NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, why is that? I can see how it made sense a while ago, (back when Canada had a relatively larger economy comaperd to the rest of the world), but times have changed.

In reality, Canada is no longer one of the eigth largest economies. It has no millitary to speak of and spends an even smaller percentage of its GDP on foreign aid than the US. Also, it's entire foreign policy seems to be: "US is teh suxors."

So surely, the time has come to remove canada, and replace it with a nation that has much greater influence in world affairs, and that has a much more wide ranging and diverse foreign policy. If the purpose of the G8 is to bring the leading nations of the world together to promote prosperity, trade and peace, obviously this would be better achieved by giving Canada's seat to a more influential and engaged nation like China.

Hell, even australia would make more sense becuase at least it would increase geographic diversity. (And australia is more involved in world affairs).

I think the time has come for a reshuffle.

That does make sense. China has enough power and population that they need a say in international affairs. Or, so we do not piss off the Canadians, we could make it the G9.

Isn't the G8 (which I believe has 9 members) mostly about intern economics?

Perhaps it's because Canada is the only member of the G8 with a trade and budget surplus and keeping us around sets a good example for the rest of the G8 who all have deficits in at least one of those areas.

Perhaps it's because Canada is the only member of the G8 with a trade and budget surplus and keeping us around sets a good example for the rest of the G8 who all have deficits in at least one of those areas.
*cough*Belgium and Luxembourg*cough*

*cough*Belgium and Luxembourg*cough*
good thing those are G-8 countries. oh wait.

Canada is in the G8 because the rest of the members love Mickey Mouse and Goofy.
EDIT:mixed up Canada and Disney again. :(

Perhaps it's because Canada is the only member of the G8 with a trade and budget surplus and keeping us around sets a good example for the rest of the G8 who all have deficits in at least one of those areas.


RONG, try again, Canada has a slight budget deficit, and a slight trade surplus.

In any case, running large surplusses is just as bad as running large deficits. I am not going to explain why though, because you wouldn't believe it.

Can I make a case then for Brazil. We have a trade and budget surplus, we are one of the largest economies in the world, and we are non threatening to anyone who is not Argentinian.

*cough*Belgium and Luxembourg*cough*

Actually, either belgium or the netherlands would make a better choice because at least it would be a voice for countries with good economies, but not much population.

Canada is silly, it has no signifigant power, no coherent foriegn policy. Nor can it be justified on the basis of bringing a balance of perspective. The only group it represents is countries to the north of the US, which is hardly that important in world affairs.

Australia doesn't have a large enough economy to justify inclusion. We're only noticed as being involved in world affairs because our government so closely shadows the USA. I don't know that it's more so than Canada.

Can I make a case then for Brazil. We have a trade and budget surplus, we are one of the largest economies in the world, and we are non threatening to anyone who is not Argentinian.


Again, much better choice, it would be a south american voice. And it is dealing with devolping nation style problems. It has much more to bring to the table than canada as a choice of candidate.

RONG, try again, Canada has a slight budget deficit, and a slight trade surplus.

In any case, running large surplusses is just as bad as running large deficits. I am not going to explain why though, because you wouldn't believe it.

No, you are wrong Canada has just posted consecutive surpluses.

I'll find a link in a second.

RONG, try again, Canada has a slight budget deficit, and a slight trade surplus.

In any case, running large surplusses is just as bad as running large deficits. I am not going to explain why though, because you wouldn't believe it.

Dude -- we've had a budget surplus for the last seven years. Last year it was 9.1 billion dollars (Canadian).

Where are you getting your info?

This will do (http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2004/10/13/surplus_041013.html)

Australia doesn't have a large enough economy to justify inclusion. We're only noticed as being involved in world affairs because our government so closely shadows the USA. I don't know that it's more so than Canada.


Well on a per capita basis, Australia = Canada, it's just short of people.

But the reason I included australia is because of its long running foreign commitments to the south east asian area. Australia is far more engaged internationally than canada, and much of this is independant of the US. So it makes more sense to give australia a voice.

(Canada really does very little internationally).

good thing those are G-8 countries. oh wait.
Oop sorry, must have confused it with some else organisation.

Oop sorry, must have confused it with some else organisation.
No worries... Maybe they're one of the G-20 countries? I'm not entirely sure.

The G8 is:

Canada
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
European Union

But maybe you're right. Maybe the G8 should just be the top countries by GDP alone, and let's ignore everything else the G8 members bring to the table.

But that requirement, the G8 would now be:

United States
China
Japan
India
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Italy

Russia and Canada would get booted out. Russia is ecomony number 9 and Canada is number 12. Not exactly horrible economies.

Or maybe we should do GDP per capita, you know, output per person, so we don't discriminate against the smaller nations. In that case, the G8 would be:

Luxembourg
United States
Bermuda
San Marino
Norway
Switzerland
Cayman Islands
Iceland

That way we can have a whole new set of faces around the table (except the US, of course)

In this scenario, everyone is out except the US. But oh, hey wait -- Canada is number 10 on this list, beating out every other G8 nation on a per capita basis.

Give it a rest. The G8 isn't just a bragging contest about who's economy is bigger than someone else's. It's about working together to improve the global ecomony (or if you're anti-globalization, working together to take over the world, mwahahahaha).

http://www.australianpolitics.com/foreign/trade/03-01-07_largest-economies.shtml


Granted that is from 2003

On a per capita basis canada ranks high as well...

....it's entire foreign policy seems to be: "US is teh suxors."....And australia is more involved in world affairs...

I think the time has come for a reshuffle.
So you basically want to punish Canada for not being involved in the Iraq war? At least that's how I interpret this.

Australia's economy is smaller than Canada's so why do you suggest them? Is "Geographical diversity" even a real reason?

