February 27, 2005
The depressing reality of rejecting Missile Defense
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.
To paraphrase V-P Cheney, if Martin can't stand up to the NDP and left-wing of the Liberal Party, how is he going to stand up to rogue regimes?
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.
That's right, they are criticizing Pres. Bush for failing to play a leadership role for Canadians on this issue. Canadians need
American leadership, not
Canadian leadership, to explain a program meant to protect Canada.
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.
Stay with the "nothing" part and you'll have it right. It speaks volumes that Canada's leading newspaper thinks that credibility, not to mention respect, can be
bought rather than
earned.
Posted by: Debbye at
01:22 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think that Mr. Martin ended up making a tough decision. Making tough decisions is what leadership is all about in the final analysis.
Afterall, "joining" the US was not going to cost us anything, but it would have lent credability to a military program that lacks credability. The facts are that scientists and engineers from Alaska to Massachusetts all agree that designing and building "anti-missile missiles" is not possible, and it has been made even more difficult a proposition by the recent Russian announcement to build a hypersonic cruise missile to deliver nuclear, chemical and biological warheads. Such unmanned vehicles can cruise in the upper layers of the atmosphere at Mach 6 or better, and are capable of "high dynamics" manoevers that exceed 30 "g" along the entire path, making the problem of attacking and destroying them, virtually impossible with conventional explosives. You can think of them as hypersonic bombers that are continually doing aerobatic maneovers on the way to the target and what it takes to "intercept" and destroy such a bomber. And do not forget that these days stealth radar technologies allow such vehicles to have a minimum radar cross section as well. And since such vehicles travel just inside the atmospheric envelope, attacking them from spaceborn platforms is just as problematic, even with lasers and xray lasers.
Canada did a great deal of research on such weapons back in the 1960s and finally concluded in 1970 that such systems could only be effective with nuclear warheads large enough to destroy the incoming missiles. That of course defeats the entire purpose of a defensive missile shield. Nothing has changed in these earlier Canadian studies and nothing has changed in the conclusion.
I thought that Mr. Martin would have gone along with the Bush Administration in this expensive boondoggle on the US taxpayer, but to his credit he recognized bullshit when he saw it and was not afraid to say so publicly.
And I also think that Mr. Harper must be giving off a huge sigh of relief because the Conservatives know full well that this was simply a money grab by the Carlyle Group and its companies, since no credible scientist or engineer is prepared to recommend this sort of development. In case you have missed it, the Carlyle Group is now in control of the American nuclear weapons programs, and safely out of sight of Congressional oversight since its a private company. Oh yes, that is the same Carlyle Group that counts among its members the Bush Family and the Bin Laudin Family.
Canada concluded, back in 1970, and its valid still today, that the only workable method for nuclear arms control is "disarmament". By violating international missile treaties, the US is harming, not helping its own defence posture.
Congratulations to Mr. Martin for his willingness to call a spade a shovel. By steering clear of this corrupt US program, Mr. Martin has spared Canadians the embarassment that is surely coming when Congress begins to find out how it spent so much money for something that could not work in principle.
Posted by: Joe Green at February 27, 2005 04:31 PM (5dXW9)
2
Yikes!
Another voice of opposition to the Debbye website!
Good going mr. Green... I didn't know the Carylye group was in charge of the program. (Not that I'm surprised)
Oh well, the nutjobs can always defend themselvs simply by saying "that's irrelevant" or the good ol' "I'm not answering that question." Thank God (LITERALLY) that they have 40-45% of the populatin that believes everything they say and another 5-10% "undecided" voters to scare with 9/11 paranoia.
YIKES!
Another Home Run for Rafer Alston, the best baseball player for the Toronto Maple Leafs!
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 27, 2005 05:34 PM (Ojo2r)
3
"Another voice of opposition to the Debbye website!"
This is the voice of free speech, Canadian style, celebrating opposition to a website. In America, we unsophisticated generally express opposition to viewpoints, not to websites. Canadians seem to have a more expansive view on the right to oppose free speech.
No, Joe, I'm not putting you in the same category. I hate to ask this, because I object to comments that constantly demand "proof" in the form of links to supporting material, but in your case you have revealed a lot of new (to me) information and I would appreciate it if you would provide a link to the material you are using. You are very specific, so undoubtedly you have read something somewhere about the Russian program.
"...could only be effective with nuclear warheads large enough to destroy the incoming missiles. That of course defeats the entire purpose of a defensive missile shield."
Oh it does? Would you not do a nuclear airburst at 60,000 feet to prevent an airburst at 10,000 feet or a ground level nuclear explosion at Toronto?
Much of your description seems counterintuitive. Any 'cruise missile' traveling at hypersonic speeds has to be very, very high to keep from burning up. At the same time, defense agencies don't need radar to track hypersonic craft because they would light up like a meteor from their heat signature.
Opposition because 'it can't work' doesn't ring true. The more plausible reading, and the common one in America, of Canada's opposition is that Canada hopes to benefit from America's shield, as it has in the past, except that now it hopes to benefit and at the same time separate itself from American, British and Australian policy worldwide. Hopefully the terrorists and the nations who support them will see Canada's support for their totalitarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism as reason to grant a pass to Canada and the missles will pass by her door and strike her 'allies'.
Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 07:24 PM (EzNXf)
4
I knew very little about missile defence, so I did some research. I've posted links to what I read here:
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/002402.html
The missile defence system seemed like a waste of resources and a riskly political tactic, and what I read hasn't changed my mind. I'm keen, however, to read some thoughtful arguments in favour of missile defence. Can anybody recommend some? You don't have to make the argument yourself--just point to something compelling. Cheers.
Posted by: Darren at February 27, 2005 07:59 PM (9aklK)
5
Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 08:01 PM (EzNXf)
6
Re: The Carlyle Group
Do you really think the Prime Minister made any decision based on the scare factor of the Carlyle Group? Wikipedia says his buddy Desmarais sits on Carlyle's advisory board.
Posted by: Sammie at February 27, 2005 08:19 PM (ZDCse)
7
Hey Debbie nice post, but how can the President even offer the Liberals a weapon system in the first place, hell they got problem with Walmart, puppets, and Macdonalds. Serious Debbie, look it they will not fund their armed forces but will throw away billions of the taxpayers dollars on the CBC. Did you see the Canadian elections 04? Hell the Liberals used American ships and troops as scare tactics in the vote. Surpised?
Posted by: Dex at February 27, 2005 10:11 PM (kO17P)
8
Debbye, Don't get depressed by the above comments. Keep up the good work I guess these Chomskyites must read your stuff so perhaps one day a little reality will seep into their heads! Who knows? All the best David.
Posted by: David at February 27, 2005 10:42 PM (cJ69F)
9
Do you people read anything besides online sources, the Post and the SUN media rags? With posts like these above, I'm actually kinda of amazed you can read in the first place*
I'm curious to know.
PS: Also, this is far off topic, so i apologize for the derailment, but what's with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal who loves Noam Chomsky? Let's look at Chomsky in depth here.
