Feb. 28 - Just when you think it's the last word on something ... according to Canadians are open to missile plan from the National Post, Canadians seem to "oppose it in practice, support it in principle."

A recent Compas poll indicates that:

The survey shows 54% oppose Canadian participation in the shield and 36% support it. But while opposing the shield itself, many respondents support the principles behind its creation.

For example, 56% said Canada should help protect North America against missiles, while 53% said it cannot be an independent country if it relies on the United States for protection.

Furthermore, 53% of those surveyed believe Canada needs to protect its cities because the country does have enemies and only 30% give credence to the argument that increased military spending will provoke others to attack Canada.

[...]

There is also a dwindling belief the United States would help defend Canada against an international attack, the poll suggests.

In April, 1998, 32% of respondents said they had "a lot of confidence" the Americans would protect Canada. By April, 2003, the percentage who gave the same answer fell to 19% and in the new poll, the number stands at 13%.

Only in Quebec is the opposition to missile defence unshakeable, according to the COMPAS poll. In that province, respondents reject the program by a ratio of three to one. Mr. Winn [COMPAS president Conrad Winn] suggested Quebec has a long history of opposing military programs, dating back to the Boer War.

(Link via Canada Free Press.)

Posted by: Debbye at 03:42 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 28 - Startling article by Judi McLeod and David Hawkins in Canada Free Press about Canada's hidden, media-ignored role in electronic warfare.

Weapons of electronic intelligence and electronic warfare are where the nation of Canada holds the cutting edge.

Through an intricate series of subsidiaries and sub-contractors, leading back to the blind trust running his Canadian Steamship Lines company, Prime Minister Paul Martin is still at the epicenter of that cutting edge.

In the development and design of Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) for military aircraft, Canada maintains a first-place role.

IAPs are published instructions to pilots, specifying a series of aircraft maneuvers that must be executed for the aircraft to transition safety from an en route driving final approach, when flying by instruments.

In addition to CMC and BAE selling flight simulators in the global marketplace, Lansdowne's project managers also conduct something called "Lessons Learned" or what the Americans would call, "Red-Team Analysis" for NORAD's war games--including the simulations carried out on, and just prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Irrefutable proof that NORAD was conducting "simulation experiments" at the same time as the attacks, exists.

It was alleged confusion from these war game simulations that gave the NORAD commanders the convenient (and at the time, credible) excuse to order all U.S. Air Force military bases to "stand down" when they were about to scramble jets to escort or shoot down the alleged hijacked aircraft that nearly one hour later, crashed into several buildings.

Explaining the 9/11 collapse of NORAD command, control, communications and intelligence (C31 war-room) systems, the 9/11 Commission report cited a failure of imagination where no one (in America, at least) conducted "Red Team"--analysis as seen through the eyes of the enemy on how to convert hijacked jets into fuel-laden, precision-guided, un-intercepted missiles. (See www.9/11 Commission Report).

It now appears that project managers for the then-Paul Martin-owned Lansdowne Blind Trust Company were conducting Red-Team Analysis, in support of Canada’s participation in NORAD’s 9/11-style war games–but they just didn’t happen to share their web-enabled war-room insights with Canada’s allies in America.

The 9/11 Commission claimed that prior to September 11, 2001 no one was looking for possible telltale indicators that may have aroused suspicion. Indicators, such as prospective Arab-speaking terrorist group members using the CSL blind trust concealed behind Lansdowne to buy advanced flight simulators from companies such as CAE in Montreal, or flight-training lessons from corporate giants, such as Bombardier, which operates the NATO flight-training schools in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.

Is CanadaÂ’s role in the ongoing attacks on the American-led "Coalition of the Willing", one of counter-counter terror?

Posted by: Debbye at 03:16 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Feb. 27 - I don't often get depressed after reading an Andrew Coyne post, but when he's right, he's right, and his conclusions about The missile defence decision are bang on:

... the only objection most of the critics have is that it involves a) the Americans, and b) military hardware. And because a good number of these people are to be found on the Liberal backbench, the Prime Minister feels obliged to kowtow to them. So we will make critical decisions on foreign and defence policy based on purely internal politics -- internal, not as in Canada, but as in the Liberal Party.

I had followed Bob's link to a Toronto Star editorial which criticized Martin's decision not to participate in the missile defense shield program and noted but couldn't comment on this assertion until the inner ranting ceased:

Yet, if Martin failed a leadership test, Bush also failed to make a decisive case for joining. And Harper offered Bush no comfort. This was a systems failure from the get-go. The Three Amigos never got their act together.

So much for the much-ballyhooed Canadian sovereignty. By blaming Bush, the Toronto Star editorial concedes that Canada's leaders don't have the capability (or balls) to provide leadership on issues that concern the defense of Canada.

The Star editorial ends with misplaced optimism

If that [increased military spending in the recent budget] doesn't buy us credibility with allies, nothing will.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:22 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.

Feb. 25 - Greg Weston sees a bright side to Martin's decision to stay out of missile defense:

If average Americans had been following Paul Martin's stand on U.S. missile defence, they would surely be relieved by yesterday's announcement that Canada will not be part of it.

An Armageddon warhead incoming at four kilometres per second is no time to be sharing command and control of North American air defence with a dithering prime minister.

Prime Minister Paul Martin is insisting that United States seek permission before firing any missiles over Canada.

14:13 - The latest test shot down a short range missile. 5 out of 6 - not bad for a system that "doesn't work." (via Peaktalk.)

Feb. 26 - Terrific post from Evan at 101-280 - Sweet Surrender not only on the ballistic missile defense (BMD) controversy but on the future of NORAD and the state of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:30 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 24 - US Amb. Paul Cellucci reflects the confusion of many Americans:

"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

There is more about US reaction to the latest Martin decision along similar lines as the first linked item in Missile decision prompts U.S. warning. Everyone is saying what you'd expect them to say, but it's all so very pro-forma that I wonder if Martin's announcement could really have been that much of a surprise.

But the timing! Need I even bother to go into the timing of Martin's announcement? The NATO conference was earlier hyped as being the ideal setting for Martin to step onto the international stage and reveal himself as a statesman capable of playing an intermediary role to reconcile Old Europe and the USA. Instead it became the setting for establishing more distance between Canada and the USA!

And what of NORAD? The 2004 amendment to the NORAD agreement to which Frank McKenna, the next Canadian Ambassador to the US, alluded expanded NORAD's mission and thus allowed Canadian personnel assigned to NORAD to track incoming missiles.

Future repercussions are a possibility, though, and opting out of missile defence could alter Canadian role in NORAD:

... retired lieutenant-general George MacDonald says that while excluding itself from the plan may ultimately change Canada's role in Norad, it won't end it. "Canadians will not have any participation in the actual decision-making or the rules of engagement or anything to do with ballistic missile defence," said MacDonald, a former vice-chief of defence staff and now a consultant.