Australia over Canada?

Hmmm....

Well, then - let's compare those:

Canada vs Australia

GDP
Canada 934B (12th in world)
Australia 525B (16th in world)

GDP per capita
Canada 29,0000/person (10th in world)
Australia, 26,600/person (19th in world)

GDP Growth (1998-2002)
Canada 3.8% (6th in world)
Australia 3.9% (5th in world)
USA 2.9% (14th in world)

Economic Aid per $1 of GDP
Canada 13cents per $100 of GDP (17th in world)
Australia 17cents per $100 of GDP (15th in world)
USA 6cents per $100 of GDP (21st in world)
(what was that you were saying about foreign aid again?)

Current Account Balance - total
Canada: 13.5B 6th in world
Australia: -15B, 25th in world
USA - way down the list

National Debt:
USA: 862B - Wohoo!!! #1
Australia: 177B - #3
Canada: 1.9B #116



So why are we in the G8?

Oh, probably just to piss you offff.

:D

Economically, Canada isn't exactly "USA is teh sux0rs!1"

Especially since Canada is still America's largest trading partiner.

By the way, I don't disagree that countries like Brazil, China, India, and sure, why not, Austalia, should have a voice in the G8. It wouldn't be the first time they expanded it to recognize important economies. Although one assumes that is what the G20 is for.

So you basically want to punish Canada for not being involved in the Iraq war? At least that's how I interpret this.

Australia's economy is smaller than Canada's so why do you suggest them? Is "Geographical diversity" even a real reason?


Oh, I'm pretty sure this was directed at me since he posted it right after whining about my being "anti-american" in my thread about Condi Rice.....

No worries... Maybe they're one of the G-20 countries? I'm not entirely sure.

Since I've got the Wikipedia window open anyway, the G-20 countries are:

European Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

-snip-
You left off the USA's GDP and its per capita GDP. No worries.

Anyway, like I said, this would piss of the Canadians.

Also, the European Union is a country now?

Oh, I'm pretty sure this was directed at me since he posted it right after whining about my being "anti-american" in my thread about Condi Rice.....

and yet he keeps getting pwn3d!

If I remember my history correctly, Canada was added to G7 back in the day because the United States wanted a second North American voice.

Canada is one of the more dominant economies, even though our military sucks, and we have taxation and punitive policies that make all but the very weakest US states more economically appealing than Alberta or Ontario. I have a chart for that if you don't believe me.

That being said, it would be retarded to boot Canada out of G8. Booting us out of NATO on the other hand would probably serve us right for being cheap and inept.

Actually, either belgium or the netherlands would make a better choice because at least it would be a voice for countries with good economies, but not much population.

Canada is silly, it has no signifigant power, no coherent foriegn policy. Nor can it be justified on the basis of bringing a balance of perspective. The only group it represents is countries to the north of the US, which is hardly that important in world affairs.

I welcome you to familiarize yourself with the following website:

http://www.fac-aec.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

[QUOTE=Equus]Dude -- we've had a budget surplus for the last seven years. Last year it was 9.1 billion dollars (Canadian).
/QUOTE]

What is the point of having a suplus budget year on year, surely that means the government is raising more revenue than it spends? You are either being ripped off on your taxes or ripped off on your services. A budget should be balanced, sometimes a deficit, sometimes a surplus, but overall balanced across time.

Dude -- we've had a budget surplus for the last seven years. Last year it was 9.1 billion dollars (Canadian).


What is the point of having a suplus budget year on year, surely that means the government is raising more revenue than it spends? You are either being ripped off on your taxes or ripped off on your services. A budget should be balanced, sometimes a deficit, sometimes a surplus, but overall balanced across time.

The point is that we use our surplus budget to pay off our national debt, so that we don't have to pay so damn much interest on it every year. Our national debt was obscene 10 years ago - drastic steps had to be taken to improve the situation. Right now, it's improving, but not yet at a comfortable level.

Since I've got the Wikipedia window open anyway, the G-20 countries are:

European Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Mmm, and the G-30? :p

Mmm, and the G-30? :p
oh...oh...bugger off! :P

and yet he keeps getting pwn3d!

Not really, nothing i have said changes, because Canada spends a tiny fraction of its GDP on foreign aid more than the US (which I don't believe, that was probably true in the nineties, but rebuilding iraq has to have put us ahead by now).

It's not a G8 country, and it doesn't do anything of consequence internationally.

It's only thing is being anti-american. Its membership serves no purpose.

Lacadaemon has a point. You guys have only shown that the economy of Canada is decent. What purpose does Canada serve in the G8?

I welcome you to familiarize yourself with the following website:

http://www.fac-aec.gc.ca/menu-en.asp


Bah, spain has a website too. What does canada really do. Look at the tsunami, within hours the US, UK and Australia were sendinf relief. Canada was running around wondering whether or not it should lease aircraft from the Russians.

Then it criticized the US for being stingy, while our soldiers and marines were on the ground doing relief work.

Oh, I'm pretty sure this was directed at me since he posted it right after whining about my being "anti-american" in my thread about Condi Rice.....


Well, I could do what you do and talk out of my ass about international law in order to call ordinary US troops war criminals.

Not really, nothing i have said changes, because Canada spends a tiny fraction of its GDP on foreign aid more than the US (which I don't believe, that was probably true in the nineties, but rebuilding iraq has to have put us ahead by now).

It's not a G8 country, and it doesn't do anything of consequence internationally.

It's only thing is being anti-american. Its membership serves no purpose.

Why do you insist on considering all Canadians anti-American just because we don't always agree with the administration's policies? We don't call you anti-Canadian when you don't agree with our government's policies.