Chomsky is very insightful and intelligent, but it would be difficult to take all of his writings as holy writ. To do so would require the pigheaded and ignorant dogmatism that only party hacks and bloggers seem to possess(I include the left and right in this assessment-especially the right).
Even at those "hotbeds of liberalism" that many of you shake your fist at while trembling in fear, the dreaded CANADIAN University, Chomsky is not well liked in most university departments such as political science and history. I am not including his linguistic and media theories(especially his media theories. You people act out "Manufacturing Consent" everyday without realizing it. It's both horrifying and fascinating to watch).
His political commentary is meant to be populist and easily accessable, as well as a form of agitprop-he can be a tad extreme-not academic.
Suprisingly, this assessment applies to most blogs as well. Good for some quick slanted news and sensationalism, not really that good for an intelligent in-depth discussion.
I have never seen his work discussed by professor in a serious academic manner, or placed on a sylabus. (but i'm sure international development is a different kettle of fish)
He has very good points at times, some incredible insights and is perhaps one of the great living intellectuals of our era, but he is not totally respected by people who prefer an academic study of policy and politics.
Of course, many well educated people without dogmatic baggage can come to similar (but less extreme) insights as Chomsky on their own.
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 27, 2005 11:53 PM (Ojo2r)
10
Mikem? Rafer? Warren? And they say we're all the same person.
Calling someone opposition does not mean I hate free speech. Only an idiot would think that. What I mean is another voice challenging the American-cheerleading we find here.
Dex, you also are an idiot... The CBC is not a waste of money... It's our national news source... You're going to lecture us on nationalism?... The United States media can't go ten second without screaming FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY!... Wake up
David, you're calling me a Chomskyite?... Wow, that sort of labelling is exactly what I've been calling other people out on. Wake up and respond to the arguments I make instead of just screaming LIBERAL! EVIL! TRAITOR! like your brethren.
Blackglasses, it's impossible to prove Chomsky is a reasonable intellectual... None of these people have ever read anything by him besides the soundbites they find on blogs and other right wing news sites that take him out of context when he defends holocaust deniers, etc.
... There you go. 4 blowhards dismissed of in less than 3 minutes.
Posted by: Rafer/MikeM/Warren's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:02 AM (Ojo2r)
11
"The United States media can't go ten second without screaming FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY!..."
The horror, the horror.
"..that take him out of context when he defends holocaust deniers, etc."
Don't you hate when that happens? One day you're defending holocaust deniers and the next day the REAL Nazis are criticizing you as a JewHater. Out of context, oh please. From the mouth of babes.
Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 12:15 AM (EzNXf)
12
mikem asked for some backround information related to the current American Administration and its fascination with ballistic missile defence.
So I will begin by giving you a URL that is somewhat outside the box but accurate as far as I can tell from my other sources.
http://english.daralhayat.com/Spec/10-2004/Article-20041010-838064fa-c0a8-01ed-004f-35394dc965fe/story.html
The "whos who" of the Washington "neo-con" club are there as is their views, conflicts, and contradictions. I thought it was rather well researched.
Second, as to Carlyle itself check this site out.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20040918050139299
Finally, check out the following URL about American "dirty politics"
http://www.opensecrets.org/
One other detail that you will find very interesting is that NASA (actually a US military program inside NASA) recently air tested a very high speed unmanned vehicle at very high speeds that uses a ram jet engine. Such engines have no moving parts, and are capable of propelling hypersonic cruise missiles of the type that Mr. Putin announced for Russia recently.
These really are the next generation of ICBM because they are much harder to defend against and in any case they operate in a fashion that can use even smaller yield nuclear weapons. Thus the interest by the US in building nuclear weapons of 3 to 5 kilotons, or if you like, bombs equivalent to 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 lbs of high explosive. On the other end of the scale, the US Air Force last year tested a large bomb weighing something in the order of 40,000 lbs. These are "bunker buster" munitions and they can be made rather small because deliverable accuracy is high, typically within 2 to 5 meters with GPS guided munitions.
The point however, is that conventional warheads, or even dead weights like depleted uranium fragmentation shells, are "heavy" and are therefore very difficult to maneouver under conditions of "high dynamics". A 1000 lbs payload in conventional explosives weighs 30,000 lbs under conditions of 30 "g" turns. That takes a lot of rocket power and thrust to steer and guide.
It is obvious that if you cannot reduce the "closing error" to near zero for an "interceptor" that you then must use much larger explosives to destroy the target.
These studies were well done by Canadian Defence Research Board teams back in the 1960s at the height of the Cold War, and its conclusions are as valid today as it was when these studies were made.
The path to peace and security for Canada and the US does not lie in broken missile treaties, rather it lies in arms control treaties that are verifiable and under the supervision and control of the United Nations.
One last point. There are a rather significant group of Canadian Defence Staff Officers that opposed nuclear arms for Canada and who have well thought out positions as to how to best enhance our defence posture. All of these men understand the "snake oil" that is being peddled here by the Carlyle Group and its companies.
Posted by: Joe Green at February 28, 2005 04:01 AM (5dXW9)
13
Hey, the libs are right about missile defense and I have no problem with them dropping out,better for them to make a decision and move on. I just wish President Bush get the USA out of the UN becasue we can totally see our safety cannot be trusted to Nations that wish us harm. Concerts, candle buring is about healing but not in itself ensures peace like some would think but attraction of it makes libs feel good so be it.
Posted by: Dex at February 28, 2005 10:29 AM (kO17P)
14
"I just wish President Bush get the USA out of the UN becasue we can totally see our safety cannot be trusted to Nations that wish us harm"
Have you ever read a serious account of International Realtions and the UN or just the idiotic tripe that is passed around in poorly photocopied newsletters and right wing blogs?
I'm leaning towards the latter.
An well read individual would never say something so ill-informed. You statement indicates that you do not even have a basic understanding of international politics, save the George W. Bush's bad William Wallace impersonation school*.
* To wit: "FREEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMM!!!"
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 11:12 AM (CI79g)
15
Blackglass who ever you are congrads on your medal of being well read on so called international crap hell maybe they should give the Nobel.
Posted by: Dex at February 28, 2005 11:29 AM (kO17P)
16
Great discussion. My knowledge about missile defense goes back to the 60's when we called it AMB defense, but the same reservations as to the ability of such a system to function remain.
Military technology is fleeting at best but how it figures as a deterrent is, however intangible, also a factor that has to be considered.
Thanks for the links, Darren and Joe, and for the info on Demarais' links to Carlyle, Sammie.
One note:
I think I'm within my rights to insist that people not use a name like "Somebody's Mom" etc. Dragging in somebody's mother is maybe worthy of someone in 4th grade but degrades a discussion between adults into just plain abuse without any redeeming ideas or viewpoints.
I expect heat for myself, but please treat other commenters with a bit more respect.
