Yes, completely immoral and childish. You know there are people up there right? Canadian citizens who live and pay taxes and obey federal laws, and as such as to receive the full protection of the government they pay into.
Protection from what exactly. Has anyone declared war yet? All I'm saying is before we spend more on the military while people are still starving in ourt world, let's define our borders through internaitonal law first. Once that is done, then if anyone violate those laws, I'm all for war. But let's try diplomacy first, shall we. as for Canadian citizens living up north, let's bring that issue up during negotiations too. I'm sure other nations will be reasonable and understand that if there are Canadians living there, they have certain rights too. What are we all getting so paranoid about because of a bit of melting snow.
It is absolutely childish to hold the opinion that "If they aren't from my neighbourhood they don't matter, let the UN, a forum for nations to debate with no power of law, including genocidal members such as Sudan and ruled by nations such as China, dictate the lifeblood of our citizens"
Again, following the same logic, we could just start colonizing any diputed land we want by sending people there, right. But how responsible is that if we haven't even the guts to take the issue up with the disputing nations and settle the matter once and for all. Why drag this for the next 100 years with risk of war when we could sttle this within one year through negotiation and a permanent treaty. While consulting the people up north too to see where they want to be.
I mean, can you even begin to see the problem with letting the UN decide.
Lets say American and Canada let the UN decide. If it goes in favour of the USA, they win. If it goes in our favour, America is within its right as a security council member to state this goes against its national security intrests and veto it.
That is an outright insult ot the US. And I thought I was anti-American! Under president Bush, anythig goes, true. I understand your point there. But even Americans agree he's a loony. I'm sure the next president would be bright enough to see that the US would create many enemies worldwide if it should ever abuse its security council veto that way. After all, Canada would have approached the UN in good faith. For the US to do this would certainly make other nations very nervous of its veto at the UN and could really isolate it. Bush aside, any half-witted US president could see that and so wouldn't even try it.
Net result? Either they win, or it doesn't count. Great solution, way to sell your countrymen down the river. But hey, not your problem if a bunch of citizens get sold down the river if it saves on your tax dollars.
Cheap shot. I'm earning not evenclose to a third of my previous salary due to a choice of empoyment that allows me to be of greater service to others. So trust me, I'm not in it for the money. Far less than many are. But thanks for the insult. So if you don't trust the UN, then is it not hypocritical of us to be members thereof? If Canada truly had character, it would make a clear decision: either the UN is worthy of our trust, and so we remain a faithful member all the way, or it isn't, and so we withdraw our membership. Either decision would be honourable. But to remain members for the prestige without any real intent of making it work is just callous on our part.
Protection from what exactly. Has anyone declared war yet? All I'm saying is before we spend more on the military while people are still starving in ourt world, let's define our borders through internaitonal law first. Once that is done, then if anyone violate those laws, I'm all for war. But let's try diplomacy first, shall we. as for Canadian citizens living up north, let's bring that issue up during negotiations too. I'm sure other nations will be reasonable and understand that if there are Canadians living there, they have certain rights too. What are we all getting so paranoid about because of a bit of melting snow.
It is absolutely childish to hold the opinion that "If they aren't from my neighbourhood they don't matter, let the UN, a forum for nations to debate with no power of law, including genocidal members such as Sudan and ruled by nations such as China, dictate the lifeblood of our citizens"
Again, following the same logic, we could just start colonizing any diputed land we want by sending people there, right. But how responsible is that if we haven't even the guts to take the issue up with the disputing nations and settle the matter once and for all. Why drag this for the next 100 years with risk of war when we could sttle this within one year through negotiation and a permanent treaty. While consulting the people up north too to see where they want to be.
I mean, can you even begin to see the problem with letting the UN decide.
Lets say American and Canada let the UN decide. If it goes in favour of the USA, they win. If it goes in our favour, America is within its right as a security council member to state this goes against its national security intrests and veto it.
That is an outright insult ot the US. And I thought I was anti-American! Under president Bush, anythig goes, true. I understand your point there. But even Americans agree he's a loony. I'm sure the next president would be bright enough to see that the US would create many enemies worldwide if it should ever abuse its security council veto that way. After all, Canada would have approached the UN in good faith. For the US to do this would certainly make other nations very nervous of its veto at the UN and could really isolate it. Bush aside, any half-witted US president could see that and so wouldn't even try it.
Net result? Either they win, or it doesn't count. Great solution, way to sell your countrymen down the river. But hey, not your problem if a bunch of citizens get sold down the river if it saves on your tax dollars.
Cheap shot. I'm earning not evenclose to a third of my previous salary due to a choice of empoyment that allows me to be of greater service to others. So trust me, I'm not in it for the money. Far less than many are. But thanks for the insult. So if you don't trust the UN, then is it not hypocritical of us to be members thereof? If Canada truly had character, it would make a clear decision: either the UN is worthy of our trust, and so we remain a faithful member all the way, or it isn't, and so we withdraw our membership. Either decision would be honourable. But to remain members for the prestige without any real intent of making it work is just callous on our part.
