Canadian Foreign Policy & Affairs II

[Armchair Admiral]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Wore the uniform or worked as a public servant? There's a difference between DND and the CAF. Much as DND Public Servants like to think otherwise.

Also, I'll say this as respectfully as possible. But 15 years ago is a lifetime given the organizational, doctrinal and technological changes that have happened since.



For some with so much experience you should know that it's not random people that maintain public webpages. You should also know how little priority is given to public unit pages since PAFFOs tend to brief the media directly.

Yeah, being out of the loop for 15 years is precisely why I'm asking... The only people I still know from that part of my life are out of the loop too.

Not sure why you're being so evasive about this, seems like you could have just linked a press release of some kind in the time it took you to write that reply? Stories about the Nepal mission were the most recent thing I could find online..

[Armchair Admiral]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

An obligation is binding. The 2% is more of a political commitment.

Ok, but making it binding would certainly be a way of demonstrating Canada's commitment, would it not?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So in effect, there's no obligation to cut emissions?

This is kinda my point. Sans penalties, the line between "obligation" and "political commitment" is unclear. One could argue there's greater implied penalties for not meeting NATO defence obligations than failing to meet climate targets.

Like any legal document it depends how it is written.

For example, this text from the Allied peace treaty with Italy after WW2 includes clear obligations and a clear settlement procedure.


Italy shall take all necessary steps to ensure the apprehension and surrender for trial of:

a.
Persons accused of having committed, ordered or abetted war crimes and crimes against peace or humanity;

b.
Nationals of any Allied or Associated Power accused of having violated their national law by treason or collaboration with the enemy during the war.

2.
At the request of the United Nations Government concerned, Italy shall likewise make available as witnesses persons within its jurisdiction, whose evidence is required for the trial of the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.

3.
Any disagreement concerning the application of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be referred by any of the Governments concerned to the Ambassadors in Rome of the Soviet Union, of the United Kingdom, of the United States of America, and of France, who will reach agreement with regard to the difficulty.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So in effect, there's no obligation to cut emissions?

This is kinda my point. Sans penalties, the line between "obligation" and "political commitment" is unclear. One could argue there's greater implied penalties for not meeting NATO defence obligations than failing to meet climate targets.

Political consequences can exceed legal consequences, in international affairs as in life.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

She lived in Canada from 12-18. Those are pretty critical years. From 1976- 82. That's a lot of our key history. Especially in Quebec. Now neither parent was from there and she severed all ties so it's very much long ago but the general rule is you are from where you graduated high school so it's not like Mitt Romney had a cottage there or something it is a real connection.

I’m calling BS. If she knows anything about Canada it’s the West Island of Montreal and that’s it. If she becomes POTUS her loyalties lie with the US and not Canada.
I wish this country would grow the hell up and realize nobody is going to grant us any favours just because they may have lived here for bit. It’s nauseating that our chattering classes embarrass us in this way.