Posted by: Debbye at February 28, 2005 02:42 PM (HNlk3)
17
Thank you, Debbye. And I think that giving these ignorants the status of 4th grade name-calling is maybe even too much credit. I think their maturity is well below that of a 10 year old.
Putting this behind now, I don't have much to add in the debate over Canada's refusal to join the States in the missile defence system, except I find that Paul Martin's decision on this matter is not surprising to say the least. With a little groundhog like Jack Layton chirping in his ears every day in Parliament, he had to do something to quiet him down.
Posted by: Rafer at February 28, 2005 03:18 PM (Ojo2r)
18
Thank you, Debbye. And I think that giving these ignorants the status of 4th grade name-calling is maybe even too much credit. I think their maturity is well below that of a 10 year old. Putting this behind now, I don't have much to add in the debate over Canada's refusal to join the States in the missile defence system, except I find that Paul Martin's decision on this matter is not surprising to say the least. With a little groundhog like Jack Layton chirping in his ears every day in Parliament...blah blah blahbbity blah...
..I can't hear you...
La la la...la la la...la la LAH
Look, sweetie, if you're going to criticise anyone for being childish, you might want to not call oppostition politicians groundhogs.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Malika at March 01, 2005 09:44 PM (H4OH3)
19
That admonition for 'childishness' was brought to you by Malika, of "fuck off", "motherfucker", "moronic, half-witted, rabid little vole", "douchebag" fame.
So pay it no mind.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: mikem at March 02, 2005 01:37 AM (EzNXf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 25, 2005
The best words on Jeff Gannon
Feb. 25 - There's been commentary aplenty over the hounding of Jeff Gannon, but the best (and funniest) response I've seen thus far is from John Hawkins, who
applies the Gannon Standard to a certain "real," "non-biased" journalist who is not a reporter - she's a columnist - but who is a regular at White House press conferences.
I won't tell you who that might be, but if you think "Queen of the Editorialized Question" you'll probably have it figured out.
By the way, second runner-up for best and funniest response is Ann Coulter, in Republicans, bloggers and gays, oh my!
Have a good weekend, everyone. As Dennis Miller used to say on SNL, I. Am. Out of Here.
Posted by: Debbye at
04:41 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've always been a huge fan of Dennis Miller. I love the ending quote, Debbye.
As for the content of your post, I'd only like to add this opine: how petty can the left wing get? Gannon has quickly become the Richard Jewel of the 21st century, the poor guy.
Posted by: Rafer at February 25, 2005 10:19 PM (Ojo2r)
2
You've completely missed the point Debbye.
1) The Maureen Dowd article was criticizing the Bush press room for keeping her out (despite being from the most respected news daily in the country), but they allow in a man from the Talon News (a right-wing front website and nothing more)... Her criticism had nothing to do with him being gay. (YOU and Ann Coulter are the ones being petty for implying it)
2) The criticism of Gannon for being gay is in no way homosexual. When the side that actually stands up for Gay rights points out that Gannon is gay, it is only to point out once again that the right-wing is being hypocritical. While it contains many who happen to be homosexual, they still say they don't like gays in order to keep the religious crowd on their side.
3) Oh, yeah, there is SOME relevance to the gay-angle... He isn't just gay, which is acceptable even to you apparently... HE WAS A MALE PROSTITUTE, which is considered bad whether your left-wing or right-wing remember.
Please read some alternative viewpoints next time and actually weigh them against each other. Simply parroting opinions from www.rightwingnews.com and Ann Coulter Op-Ed's will do nothing more than make you sound stupid and uneducated. (which I know is in fashion across the U.S.of A.)
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 26, 2005 09:13 PM (Ojo2r)
3
Upon re-reading, in 2), I should have said the gay-angle of the Gannon critique was in no Way HOMOPHOBIC, not 'homosexual' as I accidentally typed.
I felt I should point this out because the only response I would probably get otherwise would be a right-wing-nutjob simply telling me I'm wrong because I used the wrong term.'
Posted by: Rafer's MOM Again at February 26, 2005 09:15 PM (Ojo2r)
4
Life must be good if the most the left can dig up on the Bush White House is this silly bit of trivia.
1) Gannon had a day pass. Dowd could have gotten a day pass too (if you don't apply, you don't get one). What's the problem here? So Gannon was guilty of asking lame questions, but so does Helen Thomas. And you are saying people should get worked up about this? Whatever.
2) Uh...have you ever thought that maybe Republicans don't care about someone's sexual orientation as much as the Democrats think they do.
Interesting that right wing nutjob sites like the Daily Kos seemed to be the most interested in Gannon's sexual orientation.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/174746/7900 a
"While it contains many who happen to be homosexual, they still say they don't like gays in order to keep the religious crowd on their side."
Please enlighten me. Who are these "they" people? Or are you just making this stuff up? I've heard that Dick Cheney's daughter is gay. (Mr Kerry and Mr Edwards made a point of repeating it for some reason
. I don't think the Cheneys' don't love their daughter any less).
Interesting knots that the left ties themselves into. Gannon can't really be gay because he's a Republican? Condi Rice can't really be black since she's a Republican? The US political left is just waay too funny.
3) So are you suggesting that access to the White House should be based on an investigation of someone's sexual history? Are you scared that he was a prostitute (you must be is you had to write it ALL IN CAPS). Please clarify.
One last point. From your first post:
"Simply parroting opinions from www.rightwingnews.com and Ann Coulter Op-Ed's will do nothing more than make you sound stupid and uneducated. (which I know is in fashion across the U.S.of A.)"
From your second post:
"I felt I should point this out because the only response I would probably get otherwise would be a right-wing-nutjob simply telling me I'm wrong because I used the wrong term.'"
Let me get this straight...you call other people "stupid and uneducated" and then you stereotype anyone challenging you as a "right wing nutjob".
Now, that doesn't sound very intelligent. Is that all the rage from where you are or do you just enjoy living an irony free lifestyle?
Seriously, I have a (reasonably) open mind if someone makes a logically consistent argument. This doesn't seem to be it. Care to try again?
Debbye, interesting series of recent posts. You seem to attract the cutest trolls. Don't seem like the sharpest knives though.
Posted by: Warren at February 27, 2005 01:25 AM (bbB+U)
5
Nice come back, Warren (and good to see you again.)
Actually, there's only one troll. He amuses himself by using different names.
Posted by: Debbye at February 27, 2005 11:55 AM (1UGQM)
6
I suspected. Should I reactivate my Best of Joey contribution?
Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 12:38 PM (EzNXf)
7
Here you go, Mr. Warren, (and Rafer I suppose)... You didn't have a chance to begin with, but good try anyways. I was very impressed with your arguments at first. It wasn't until I started to pick away at them that I realized you were just labelling me most of the time and ignoring my main points.
-------
1) I don't think people should get worked up about the day passes, but if Dowd is REJECTED despite being from the NYT and Gannon gets in every day on that same day pass, then we MIGHT have a problem. That's the part of my post that you didnt' address by the way. I didn't forget.
