns up to be the reality. And the litigation process is simply too long, costly and complex...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Jibongo
Date: 2003-04-18 21:23:45
I hope that our decision-makers will always aim for the highest moral ground, without arrogance. Let's make sure that our plans always aim toward what is best for the whole world's common good, realizing that we can't tell others what is good for them. Let's ask them. And where we seem to be in conflict, let's invite dialogue & share are unique viewpoints in an effort to find the common ground in our various experiences. Have we tried to invite those we suspect of terrorism to share with us their vision for a peaceful planet where responsible self-determination is encourage for everyone? Where resources are share equitably?
The greater the inequality, the greater the danger of turbulence (like the storms that occur between extreme high & low pressure areas)!
One way we could tell our earthmates that we care about them would be to revise our National Anthem. May I suggest: "O Canada! Our home, our hope, our land. World patriots all, for truth & peace we stand! With glowing hearts, we strive to be responsible & free! From far & wide, O Canada, our hearts yearn for a world at peace!"?
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-19 01:26:43
PLEASE no more changes to our national anthem America seems to be the biggest terrorist we have to worry about at his time.
I do wish the best for all the world; I do not appreciate the American aggression but I am not ready to be the leader for world charity or such. Lets get Canada in order with better medical care and more reasonable tax bills; Canadians first; then we can help the rest of the world. My husband is a senior; I will soon be. We saved for our senior years; now we are getting hit for everything. Those who didn't save, who lived the good life and spent their money; get help from our government; while we are getting hit from every direction. I don't wish to pay for rebuilding Iraq; There was no need for this invasion; the Americans did the damage; let them pay the costs.
I am getting disgusted with Canadian taxpayers paying for the stupidity and recklessness of other nations. Natural disasters we can lend a hand but this kind of sheer stupidity and rash aggression: let the aggressors pay.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-19 06:08:18
"anthem America seems to be the biggest terrorist we have to worry about at his time. "
Hun? You are saying the Americans are terrorists now? I completely disagree with you, for my definition of a terrorist please read the discussion i had with Azizou in french... They are imperialists maybe, but not terrorists!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-19 22:21:47
They are terrorizing the world with their threats and actions. They are using landmines and clusterbombs.
They are invading a country without legal grounds using corrupt evidence.
They are defying Geneva conventions by holding Afghanistan prisoners; purported to be using illegal interrogation methods and are not allowing these prisoner to have family or legal contact.
In Vietnam they used agent orange
in both invasions of Iraq they have been accused of using napalm bombs which are banned.
The USA funds and backs Israel that has an extremely bad human rights record and constantly defies UN resolutions.
Your definition may be different than mine but if their actions terrify many nations without just cause; to me they are terrorists.
My high school French; 40 years ago very rusty and not too trustworthy. In BC little chance to use and retain it.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-21 10:19:27
I agree with you, many nations are terrified without just cause.
I think its just short of nuts to call the US terrorists.
But, as they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist!
I guess it shows that the word terrorism has a wax nose (to steal a line from Luther!)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 12:31:16
Ok, well i'll transalate my definition of a terrorist (i know a lot of people will disagree with me...):
Definition:
Someone or an entity which is NOT resisting invasion and which attacks civilian targets to inspire terror.
So in this category we have:
- Hamas / Islamic Jihad when it attacks Israel (it is not terrorism if Hamas resists military invasion in palestinian territory).
- The Basks(spelling?) separatists (ETA) when they attack anyone - even police (The Bask province is part of Spain since a very long time ago - so its not resistance).
- Al-Qaeda attacking anyone - even soldiers since they're not resiting any invasion, they only wish to kill people.
...
So in this category we don't have:
- The Iraqis who blew themselves up in Iraq, they were resisting invasion.
- Hezbollah (when they were resisting the invasion of Lebanon - how they are rated today is another story)
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-21 19:24:47
..."- The Iraqis who blew themselves up in Iraq, they were resisting invasion."...
I think there is one point here you may not have noticed.
Saddam couldn't get many Iraqi's to become Suicide bombers so he imported them from Islamic Jihad and Syria. Take a moment and look up Iraqi suicide bombers and you will see this trend. There was an article in the Washington post about this but I don't have a link available.
I think one of the most telling quotes came from an Iraqi citizen who said," Where were all these suicide bombers when we struggled against Saddam?"
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-22 06:53:12
Yes, they may be a terrorist organisation, but i don't consider their actions on Iraqi soil terrorist actions, they were clearly trying to 'help' the government defending their territory...
Regarding the validity of that government, thats another story...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-24 22:51:31
Not that it really matters but they came on their own; Saddam didn't import them. Seemingly the type of religion of most Iraqis does not condone suicide, for any cause.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-22 15:40:16
I would add the IRA who seem delighted to blow up children on their way to school.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-23 02:55:18
My list was incomplete, and i agree with you... I think the IRA and the ETA are on the same level...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-23 22:19:50
The USA is not resisting invasion; what do you think shock and awe was.
Custer bombs were dropped in a civillian site.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-24 10:13:18
By accident I'm sure. Cluster bombs should be illegal, but that does not make you a terrorist... Unless you specifically target civilians with cluster bombs. I do not believe the US would do that.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-24 23:45:19
No, it was deliberate; they were targetting one of Saddams group's house and decided it was acceptable collateral damage. At least that was what was printed; can't remember the source at the moment so it is possible it is misinformation but????
