commanderkai commanderkai:
I agree they are in dire need of help, but there are huge issues with just tossing money at them. Corruption being the highest amongst those issues. Also, I just made extremely short summaries of why I was against the NDP, without treating Jack Layton as the new Anti-Christ or adding codewords that can mean anything I can want them to mean. The NDP website has a bit more for their platform, but I see First Nations issues as something chock full of corruption.
Yes, it's a bit of a minefield but someone needs to tackle these issues once and for all or they'll just keep getting worse and cost more in the long run.
commanderkai commanderkai:
Researching effects of environmental or climate change is needed, and can certainly affect Canada beyond the Arctic, I agree. However, the approach of throwing treaties on the issue won't really change anything. Even without CO2 caused Climate Change, environmental efforts (recycling, conservation, proper forestry and wildlife management) all have beneficial uses for Canada's economy. Making our industries cleaner and more efficient is something we should strive for, but coming up with treaties that will have the largest polluters not sign on, mixed in with developing countries having their growth hampered is not a good thing.
That research has been ongoing for years and the findings are what being released now, there's more research being done all the time and it's all pointing in one direction currently. I agree that it's only one fact and all those things you list are also good. They are having an impact and doing as good a job as possible at doing what they can. We are already one of the leaders in areas like conservation and forestry/wildlife management. What we are not doing enough of is protecting our fresh water and making sure offenders in heavy industry are brought to task. Energy and minerals companies really seem to get far too much leeway.
I've never been one for big treaties the vast majority will pay lip service to either but like I said, there's money to be made on the environmental technology side of things too. If you can make it the cost effective choice then developing nations will sign on and you build your environmental response from the ground up from where people will notice it. Creative solutions are what will help mitigate the problem, not denial and obstructionism.
commanderkai commanderkai:
True, but I don't feel, be it as peacekeepers, or as members of a civilized society, that we should leave innocent people to be destroyed by wolves (the Taliban), as much as it might be a pipe dream, we need to get the Afghanis as stable and as protected as we can before pulling out. It won't be easy, no doubt, but bringing peace is never easy.
This is why I much prefer the new training role for police and army. This makes sense if you're trying to stabilize a society while not appearing to be occupiers. Make them self sufficient and they will be better equipped to solve their own problems. I'm still not convinced that the country is at all ready to accept lasting change but the best you can do is give the people the ability to make it work, that isn't going to happen if you're always doing it for them. I actually think the Taliban are the least of your problems in Afghanistan, the warlords are a much larger diagonalizing influence if you can't absorb them into government in some way that they become a part of the solution as opposed to a part of the problem.