2) On accepting gays, I have no doubt that many republicans don't have a problem with homosexuals. On this website particularly I don't think you guys hate them or anything. You just don't want them to marry. I know for a fact (because I watch American TV) that there ARE millions of right-leaning "right wing nutjobs" that hate gays. This is basically impossible to deny. It is common knowledge that the Republicans represent the religions nutballs who hate gays.
On the topic Cheney's daughter, I was assuming her existence. I was also reminded of the Alan Keyes daughter situation which is much worse. I'm not saying the Cheney's hate their daughter, and Cheney coming out on the side of gay marriage was commendable. That must have taken huge balls.
The point on the fact that many republicans are gay but cover it up is simply my earlier point of hypocrisy again. Gannon is simply one example of a "hard right" politico who for some reason would rather have the political benefits of the Republicans while defacing those that are like him.
On Condi not being black because she's republican. I made more sense than that. Let us point out here that the left doesn't tie themselves into knows. The truth of the matter is that the right-wing dominated news outlets LABEL the Left as tying themselves in knots. While Kerry's "flip flops" were easily explainable, he had nowhere near the capability to defend himself publically when he was lambasted from all side with the LABEL.
(Not that me OR John Kerry is a liberal in the first place, in any real sense of the word. That's another problem altogether, with people like Kerry and I again LABELLED before we can defend ourselves. In any other country but the U.S., the view of myself and especially Kerry would be centrist, if not slightly conservative.)
3) Oh my god, I can't believe you just defended a gay prostitute, meanwhile, trying to label me a homophobe. Again, you blatantly disregarded the main point I was making. (Same problem with labels as before)
Questioning my intelligence because I call you a "right wing nutjob"... AGAIN you ignore the facts. I just used good arguments to deflate each one of your attacks, which upon a first read seemed reasonable. On a second read, I simply realized that you weren't addressing what I'd said.
I call you people "right wing nutjobs" because I'm playing at your level... All over the right wing news and blogospher, suppossed left wingers are called "kooks" and other similar labels to what I call you.
There you go. None of your arguments could stand up to a simple retort based on the facts already presented in my first articles responding to Rafer.
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 27, 2005 04:30 PM (Ojo2r)
8
"None of your arguments could stand up..."
Despite judgment having been rendered, I would like to make a few points.
"While Kerry's "flip flops" were easily explainable... he was lambasted from all side with the LABEL."
That would be from the Bush campaign side and the (pro-Bush??) MSM? If you believe that Kerry was unfairly pegged as a flipflopper then you are waaay into faith based belief. You have stars in your eyes.
To be a Republican and gay is to invite the most virulent hatred, not from the right, but from the left and yes, from gays. It is no wonder Republican gays are more secretive after watching the public lynching of Gannon by liberals and leftists and the apologists for the lynch mob, like you.
" It is common knowledge that the Republicans represent the religions nutballs who hate gays."
It is also common knowledge that the Democrats represent the anti-religious nutballs who hate America, freedom and democracy. While it is true that not all Democrats fall under this description, it is certainly true that those type nutballs vote Democratic and not Republican. They also hate capitalism and free speech. In fact, the Democratic Party represents those who support speech codes and the criminalization of 'verbal harrassment'. They support all manner of restrictions meant to stifle free speech in America, as Canadians have done with their Orwellian speech codes.
You are quick with the generalizations, which condemn Deomocrats more so than Republicans.
Republicans don't hate gays. I don't. Most do not support changing a thousands years old tradition to include anything that people wish it to include. It is as simple as that. For many gays, including the ones who masturbate and feign anal sex in front of St. Patricks Cathedral to show their tolerance for others, it will always be all or nothing. They will increasingly have to settle for less, as people like myself tire of being abused as hatemongers and homophobes after supporting gay rights for years but not being willing to support gay marriage. Civil unions? Sorry, not enough, you f**king bigot. See, that makes a hatemonger feel good to be able to express such hate, but it leaves people like me scratching our heads and wondering why we should support people who hate.
I'll also say that you would be taken more seriously if you did not use multiple avatars and fake email addresses. I'm usually dismissive of comments from fake addresses, but using different avatars is just pathetic.
All in all, you definitely qualify to be a Kerry supporter. You are trolling, and shaming any real liberals.
Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 06:41 PM (EzNXf)
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:19 AM (Ojo2r)
10
MikeM, I am not into faith based belief... that's for you guys... Let's recap. Bush hasn't banned gay marriage or abortion... He flip flopped on the reason for war... And you and his followers still follow blindly. THAT is faith-based political beliefs.
Don't force me to defend Kerry. I don't even like him. I just now he was a more reasonable candidate than George W. Bush, and he was mislabeled as a flip flopper and anti-American. It was an extremely unfair election. Kerry didn't have the guts to defend himself, and for that reason I think he's a horrible politician.)
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:20 AM (Ojo2r)
11
I keep getting some error...
Posted by: I give up at February 28, 2005 12:26 AM (Ojo2r)
12
I can see why he would be the choice for you. Out of 300 or so fellow swift boaters, only SIX could be found to support his version of WarriorKerry. 200 plus said he was a liar, a traitor, and unfit to command. The rest refused to be quoted. His political career was begun and grew on his record as an anti-veteran, slandering his 'band of brothers', then he goosestepped across the DNC stage as proud Vietnam veteran WarriorKerry, scourge of the VC.
Definitely your type of leader.
Almost every self-critique by Democrats cited Kerry's flip flops as the primary reason for his defeat. Yet you see it as much ado about nothing, an illusion, that only you had the sense to not see. Not surprising.
Sorry about Saddam.
Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 02:04 AM (EzNXf)
13
PS When are you going to stop hiding and what are you so ashamed of?
Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 02:05 AM (EzNXf)
14
Rafer (in all of your incarnations):
Mikem is such a dogmatic hack that he has gradually turned the corner from "agressive defender of Debbye's honor and democracy" (odd coincidence there) to "hilariously oblivious self-parody".
To which you will respond with something about all "liberals" (Amrican "liberals" at that.Ha) hating America and God you're boring
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 28, 2005 11:23 AM (CI79g)
15
Oh my God, this is too rich. It IS you, Joey. I recognize the "...and God you're boring" and "Debbye's honor" remarks as well as the sdfsd addresses. How very rewarding. I actually shamed you into changing your online name. I am laughing my butt off at the thought of you embarrassing yourself so badly that you felt the need to reinvent yourself. Not only that, but your ego did not survive intact and you have emerged with multiple personalities/avatars, the better to show support from others.
Lord, I am unworthy of this honor.
For those who missed Blackglasses in his previous life as 'Joey', the following is a limited collection of his attempts to point out how dumb Americans are.
Best of Joey (1 - 3)
“You are either very funny, or very dumb. I going to assume you are very dumb..."
"We all know you aren't a vetran. You are much to fat too leave your house"
"Have you ever had sex with a human womam?"