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-25 10:06:35
Did they want to kill civilians? - The answer is no. There may be civilians which will die, but that is war...
When a member of Hamas goes into Israel and blows himself up, he deliberately targets civilians...
I don't think you can even compare the two...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-26 00:35:34
But they knew they would; to me that's just as bad as they were only targetting one man; this particular attack was not important enough to justify the risk. It didn't lessen any dangers or shorten the war. Especially when they used cluster bombs which can leave explosive devices undetected for years to kill innocent children, civilians or animals. They could have used safer weapons. So it is still reckless endangermentat best. Cluster bombs besides leaving residual bombettes spread further and are inaccurate. For me, it is worse; because I expect our friends and neighbours from a well civillized and democratic country to use more compassion and control
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-26 16:39:53
"...this particular attack was not important enough to justify the risk..."
I don't know, what particular attack are we talking aboout anyways? What was the target? In all cases, it maybe immoral and criminal to use cluster bombs (in my view, a bit like using land mines), but its not a terrorist act!
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-26 21:34:41
It was a home of one of Saddams ministers, I believe. Call it what you like; yes, It has been suggested that it fits into the war crime field. It does fit your definition of terrorism as far as I can discern. If the questionable attacks on 3 separate journalist housings within a short period was deliberate; would you then define it as terrorism or would that be allowed because they are journalists?
If there is any difference between the two attacks it is a fine line with the same results of killing and maiming innocent children women, and civilians
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-27 02:45:13
I looked up terrorism and terrorists on MSN Learning and Research. By their definition: America is not a terrorist but they do practice terrorism?
Terrorist: the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change; non governmental group.
Terrorism: word used in France to describe new system of government adapted during the French Revolution; The Regime de la Terreur. The reign og terror was intended to promote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its enemies and therebu purifying it. However, the oppression and violent excesses of the government made terorism the negative word it is today.
The present American Administration to me closely follows the path of the "Reign of Terror" with the same aims.
They only escape the terrorist label as they are a government.
I do want to reassert that my disapproval is not with the American public but with the aggressiveness and failure to consider international opinion of the present USA administration. I think it is a wake up call to Canada and the world to strengthen the UN; that USA as the only super power could have devastating effects. There is always a possibility of another more aggressive and dangerous administration of the USA that could
further aggravate International relations and peaceful solutions
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-27 16:59:37
I did not know terrorism comes from Le Regime de la Terreur! Thanks for the information, well for me, by telling me that you've convinced me of the opposite... Le Régime de la terreur was after the French Revolution - and if i recall my history correctly, if you did not think *exactly* like the the "patriots", you'd simple have your head cut off!!! So i stand by what i said, the US is not terrorist, they do restort to illegal acts, but i don`t consider that terrorism...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-27 03:30:33
It may fit into a war crime if it was illegal, but its not - i do consider it criminal, but since there is no law against it, i can't say anything. We're talking about cluster bombs here, right? Not journalists...
If the target is military, but there are also civilian deaths, its not a crime! Its called war! If the targets are civilian and there is no military objective its a war crime and can also be called a terrorist act. but even there, its not certain.
I guess then when the allied bombed German cities to demolarize the population, it was also a war crime? The goal was to avoid a long war so that the government would surrender. And using the atomic bomb in Japan was also a war crime? Avoided a lengthy war also. I'm not saying they are not war crimes, but i'm not saying they are either... It depends on the context, and you really to think hard before saying this is a terrorist act, and a war crime,etc...
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-27 16:33:15
This was not a "war"; no war was declared. It is an illegal invasion; but only Blair can be tried for war crime under the UN as Britain did sign on to the ICC. The USA may escape any possible charges as neither the USA or Iraq signed on to the ICC.
World War II did not have any UN; it was formed after to avoid a repetition. Previously, only the losers have ever faced any prosecution.
I don't believe Germany or Japan is relevant as they were the aggressors and started the attacks; completely different story. I had hoped, we had learned from the devastation in Japan not to employ such measures; but I did read that American Military was prepared to use nuclear bombs in raq if Saddam used Chemical weapons. I am also disturbed to read that American ammunition contains plutonium that may be the cause of the illness in American military from the previous war on Iraq.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-30 08:31:09
..."World War II did not have any UN;"...
Hi there, I would ask that you look into the Leage of Nations.
http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/836.html
Répondre à ce message
|
|
|
Participant: codc01
Date: 2003-04-21 12:31:55
Ok, well i'll transalate my definition of a terrorist (i know a lot of people will disagree with me...):
Definition:
Someone or an entity which is NOT resisting invasion and which attacks civilian targets to inspire terror.
So in this category we have:
- Hamas / Islamic Jihad when it attacks Israel (it is not terrorism if Hamas resists military invasion in palestinian territory).
- The Basks(spelling?) separatists (ETA) when they attack anyone - even police (The Bask province is part of Spain since a very long time ago - so its not resistance).
- Al-Qaeda attacking anyone - even soldiers since they're not resiting any invasion, they only wish to kill people.
...
So in this category we don't have:
- The Iraqis who blew themselves up in Iraq, they were resisting invasion.
- Hezbollah (when they were resisting the invasion of Lebanon - how they are rated today is another story)
The US is NOT in the terrorist category according to my definition.
Répondre à ce message
|
|
