Policy cost Canada UN seat: former ambassador

[Avro]

Re: Consequences

Nope. That's definitely shameful. It's also shameful that the U.S. is another permanent member of the board.

Canada not getting in for very legitimate reasons, however, is not shameful.

Still trying to figure out the legitimacy of this decision.

I understand the politics of it.

UAE wants landing slots at Canadian airports, so they don't like us. In the end, though, does it matter if we're on the Security Council?

Other than the bragging rights, does it accomplish anything?

No probally not.

 

[Praxius]

UAE wants landing slots at Canadian airports......

Pretty much, but in more detail, they didn't get to bring over more of their planes because apparently Air Canada wouldn't be able to compete with them and their lower costs with more direct flights..... so once again, the government babied Air Canada and threw them yet another lifeline by screwing over the UAE.

And what did this accomplish besides not getting a security council seat?

Well for starters, Air Canada still has no incentive to be competitive, their prices will still remain high, their service mediocre, and many Canadians will be stuck with them with no decent/viable alternatives to choose from.

Seriously, why don't they just let Air Canada tank like they did all the other flight service providers that tanked over recent years?

Allow more companies and businesses to come into the country and let some competition begin so that the consumers can possibly get a friggin deal and better service..... rather then putting up with the continued monopoly mentality Air Canada has, in that you should be privileged to pay them so much money for so little.

Even if foreign companies came in and some Canadian companies went tits up, those companies are still going to need to hire Canadian employees, use Canadian services and resources, etc.... thus the argument of job loses would be next to nill..... in fact, in the long run, chances are there could end up being more jobs, rather then continually applying patches to Air Canada to maintain the limited amount of jobs they offer.

But we know that's not what Harper or the Conservatives want in the first place.

Besides, we all know quite well that.....

.......STEPHEN HARPER DOESN'T LIKE ARAB PEOPLE!

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Re: Consequences

Far right?

Give me a break.

Even if....so what?

Now only lefties need apply?

Utter nonsense.

this is the guy loved to attend neocon rallies in the states and rag on Canada as being a socialist state and he's what, a centrist?

If he doesn't represent most Canadians then it's a problem especially when he ends up being the poster child for the climate change denial movement, something you seem educated on.


What exactly do you think our current government represents besides the same industrial interests that are in all likelyhood going to cause serious climate catastrophe.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Oh stop it!! The UN is a waste of the land it sits upon!

JMO

 

[Just the Facts]

But we know that's not what Harper or the Conservatives want in the first place.

They didn't screw over the UAE, the kept the UAE from screwing us over. That's what they're supposed to do. Nice to see our government working in our best interest for a change.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Oh stop it!! The UN is a waste of the land it sits upon!

JMO

The UN was a great idea at the end of WW II and it served us well through the Cold War that might have turned hot without it.

The UN makes it hard for anybody who might want to play tyrant on a global scale and that seems to anger certain people.

 

[Colpy]

The UN was a great idea at the end of WW II and it served us well through the Cold War that might have turned hot without it.

The UN makes it hard for anybody who might want to play tyrant on a global scale and that seems to anger certain people.

You're kidding, right?

The UN has acted as it was meant to act exactly twice in history......when it moved against the North Korean invasion of the South in 1950, and when it acted against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991.

Both times it was behaving as a pawn of the USA. In other words, the ONLY times the UN has acheived anything.........it was really the USA that was acting.

The UN can't stop mass murder in some dusty backwater such as the Sudan. The UN could not stop genocide in Rwanda.........the UN could not stop mass murder in its own safe area of Srebreniza........

Spare me the crap on how the UN prevents anyone acting as a world tyrant.........it is laughable.

 

[Tonington]

For the record Colpy, Cliffy said "makes it hard for anybody who might want to play tyrant", not "the UN prevents anyone acting as a world tyrant". That distinction is important...

I get a kick out of those who view the UN solely through the lens of wars. International cooperation is the overriding principle. Beyond security there is also international law, economic development, social progress, human rights, etc.

The UN lead a campaign which eradicated a smallpox disease which killed half a billion people in the 20th century alone. It is only this month that we have news now that we have nearly eradicated another disease, Rinderpest, or cattle plague, also initiated by an UN body, the Food and Agriculture Organization. The field trials are ending this month, and an announcement is expected for early 2011.

That is international cooperation that works.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

You're kidding, right?

The UN has acted as it was meant to act exactly twice in history......when it moved against the North Korean invasion of the South in 1950, and when it acted against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991.

Both times it was behaving as a pawn of the USA. In other words, the ONLY times the UN has acheived anything.........it was really the USA that was acting.

The UN can't stop mass murder in some dusty backwater such as the Sudan. The UN could not stop genocide in Rwanda.........the UN could not stop mass murder in its own safe area of Srebreniza........

Spare me the crap on how the UN prevents anyone acting as a world tyrant.........it is laughable.

It's been a place to play out tensions in words that otherwise might have ended up in bullets or missiles.

And considering how committed Stalin was to being the one calling all the shots in the world even after WW II and his sucessors to a lesser degree I think the UN did a really good job.

Trying to get all the nations of the world to agree on anything is like herding cats, they tend to go whatever way they feel like, giving more power to the UN means a bigger challenge for those potential cat herders out there.

 

[Tonington]

For the record Colpy, Cliffy said "makes it hard for anybody who might want to play tyrant", not "the UN prevents anyone acting as a world tyrant". That distinction is important...

Sorry Cobalt and Cliffy, I mixed you two up!

 

[petros]

Beyond security there is also international law, economic development, social progress, human rights, etc.

You're kidding right? You know that eugenics movement mentioned in the other thread? Well the UN is another one of those orgs heavily influenced by it.

Read some Alice Bailey sometime.

 

[Tonington]

You're kidding right?

No.

I'm not into Alex Jones conspiracy theories.

 

[petros]

Is it really?

You've spent some serious time scanning Library of Congress publicatons that refer to structure of the League of Nations and eventually UN?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Sorry Cobalt and Cliffy, I mixed you two up!

I thought that sounded familiar.:smile:

 

[Dixie Cup]

UN vs Human Rights? umm, isn't that an "oxi moron"

JMO