Nobody has a larger shared economy than Canada and the United States. Nobody has a longer open border.

We may bicker and squabble as we try to favourably position ourselves regarding trade agreements and missile defense systems and what not, but married couples often have disagreements as well. Canada and the US aren't going to get a divorce any time soon. Sometimes we may agree to disagree, but guess what - that happens in many a healthy relationship.

Bah, spain has a website too. What does canada really do. Look at the tsunami, within hours the US, UK and Australia were sendinf relief. Canada was running around wondering whether or not it should lease aircraft from the Russians.

Then it criticized the US for being stingy, while our soldiers and marines were on the ground doing relief work.

Oh good lord. I was just inviting you to find out more about Canada's foreign policies, since you felt we didn't have any. If you prefer not to educate yourself, that's your choice.

About Canada on international issues, we as much if not more than a lot of countries that our size or bigger. We generally work on treaties such as the banning of landmines treaty of 1998, and others that generally don't get much attention in the US. In the case of the US they were not complete signatories to the banning of landmines along with Iraq and a few other countries.

Canada's big thing in the G8 when Chretien was prime minister, was trying to get the other countries to increase their aid to Africa, this is a topic that generally was overlooked by the other countries who more pre-occupied with international conflicts and economic disputes.

About Canada on international issues, we as much if not more than a lot of countries that our size or bigger. We generally work on treaties such as the banning of landmines treaty of 1998, and others that generally don't get much attention in the US. In the case of the US they were not complete signatories to the banning of landmines along with Iraq and a few other countries.

Canada's big thing in the G8 when Chretien was prime minister, was trying to get the other countries to increase their aid to Africa, this is a topic that generally was overlooked by the other countries who more pre-occupied with international conflicts and economic disputes.


The landmine treaty was stupid. You may as well try and ban artillery.

Canada is the 9th largest world economy. However when you start talking about nations that are not still psudo communist...it winds up being number eight. Therefore it is included, and really the G-8 has always been more western european dominated in the first place.

Some of the reasons Canada's surplus is so high is because it doesn't send as much foreign aid, it doesn't participate much internationaly, and it has very little military spending. Why no military? Because if anyone attacked Canada the U.S. would be kicking butt :sniper: . Now if the U.S. ever got attacked *cough 9/11 cough* I wouldn't expect Canada to really do anything but sit back and laugh. Canada can say the United States sucks all it wants, but the U.S. wouldn't be as well off without Canada and Canada wouldn't be as well of, and not even exist anymore if it weren't for the U.S.

Not really, nothing i have said changes, because Canada spends a tiny fraction of its GDP on foreign aid more than the US (which I don't believe, that was probably true in the nineties, but rebuilding iraq has to have put us ahead by now).


Tiny fraction more? *ahem*
13cents per $100 is more than double the 6cents per $100 the US spends.

Now then, if you are touting having to spend dollars to rebuild a country you bombed the shit out of as "humanitarian aid", well that is a VERY interesting concept!


It's not a G8 country, and it doesn't do anything of consequence internationally.


There is more "of consequence" than war.


It's only thing is being anti-american. Its membership serves no purpose.

Can you please be specific on which Canadian foreign policy initiatives - BESIDES not joining into the war on Iraq - are done from an "anti-american" perspective.

C'mon, when I present an argument I do so with specifics. All you have so far is whiny rhetoric.


So Back it up.

The landmine treaty was stupid. You may as well try and ban artillery.

I will forgive your ignorance, and encourage you to educate yourself on the manner. There is nothing good about landmines, that kill or mame children and the poor farmers, who are afraid to work fields. This is takes place in some countries who haven't experienced conflicts in somecases a decade.

This is imortant to me, since the secretary general's wife visited my class and showed some landmines in class, it something that I personally am privileged to be a part of.

Some of the reasons Canada's surplus is so high is because it doesn't send as much foreign aid, it doesn't participate much internationaly, and it has very little military spending. Why no military? Because if anyone attacked Canada the U.S. would be kicking butt :sniper: . Now if the U.S. ever got attacked *cough 9/11 cough* I wouldn't expect Canada to really do anything but sit back and laugh. Canada can say the United States sucks all it wants, but the U.S. wouldn't be as well off without Canada and Canada wouldn't be as well of, and not even exist anymore if it weren't for the U.S.


Awww, the imfamous "first post diatribe"...

Wonder which regular member this is hiding behind an alias?


Besides, if you read the thread you will note tha Canada spends MORE as a percent of GDP on foreign aid, and when the US attacked we DID kick butt. We were the first to join up and head to Afghanistan to go hunt down the bastiches that attacked you.

Not joining the Iraqi War of Liberation does NOT equate to not joining the international initiative to stamp out al qaeda. We did more than our share there.... as we did on 9-11 when we took every damn plane you could throw at us and landed them at our airports when you were too scared to land them at yours.

Sit back and laugh?

HArdly

Join you in a war of choice in Messopotamia?

No

I will forgive your ignorance, and encourage you to educate yourself on the manner. There is nothing good about landmines, that kill or mame children and the poor farmers, who are afraid to work fields. This is takes place in some countries who haven't experienced conflicts in somecases a decade.

This is imortant to me, since the secretary general's wife visited my class and showed some landmines in class, it something that I personally am privileged to be a part of.

Yes landmines kill civillians. So do UXBs and buried artillery shells. They are also, like bombs and artillery a vital tool in fighting wars. Landmines are a key part in establishing a defensive corridor. Why should the US disarm itself.

It's okay for Canada to give up a weapon, because it knows it will never have to fight anywhere at anytime. The US does not have this luxury.

While I am at it, where was Canada when the US had to bail out Mexico in the 90s. Canada can't even help a fellow NAFTA member.

