Ignatieff's view on war

First off I would like to say that war sadly is a realistic thing in life. It is ideal to live in a world without war and just everyone is peaceful but that is why it only an ideal. It is how we pick our wars that matter. I was reading Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the Challenge of the Lesser Evil by Michael Cotey Morgan and I do agree with some of his principles of when we should go into war.Michael Ignatieff is a liberal interventionalist and is a cosmopolitanist which means it is a specific way to think about responsibilty and ethnics.


First off let us discuss the moral issues that Ignatieff looks at when going to war. Even though we are infringing on others human rights by invading another country to fight Canadians are helping the people in that place to get rid of their problems and to be able to have a better life. Ignatieff states that we are universally attached to one another, so helping someone in Sudan and you are from Canada are encouraged in this view. We should look out for one another since overall humanity wants everyone to be good and taken care off.


Secondly Ignatiefff talks about the lesser of two evils or "the lesser evil". This is a good way to approach war because even though the war that you bring might have negative side effects you need to make sure that the problem you’re facing is worse than your effects. It is a smart way to approach war because then one can think about the long term situation that this war might give to a country and see if it is worth it.

Finally Ignatieff discusses peacekeeping. He brings up the negative examples of it when he talks about Bosnia and Rwanda. I agree peacekeeping now is slowly dying off and is losing its context. Just look at the UN and how the settled the genocide in Rwanda. It would be better off if we just all were allowed to look after one another and not being labelled as infringing on others rights just like he says but we still need the UN in my opinion.


Overall some of Ignatieff’s views in my opinion are realist. He knows that we cannot go into every war we see and that we must be sure we can go into those wars that we do choose. He does agree with human rights but can infringe upon them if he is certain that it will be better for them. This view to me is very much like a calculated risk view which means he is viewing the options he has. We are the world that we share with billions of others just like us. We need to protect them because they are like us. I think the best way to explain what Ignatieff wants to explain is what mama always used to say “ To treat others just like the way you would want to be treated” because by helping other people out they will help you out later on and remember you. So overall I agree with Ignatieff’s point of views.


Helpful links for more on this topic
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stms
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_bosnia.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26699.html

The Truth Behind Harper's G8 Agenda

In a group where they talk about the economy, especially now during a recession, Stephen Harper has decided to talk about protecting mothers and children in third world countries. For Canada we do not even have the 8th largest economy but we are still in this group since we negotiate our "goodness" with those countries. The G8 will be hosted by Canada this year and Stephen Harper will be host. Instead of talking about the economy Harper will negotiate goodness to be part of this club by deciding to talk about saving mothers and children in third world countries. This is definitely not out of the goodness of his heart that he wants to talk about it but rather to boost his popularity, which is slowly slipping away. He is obviously sucking up to the world. Just look at how he was chumming around with charitable people like Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was praising over Harper of saying how generous and good Canada and Harper is. There again is an example of how we negotiate our goodness to get our way. Harper is pulling the mother and child card out to make Harper look good on the world stage so that Canadians in the next election will vote for him. Also he is trying to look good for other nations so that they will open up to us more and be friends with Canada. As Thomas Hobbes will state no one does anything for anyone unless they get something out of it. Hobbes is right especially with the example. Harper also could be using this to boost his women votes for him which is low in the past elections. Another reason also is that mother mortality is a simple thing to solve according to the globe and mail. Harper can easily fix this problem with all the other nations. Harper knows he can fix it so that is why he is doing it so then people will praise him and then all the world leaders will love to work with Harper. Harper has been known not to be generous to NGO's which is surprising since what is happening now. Harper is just creating a mask of generosity and safety so that people will vote for him and other countries will like him and others will like Canada .Overall Canada and Harper will negotiate with their goodness during this G8. Harper will use this opportunity to gain votes and confidence for himself and Canada will use this opportunity to renew their memberships with all theses clubs that Canada is part of. So when Canada and the world hear Harper at the G8 this year they will hear a man who is generous and caring but the truth is he is just using the mother and child part for an excuse to push the polls and the other world leaders in his favor so that Canada can stay in these big boy groups which we don't really deserve to be in.And even we were not to care about if he is doing good for us or not because according to Robert Fox he is not clear where the government will get the money for this as he states there is " no clarity". Most of our money for foreign aids like CIDA is going to help Haiti according to The Globe And Mail. "The United Nations had hoped to reduce the number of deaths related to pregnancy by 75 per cent by 2015 as part of its Millennium Development Goals" according to Stephen Harper's website.