"We will simply be feeding the system. And the question that ultimately may be asked is whether this is still an important mission for Norad to do."

At some point, MacDonald says, the Americans may want to lop off the warning element of missile defence from Norad altogether, thereby excluding Canada from the process outright.

Pieter has some thoughts on the matter, and an excellent insight on those matters which, being "unspeakable" in Canada, help explain how the Opposition "failed the test of political competency."

23:22 Paul is in top form:

Extensive discussions between Mr. Dithers, Pierre Pettigrew - AKA Ludicrous Hair Man -, and Screeching Bill Graham...that sure does inspire a lot of confidence somehow, doesn't it?

The Three Stooges sort of come to mind for some reason...

Feb. 25 - 00:31: There's a lengthy (for us) thread over at the Shotgun.

New Sisyphus weighs in as, again, do the commenters.

From the Telegraph (UK):

Canada has turned down the Bush administration's pleas to join its missile defence programme, dealing a further damaging blow to relations between the North American neighbours.

Paul Martin, the prime minister, has secretly conveyed the decision to Washington despite a personal request from President George W Bush to think again.

[...]

The decision is believed to mark the first time in decades that Canada had refused a US request to join a strategic programme to defend the North American continent. (Bolding added.)

Feb. 25 - 14:29: It actually has gotten worse. See here.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:43 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 682 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Cheers for the link, Debbye.

Posted by: Paul Jané at February 25, 2005 02:33 AM (FOtPl)

2 You're welcome! (Now get back to your homework ...)

Posted by: Debbye at February 25, 2005 04:27 PM (YRSpS)

3 Wow. I wish I could see or read the reactions to that truth-filled assessment. Indeed, Canada is certainly cozying up to Kofi, EU and the gang. Oh well... birds of a feather...

Posted by: Michael at February 26, 2005 01:36 AM (/eGwj)

4 What's wrong with the EU- especially the WEU? I'v never understood this argument by you right wingers. Its just "HOHOH I HATE THE EU" without any valid reasons. I know loons like Jerry Fawell don't like it- but that can't be the only reason- can it? As for birds of a feather, may i remind you that roughly 2/3 of the EU memberstates (including several "old Europe" members like Spain) participated in the Iraqi debacle of 2003. Explain- what's wrong with the EU?

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 12:23 PM (Ojo2r)

5 Nothing's wrong with the EU. When run and organized properly, it can be a helpful ally. When the leaders of France, Spain, and Germany undermine the protection of the free world, insult and defile the American soldiers burried at Normandy beach - then there's a problem. Chretien and Martin have aligned themselves with their French bretheren so many times that they're practically European now. I'm not going to go any farther than that. I'd be better off talking to this wall in front of me than try to explain to a lib why America is the good guys.

Posted by: Michael at February 27, 2005 03:43 PM (BQ8wu)

6 "When run and organized properly, it can be a helpful ally." By "run properly" assume you mean "turn it into an American dogsbody" I don't know how they're defling the dead at Normandy as well (which is a cheap emotional off topic attack that's usually the last resort of bad writers) by choosing not to fight another war in which tens of thousands of civilians have died and was built upon flimsy pretenses in the first place. Maybe the memory of senseless wars in which thousands have died are far too strong in the minds of many people to rush into war like the Americans have done many times in the past. And Europe never threatened the security of the "free world". It wasn't like France pointed their nukes at North America and Germany pulled out of NATO. Besides, we all know Iraq never was a threat to American security anyways. Just admit that. Please? (PS i never called the US the "bad guys"- I'm Canadian. they've never bombed my country or supported death sqauds in it. So they're still OK in my book. As long as they keep talking baout their love of "freedom" (but not liberty) they're A-OK!)

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 05:07 PM (Ojo2r)

7 Michael wrote that "America was the good guys". Yes indeed they are, but right now they are beseiged by a gang of outlaws. They have committed war crimes, violated the Geneva Conventions, and did so on orders from the top. It was Rumsfeld himself who said that the "Geneva Accords do not apply" to the conflict in Afghanistan for example, but somehow did apply in Iraq, at least until he violated them in Abu Graub. The strategic defence of North American Airspace is going to require some serious fresh thinking that is going to involve Canada, Mexico and the United States, but not under this current regime in Washington. NORAD needs to be rebuilt, not simply tinkered with in the face of Russian announcements for the deployment of new hypersonic strategic cruise missiles. Russia and China have nuclear weapons and are refining both the weapons and and the means of their delivery. It is clear that the missile defense shield is a technical impossibility at the current time and the current state of the art, but its certainly correct that work should begin anew as to what needs to be done about the rising threat, not so much from North Korea as from China and increasingly Russia itself. Russia today still have some 18,000 nuclear warheads or more. A new arms limitation treaty that would permit some modernization that would increase security and also provide for the decommissioning of these existing stockpiles is ESSENTIAL for all these countries, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL. We need a new NORAD structure for the twenty-first century that includes Mexico, Canada and the United States. However, it is not going to happen with this current Administration in Washington.

Posted by: Joe Green at February 27, 2005 05:12 PM (5dXW9)

8 You can be mean Joe Green.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 06:00 PM (Ojo2r)

9 "It was Rumsfeld himself who said that the "Geneva Accords do not apply" to the conflict in Afghanistan for example..." He said no such thing. He said that the Geneva accords do not apply to terrorists, either in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter, which is absolutely true. The fact is, if you do not sign the Geneva accords, you do not have their protection. If you do not fight in uniform, you do not have protection even if you sign. But the United States has always said that we would treat prisoners humanely. With that said, what happened did not by any stretch arise to the charge of war crimes. The US armed forces discovered the abuses, the US investigated, and the US prosecuted. Your statement of "on orders from the top", war crimes, etc is just typical Bush/Hitler accusation without evidence or logic. I was curious earlier about your sources, but now that I have read your idea of fact, I'll pass on the request. Sorry about that Saddam thing, but you need to get over it. I notice that they always feel free to criticize America, Britain and Australia but never dare to anger their enemies with charges of war crimes and abuse, even when they saw off the head of a woman who has given her life to helping Iraqis. Very Canadian.

Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 08:35 PM (EzNXf)

10 "if you do not fight in uniform, you do not have protection even if you sign." This inspired a long post. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. Both the United States and Iraq are signatories. Secondly, if you infact insist that "terrorists" should not be afforded protection under the Geneva convention, then by all means they should be considered CIVILIANS and afforded the same rights, if not better. Rumsfeld did say such a thing. The United States acted in such a manner from Sept 2001 onward. In fact, by January 2002, Rumsfeld, under international pressure, acknowledged that the Conventions do apply to all of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, reversing earlier statements to the contrary. But, even today, Amnesty International and the Red Cross suspect that systemic human rights abuses are taking place in US military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. As for the Geneva convention not applying to you if you are not a signatory, since the treaty has been ratified and upheld by some many countiries for such a long time, it is considered to be customary and gradually becoming an international norm. Violation of customs and norms is considered a war crime/crime against humanity as well (there was no Geneva convention and very little treaties regarding the conduct of international conflict prior to 1949, yet Nazis were tried foo offenses that violated international customs and norms-as well as the Big Four). A more contemporary example of this (that you may like) surrounds the display of POWs by the press and military officals. Neither the US or IRaq has signed the 1977 amendment to the convention, yet the customary belief was so strong that the United States claimed that Iraq was committing a war crime when it showed American POWs(notwithstanding the fact that Iraq was awash in thousands of journalists at the time). How very American (though since you opine on Canadian politics, i suspect you are Canadian). Shooting your mouth off on something you know nothing about.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 11:17 PM (Ojo2r)

11 What you quoted directly contradicts the point of view you are defending. You can't fight in civilian attire and be covered. You have to at least wear distinctive markings recognizable from a distance (see your own post above). I guess that eliminates every terrorist and Taliban along with Michael Moore's freedom fighters in Iraq who you cry over because they get their picture taken with underwear on their heads. All that your talk of war crimes accomplishes is to point out the high standards that you hold the US to while ignoring, deliberately, your own responsibilities for the horrendous abuses of the regimes you refuse to criticize. Citing the Red Cross and Amnesty Int'l does the same for them. Those organizations barely raised a peep while real war crimes were committed against millions of people in the totalitarian regimes that were overthrown. Amnesty Int'l fought desperately to prevent Saddam from being brought down. I lost a very good friend, a member of the AI group that concentrates on issues relating to torture, because our friendship could not survive his insistence that Saddam's continuing torture and killing of his people was preferable to the civilian deaths that would result from the Iraqi war. He also refused to give credence to the idea that Arabs could handle democracy, a remark I found racist and pathetic. I reminded him that the Democratic slaveholders in America's South said the same about blacks handling freedom. The Red Cross, after refusing to publicize incredible atrocities, including the Holocaust during WWII, based on their 'principles' suddenly decided that the US deserved condemnation so much that they broke the rules that prevented them from revealing that millions of Jews were being murdered. Sorry, Americans know that politics and not principle is involved there. It is the same politics that places Libya at the head of the Human Rights Commission after Lockerbie and rule by military dictator for 20 years, along with Syria. Give me a break. American forces have shown remarkable restraint in dealing with terrorists in Iraq and around the world. That the US would punish our own soldiers for abusing prisoners while the murderers of the Iraqi people and their hopes for democracy are cheered by people like you and Michael Moore is indicative of the 'moral force' behind you. Terrorists should be treated even better than civilians?? OK How brave of you to condemn American, British and Australian actions for freedom and democracy while you avoid the battle. And yes, very Canadian.

Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 12:04 AM (EzNXf)

12 ***Long post alert.*** Wow. Mikem knows better than international lawyers, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, The ICC, Strageitc institutes, legal and political academics, former JAGs, The ICJ, IR specalists, human rights groups, hundreds of years of internationally customs and norms, and the basic democratic principles that western democracies are founded upon. Pray tell sir, please tell me names of your alma maters. I am intregued as to who as instructed you in the ways of the world. Also you have deliberately misconstrued by post and attempted to throw it off topic by Michael Moore attacks(?), mentioning Nazis (Godwyn's law) and bizzare personal anecdotes that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. I won't respond to each of your logical errors (there are many), but I will assure you i did not contradict myself. If the insurgents are not considered by the US to be an international volunteer corps (likely in Afghanistan) or part of a mass national levee(or uprising, which is taking place in Iraq reagrdless of how you spin it) then the US should consider them to be civilians. Its not to say that they aren't fighting (they are) but just playing by the rules of the international game. Give combatiants their legal rights set out in treaty and custom, or treat them as civilians. Its that simple. Don't make up stuff about "enemy combatiants" and act like hypocrites while men(who could be innocent-and yes, it has happened, especially at Gitmo) languish in jails without basic legal protections while the US talks about the ideals of "Freedom" and "Democracy". Does it hurt your feelings that The Economist (a right wing and one of the most influential policy and finance mags)has condemend the US for human rights abuses in Iraq and Gitmo? So offended they were that they endorsed Kerry over Bush(!). Guess you better add The Economist to the every growing pile of "liberal" media. The US supreme court also maintains that persons detained on military bases have a tangible connection to the United States and should be affored the constitutional protections that apply to any resident of the US. That includes freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, habeus corpus rights, etc. At it involved a case during the "war on drugs"-not a conventional war. So at the very least, the insurgents in American custody should be afforded some of the rights as a citizen, albeit in from a military legal framwork and one that deals with the issues surrounding terrorism and international conflict. The US should respect the international ideals set out in custom, treaty and norms. Afterall, they had a role in developing it in the first place. As for you criticism of of Amnesty International and the IRCS as humanitarian groups that for some reason love dictators, well, I'd refrain from making such statments in the future. It doesn't make you look very smart. Many Western democracies like the US, the UK, France and Canada have appeared on Amnesty International's shit list, sharing space with secular and religious states, left and right wing dictatorships. They care about human rights, not some murky secret agenda. I'm sure you will respond with exaggerations, maybe some Nazi/Stalinist references, bizzare anecdotes, invoke the names of Michael Moore, Susan Sontag and Noam Chomksy (your Muses?) and once again ignore every point that contradicts you makes you look like a fool. I suspect "unelected judges" will make a cameo as well. PS: The US has committed several massive human rights abuses in the past without the perpretators ever seeing justice. They adopt a higher moral ground along with many other western democracies, but they are by no means angels.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 11:58 AM (CI79g)

13 You are still arguing that terrorists, because they cannot be considered soldiers in the sense that those treaties are meant to cover, should be treated as civilians. My answer is OK, you do that. America will treat terrorists and combatants hiding in civilian clothes as they should, locked up until the end of the conflict. If you had any sense of real ethics, you would have at least spent a word or two condemning the terrorists who kill civilians and Coalition soldiers to prevent democracy from taking root in Iraq and Afghanistan. But your arguments are not meant to ensure civilized behavior, they are meant to legitimize terrorist actions against others by demanding that the terrorists be treated like peaceful protesters. How about condemning the terrorists, man of many names for once, instead of condemning those who battle them? Or are your sympathies with them?

Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 12:49 PM (EzNXf)

14 Wow. That was a sad reaction. You ignored everything else out of what, fear? willful ignorance? That's not what i said. You seem to be either trying to be taxing to me or just very thick. I said if the US won't treat the insurgents as POWs with all the protections afforded to them by law and custom (because they are enemy combatiants) then they should classify them as civilians. This is not because they are civilians, but because it is wrong to leave anyone in legal limbo. And yes, it is. Its a waste of time at this point to explain it to you why, as i have done so already over the last 2 points. Too bad. I was hoping to engage you in a serious discussion, but you jump to the stupidest conclusions possible. Very sad. I guess that happens when i love terror and hate democracy as you claim. I just posted two points calling for the US and people like you to respect democracy and human rights (as well as international custom and law) and yet you seem to think i support terrorists. Yes. Anti-Western and anti-democratic terrorist sympathizers hide behind western law, treaty and custom all the time. (of course, in your troll's little schema, they probably do) I certainly hope you don't act this way in real life among real people. I can see why you lost your friend as you claimed. Because you are a knee-jerk idiot who jumps to cliched plaitudes and strawmen when he's faced with a serious debate. Good job.

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 04:36 PM (NjfE5)

15 Nothing like hearing a lecture from someone who uses multiple avatars to build phony support for his repetitive claims of American evil around the world. Your demands for Americans to walk the perfect line in dealing with terrorists is just a whining lament that terrorists and dictatorships are losing ground around the world. I don't have to apologize for each and every sin an American soldier makes because they are all magnified in excruciating detail so that the do nothings like you can feel justified in standing behind while others defend freedom and democracy (I know, it makes you sick to hear that.) Again, hold yourself and the terrorists you defend to the same standard.

Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 01:15 AM (EzNXf)

16 Shrill.

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 01, 2005 03:19 AM (Ojo2r)

17 krill

Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 05:27 PM (EzNXf)

18 Last Word. I win.

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 02, 2005 02:03 AM (Ojo2r)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Feb. 23 - Paul Martin, please call home. There seems to be some confusion as to Canada's participation in the Missile Shield Defense program (Missile muddle.)

As the article notes, the amended NORAD agreement makes Canadian participation in the program de facto but there is a loophole if one squints hard enough. Bob explains better than I could.

A generous interpretation is that the Canadian government wants to pretend they aren't protected under the shield in order to placate any one of the xxxx groups lined up to scream hysterically about the weaponization of space, the environment, Canadian sovereignty or the relative merits of Final Fantasy VIII; a less generous interepretation is that they don't know what the hell they're doing.

I expressed a wish long ago that the USA could implement the missile shield without defending a reluctant Canada, and now I read that Japanese inclusion could make that happen. Wouldn't that be interesting!

Via Peaktalk, a CS Monitor headlines nails it: US allies: Australia signs up, Canada signs off (Australia is sending 450 more troops in Iraq in order to protect Japanese engineering teams.) The article points out a key difference: Howard has a majority government and Martin has a minority one, and who really doubted the outcome when Martin decided to form a government with the NDP?

Posted by: Debbye at 07:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 22 - From this morning, Martin quiet at NATO summit:

BRUSSELS (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin tiptoed around the edge of the limelight Monday prior to the NATO summit as U.S. President George W. Bush's attempted reconciliation with Europe took centre stage. [Aside: What. Ever.]

[...]

Prior to the gathering in Brussels, senior federal officials played up Canada's role as a potential intermediary between the world's only remaining superpower and a continent that is routinely alarmed with the unilateral bent of the Bush administration.

But there has been no evidence of any fence-mending diplomacy by Canada, as none of the prime minister's bilateral meetings during the summit include any outspoken opponents of U.S. foreign policy.

Nevertheless, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew insisted that Canada's role, although unseen, was still important.

"It is a very natural role for Canada to play a bridge between the United States and the European Union," he said.

"We have a lot of friends in Europe. We are highly regarded on the positions we've taken. At the same time, we are the United States' immediate neighbour, their best friend."

From this evening: the Prime Minister broke his silence to address the delegates on Iran:

Prime Minister Paul Martin warned NATO leaders Tuesday that they should be prepared to stand up to Iran in order to check the Islamic republic's potential nuclear ambitions.

He told the 25 other alliance leaders at the end of their one-day summit in Brussels that the Islamic republic poses a "serious proliferation threat."

While "diplomacy and dialogue" remain a top priority, the prime minister said the world community "must be prepared to stand behind our words with stronger measures, if necessary."

Tougher measures could include UN-mandated sanctions, but U.S. President George W. Bush has repeatedly suggested he's prepared to use military action if diplomacy fails. (Bolding added.)

Given the results of a recent poll, Yanks "Slick" (sic) and Tired of U.N., I don't think U.N. imposed sanctions are going to be well received by either the American public or Congress. (NY Post link via Neale News.)

The PM was at least more candid than his "senior federal officials:"

Prior to the summit, federal officials played up Canada's potential role in bridging the gap between Europe and the United States, but Martin admitted he was largely on the sidelines.

"The truth of the matter is, to the extent there was a rift, I think it was healed by President Bush and the Europeans," he said. "Canada has a pretty good understanding of both sides and we'll continue to play the role."

Posted by: Debbye at 07:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.

Feb. 22 - The next Ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna, has been appearing before the Commons [Parliament] foreign affairs committee and has some interesting observations. McKenna: Canada, U.S. 'never more different'. Some excerpts:

Canadians shouldn't worry about their sovereignty because in many ways this country and the United States have never been further apart, says the next ambassador to Washington.

McKenna thinks the U.S. should back off on criticisms of Canadian marijuana decriminalization. He worries about the gulf between Canadian and American understanding of one another. And he believes the two countries can't do enough to harmonize their shared border.

"I don't think I've ever seen the countries, in many ways, more different," McKenna told the committee.

"We're going in a very different direction from the United States of America."

By example, he cited legislative measures such as same-sex marriage, gun control and pot decriminalization.

And he said Canada's "whole approach with respect to preserving the social structure, social security in Canada, is dramatically different from the direction of the United States of America.

"We just seem to be much further apart than we've ever been before. So my view is Canadians have done a good job of protecting our cultural integrity and our sovereignty."

There are links to two older articles about McKenna: new Canadian Ambassador to the United States and Toronto Sun: NEWS - New envoy is frank.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 20 - Mark Steyn's regular column in The Western Standard was on Canada's least-known person, Paul Desmarais:

... there has indeed been a Canadian making a difference in the world-and if The National wanted to do a 133-part special report on him, for once they’d have enough material. Most of us know Paul Desmarais as the . . . [those ellipses in original] well, let’s hold it there: most Canadians don’t know Paul Desmarais at all. You could stop the first thousand people walking down Yonge Street and I’ll bet no one would know who he is. But the few who do know him know him as the kingmaker behind Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin. Jean Chrétien’s daughter is married to Paul Desmarais’s son. Paul Martin was an employee of M. Desmarais’s Power Corp., and his Canada Steamship Lines was originally a subsidiary of Power Corp. that M. Desmarais put Mr. Martin in charge of. In other words, Paul Martin’s public identity--successful self-made businessman, not just a career pol, knows how to meet payroll, etc.--is entirely derived from the patronage of M. Desmarais.