When the US was attacked, Canada did not laugh. At my high school we had a whole school trip to the beach delayed for an emergency meeting in the auditorium where we tolled what happened. We did not laugh, it was not a laughing matter.

Or Prime minister was the first foreign head of state to visit ground zero with a large contingent of canadian supporters who wanted to show there condolence to the US.

It was our country who accepted american citizens into our homes in halifax and Gander. When North American was not fly zone after the attack. Canada generally does not hate Americans. It is just that a majority of us disagree with some of the policies of the present US administration.

Besides, if you read the thread you will note tha Canada spends MORE as a percent of GDP on foreign aid, and when the US attacked we DID kick butt. We were the first to join up and head to Afghanistan to go hunt down the bastiches that attacked you.

Which is still a negligble amount. If we are doing this solely on per capita contribution I think only Norway should have anything to say on this matter.

The other aspect is the amount of aid that comes from the US millitary that is not reflected in this figure. Look at the recent events in SE asia. The US diverts vast resources immediately, and I am sure if we deducted that from millitary expenditures and counted them as foreign aid, you would be the first to claim the US was "cheating."



Not joining the Iraqi War of Liberation does NOT equate to not joining the international initiative to stamp out al qaeda. We did more than our share there.... as we did on 9-11 when we took every damn plane you could throw at us and landed them at our airports when you were too scared to land them at yours.

Sit back and laugh?

HArdly

Join you in a war of choice in Messopotamia?

No

Why are you bringing Iraq up.

War tends to leave horrific after affects in many ways, including landmines.
The question becomes are landmines so horrific a weapon that they should be outright banned.

Well looking at landmines in themselves are not an inherantly horrific weapon. It is just that they are so cheap and easy to produce that their use has become as indescriminate as firing rounds out of an AK-47. Unlike a bullet they tend to have much longer life spans...

I see two problems with the ban. First is there are legitimate uses for landmines. Examples: the DMZ between the Korea's, the DMZ across Cyprus, the protective defense line of guantonomo bay...I realize most people are going to say that these would be better without landmines...which is silly.
Or that they shouldn't exist at all...
Korea to the Koreans, a united Cyprus, Cuba for cubans....

Really though we are talking legitimate tactical use not political desire. Unfortunatly those fall in the minority of usesage in the past twenty or so years.

Nor do I think banning anti-personel landmines will stop them from being produced or used. Ball Bearings, some RDX, a vacuum plastic mold, and some cheap electronics is all you need. I am afraid the ban will only induce small manufacturing of landmines in places like the Ivory Coast and Afganistan.

The only way for a ban is for it to be enforced...the only way to enforce it is by use of arms. But no one would want to enforce it then, since the west has become risk sensitive and the rest of the world will ban production and then start producing them themselves.

The ban is to stop the U.S. and Western nations from manufacturing them and their parts.
It is relatively easy

I'd like to make counter of few claims made against Canada. First, Canada ranks better on the foreign aid front than, the US. The initial poster was just lying as far as I can tell: link (http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1748607)

As far as the Tsunami goes, its true that Canadian politicians dithered a bit, and Canadians are pretty mad about that. To our credit, the government made a promise to match all personal donations by Canadians, and the Tsunami relief money from Canada excedes that from the US. I figure that means per capita we donated more than 10 times as much.

As for 9/11, Canada responded quickly to send down people to help right after the event, and the US has no grounds for complaint there. As for not supporting the US in declaring war on Iraq - that has nothing to do with 9/11, and I think Canada is in the right.

Which is still a negligble amount. If we are doing this solely on per capita contribution I think only Norway should have anything to say on this matter.


True, we both suck compared to some other countries.

The other aspect is the amount of aid that comes from the US millitary that is not reflected in this figure. Look at the recent events in SE asia. The US diverts vast resources immediately, and I am sure if we deducted that from millitary expenditures and counted them as foreign aid, you would be the first to claim the US was "cheating."


Here's a thought - why don't you ASK my opinion on something instead of assuming it. Because no, I do not think that use of military resources for aid purposes get included in those numbers, and yes I agree that it should.

Now - was that so hard?

Why are you bringing Iraq up.
In relation to the person I responded to and what they poste - which wasn't you unless that was YOUR puppet - I felt it relevant. MAny people associate our lack of interest in the Iraq war with a lack of interest in dealing with terrorism - which is patently false. The notion that Canada sat back and laughed after 9-11 was also just a pathetic bit of flame-bait.

MAny people associate our lack of interest in the Iraq war with a lack of interest in dealing with terrorism - which is patently false. The notion that Canada sat back and laughed after 9-11 was also just a pathetic bit of flame-bait.
I don't think anyone thinks that Canada stood by and laughed after 9/11. Can the Canadians do a better job of securing their borders? You bet, but they are certainly no worse than the US is at securing it's borders. INS is a joke.

True, we both suck compared to some other countries.


Here's a thought - why don't you ASK my opinion on something instead of assuming it. Because no, I do not think that use of military resources for aid purposes get included in those numbers, and yes I agree that it should.

Now - was that so hard?

Well then you probably have to agree if that is the case, the US moves up the chart significantly.


In relation to the person I responded to and what they poste - which wasn't you unless that was YOUR puppet - I felt it relevant. MAny people associate our lack of interest in the Iraq war with a lack of interest in dealing with terrorism - which is patently false. The notion that Canada sat back and laughed after 9-11 was also just a pathetic bit of flame-bait.

So your are saying your only real beef with the US is Iraq? I hardly think so.

