Liberals refuse to disclose report on human rights in Saudi Arabia

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MattyC

As a Liberal voter, I am extremely disappointed with this. This is exactly what they want from their economic warfare. Have a sack.

For shame!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Thor

Can't wait til the day comes where oil isn't the source of such power and wealth. The middle east will be such a different place and the west won't have to play nice with awful regimes like the Saudi's.

That's rather naïve, actually. There will always be resources that the world demands, and there will always be unsavoury nations and tin pot dictators to deal with to get them. Sorry, mate. But there is no utopian future. Not in our lifetime, at any rate.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's rather naïve, actually. There will always be resources that the world demands, and there will always be unsavoury nations and tin pot dictators to deal with to get them. Sorry, mate. But there is no utopian future. Not in our lifetime, at any rate.

lol never suggested we'd have a utopia, interesting reach from my post.

I am suggesting say 50yrs from now we've discovered something that replaces the need for oil/gas (or dramatically reduced demands for them), and that then would decrease the wealth, power of Nations like Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, etc... Which would be terrific, I have no idea what that will do to the power structure of the areas but the west won't have to focus and bow down to nations which are such awful nations.

I mean China is going to become the pain in the ass nation to deal with as we move forward, its positioning itself to become nearly a rare earth mineral monopolist, and as a communist nation we know they will continue to be a awful human rights nation.

[Fuzz]

China doesn't really have a monopoly on Rare Earths, they just don't care about the environment or labour practices so they can extract them cheaper than anyone else.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ld-on-america/

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Thor

I am suggesting say 50yrs from now we've discovered something that replaces the need for oil/gas (or dramatically reduced demands for them), and that then would decrease the wealth, power of Nations like Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, etc...

As Elon Musk says we have a handy fusion reactor in the sky all we have to do is continue to develop more and more efficient ways to harness the power.

BTW I totally agree with what you're saying about not being dependent on energy from dictatorial regimes, can't come a day too soon. As for there being no utopian future, so we either burn oil until it completely runs out, or we live in utopian bliss. No in between at all, what an extremist way to look at things.

[Delthefunky]

The stupidest thing we're doing is burning oil. It's far more valuable as a material.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

The stupidest thing we're doing is burning oil. It's far more valuable as a material.

Aaaaammmeeeennnn

[CaptainCrunch]

Alberta should really be investing in Nuclear, and exporting electricity, instead of looking at a net importer.

I would also like my Mister Fusion generator for my car and house hold appliances.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by karl262

I find it hilarious if anyone thought the ugly side of government and politics would be any different at all because we now have a friendly talking, selfie taking handsome PM.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that a new government may approach these situations differently. That IS why we vote in a different government. If you want to be cynical about the possibility of change, that's on you. I like to hope that someone will eventually stand up to these troglodytes, regardless of the economic "cost". I don't accept trading money for principles of human decency, no matter who is in power.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by zamler

As Elon Musk says we have a handy fusion reactor in the sky all we have to do is continue to develop more and more efficient ways to harness the power.

BTW I totally agree with what you're saying about not being dependent on energy from dictatorial regimes, can't come a day too soon. As for there being no utopian future, so we either burn oil until it completely runs out, or we live in utopian bliss. No in between at all, what an extremist way to look at things.

If you need to invent false dichotomies that rely on a completely absurd interpretation of what I said to begin with, that says a lot more about your thought processes than it does anyone else's.

"Oil" is just a placeholder here - which is why I very specifically said "resources", not "oil". Because oil is merely the place holder. In the future, we might be dealing with water barons. Or Rare earth barons or whatever else comes next. Hell, many of these resources are already an issue. They just aren't at the top of the list yet.

So my point, since you failed to comprehend it, is that the world breaking away from oil control might end the importance of a nation like Saudi Arabia, but it won't change the underlying politics of the world. It would merely re-arrange the world's power structure as the nations that control the next most important resources gain influence in their place.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

To reiterate the point above a little bit..