Imagine if Jenna Bush married the chairman of HalliburtonÂ’s son, and then George W. Bush was succeeded by a president whoÂ’d been an employee of Halliburton: Michael MooreÂ’s next documentary would be buried under wall-to-wall Oscars and Palmes dÂ’Or. But M. Desmarais has managed to turn Ottawa into a company town without anyone being aware of the company. .. Power Corp.Â’s other alumni range from Quebec premiers to CanadaÂ’s most prominent international diplomat, Maurice Strong. In fairness, you donÂ’t have to work for M. Desmarais to reach the top of the greasy pole-Kim Campbell managed it, for about a week and a half.

we’re in the middle of the UN Oil-for-Fraud investigation, the all-time biggest scam, bigger than Enron and Worldcom and all the rest added together. And whaddaya know? The bank that handled all the money from the program turns out to be BNP Paribas, which tends to get designated by Associated Press and co. as a “French bank” but is, as it happens, controlled by one of M. Desmarais’s holding companies. That alone should cause even the droopiest bloodhound to pick up a scent: the UN’s banker for its Iraqi “humanitarian” program turns out to be (to all intents) Saddam’s favourite oilman.

On a (relatively) lighter note, as the President begins his European tour, Mark Steyn asks and answers the burning question of the day: What's US policy on Europe? No giggling.

What does all this mean? Nothing. In victory, magnanimity – and right now Bush can afford to be magnanimous, even if Europe isn't yet ready to acknowledge his victory. On Thursday, in a discussion of "the greater Middle East", the President remarked that Syria was "out of step". And, amazingly, he's right. Not so long ago, Syria was perfectly in step with the Middle East – it was the archetypal squalid stable Arab dictatorship. Two years on, Syria hasn't changed, but Iraq has, and, to varying degrees, the momentum in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon (where the Syrians have overplayed their hand) is also in the Bush direction. Boy Assad finds himself in the position of the unfortunate soldier in Irving Berlin's First World War marching song, "They Were All Out Of Step But Jim".

The EU isn't the Arab League, though for much of the past three years it's been hard to tell the difference. But it, too, is out of step. The question is whether the Europeans are smart enough, like the savvier Sunnis in Iraq, to realise it. The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt compared the President's inaugural speech with Gerhard Schröder's keynote address to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last week and observed that, while both men talked about the Middle East, terrorism and 21st-century security threats, Mr Bush used the word "freedom" 27 times while Herr Schröder uttered it not once; he preferred to emphasise, as if it were still March 2003 and he were Arab League Secretary-General, "stability" – the old realpolitik fetish the Administration has explicitly disavowed. It's not just that the two sides aren't speaking the same language, but that the key phrases of Mr Bush's vocabulary don't seem to exist in Chirac's or Schröder's.

By the Way, SteynOnline is off it's brief (?!) hiatus and open for your one-stop Steyn reading spot.

Feb. 23 - Austin Bay disagrees with Mark Steyn on the death of the West:

Steyn’s “bleakest last sentence” (to quote Roger Simon) is way too fin d’siecle. Steyn writes: “This week we’re toasting the end of an idea: the death of “the West".” Try and tell that to Ukraine and Poland– and for that matter, Denmark. Post- Theo van Gogh Holland may also object.

Feb. 28 - Mark Steyn responds to Austin Bay here (scroll down.) Very worthwhile read.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:00 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 834 words, total size 6 kb.

Feb. 20 - Sometimes I get so angry at the snobbery and elitism portrayed by some that I forget to remember the inherent decency and salt-of-the-earth qualities that are also a daily part of life up here. A case in point in this 9-day game in Edmonton. (The Toronto Sun also carries the story here.)

The previous record of 203 hours had been held by a group in Sudbury, Ontario, and the Edmonton players plan to finish up tomorrow after playing 240 consecutive hours. The score at one point was 1,540-1,360 with Team A leading. Sheesh, can you imagine scoring that game?

This game is being played to raise $200,000 for fighting cancer.

Feb. 21: Final score: "about" 2,500 to 2,300 and they did indeed raise more than $200,000. (Also a minor correction: the CBC link says the game was played in an outdoor rink in Sherwood Park near Edmonton.)

Speaking of long playing records, a brief career of Gordie Howe is in today's Toronto Sun. (If that name only rings a dim bell, think "Gordie Howe Hat Trick," which is a goal, an assist, and a fight.)

Posted by: Debbye at 02:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 20 - Members of the Land Force Western Area returned to Edmonton last night after a 6-month tour in Afghanistan (Hope delivered):

"They kept Kabul, and the region around Kabul, secure in a way that allowed people to start to create normal lives, to start to build houses and invest in their future," said Brig.-Gen. Stu Beare.

"The bottom line, people are making buildings. People are building roads, people are putting in electricity in a country that had none of that during the Taliban era.

"What does that mean? That people have hope, so there's been a huge difference."

Despite the questionable support of the Canadian government, members of the Canadian military have steadfastly adhered to their duties, and as the post below demonstrates, this has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated by the public.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb, 20 - The following speaks for itself:

Letter to the Editor (one day link life) in the Sunday Toronto Sun:

This is an open letter to the individual who anonymously paid for our dinner at The Keg at the Sheppard Centre last Sunday.

As military officers, we accept our duties and responsibilities without thought of receiving thanks from the Canadian public which we serve.

Your gesture that night was truly humbling and encouraging.

To the group of us who benefitted by your generosity, the other patrons and staff at the restaurant, and colleagues of ours who were not present, your thanks that night was an example of tangible proof that Canadians do support the Canadian Forces and the missions it undertakes on behalf of all Canadians.

On behalf of ourselves, and the others you have touched -- thank you.

Major P. Brunberg

Major S. Banerrjee

Major G. Sexton

Captain J. Goetz

Captain T. Underhill

Posted by: Debbye at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 18 - Everyone's covering this, but no one does it like Paul (heh!)

Posted by: Debbye at 08:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Cheers for the link, Debbye.

Posted by: Paul Jané at February 18, 2005 11:10 PM (FOtPl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Feb. 18 - Adil Charkaoui, (some background here,) has been freed on $50,000 bail after being held without charges for nearly two years.

Feb. 22: Morocco wants to extradite Charkaoui on the basis of an arrest warrant issued last September, but he says he's being framed.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 17 - Still no plan on how to implement Kyoto (MPs rip delays on Kyoto) but there is a dandy quote from Opposition Leader Stephen Harper:

If it costs $4 billion to achieve nothing, how much will it cost to achieve something?

Some might think the Canadian taxpayer is a tad jaundiced on the subject of government ad campaigns.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 17 - Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson makes some very good points about the straitjacketed Canadian news media and admits himself to be an avid Bill O'Reilly fan (Making airwaves.)