That stuff you got from the Yale website about US actions being illegal, was just wrong, and you know it. If it wasn't, don't you think someone would have filed a lawsuit in federal court by now? The fact that you posted it, then defended it, and furthermore kept on about the US being a rogue state, and supported your wife when she compared US troops in Iraq to the wehrmacht and WWII war criminals, belies a deeper antipathy than just a disagreement about foriegn policy.

If you weren't incensed about Iraq, it would be something else, like third world debt, or NAFTA. However, Iraq is the easiest thing to latch onto, so you keep bringing it up.


You haven't really made a case for Canada being in the G8 either.

You haven't really made a case for Canada being in the G8 either.

Well, Canada has a higher GDP per capita than Italy, Japan, Russia, or France(I'm getting my figures from the CIA world factbook online). It's true that population-wise Canada lags behind.

I suppose I would ask you why Russia is in there? It may have a reasonably high GDP, but it's GDP percapita is less than a third of Canada's.

I think you're being silly if you insist that the size of your economy is the only factor that goes into G8 membership. Having Canada be a member is decidedly a good thing from the US's point of view.

Well, Canada has a higher GDP per capita than Italy, Japan, Russia, or France(I'm getting my figures from the CIA world factbook online). It's true that population-wise Canada lags behind.

I suppose I would ask you why Russia is in there? It may have a reasonably high GDP, but it's GDP percapita is less than a third of Canada's.

I think you're being silly if you insist that the size of your economy is the only factor that goes into G8 membership. Having Canada be a member is decidedly a good thing from the US's point of view.

GDP per capita is not a good measure, If that were the case the Cayman islands would be there.

I am saying that canda lacks enough world influence, in terms of trade or otherwise (which is why Russia is there), to justify a place at the head table. It should go to china.

if Canada weren't in the G8, all the non-G8 nations would probably dislike the G8 a lot more.

Well then you probably have to agree if that is the case, the US moves up the chart significantly.



YEs, but unfortunately I can't find numbers on how much US military expenditure is used in aid missions. If you have a source for that - that would be great.


So your are saying your only real beef with the US is Iraq? I hardly think so.


To be specific, I have NO beef with "the US". I have a beef with some policies of this administration just as I have had with that of my own government.

That stuff you got from the Yale website about US actions being illegal, was just wrong, and you know it. If it wasn't, don't you think someone would have filed a lawsuit in federal court by now?


first, you would need a court to decide to hear the case which would be rather difficult as you would need to find a court that felt that it had jurisdiction over Bremmer's rubberstamping of a CPA order.

The fact that you posted it, then defended it,

You're right... why the hell should I post and defend an issue brought forth and deemed worthy of publication by one of America's most prestigeous universities. Must be that "anti-americanism" again.... :rolleyes:

and furthermore kept on about the US being a rogue state,

I didn't say that.

and supported your wife when she compared US troops in Iraq to the wehrmacht and WWII war criminals, belies a deeper antipathy than just a disagreement about foriegn policy.


I WILL support my wife - always. Howver she did NOT compare US troops to the Wehrmacht in any way shape or form. You really do like to take liberties with what people say don't you? The only thing she did was to point out that the defense of "just following orders" was deemed inadmissable by the US when certain Nazis tried to use it. That in no way compares an american soldier to a nazi, just pointing out that a given defense has already been deemed BS.



If you weren't incensed about Iraq, it would be something else, like third world debt, or NAFTA. However, Iraq is the easiest thing to latch onto, so you keep bringing it up.


There you go... giving my opinion for me again.... :rolleyes:

Gee, can you also tell the world if I like the tiolet paper scrolling fro the top or bottom too! I mean - as long as you are psychic....


You haven't really made a case for Canada being in the G8 either.

Nor have you given a good case for us to be excluded - besides military expenditures which is hardly what the G8 is about.

And I note that you have still failed completely to come up with any anti-american Canadian foreign policy initiatives, which you would think would be damn easy given the way you portray it.


Or maybe you just don't have a clue what you are talking about regarding me OR my country.

Is China in the G8? Seems like they should be...

GDP per capita is not a good measure, If that were the case the Cayman islands would be there.

I am saying that canda lacks enough world influence, in terms of trade or otherwise (which is why Russia is there), to justify a place at the head table. It should go to china.

Canada has more world influence than you're giving it credit for. China has more for sure, but the G8 nations don't want China to be part of their decision making process. G8 nations only want other capitalist democracies in the club, and for good reason. China's interests probably aren't in line with the interests of the G8 nations which are economically much more similar to each other.

Once you limit yourself to first world capitalist democracies, Canada is near the top of the list. You mentioned Australia, but Australia has a smaller economy than Canada, and I don't think participates especially more in world events. Canada is consistently a major presence in UN operations - so I don't know why you think they're not a player on the world stage.

Actually, either belgium or the netherlands would make a better choice because at least it would be a voice for countries with good economies, but not much population.



Actually, to me, that sounds like Canada, low population and ok economy. lol!

Canada has more world influence than you're giving it credit for. China has more for sure, but the G8 nations don't want China to be part of their decision making process. G8 nations only want other capitalist democracies in the club, and for good reason. China's interests probably aren't in line with the interests of the G8 nations which are economically much more similar to each other.

Once you limit yourself to first world capitalist democracies, Canada is near the top of the list. You mentioned Australia, but Australia has a smaller economy than Canada, and I don't think participates especially more in world events. Canada is consistently a major presence in UN operations - so I don't know why you think they're not a player on the world stage.


Well Brazil then, even though it is not quite "first word". More people, larger economy and a south american voice, plus a pro-capitalist democracy.