Welcome home, Joey etc. And thanks for this gift, sincerely.
Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 01:43 PM (EzNXf)
Posted by: Blackglasses at March 01, 2005 12:13 AM (Ojo2r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Raising the troops' morale
(
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters)
Feb. 25 - Damned straight they're cheering and clapping! And it's not only about sex appeal, but also about assertiveness, confidence, and the many good qualities of American womanhood.
All the same, I wonder if this picture will begin to appear in foot lockers (Betty Grable is sooo yesterday ...)
There's a more intellectual commentary at the WaPo on Condi's attire, but I think they missed the point.
Posted by: Debbye at
04:01 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.
1
As a black male, I've always found Condoleezza as being one absolutely stunning black woman. I'm thrilled that people are finally taking notice.
Posted by: Rafer at February 25, 2005 10:25 PM (Ojo2r)
2
Okay, this has to be a big right-wing joke...
I've heard all over Fox News about how Condoleeza would make a great presidential candidate... That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard OR the Right Wing is so unbelievably confident in themselves that they would run Willie Horton for Vice President.
1) Condoleeza Rice is Black and Female
- Do you really think that the South will vote so overwhelmingly as they did for George Bush when faced with the possibility of a BLACK WOMAN!
2) SHE'S UNMARRIED!!! This cannot be underestimated. The last time there was an unmarried president was when??? A long fucking time ago. Not to mention Condoleeza Rice is heavily speculated to be a lesbian... Is the right-wing that confident that they can just call the left "racist homophobes" when they attack Rice's record?
This is so unbelievably hilarious that I can't help but think this is really an elaborate joke.
... oh yeah. Let's not forget the memo thing, which WILL come back.... Not to mention the fuck up that is Iraq which WILL come up...
Again... hilarious.... I applaud.
Posted by: RAFER ALSTON at February 26, 2005 09:27 PM (Ojo2r)
3
And in advance, NO I AM NOT A RACIST HOMOPHOBE.
THE RIGHT-WING ARE RACIST HOMOPHOBES!!!! This is like calling the left homophobes for attacking jeff Gannon at all... It just isn't true.
YOU are the party of the people that would still have jim crow if you could.
(and yes I know the Republicans freed the slaves... BUT, the South which was the backbone of the party back then switched sides when the issue of civil rights came up in the 60s...)
Let's also not forget that Condoleeze Rice does not represent even a small portion of the black population of America... She is rich and ultra-conservative... NOT the woman of the ghetto.
Rafer
Posted by: RAFER ALSTON at February 26, 2005 09:30 PM (Ojo2r)
4
Aside from you using a pseudonym (Rafer Alston is a basketball player, and I highly doubt you are the same individual), you bring absolutely no coherent content to the table sir. I would be lowering my standards to converse with a person of your low level.
Good day, sir.
Posted by: Rafer at February 26, 2005 10:40 PM (Ojo2r)
5
HAHAHA BRILLIANT!
That's exactly what I predicted.
I clearly know the facts better than you. I clear have a better grasp of human reason and your simplistic arguments like "the left is petty" and "you are not coherent" just can't cut it!
Wise up Rafer. Read up on the facts and come back to tell me you realize you were wrong. I won't rub it in. I'll just wink and tell you I told you so.
Rafer
P.S. Of course I know who Rafer Alston is you dummy. That's why I picked the name, and that's why you did too. (reason being: I highly doubt your own name is Rafer... No conservative in the history of the world has been named Rafer.)
Posted by: Rafer Alston at February 27, 2005 12:45 AM (Ojo2r)
6
You know "Rafer Alston" just has to be on Karl Rove's payroll cuz I cannot visualize a real Democrat writing such a lame argument. You are blowing your cover "Rafer Alston", try to not be so obvious. Heh.
If anyone really believes that the US South will not vote for Condi, then I'd suggest the Democrats prepare themselves mentally for at least another 12 more years of Republican presidents (4 more years of Bush, then 8 years of Condi, then maybe 8 more years of (jeb) Bush).
Projecting your prejudices on others just doesn't make it so. But thanks for coming out.
Wasn't some of the lamest questioning in Condi confirmation hearing coming from former Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd? Oh man...talk about historical irony. God is an iron.
Of course, what do I know (I live in Canada so I don't have a horse in this race).
Democracy needs at least two functioning parties. The Republicans may be arrogant, but the Democrats are clearly insane. And they don't seem to be getting any less insane with time. Time heals all wounds.
Posted by: Warren at February 27, 2005 01:50 AM (bbB+U)
7
Rafer, I think that
everyone has noticed what a stunning woman Dr. Rice is, they just couldn't find a PC way of saying so!
I'm with you Warren - the Democrats seem determined to self-destruct. We've seen parties collapse before and new ones emerge so it doesn't spell doom and tyranny, but it is frustrating.
Far too many Canadians don't get us. They never will get us. Instead of listening to what we say and observe what we do, they deconstruct and re-arrange everything to fit their own mental image.
I see the South voting for Dr. Rice because they'll look at her record, not her colour. Canadians haven't reached that level yet because they can't deal when their paternalistic stereotypes don't fit the person.
But ultimately all that really matters is that Americans "get" Americans and that we cheer heartily to have such an incredible a woman as Dr. Rice in our country's leadership.
And I am seriously considering buying those boots and that coat.
Posted by: Debbye at February 27, 2005 12:35 PM (1UGQM)
8
Saying Southerners wouldn't vote for Condie because she's an Unmarried, Black, Woman is one of the most styereotypical, predjudicial, and generallly bolloxed things I've heard in a while - it should be ammended to: "Southerners wouldn't vote for Condie if she was a Liberal Woman against the 2nd Amendment." That might have a shred of accuracy.
Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at February 27, 2005 02:49 PM (sE9R7)
9
Warren,
Again, you ignored the main points of my argument which I stand by, and you simply attacked my character.. basically calling me exactly what I said you would in the second post.
Read it and weep. And seriously? You're Rafer aren't you? Did you just change your name because I told you to e-mail me?.... again, it's fresnorafer@hotmail.com if you want to fess up without me calling you out in here.
-------
I am starting to believe that the Republicans can get away with running Condoleeza Rice... I guess what I should be saying is that if the Democrats ran her, she wouldn't have a hope in hell. The GOP party machine just seems so overwhelming powerful in the media and in the get out the vote campaign.
Calling me a racist homophobe, I already addressed that issue. I live near Church street in Toronto for Christ Sake... If I hated gays, there isn't a worse place for me to be.
In reality, Rice doesn't have a hope in hell of becomming president, for all the reasons I addressed plus her incompetence as a Kissinger-like "realist" (which I might have addressed, can't remember).
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 27, 2005 04:41 PM (Ojo2r)
10
Debbye, please for god sake don't wear those boots and that coat...
----------
Again with your insults of Canada? Why the fuck are you here?
If you really hate it so much and things are so much better in the U.S., why can't you afford to live there?