Jackson looks at Fox coverage as a Canadian who is delighted to finally have conservative views given a respectable hearing up here, and I look at Fox coverage as an American who is relieved - and restored - to finally have American views given a respectable hearing up here. Fox isn't perfect (I find it a little too loosey-goosey and cliche-ridden) but I'd have to be either a masochist or a self-hater to tolerate CBC-style coverage of American issues.

The other confirmed fan, Mark, also watches The O'Reilly Factor nightly. This is a sweet, lovable guy who does considerate things like leaving a plate of dinner in the oven for me when I oversleep and don't eat before going to work (he knows that when I get home I'll settle for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rather than spend time fixing a proper meal.) I only mention that example of niceness because he's also a pitcher who, with 3 balls on him, would just as soon drill the batter in the ribs for the walk.

Maybe it's a nebulous No Quarter Given factor that inspires viewers. One of the thing Mark likes about O'Reilly is that he doesn't pull any punches (just keep O'Reilly out of the batters box.) Oh well, whatever O'Reilly's immense appeal I seem to be missing it but don't begrudge him or his fans. After all, Fox gives me Charles Krauthammer, Michelle Malkin and Oliver North. People who I've long followed in print are now three-dimensional and I'm loving it.

Fox News has the potential to shake things up in Canada. There is a wide gulf between what Canadians think they know about us and what they actually do know, and that lack of understanding is due in large part to the way the news media slants their coverage. Either the Canadian MSM - excluding Sun Media - don't get Americans and that's why they can't represent us fairly or they do get us and willfully represent us unfairly.

The same could be said about Canadians, by the way, who are monolithically represented by their media at home and abroad.

There is also a notable bigger lack of diversity in how news from other nations - espcially Iraq - is reported. For example, most of what Canadians knew about the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program prior to the Volcker Interim Report was through blogs and Fox News, and more than a few of them are wondering why they had not heard of the scandal before.

The Iraq elections and the Hariri assassination and subsequent reaction to it in Lebanon has focused an unflattering spotlight on Syria, and Canadians who view Fox News with an open mind may not alter their views (whatever those might be) but they will at least be exposed to facts and interpretations of those facts that have been underreported in much of the Canadian media and thus have a clearer understanding of why and how American views differ from theirs.

And to think I have al Jazeera to thank for finally gaining access to Fox News. Ironically, the former still doesn't seem to be broadcasting up here due to concerns over its potential to emit hate speech yet it is and has long been available in the repressive, facist USA.

Sigh. You don't have to actually live in Canada to understand the notion of Orwellian but it helps.

Feb. 21: Tim is definitely in! (and I like his reasoning.)

Posted by: Debbye at 06:51 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 617 words, total size 4 kb.

Feb. 16 - This was not the best day to get my T-4 slips, you know? Grits hide $9B in slush funds:

Eight years after the first foundation was set up, for instance, nine of them collectively still have over $7.7 billion of the original $9.1 billion in their bank accounts.

A handy hiding place for the Liberal government to stash its annual surplus on budget day, the foundations hand out grants for everything from hi-tech research projects to student bursaries, aboriginal counselling and, of course, "research on linguistic minorities."

Up to their boardrooms in Liberal appointees, the foundations have been officially declared "independent of government" -- that is, off-limits to the auditor general and exempt from the Access to Information Act.

Agencies which receive public funds yet do not have to account for them are dominating the headlines and the scandals aren't going away. The problem up here is that the party in power, be it Liberal or Conservative, uses the patronage appointments and grant system to reward its party faithful. Until an elected public official takes leadership on this issue and fights for real reform to the system itself, simply changing the party in power won't end the abuses.

Feb. 17 - One bright spot: 10 out of 18 Crown corporations will be opening their books to the Auditor General's scrutiny (and yes, the CBC is one of the 10 but they want the law amended to protect their journalistic sources. Tea leaves and animal entrails require whistleblower protection? Whatever ...)

Posted by: Debbye at 09:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Feb. 15 - Hurray! Andrew Coyne is no longer AWOL and has some new postings on his blog including a list of the things we are supposed to believe that would even choke Alice (of six impossible things before breakfast fame) in My Saturday column [Feb. 12]:

We are asked to believe that Jean Chretien, having created the sponsorship program, having personally secured funding for the program out of the so-called “unity reserve,” having personal authority over every request for funds from that allocation and having been warned in writing by the Clerk of the Privy Council that he would thus be personally responsible for every grant made out of those funds, should accept no personal blame for anything that went wrong under the program.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 14 - The threat by disconsolate Americans that they'll pack their bags and move to Canada continues to receive hype (via No Pasaran!) but putting things in context often diminishes their impact, and Red Granger does just that in a reminder of an earlier mass migration to Canada from the USA - no, not during Vietnam War but much, much earlier.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Feb. 4 - This is downright disheartening. Paul covers the story of some very sharp criticisms leveled by John Watson, head of CARE Canada, on Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) which languished in Canada for 10 days after the tsunamai hit Asian coasts until they finally arranged to rent a Russian transport for travel to Sri Lanka in I rest my case... and the criticisms cast doubt on even the value of the team's work after it arrived.

Truth is, I find it very awkward to post about Canada these days. There's a code of honour that dictates you don't kick somebody when they're down (don't remind me that some Canadians don't follow that code - I well know that!) and despite the smugness displayed by much of the media, a lot of people in Toronto and Canada are down. Just here in Toronto, today's paper tells about problems in the education system (even at the elementary level,) the transit systems and despite millions of dollars spent to fight homelessness people are still sleeping in parks and on the streets even though it's mid-winter. Nationally, the sorry tale of Canada's sub purchase reveals yet another stupid decision and the Adscam inquiry is still bogged down in conflicting testimony while questions remain unanswerable due to bookeeping that rivals that of the U.N. for careful incompetency.

The failure of the electorate to administer a sharp rebuke to the Liberal Party for corruption and mendacity is depressing. Some back home say the American press was too voracious in pursuing the Watergate story and the leads arising from the hearings, but up here I'm seeing the other side of the picture: too many in the media seem almost disinterested in learning the truth and complacently let the government investigate its own wrongdoing with the occasional plaintive bleat that the commission has uncovered little of substance.

Two main legs of Canadian identity are health care and hockey, and both are way past life-support systems.

I can't count how many times Canadians used to conclude a (usually friendly) comment about the USA with a grinning "but don't get sick there!" I never took offense (Americans are much more polite and forbearing than we're given credit for) but consider how many people died of SARS in the US and how many died here in the city of Toronto. Might it have something to do with the fact that medical personnel down there wore the proper face masks whereas they were deemed to be too uncomfortable up here? Or maybe the quaint notion of "quarantine" actually meant something in the US even when it inconvenienced people. What happened to the meme if it saves only one life, hmm? They only trot that out when it comes to coke, Twinkies and McDonald's but keep it tucked away when people are actually dying.