The other aspect is the amount of aid that comes from the US millitary that is not reflected in this figure. Look at the recent events in SE asia. The US diverts vast resources immediately, and I am sure if we deducted that from millitary expenditures and counted them as foreign aid, you would be the first to claim the US was "cheating".
Bushites are pathetic....they Destroy Roads, Bridges, Electricity and Water systems in Iraq.... they give Halliburton and Blackwater Billions for Juicy inflafed Contracts....and they call all of that Aid...

Pathetic...

Well Brazil then, even though it is not quite "first word". More people, larger economy and a south american voice, plus a pro-capitalist democracy.

Again, you run into the problem that Brazil isn't enough like the G8 nations. The whole point to the G8 is that you have a bunch of powerful nations with sufficiently similar interests that their goals will all be in line with each other and they can benefit best by cooperating. To be considered for the G8 a nation really would have to be a first world capitalist democracy. Anyway, I don't think Brazil has as much of an international presence as Canada. Can't substantiate that though.

Well Brazil then, even though it is not quite "first word". More people, larger economy and a south american voice, plus a pro-capitalist democracy.


At this point you're just trolling aren't you?

Is China in the G8? Seems like they should be...

No they are not, and I think the group should probably be expanded to include them - on one condition.

As long as they leave their currency artificially tied to the US dollar than they really do not have the sort of independant economy to provide the basis upon which most issues at the G8 are discussed.

Canada is a member of the G8 because we are the second largest nation in the world and keeping us happy is something that appeals to everybody considering we have huge ammounts of natural resourses that americans can buy in canada cheap, as well as an economy that is extremly above average for a nation of our size population wise. If your angry at Canada just say so, theres no reasion to make yourself look like an fool spitting out facts about canada you pulled out of the air, and someone said we have a slight deficit ? maybe the provinces, but canada on the whole has a huge trade suplus and a huge budget surplus. ps ,aybe the fact that we also have a standard set of buisness practices that group these nations together, if you want to do buisness with a man in china you have to spend a week in his house :eek:

Canada is a member of the G8 because we are the second largest nation in the world and keeping us happy is something that appeals to everybody considering we have huge ammounts of natural resourses that americans can buy in canada cheap, as well as an economy that is extremly above average for a nation of our size population wise. If your angry at Canada just say so, theres no reasion to make yourself look like an fool spitting out facts about canada you pulled out of the air, and someone said we have a slight deficit ? maybe the provinces, but canada on the whole has a huge trade suplus and a huge budget surplus. ps ,aybe the fact that we also have a standard set of buisness practices that group these nations together, if you want to do buisness with a man in china you have to spend a week in his house :eek:

Canada is the world's ninth largest ecconomy and eighth measured when ignoring China.
Hell I remember when it was the G-7 so good night...

The above argument makes no sense. Yes and Canada does spend more on foriegn aid. Of course its military budget and resources are subsidized by the U.S. government.

Example: NORAD coordininates all north American Air Defense including Canada but Canada's allocation to operation and maintanice (and building) is only a pitance of what it would cost.

I should point out that some of us think that it's time for Canada to be named Leader of the Free World and informed they need to find solutions to:
Middle East Peace,
Nuclear Proliferation
And every other global crisis that seems to rise up...

Some of us Americans want to just return to our natural isolationist roots and let the rest of you go blow yourselves up in another world war.

RONG, try again, Canada has a slight budget deficit, and a slight trade surplus.

In any case, running large surplusses is just as bad as running large deficits. I am not going to explain why though, because you wouldn't believe it.


a) you spelled wrong wrong, genius
b) our budget "deficit" was actually a 7 billion dollar surplus this year.

we're also the middle power and main voice of reason.

At this point you're just trolling aren't you?

Hey, he defended Brazil's claim, which I made way back on page 1 of this thread. How is that trolling ?

Again, you run into the problem that Brazil isn't enough like the G8 nations. The whole point to the G8 is that you have a bunch of powerful nations with sufficiently similar interests that their goals will all be in line with each other and they can benefit best by cooperating. To be considered for the G8 a nation really would have to be a first world capitalist democracy. Anyway, I don't think Brazil has as much of an international presence as Canada. Can't substantiate that though.

How, is Brazil significantly different from the other G8 countries. It is basically a Western European culture, with a presidential democratic system of government. It speaks a latin based language. It holds a generally centrist political position, and given a proportional representation system and a population of 200 million, this is not going to change much. What is it that denies Brazil First World status. Oh yes, I remember, we are South of the Equator (well mostly anyway). We are an ex, non British colony.
What do you mean by international presence? Trade links, Diplomatic representation, Participation in UN actions, Number of world famous individuals? Please explain.

How, is Brazil significantly different from the other G8 countries. It is basically a Western European culture, with a presidential democratic system of government. It speaks a latin based language. It holds a generally centrist political position, and given a proportional representation system and a population of 200 million, this is not going to change much. What is it that denies Brazil First World status. Oh yes, I remember, we are South of the Equator (well mostly anyway). We are an ex, non British colony.
What do you mean by international presence? Trade links, Diplomatic representation, Participation in UN actions, Number of world famous individuals? Please explain.

That was my point. You said it better.

At this point you're just trolling aren't you?

No, I am not. I haven't called anyone a war criminal, accused anyone of human rights violations, &ct. I am putting forward I perfectly legitimate point for debate. And I have yet to hear anyone really give a reason that justifies Canada's presence in the G8, as opposed to the larger economies of Brazil or China.

The only reasons I have heard are:*

1. Canada has no deficits. (I don't know how this alters anything).
2. Canada is a voice of reason. (Even if this were true, it is somewhat racist, as it implies that only canada can be reasonable).
3. China and Brazil "are not first world capitalist democracies". (Well nor is Russia, and in any case, this is again a slightly racist viewpoint.

Even a poster defending canada conceded it. "Canada is a *middle* power."