As for the insults about Canada "NOT GETTING" the U.S.... I think about 95% of the civilized/developed world doesn't "get" you guys b/c you are out of line. Most of the 1st world has moved past petty nationalism and relgious dogmatism.
And no, you are not above them because you belong to the greatest economic/military power in the world. That part isn't your fault.
Let's face it, the South represents the most backward elements of America, where all the big intelligent industry is primarily on the coasts. (or at least educates the people moving south to take the best jobs) That's where all of America's advancements have been made.
Let us not forget the finest economic period for the South, when they were actually ahead, was when you guys had a whole bunch of free labour.
And no, you do not represent the majority of Americans, you just have disproportionate power in the electorate... Not to mention Bush had the 9/11 fear on his side.
RAFER ALSTON, FOR TWO!
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 27, 2005 04:52 PM (Ojo2r)
11
I would appreciate it if you please chose a differnent handle. I refuse to talk to someone who claims to be my mother, or claims to be a basketball player with the same name as I.
On a side note, considering you have spent a great deal trying to flush out the opinions of the "right", here on this fantastic blog, I am wondering if you have a site of your own that gets trolled by right wingers.
I am willing to bet you don't. Those in the "right" don't go out of there way trying to puncture holes in other's ideologies, they just work on improving their own.
Posted by: Rafer at February 27, 2005 05:14 PM (Ojo2r)
12
How's that Mr. Alston, I changed my name.
I'm going to keep using this until you provide an argument that I can't rebut and again prove that in fact I AM your mother, intellectually speaking.
No I don't have a left wing website because I'm not a left wing nutjob... And you're wrong on the fact that right-wingers like you don't troll... you simply don't read differnet viewpoints. There IS a difference.
Warren and Rafer's Mother... lactating the truth for 5 straight season with the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian lacrosse league
Posted by: Warren and Rafer's Mom at February 27, 2005 05:39 PM (Ojo2r)
13
My sympathies are with you Rafer, but if Debbye is willing to put up with it and you can stand it, I think his/her behavior and remarks are great advertising for "sophisticated, tolerant" Canada. Not the BS that Canadians of his ilk tell each other in their censored media, but the paradox of their talk versus their walk. Multiple avatars, hiding behind fake email addresses, all testimonials to that peculiar brand of Canadian courage.
Posted by: mikem at February 27, 2005 07:59 PM (EzNXf)
14
Good response Mikem!
Avoid the details and stick to the character attacks... American politics at its finest and a beacon of democracy for the world to follow!
Posted by: Rafer's Mom at February 28, 2005 12:28 AM (Ojo2r)
15
Avoid the details?? Contained in your posts? Like this one above??
"How's that Mr. Alston, I changed my name.
I'm going to keep using this until you provide an argument that I can't rebut and again prove that in fact I AM your mother, intellectually speaking.
No I don't have a left wing website because I'm not a left wing nutjob... And you're wrong on the fact that right-wingers like you don't troll... you simply don't read differnet viewpoints. There IS a difference.
Warren and Rafer's Mother... lactating the truth for 5 straight season with the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian lacrosse league"
This is one of the saddest exchanges I've ever had. You put up this pathetic juvenile post, talking about someone's mom, saying silly things about yourself and your own mom, and then whine like a child that no one treats you like an adult. Grow up.
Posted by: mikem at February 28, 2005 02:14 AM (EzNXf)
16
I said this on the other threat and I'll restate it here: Don't use Anyone's Mom as your handle - you can make your points without being abusive to other commenters. If I have to delete (or edit) comments in order to end this practice I will do so.
I'm sorry Rafer and Warren for not catching up to this latest trend sooner and stopping it.
Posted by: Debbye at February 28, 2005 02:50 PM (HNlk3)
17
WRT Condi as a presidential candidate...I am coming to the conclusion as a white Southerner, that if any female has a chance of becoming president, Condi does. Conservative White Southern Men who vote will vote for her because the Republican tent is definitely much bigger than the Democrat tent and they will support their candidate.
I belong to neither party, and I have recently come to realise that the Republicans
are in fact a bigger tent. Bush has demonstrated that he can give real cabinet power to minorities and women without it having to be the traditionally "soft" departments like Housing and Education. Ok, Clinton had Albright, but did he have any significant Black cabinet members? (Vernon Jordan doesn't count.)
And, damn, she does look hot in those boots ;-)!
Posted by: James at March 01, 2005 11:42 AM (oAiul)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Canadian permission to defend ourselves - ha!
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.
Not so fast there -
PM Martin says the USA is supposed to ask Canada's permission before shooting down any incoming missiles:
Prime Minister Paul Martin is insisting that United States seek permission before firing any missiles over Canada.
Two words: Won't Happen.
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.
1
Haha, good luck Debbye.
I hope the 6th of those 6 interceptors lands on your house instead of mine.
Oh yeah, lets not forget, our old nemesis the Soviet Kingdom. THEY HAVE 13,000 NUCLEAR BOMBS!!!
China has over 400.
As I said. Good Luck.
Posted by: Bill at February 25, 2005 03:38 PM (Ojo2r)
2
Oh yeah, there's more.
Even if we did shoot down 5 nuclear bombs, are you aware of the fact that the nuclear radiation still occurs, albeit higher and more dispersed than expected, meaning the fallout would affect even more American "heroes."
Once again... Good Luck... It's always the stupid that lead us into war... I can only hope that in this case, the stupid die first.
(If you need me, I'll be hiding in artic tundra of Siberian Canada. Unfortunately even there, your stupid interceptors will plague me with first wave radiation.)
Posted by: Bill at February 25, 2005 03:41 PM (Ojo2r)
3
Progress! At least now the moonbats are admitting that the system might work. So now they're worried about above ground fallout.
The idea is to shoot down the missile before the nuclear warhead is activated. In case you didn't know the warhead isn't activated until the missile is above its target. If you can destroy it before then, you've rendered it harmless.
But oh well, we can't shoot them all down, so why bother with any of them. Do you live in Carolyn Parrish's riding?
Enjoy your new home in the arctic. According to the Kyoto-niks in another 100 years or so it will almost be habitable.
Posted by: TimR at February 25, 2005 04:17 PM (rr+yX)
4
Martin, in addition to being indecisive, can now claim to be as much of an idiot as Chretien. I can see the U.S. president, as a missile streaks in at 10,000 mph. (or whatever speed it atains), calling Mr. Martin asking for permission to intercept it. Martin meanwhile, can't decide if he likes his eggs poached or scrambled.
Posted by: John B at February 25, 2005 05:55 PM (ju7Wp)
5
A screaming comes across the sky.
Then another screaming comes across the sky.
It misses the first screaming coming across the sky. Whoops. Raytheon told us they worked that out in testing.
Now then.
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 25, 2005 07:46 PM (Ojo2r)
6
Blackglasses, that was the WORST story I have ever read. I think you should dust off some of your old Kipling and try again.