Today the despised American-style health system is the only resort for Canadians suffering and even dying on the waiting lists the treasured health care system offers in place of actual medical care, and some treatments are even being offered to Canadians at a discount by some enterprising American doctors.

As for hockey, Attention NHL owners, players, and assorted others: it's February, you morons, and yet you're pretending there might yet be a chance for a hockey season? This season is dead, defunct. It has passed on. Canada survived without NHL hockey and the CBC showed some pretty decent double-billed movies on Saturday nights. End of story.

So what's left when health care and hockey are out for the count? The U.N., peacekeeping forces, and moral superiority.

Exposure of the debasement of the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program remains sparse and although a story today speculates about possible Canadian connections to Hussein's oil, the conflict of interest of former PM Chretien due to his familial ties to Power Corp. and thus TotalFinaElf remains an unpublicized and unexplored factor in Canada's membership in the the Axis of Weasels.

Remember when the argument would be made that Canadians had consciously reduced their military in order to nationalize a world-class health system?

Then he who was then Finance Minister and is now the Prime Minister, Paul Martin, decided to reduce the national debt by withholding money from the provinces which should have gone into the health care system. Now there's neither accessible health care nor military strength up here, but cruel history provided events in Liberia, Haiti (including the devastation of last summer's hurricanes) Sudan and a tsunamai to accentuate the harsh reality that Canada can no longer respond to international crises nor provide peacekeeping to protect innocent people from genocide. crimes against humanity.

The only leg standing (as it were) is moral superiority. Above all, Canadians are compassionate. If you don't believe me, just ask them. They will expound at length as to how much more compassionate and caring and enlightened they are than Americans. (They've even got some Americans believing it.) Why, they're close to achieving a plane of compassionate existence that's almost European! Unfortunately, they spend so much time and money proclaiming it that they never get around to actually doing much that is compassionate, caring or enlightened but a cynicism has set in that allows that it's the appearance that matters, not the deeds.

Coming back full circle, as was pointed out in the opening link, if Canada's rapid response to disaster is delayed 10 days while waiting for a foreign power to transport that team, what will happen in the event of a disaster within Canada? How will aid reach Canadians in their own country?

You know the answer to that. You know you do. Despite the recent urging of outgoing U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, don't count on Canada spending the necessary money to enable herself to become self-sufficient in the areas of self-defense at home or doing her fair part abroad.

But beware: if the day should come that they need our help, they'll hate us for it not because of what it says about us but because of what it says about them. Gratitude barely disguises resentment.

I do understand in part what lies under the surface in Canada. Canada's moral pose adopted a strikingly higher plane when the US was bitterly divided over Vietnam and demoralized over the Watergate hearings. After all, Canada was just coming out of the FLQ Crisis and needed a boost. The country was in danger of losing federal coherency so everyone rallied around a "we're better than the US" plank. And it worked.

In fact it worked so well, they were reluctant to tone it down. The media and politicos have trumpeted Canada's superiority over their American neighbours increasingly louder since the mid-70's, but as so often happens, reality is slowing catching up and there is growing recognition that Canada has become too complacent and the legs of Canadian identity and culture have become eroded.

But that's not a crime, it's just life. No nation can live up completely to its ideals, but one of life's challenges is to square our shoulders and try again. The important part is to adhere to the truths of those ideals, nourish them, and keep trying.

The deaths of U.S. soldiers and personnel as well as Iraqis unfortunate enough to be near IEDs when they went off provided a kind of comfort zone for those Canadians who have had some niggling feelings that just maybe Canada should have been on board for Operation Iraqi Freedom if only to offer moral support.

But now something has changed, or rather, everything has changed. There were real elections in Iraq in which the people of Iraq defied both the terrorists and the expectations of those with compassionate, caring, and enlightened views and, in so doing, also defied France, Russia, Belguim and Canada.

And we know that the price our sons and daughters are paying can be laid on account against the weasels because we kept our troops in the desert for several months while they pretended to debate in good faith on the U.N.S.C. all the while buying time for Saddam to set up his underground thugs.

Although far too few, however, there are indeed Canadians who have been awe-inspiring rock-freaking-solid in supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom from the onset, and they have earned the right to feel proud of the remarkable events of Sunday because they were part of it. (If you don't know who they are, look at the blogroll and I admit that it's incomplete.) Their numbers include media such as the Toronto Sun and Western Standard. (It hasn't been uncritical support, of course, but that's what friends are for.)

As for some others up here ... If they're examining their souls and wondering how they could have so misjudged the situation in Iraq then I'd advise them not to waste too much time on guilt or shame but pledge only to open their minds to the possibilility that if a stopped clock can be right twice a day, then Americans too might occasionally be right.

Those, however, who are rapidly devising a posture that denies that the success of the elections in Iraq might require a re-evaluation of their world view may as well carry on as though nothing has changed. They no longer matter.

As I wrote earlier, gratitude equals resentment, and therein lies an additional reason as to why the elections in Iraq were so important. The Iraqis need no longer feel lessened by Operation Iraqi Freedom because when it came time for them to take a stand, they alone made the decisions and took the steps toward freedom, braving the threats of those who had proven their willingness to murder them and, in that defiance, asserting the dignity of the Iraqi people beyond all measure and for all time.

One result of that renewed confidence was indicated when the citizens of the Iraqi village of al-Mudhariya fought off an insurgent attack, killing 5 and wounding 8, and then burnt the insurgents' car! (link via Best of the Web Today)

It's become much more simple now. The mission in Iraq is far from over but we have a new member in the Coalition of the Willing: the Iraqis, and this coalition has something the Axis of Weasels could never have - a mandate from the Iraqi people.

The counter-offensive began yesterday, and there are once again families in the US and Iraq who are bereaved. Press advisories come into my inbox advising me of the names and heartbreakingly young ages of the Americans who have lost their lives. It's not fair. It's wrong. It hurts. But we won't be deterred.

You see, we Americans share a national dream that has returned to the fore with renewed vigor and energy. I look forward to that day when all the peoples of the world can join hands and bear witness to the stirring power of Dr. King's words as he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and echo his words saying, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, [insert deity or deities] we are free at last!"

Correction: Feb. 7 - Dr. King's speech was delivered in the steps of the Lincoln Memorial not the Washington Monument as I initially wrote.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:22 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1878 words, total size 13 kb.