The G8 should be a forum for the worlds leading nations, not middle powers. canada has a place at the G20, not the G8.

*typically I also heard, Iraq george bush blahblahblah, condie rice, bushie, Canada does its bit.

How, is Brazil significantly different from the other G8 countries. It is basically a Western European culture, with a presidential democratic system of government. It speaks a latin based language. It holds a generally centrist political position, and given a proportional representation system and a population of 200 million, this is not going to change much. What is it that denies Brazil First World status. Oh yes, I remember, we are South of the Equator (well mostly anyway). We are an ex, non British colony.
What do you mean by international presence? Trade links, Diplomatic representation, Participation in UN actions, Number of world famous individuals? Please explain.What makes Brazil a Third World Country...I dont know.
You tell me.

I dont eve know what is 2nd World.

BTW i been both in Brazil and Canada.
they both nice places.

Hey, he defended Brazil's claim, which I made way back on page 1 of this thread. How is that trolling ?he does not love Brazil...he just hates Canada, because Canada refused to suppor the Iraq war.

Actually, either belgium or the netherlands would make a better choice because at least it would be a voice for countries with good economies, but not much population.

Canada is silly, it has no signifigant power, no coherent foriegn policy. Nor can it be justified on the basis of bringing a balance of perspective. The only group it represents is countries to the north of the US, which is hardly that important in world affairs.
Try this on for size:

Canada led the G-7 in economic growth from 1997-2002, and the IMF, the OECD, and private sector forecasters expect Canada to be among the G-7 growth leaders this year and next.

Canada had the strongest productivity performance in the G-7 from 1997-2002.

Since January 1, 2002, our economy created 612,000 jobs while the United States has shed 900,000 jobs.

Canada's average annual real per capita GDP growth from 1997-2002 has been the best in the G-7 at 3.1 percent.

Canada was the only G-7 country with a fiscal surplus in 2002 and will be the only G-7 country in balance or better this year and next. Our federal debt to GDP ratio is less than 44 percent, the second lowest in the G-7.

We continue to experience strong export performance and we have a current account surplus with the world despite the global economic slowdown.

According to KPMG, Canada has the lowest business costs in the G-7.

Not deserving eh?

This says it all...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/canadasucks.gif

Seriously, Canada is ok in my book.

So why are we in the G8?

Oh, probably just to piss you offff.

:D
:D :cool: :D

he does not love Brazil...he just hates Canada, because Canada refused to suppor the Iraq war.
Yeah and hopefully, we won't support the war in Iran and North Korea either.

Seriously, why is that? I can see how it made sense a while ago, (back when Canada had a relatively larger economy comaperd to the rest of the world), but times have changed.

In reality, Canada is no longer one of the eigth largest economies. It has no millitary to speak of and spends an even smaller percentage of its GDP on foreign aid than the US. Also, it's entire foreign policy seems to be: "US is teh suxors."

So surely, the time has come to remove canada, and replace it with a nation that has much greater influence in world affairs, and that has a much more wide ranging and diverse foreign policy. If the purpose of the G8 is to bring the leading nations of the world together to promote prosperity, trade and peace, obviously this would be better achieved by giving Canada's seat to a more influential and engaged nation like China.

Hell, even australia would make more sense becuase at least it would increase geographic diversity. (And australia is more involved in world affairs).

I think the time has come for a reshuffle.
Perhaps if you studied a bit more history, you might find some interesting facts, such as this one:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-magazine/issue06/6t8c-en.asp

Successive Canadian governments sought recognition for China and its admittance to the United Nations, but international tensions and conflicts thwarted their efforts. Finally, in 1969 the government of Prime Minister Trudeau entered into negotiations with Beijing.


Despite opposition from Washington, Trudeau was anxious to end China's isolation, convinced that it made little sense to ignore rather than deal with a major power in international affairs. Official recognition came on October 10, 1970. Back then, most Western nations still acknowledged instead the claims of the Nationalist regime on the offshore island of Taiwan, which occupied a disputed seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Canada's example prompted similar action by several countries and eventually the United States in 1973.

The US was kinda slow, and reluctant in recognizing over a billion people huh?

Perhaps if you studied a bit more history, you might find some interesting facts, such as this one:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-magazine/issue06/6t8c-en.asp

Successive Canadian governments sought recognition for China and its admittance to the United Nations, but international tensions and conflicts thwarted their efforts. Finally, in 1969 the government of Prime Minister Trudeau entered into negotiations with Beijing.


Despite opposition from Washington, Trudeau was anxious to end China's isolation, convinced that it made little sense to ignore rather than deal with a major power in international affairs. Official recognition came on October 10, 1970. Back then, most Western nations still acknowledged instead the claims of the Nationalist regime on the offshore island of Taiwan, which occupied a disputed seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Canada's example prompted similar action by several countries and eventually the United States in 1973.

The US was kinda slow, and reluctant in recognizing over a billion people huh?


As I said, it *used* to make sense including it. Like back then for example. Now it doesn't. And good for Canada with the economic growth, but the fact is it is not a G8 nation anymore, and its economy is no longer large enough to justify a seat on that basis. Nor can canada claim a seat on the basis of its huge engagement in foreign affairs.

As some other poster described it when defending it, it is a "middle" power. It is not a leading power. It makes sense that the G8 should be the leading powers and there is no reason other than history to still include Canada. That is eminently reasonable.

I'll bet if the UK was in this position right now, all you Canadians would be pointing this out and blathering on about "international fairness" etc. In fact don't a lot of you complian about the make up of the permanent UN security council members for the same reason.

Geez, I never knew that Canada was full of such Jingoists.