Posted by: Rafer at February 25, 2005 10:21 PM (Ojo2r)
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 26, 2005 01:05 PM (Ojo2r)
8
Rafer, you're seriously kidding aren't you?
Come on, just send me an e-mail and admit outside of this blog that you're trolling...
E-mail me at fresnorafer@hotmail.com and tell me you're kidding. I won't bring it up in here, but I won't pick on you and call you on your mistakes either.
Posted by: Rafer Alston at February 27, 2005 12:48 AM (Ojo2r)
9
I think that Mr. Martin ended up making a tough decision. Afterall, "joining" the US was not going to cost us anything, but it would have lent credability to a military program that lacks credability. The facts are that scientists and engineers from Alaska to Massachusetts all agree that designing and building "anti-missile missiles" is not possible, and it has been made even more difficult a proposition by the recent Russian announcement to build a hypersonic cruise missile to deliver nuclear, chemical and biological warheads. Such unmanned vehicles can cruise in the upper layers of the atmosphere at Mach 6 or better, and are capable of "high dynamics" manoevers that exceed 30 "g" along the entire path, making the problem of attacking and destroying them, virtually impossible with conventional explosives. You can think of them as hypersonic bombers that are continually doing aerobatic maneovers on the way to the target and what it takes to "intercept" and destroy such a bomber. And do not forget that these days stealth radar technologies allow such vehicles to have a minimum radar cross section as well. And since such vehicles travel just inside the atmospheric envelope, attacking them from spaceborn platforms is just as problematic, even with lasers and xray lasers.
Canada did a great deal of research on such weapons back in the 1960s and finally concluded in 1970 that such systems could only be effective with nuclear warheads large enough to destroy the incoming missiles. That of course defeats the entire purpose of a defensive missile shield. Nothing has changed in these earlier Canadian studies and nothing has changed in the conclusion.
I thought that Mr. Martin would have gone along with the Bush Administration in this expensive boondoggle on the US taxpayer, but to his credit he recognized bullshit when he saw it and was not afraid to say so publicly.
And I also think that Mr. Harper must be giving off a huge sigh of relief because the Conservatives know full well that this was simply a money grab by the Carlyle Group and its companies, since no credible scientist or engineer is prepared to recommend this sort of development. In case you have missed it, the Carlyle Group is now in control of the American nuclear weapons programs, and safely out of sight of Congressional oversight since its a private company. Oh yes, that is the same Carlyle Group that counts among its members the Bush Family and the Bin Laudin Family.
Canada concluded, back in 1970, and its valid still today, that the only workable method for nuclear arms control is "disarmament". By violating international missile treaties, the US is harming, not helping its own defence posture.
Congratulations to Mr. Martin for his willingness to call a spade a shovel.
Posted by: Joe Green at February 27, 2005 03:33 PM (5dXW9)
10
I'll be laughing my ass off the day, GOD FORBID, Canada is attacked and the politicians will be running to the U.S. first.
Posted by: Michael at February 27, 2005 03:49 PM (BQ8wu)
11
Far be it from me to interrupt kvetching about how the USA suxxors and is the real threat to world peace, etc., but the "5 of 6" number comes from the PAC-3 project, a theater-range Patriot follow-on designed to protect against SCUD-style short-range ballistic missiles.
The exoatmospheric NMD interceptors are different animals, and have had far less success, since they have a much, much tougher task.
Feel free to return to discussing how the Carlyle group controls the weather now.
Posted by: SparcVark at February 27, 2005 06:17 PM (X7hb0)
12
Whoops. That's the SM-3, not the PAC-3. Still boost-phase, still on short-range targets, still a different system than NMD.
However, by the laws of blog, anyone who wants to consider me a lackwit is welcome to do so.
Posted by: SparcVark at February 27, 2005 07:20 PM (X7hb0)
13
SparcVark, thanks for the information. You clearly know a lot about specific missile systems.
I wish I had paid more attention to parabolas and such back when I was in school and we were studying a broad range of ABM technology. I remember enough to recognize the difficulty of tracking and anticipating the course of incoming missiles and trying to hit a very small object in a very big sky.
Yankee ingenuity can't solve everything, but if we don't try we definitely won't succeed.
Posted by: Debbye at February 28, 2005 03:00 PM (HNlk3)
14
I wonder if he has considered that the only reason we would shoot missiles over Canaduh is if
someone else had already shot other missiles over Canada first?
W? T? F? Are the Norks or the Chinese going to get Canadian permission before they launch an attack against us that we need to defend against? This guy is a total dunce.
Posted by: Phelps at February 28, 2005 06:28 PM (EcSQO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 24, 2005
Button, button, who pushes the button ...
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."
Clarification comes if you recall that the best way to duck the dirty work is to
let George do it, and Canada long ago left matters of continental defense to the USA.
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.
I'd like to think that the US government wouldn't want to eliminate a platform which would facilitate inclusion in the plan should a future Canadian government (or even this one) choose to re-evaluate their role in missile defense, but the Opposition's silence before Martin's announcement makes them look like an Opposition only capable of responding to events rather than crafting them. That weakness might be cause for the U.S. government to judge them as too unreliable to merit future trust.
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.)
Can a Canadian application to join the EU be far away? (Oh, I'm sorry. Did that sound bitter?)
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)
Posted by: Blackglasses at March 01, 2005 03:19 AM (Ojo2r)
Posted by: mikem at March 01, 2005 05:27 PM (EzNXf)
Posted by: Blackglasses at March 02, 2005 02:03 AM (Ojo2r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 23, 2005
Canada's in, no out, no both ...
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.
February 22, 2005
Frank McKenna, Canada's Ambassador to the U.S.
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."
McKenna touched on the favoured "US objections to decriminalization of marijuana" theme, but here's something I don't get: given the treaties between the two countries to honour things like marriages, wouldn't the US object far more to the legalization of same-sex marriages than the relaxing of laws regarding marijuana possession which hardly differs from the laws of some states?
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.
February 20, 2005
Mark Steyn speaks
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.
And down to the heart of it:
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.
Read the whole thing.
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.
Valid point. I too have to remind myself to distinguish between "Old" and "New" Europes.
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.
1
Hmm... Paul Desmarais seems like an excellent candidate for a Nobel Humanitarian Prize.
Posted by: bobthebellbuoy at February 21, 2005 12:34 AM (nV5cR)
2
Mr. Steyn, the penumbulate Eurosceptic seems to be far too harsh on the decadent French and Germans. If one of the litmus tests for his argument against the "Europeans" (code for continential EU members that don't jive with his political beliefs- last time i checked, UK was part of Europe) is based upon the use of the word "FREEDOM", then i would sincerly hope you re-evaluate the creedence you give to this man.
Europe and the the United States are far closer than Steyn gives them credit for.
Look at the preamble to the NATO charter- you will see that the Atlantic treaty talks about combing nations with similar democratic and liberal values. Additionally, Mr. Steyn also fails to notice that roughly 3/4 of the EU participated in the Iraqi war in some form or another (though in most states they were greatly opposed by the population as a whole).