For helpful sites with more info go to

http://g8.gc.ca/home/
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3093

Is Barrack Obama a successful Machiavellian leader? part 2

Barrack Obama to some is a great leader and to others a bad one. In the case of Machiavelli , a man from back in the day who wrote a piece about how to be successful leader, President Obama seems to be an okay leader. Obama follows many of Machiavelli's points. For example Machiavelli states to be successful one must never lets his guard down even more in peace time than in war. Obama has done this by tightening up security at airports and many other things during non terrorist affairs. Machiavelli also states that you should apply yourself exclusively to your province. This is shown in Obama's speech by deciding to pull the troops out of Iraq and by stating that it is time for America to get back on its feet and by putting back people to work here at home was in his speech on December 1st, 2009. A Machiavellian trait that I would say failed Obama is that you have to try to blend into the last government so you don't get alot of high expectations for being new. Obama did not do this instead he portrayed himself as a perfect hero who was here to save us all. But when he really was not quickly saving us people started to lose respect and hope in Obama, hence his decreasing poll numbers. He lost alot when he issued the health bill which did not blend in with the previous president which would be another Machiavellian trait that Obama failed. Therefore Barrack Obama has good Machiavellian points and bad points too.

What is the health on the Health Bill ?

The US senate passed the health care reform bill which may be the biggest piece of legislation since the security act according to CNN.com if it is passes farther. But does everyone agree with it and will it get any farther? Obama is the closest president to making the bill happen. There has been many attempts to make a bill like this one but everyone in the past has failed. Still this health bill might not be so full and healthy yet. The government still has to decide on many things like will it cover abortion costs and how it will be payed for. To make matters worst they have to mix this bill with a trillion dollar plan that the US is doing. In my opinion the allowance of the bill is just the begining. That was the easiest part. The real work lies ahead into a mixture of morale conflicts and economics about how can they afford it. It will be a challenge for Obama and the citizens of America.

Macevelian leader part 1

Barrack Obama in his speech on Tuesday, December 1st was supposed to be addressing how they will benefit in Afghanistan and how they will help the Afghans. Instead Barrack Obama decided to give only 30,000 troops and then after 18 months the troops will start to come home. Obama seems to be leaving Afghanistan alone by itself by saying this.What is the point of having 30,000 troops if your leaving after 18 months. This just seems that he is just trying to satisfy the US domestic political opinion. Obama is trying to play both cards. By saying that we will give 30,000 more troops is supporting the Americans who want to stay in the war a bit longer while by pulling out in 18 months helps agree with those who want the war over. Obama is not looking at the needs of Afghanistan and the history of it. If Obama looked inside the history of Afghanistan that the security in Afghanistan is not strong enough for the Taliban and Al Qaeda he would realize that maybe his statement of working with the Afghan security to hold their own grounds after the US leaves might be more challenging than Obama believes. Obama also seems to more go against al Qaeda and how they affect the US then they do to Afghanistan. This is an American satisfied statement but not an Afghan one. And what about the statement that America is full of Entrepreneurs and other great occupations and that is will help America by pulling out of the war and by "Putting people to work here at home". This speech and decision does not help Afghanistan and the work that so many countries put into it out that much. With all this glorifying about 9/11 in this speech you would think that it is America helping America. This speech is an insult to the Afghan people who trusted and risked their lives for democracy and now after the 18 months they will be living in fear again just because of the greediness of the United States Of America.

"Its Pay Back Time"

According to the New York daily news 77% agree with President Obama that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind behind 9/11, and his partners in crime are to be found guilty in the Manhatten federal coutroom. 73% want Khalid Shaikh to be put to death and 67% said that his partners in this crime should also be killed. 52% said that they are concerned that the trial will bring more terrorist attacks. Even though some people do not agree with the death penalty they still believe that justice will be served by putting them in prison for life. New Yorkers are mostly okay if they were to be put on jury duty since many of them would like to get revenge and be part of history. In my opinion I believe they should be put to death. If murderers who kill a few people can get the death penalty than so should terrorists who kill hundreds. In 9/11 they killed 2,792 people so why keep these terrorists alive. Justice shall be prevailed !!!

Does the Britsh Monarchy still affect Canadians ?

The leaves are falling off the trees and its getting colder but Royalty is in the air here in Canada. Royalty ? You mean the Prime Minister ? No ! I mean Prince Charles and his wife are doing their tour of Canada to see their homeland. Homeland ? Yes you read right homeland. Did you know that the British monarchy is really also Canadian citizens ? This all started way back in the day when Canada was still part of the British colonies but now in the 21st century and we are totally separate from Britain they still are. So why do we have these Royal tours still ? Is it for morale patriotic support? Does it enrich Canadians ? I don't know but the main things is that does it still affect Canada ? I believe that the British does give a bit of support to our history since we have a lot of bonds with Britain. We've allied with Britain during both World Wars and went into our first war with the British for the Bohr War because of this it influences us and enriches us of our beginning of our nation but government wise and the British monarchy is just an old fashioned tradition that is just being used as a symbol in Canada.