As I said, it *used* to make sense including it. Like back then for example. Now it doesn't. And good for Canada with the economic growth, but the fact is it is not a G8 nation anymore, and its economy is no longer large enough to justify a seat on that basis. Nor can canada claim a seat on the basis of its huge engagement in foreign affairs.

As some other poster described it when defending it, it is a "middle" power. It is not a leading power. It makes sense that the G8 should be the leading powers and there is no reason other than history to still include Canada. That is eminently reasonable.

I'll bet if the UK was in this position right now, all you Canadians would be pointing this out and blathering on about "international fairness" etc. In fact don't a lot of you complian about the make up of the permanent UN security council members for the same reason.

Geez, I never knew that Canada was full of such Jingoists.

blathering indeed.

Hey, he defended Brazil's claim, which I made way back on page 1 of this thread. How is that trolling ?

Because of the nature of the thread. At first he completely ignored your post as he was pushing his own preference for Australia. And when that became an obvious case that did not make sense, he switched horses.

I meant no disrespect for your fine country, which has made great strides over the past couple of decades and deserves a larger place on the world stage, but rather was questioning his motivation.

Heck, even when he changed horses to select Brazil he did it in a very back-handed manner that did not look terribly complimentary.


Well Brazil then, even though it is not quite "first word". More people, larger economy and a south american voice, plus a pro-capitalist democracy


Now, he manages to disparage you by not calling you "first world", brings up an odd point that population should have some impact, and then throws a comment in on your government style which tends to indicate that he is hinting that Canada does NOT have a pro-capitalist democracy. Now that is a pretty funny assertion to make.

and let's go back to his original post:


In reality, Canada is no longer one of the eigth largest economies. It has no millitary to speak of and spends an even smaller percentage of its GDP on foreign aid than the US. Also, it's entire foreign policy seems to be: "US is teh suxors."

So surely, the time has come to remove canada, and replace it with a nation that has much greater influence in world affairs, and that has a much more wide ranging and diverse foreign policy. If the purpose of the G8 is to bring the leading nations of the world together to promote prosperity, trade and peace, obviously this would be better achieved by giving Canada's seat to a more influential and engaged nation like China.

Hell, even australia would make more sense becuase at least it would increase geographic diversity. (And australia is more involved in world affairs).


So far, besides us not being a huge military power, he has failed to prove his point in that stats have shown that Canada spends MORE as percent of GDP on foreign aid, nor has he been able to support his contention on our foreign policy.

Why? Because it isn't true and he's just trolling.

Why is he trolling against Canada? Because my complaints about the Bush Administration piss him off and so he started this threat - which has done nothing so far except prove his total ignorance on foreign affairs.

That should be immediately clear to you when he posts statements like:

"Canada is silly"

Canada "has no coherent foriegn policy" (and fails to mention even one foreign policy initiative of Canada on his own)

"The only group it represents is countries to the north of the US, which is hardly that important in world affairs."



Hell, I don't mind. All it is doing so far, like I said, is proving his complete lack of knowledge of anything besides whining, bad rhetoric, and childish behaviour.

And the fact that I get under his skin so bad that he has to resort to such things is even funnier.

I complain about policies. And when I do I am specific and back up my assertions with a proper foundation. People are more than welcome to debate my conclusions or opinions, but at least I base them on something other than drivel. But he can't do that. All he can do is whine, and lie about what I've said that caused him to go on this trollfest to boot. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8175785&postcount=59)


Oh, and Lacadamia - since you seem so focussed on military expenditures as a part of your criteria for G8 membership (although why I have no idea - it's not part of it's mandate) - perhaps you should note that Canada spends $244/person per year on it's military. Brazil only spends $73/person.

And on a portion of GDP standpoint - we are very close with Brazil spending $9.75/$1000 of GDP, and Canada spending $8.41/$1000



Anyway Alien, I certainly mean no disrespect for your country as it deserves no disrespect. I just wish that lacadaemon was really intending to be complimentary to your nation as opposed to just trolling mine. However I'll bet he knows even less about Brazil than he does about us.

As I said, it *used* to make sense including it. Like back then for example. Now it doesn't. And good for Canada with the economic growth, but the fact is it is not a G8 nation anymore, and its economy is no longer large enough to justify a seat on that basis. Nor can canada claim a seat on the basis of its huge engagement in foreign affairs.

As some other poster described it when defending it, it is a "middle" power. It is not a leading power. It makes sense that the G8 should be the leading powers and there is no reason other than history to still include Canada. That is eminently reasonable.

I'll bet if the UK was in this position right now, all you Canadians would be pointing this out and blathering on about "international fairness" etc. In fact don't a lot of you complian about the make up of the permanent UN security council members for the same reason.

Geez, I never knew that Canada was full of such Jingoists.
Perhaps you could do a little more research to support what has so far been hollow rhetoric, then there might be more basis for having an intelligent debate on the subject matter. Until such time, you are grasping at straws or should I say just "blathering"?

Canada is the world's ninth largest ecconomy and eighth measured when ignoring China.
Hell I remember when it was the G-7 so good night...

The above argument makes no sense. Yes and Canada does spend more on foriegn aid. Of course its military budget and resources are subsidized by the U.S. government.

Example: NORAD coordininates all north American Air Defense including Canada but Canada's allocation to operation and maintanice (and building) is only a pitance of what it would cost.

I should point out that some of us think that it's time for Canada to be named Leader of the Free World and informed they need to find solutions to:
Middle East Peace,
Nuclear Proliferation
And every other global crisis that seems to rise up...

Some of us Americans want to just return to our natural isolationist roots and let the rest of you go blow yourselves up in another world war.

Just incase you were critising my post, i can't tell im telling you I was a little drunk last night, bu i think there were strippers so its alright i guess. Any ways....should spain not be in the G8 ?