The problem isn't just oil. It's the fact that oil backs the currency of one strong nation on earth. Oil is a part of our reality for now. The problem is that when a nations currency is backed by oil and they posses the strongest military in the history of the world, they can basically control the oil market by offering peace and prosperity(in US dollars, which are basically printed out of thin air for magical govt bonds) to those who do as they say or war and famine for those who threaten the lifeblood of their civilisation ( paper currency).

It's a slightly more complex problem than just getting the world off oil (which is unrealistic right now).

Basically it's GOD gold oil dollars. The main problem going on right now. There is way way more money out there than there is gold to back it and the problem is money was made to be just a note for gold. A lot of world economic experts believe if every country in the world asked for their gold to be delivered it would basically cause the greatest economic meltdown known to man. There are way way more gold bonds, notes, promises etc than there is actual physical gold on earth. So it's basically a bit of an elephant in the room situation. The main reason so many are eager to see a new system implemented in global currency.

I think that's the root of the problem, the way money works in the world and how there is a visible power structure that is in position to manipulate money to their advantage.

It's completely false, fake, man made. It doesn't depend on anything but how much money is printed and other strange magical processes of creating wealth out of thin air by creating pieces of paper, thus naturalising or stabilising a nations supposed "wealth". There should be a set, stable, world currency and only the commodities change value due to demand and supply.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that a new government may approach these situations differently. That IS why we vote in a different government. If you want to be cynical about the possibility of change, that's on you. I like to hope that someone will eventually stand up to these troglodytes, regardless of the economic "cost". I don't accept trading money for principles of human decency, no matter who is in power.

I think its pretty obvious that my cynicism at the prospect of change regarding the ugly parts of government and politics has been proven right. Sunny ways indeed.

[chemgear]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trude...seat-1.2819152

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s campaign for a Canadian seat on the UN Security Council got off to a rough start Wednesday, when reporters asked how Canada plans to argue it will use the position to promote peace and human rights while at the same time refusing to cancel a deal to sell armed vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

Amnesty International is calling on a dozen countries including Canada to stop arm sales to Saudi Arabia because of what they call “overwhelming evidence that the Saudi-led military coalition is failing to protect civilians, and that some attacks may amount to war crimes,” in their war in Yemen.

[rubecube]

^^Even though it wasn't his fault initially, he absolutely should wear it if he's not going to do anything about it.

[rubecube]

While there might be some truth to this:

"The government simply refused to cancel a contract that had been given the go-ahead by the previous government; a contract between a private company and Saudi Arabia," Dion told a Senate committee last month.

"This is an important distinction, because if we would cancel a contract that has been approved, there would probably be stiff penalties that Canadian taxpayers would have to pay."

This is a total cop-out:

Trudeau told reporters in New York that Canada’s $15-billion deal to sell light-armoured vehicles must go ahead in order to preserve the principle that “a change of government does not endanger everything that was previously signed.”

"It would indeed be just about impossible for Canada to conduct business in the world ... if there was a perception that any contract that went beyond the duration of the life cycle of a given government might not be honoured,” he said.

[Fuzz]

As much as I hate the deal, he does have a good point. This isn't some trade deal that has been signed but not ratified, it's contract. It may be worse to have taxpayers hand over a big payout AND lose the Canadian jobs at the same time.

[Mr.Coffee]

Well, not just the NDP but previous provincial governments seem to think unilaterally re-negotiating lease contracts with oil companies about what royalties should or shouldn't be owed is ok.

I don't see why governments can't overrule a contract if it is deemed not to be in the best interest of the nation or populace.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well, not just the NDP but previous provincial governments seem to think unilaterally re-negotiating lease contracts with oil companies about what royalties should or shouldn't be owed is ok.

I don't see why governments can't overrule a contract if it is deemed not to be in the best interest of the nation or populace.

They can, but they can also get sued for breaking the contract.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

While there might be some truth to this:
This is a total cop-out:

Actually, I find both of those points pretty convincing.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

The geopolitics of the Middle East are poised to change dramatically over the coming years...I'm not sure there is ANY decent option about who to support and how to engage.