There is a unity between the United States and Europe that many people (such as Steyn and his ideological friends) do not wish to acknowledge it. They want to keep you thinking that the Contient is mired in Anti-Americanism and is fundamentally "ANTI FREEDOM". Neither of these beliefs are totally true and are misreadings of global politics.
Perhaps the real reason Chancellor Schroder didn't use the world "freedom" is because he didn't wish to sound like the pandering childish and simplistic demogogue President Bush does evertime he speaks.
After all-he doesn't need to win over Midwesterners in Germany.
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 21, 2005 12:34 PM (QLo0f)
3
Maybe Schroder does think the way you think, BG. Then again, maybe Bush and Schroder don't share the same vision. Or perhaps Schroder felt uncomfortable praising freedom when Germany had done so much to oppose the efforts of other nations to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and hence the Middle East. The recent elections in Iraq heartened more than just Bush's heart. You can feel the stirrings now.
I think Bush has 'infected' the ME with the taste of democracy. I think, in my simplistic way, that it is a good thing to spread freedom and democracy. If Schroder does not want to risk lives and treasure doing so, he could at least offer support to those who hope that they may one day have the right to select their leaders and live in freedom from tyranny.
Posted by: mikem at February 22, 2005 07:11 PM (EzNXf)
4
"A People's History Of The World"
At some turning point in history,
some fuckface recognized that knowledge tends to democratize cultures and societies
so the only thing to do was monopolize and confine it to priests,
clerics and elites (the rest resigned to serve),
cuz if the rabble heard the truth they'd organize against the power,
privilege and wealth hoarded by the few- for no one else.
And did it occur to you that it's almost exactly the same today?
And so if our schools won't teach us,
we'll have to teach ourselves to analyze and understand the systems of thought-control.
And share it with each other,
never sayed by brass rings or the threat of penalty.
I'll promise you- you promise me-
not to sell each other out to murderers, to thieves...
who've manufactured our delusion that you and me participate meaningfully
in the process of running our own lives.
Yeah, you can vote however the fuck you want,
but power still calls all the shots.
And believe it or not, even if (real) democracy broke loose,
power could/would just "make the economy scream" until we vote responsibly.
Posted by: GUESS WHO at February 22, 2005 07:21 PM (Ojo2r)
5
Right on, man. Power to (my) People.
Posted by: mikem at February 22, 2005 07:56 PM (EzNXf)
6
Hehe, Mikem likes Propaghandi.
Posted by: Drum Roll at February 23, 2005 01:31 AM (Ojo2r)
7
The "Freedom" and "Democracy" rhetoric is a ruse.
Americans don't really care about the "freedom" of the middle eastern people... We sure as hell need to be there if we're going to dominate the rest of the world forever though.
God Bless America. I love you.
Long live "freedom," even if it just rhetoric.
Posted by: Tyler Hunter at February 23, 2005 01:33 AM (Ojo2r)
8
Your off your meds Ty. And, dude, you sound stupid.
Posted by: Richard Cook at February 23, 2005 11:33 AM (Km34P)
9
Schroder didn't "oppose freedom". He opposed a war built upon a flimsy pretense of WMD and Saddam Hussein being a threat to the United States. The freedom angle was played up alot more when it became evident that the United States wasn't going to tfind anything tied towards a WMD program.
Oh, and by the way...Its hard to argue someone is totally free when their country is still being occupied by a foreign power. But hey...at least they didn't elect an insane mullah this time around.
And mikem? re-read the "Guess Who" post. I don't think you'll agree with it that much...
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 23, 2005 01:18 PM (Ojo2r)
10
Wishing for the good old days of Saddam. And of course, despite the revisionism that the nations that opposed the Coalition nations are trying to accomplish now, I well remember Saddam using WMDs. The Kurds and Iranians do also. I also remember Saddam admitting that he had them. I also remember every single "Bush Lied!" country assuring the world that he still had them, but that diplomacy could still work.
Your rewriting of history requires a short memory. That will work with those whose damaged sense of morality and self esteem cannot quite accept being tagged as anti-democratic, but it will not work with anyone else. You are on the wrong side of history, but I am sure that story will change with time. Every family in France can now trace their history back members of the Resistance.
Posted by: mikem at February 23, 2005 08:39 PM (EzNXf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 17, 2005
Negroponte to be named
Feb. 17 - President Bush is just announcing the nomination of
John Negroponte as the Director of National Intelligence.
I like it. I haven't closely followed Negroponte's activites as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, but as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. during the run up to and during Operation Iraqi Freedom I was impressed by his consistency and focus.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:05 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know who else was probably really impressed with John Negroponte's activites?
HONDURAN DEATH SQUADS.
Oops- I misspoke. I mean brave "Nationalist forces" and heroic "Freedom Fighters" (Hey-isn't that what the US is doing in Iraq right now? Fighting for Freedom?)
I'm glad to see that in Iraq they're considering using the "El Salvadore Option" to fight the partisians.
After all, American trained and supported "Freedom Fighters" are what have so endeared the United States to Central America even to this day.
Maybe he'll set up a "School of the Arabias" inside the Baghdad Green Zone.
Wow- the '80s retro craze is still going on in Washington. Someone should tell them that the '80s are sooooooo 2003.
Posted by: Blackglasses at February 17, 2005 08:27 PM (Ojo2r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 04, 2005
Events catch up to pretensions
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
February 03, 2005
2005 State of the Union Address
Feb. 3 - I just finished watching the SOTU address (I had taped it)) and call me a shameless cheerleader but I liked it.
The proposal early in the speech to eliminate more than 150 government programs certainly caught my attention. I anticipate the Democrats will fight that tooth and nail ... possibily just as forcefully they will fight changes to the Social Security Act (although it will be somewhat disguised.)
Sigh. The mantra that failed programs just need more money is uniquitous in Toronto, too.
Americans are optimists by nature, and certain Democrats, currently knowns as the Purveyors of Doom and Gloom, are causing more and more people to shrug dismissively - especially as the Iraqi people have courageously proved themselves to be front and center in the war against terrorism rather than the helpless, trembling victims the U.N. (and Jimmy Carter) prefer them to be.
I was somewhat shocked by amateurish nature of the Democratic Party's rebuttal. Who on earth writes for these people? (My son has suggested that they write their own speeches, and therein lies the problem.)
Afghanistan. Palestinian territories. Ukraine. Iraq. Rebut those voters. Freedom is indeed on the march, and those who stand in the way might now, finally, re-examine the basis of their opposition.
The NY Times' Quote of the Day is the President's statement "I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer." Bingo. Stop your whining and obstructing, come up with rational, workable alternatives and bring your proposals to me (him) for active consideration.
The text of the speech as delivered is here.
12:55: Good analysis of what the president's speech may spell out for Iran (via Instapundit.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:35 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
158kb generated in CPU 0.0285, elapsed 0.0859 seconds.
69 queries taking 0.066 seconds, 271 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