1 Hey, you're finally back! This is excellent. Thanks for the link too, by the way.

Posted by: Paul Jané at February 04, 2005 04:00 PM (FOtPl)

2 Glad you're back too! And are you swift. I'm only now proof-reading the thing.

Posted by: Debbye at February 04, 2005 04:19 PM (o2Lzi)

3 It's unclear whether you're asserting that the American system is better. Is that the case, or just that our perceptions have changed? I ask because, as I'm sure you're aware, the US system works well for wealthy folks, but very poorly for the low-income folks. For example, 43.6 million Americans (in 2002, up from 39.8 in 2000) do not have any health insurance, and a further 24.5 million have only basic coverage from state-sponsored Medicaid. I'd also be curious to see some statistics on Canada's declining healthcare system. Your SARS example is negligible, as it depends upon a very small data set (all of 38 people died in Canada--almost all of them over 50) and offers a comparison of a tiny aspect of the healthcare systems (disease control). Canada's healthcare system isn't what it was, say, 25 years ago (what first world nation's is?), but it continues to rank amongst the top 20 in the world, and generally higher than the US.

Posted by: Darren at February 04, 2005 06:21 PM (9aklK)

4 I was curious about the foreign aid point as well, and found these stats: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap Unfortuntately, there are only 24 countries listed, so it's incomplete. Canada ranks somewhere in the middle of the developed world, better than the US but much worse than the average European nation. Here's another data set, not great, but it seems to cast Canada as relatively generous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake On an anecdotal basis, I'd point you to "Hotel Rwanda" and "Shake Hands with the Devil", two films that discuss Canada's mission in Rwanda. They certainly impressed me. Lastly, I found this article on the DART in the Toronto Star. While it's heavily weighted toward disparaging Canada's relief efforts, it does feature this quote at the end: "Canada has pledged $425 million in relief and reconstruction assistance, the seventh-largest pledge of any government."

Posted by: Darren at February 04, 2005 06:35 PM (9aklK)

5 Whew! Debbye is back in full force. Well done. Darren seems not to get around much or he might be aware that the figures for foreign aid, which seem to put Canada ahead of the U.S., do not take into account such contributions as aircraft carriers that bring medicine, fresh water and other aid to tsunami victims, or billions upon billions spent to liberate Iraq, and I could go on. Debbye, your point about the U.S. providing aid in the case of, oh, I don't know, a tsunami in Newf or a major earthquake in Van, is well taken. I swear upon my copy of Treason, when the U.S. sends helicopters and heavy transport planes and an aircraft carrier, and oh, let's say DOCTORS to help out with a disaster in Canada, there will be Canadians who will scream blue murder at the loss of sovereinty and at the presence of U.S. troops on our soil. Oh yes, they will.

Posted by: keith at February 04, 2005 08:40 PM (HRjgG)

6 Hey Deb be careful, to many idiots up this way.

Posted by: Dex at February 04, 2005 10:17 PM (kO17P)

7 Girl,I can tell that your time off was well spent. You might want to pass on to Darren that the average take home pay for a Canadian is now below the lowest rate in the U.S. That's right, the average Canadian wage is now below the that of the poorest state (ie Mississippi). There is something seriously wrong with this country and your analysis is accurate and painful. I hope there comes a time when Canadians will once again stand up on their own two feet. Keep kicking, we need the help!

Posted by: bobthebellbuoy at February 04, 2005 11:33 PM (nV5cR)

8 Thanks for the responses--where can I find sources on those facts (in particular, the comparative analysis on take-home pay that Bob mentioned)? Keith: As you'll see, I didn't claim that my sources were thorough and complete, just that they seemed to be evidence that Canadians were, in fact, compassionate. Also, citing the invasion of Iraq as foreign aid is highly subjective, isn't it? For example, would you quantify the Vietnam War as foreign aid?

Posted by: Darren at February 05, 2005 01:15 AM (9aklK)

9 I have only one thing to say to this: http://www.thefriendsociety.com/animation/puppywhirl.swf PUPPY WHIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(might not be NSFW depending on where you work)

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 05, 2005 04:18 AM (Ojo2r)

10 Whoa. I just read this screed sober. Wow. How do you function in society? Do you have a helper?

Posted by: Blackglasses at February 05, 2005 12:29 PM (Ojo2r)

11 I really didn't mean this to be about which system is better. Systems can be judged only by how well they work, how resilient they are during down cycles, and how well they capable of self-correction. I think the issue is what will it take to bring reforms to correct problems in Canada? Common sense indicates that what will work best are made-in-Canada solutions to Canadian problems, and those solutions will only come about when the body politic focuses on Canadian problems without being diverted by comparisons to the USA. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the demand for honest government is fairly universal.

Posted by: Debbye at February 05, 2005 11:52 PM (4iSk+)

12 Enjoyed your post. All too true, I'm afraid. When the US and coalition forces invaded Iraq, I put an American flag on my lapel. When asked by astounded colleagues at work why I was doing that, I replied that I was flying the flag I was proud of thast day. You should have seen the looks. I like Americans as a rule, and I think George Bush is a good man an a fine president. God bless the US and coalition forces in Iraq. That does not mean I want to be an American. I consider myself a Canadian patriot. I've served Canada in uniform and understand that sometimes military force is required. If we don't do something soon to rectify the dilapidated condition of our military, the next generation won't be able to make the claim of having served. I'll post a link to your site, if that's okay.

Posted by: John the Mad at February 06, 2005 04:40 PM (mN51Y)

13 Debbie you were gone so long that I thought you'd left. I'm really glad to see you back. I like your take on things in generaL. I hope your work load decreases soon. Now! about this Darren guy! what he doesn't understand is that too many Canadians define their national identy by intimating that being a Canadian is not being an American. Of course indicating that this makes them a better person! They know that our Healthcare system is the best expression of our compassion and caring nature. Most Canadians of Darren's sort I find to be in such a state of denial that they almost intellectually crippled. Someone said "you can't fight blind ignorance." What makes me angry with the Dattens of Canada is they don't recognize that Canada is on a very slippery slope. No foreign policies, no armed forces to speak of, a broken healthcare system and the politicians are too frightened to try to change it, and educational system that is so PC that the children aren't being educated their being indroctrinated with trendy rubbish. If you want read my rants go to thewalrusaid.blogspot.com Thanks for letting me comment and once again I'm glad your back, David

Posted by: David at February 07, 2005 11:29 AM (cJ69F)

14 Darren The comparative info is on http://cicada.typepad.com/cicada/ Scroll down on this great blog and follow the links.

Posted by: bobthebellbuoy at February 08, 2005 11:43 AM (nV5cR)

15 The time to kick 'em is when they're down. Cementheads like Darren are why. He and his ilk are a long way from casting off their anti-US blinders. BTW, the desire for honest government is not that universal. Most voters in southern Ontario don't seem to give a rat turd about corruption in the Liberal Party/federal government. In a normal polity, stuff like the Romanian strippers having a special immigration program would be beyond the pale. Not so in the 416 area code. Keep on kicking.

Posted by: CJ at February 09, 2005 04:05 AM (B3SKB)

16 Check out www.spectator.co.uk for an article comparing US healthcare to socialized UK healthcare

Posted by: Son of a Pig and a Monkey at February 11, 2005 05:45 PM (tCISC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment