Robbs Rants

A Tale of Two Polls

2007-08-15T09:24:00.000-04:00

We are constantly hearing about poll results and what they mean. So often, the actual question is not discussed and the results are spun to get as much media attention as possible.

For instance, if I were to run a poll in January asking "do you find that your interest in ice cream has declined in the last 6 months" one can easily surmise that the majority of people would say yes. After all, who has as much interest in ice cream in January as opposed to July?

But, if we were to make a headline out of the results, then you would probably see something like "Canadian Support for Ice Cream Industry on the Decline"

Now, suppose the question had simply been, do you still like ice cream? We can easily assume the outcome would be quite different.

Where am I going with this? (I wouldn't blame you for asking) I recently came across two different polls about our involvement in Afghanistan.

The first was a Canadian Press-Decima Research which ran in the Globe and Mail under the headline "Support for Afghan intervention waning: poll". The question that was asked, from which they came to this conclusion, was whether the number of deaths in Afghanistan was acceptable. Say what?

Who is going to say yes to that question (surprisingly 25% actually did) as no death is acceptable. Many who read my writings know that I am an ardent supporter of our troops, and their mission in Afghanistan, but no death should ever be acceptable. (I will refrain from commenting on how many soldiers died due to ancient equipment while the Liberals were in power, oops, too late) If we found their deaths acceptable then why do we bother to even give them guns to defend themselves?

On the flip side, I also came across a poll run by the Dundas Star News. Their question was simply "Do you support Canada's role in Afghanistan beyond 2009?" The results are quite a bit different. As I type this, 89% say yes.

Of course, the Dundas Star News poll is unofficial and could be swayed by multiple votes by the same people but we also have to look at the way the major pollsters get their results as well (something that is usually glossed over)

First off, the survey sample is 1,000 people. I often question how 1,000 people can stand for the opinion of 30+ million but I am not a statistician. What I question are the people who are giving the answer. The majority of these types of polls are telephone surveys. Now, think about it, how many people actually;
A. are home when they call
B. given the preponderance of call display, actually answer, and
C. if they do answer, have the time to go through the survey which consists of at least 5 mins of questions just to ensure you are eligible to answer the questions (for the few times I accidentally answered the phone I told them my wife works for a marketing company because that instantly disqualifies you)

So basic demographics, and psychology, tells you immediately that they are not getting a true sampling of Canadians. They are missing most of the people who work routine hours and have kids in soccer, dance, hockey, etc and anyone who actually has a life. What they do get are a lot of people who have an axe to grind because they love to tell people what they think.

There is also the question of cell phones. More and more people are forsaking landlines and going to strictly cell phones. This is increasingly true in the major urban centres. Due to the cost involved, pollsters rarely do cell phone surveys and they would most likely get very belligerent answers. (I know I would be ticked having some polling company costing me money on my cell)

So, the next time you read the results of a poll, ask yourself, what kind of person actually answered these questions, and take the results with a very large grain of salt.

Genuflecting At The Altar Of Kyoto

2007-02-05T00:51:00.000-05:00

In the beginning, there was the earth and it was good. It had green forests, sparkling water and blue skies. The air was clean and the land teemed with creatures big and small.

But then, man learned to harness the power of fire, to make alloys and modify his environment. He cut down the trees, dug up the earth and burned coal. (Can you hear the soundtrack?) He laid the land barren and the blue skies turned dark from the smoke of the burning rainforest and factories burning coal. Prophets, also called environmentalists, decried the destruction and went to the ends of the earth spreading their message. A time would come, they said, when man would be struck down for his destruction of the earth. They would be visited by plagues such as asthma, smog, droughts and the end of the earth. We must save the rainforest, they preached, for they clean the air we breathe and make rain. Other prophets rent their clothing over the pollution created by the digging of the earth for greed. Standing at the pulpit of public opinion, they spoke to all who would listen about the destruction of man brought on by his own avarice.

But God saw what was happening and sent a saviour whose name is Kyoto. This saviour started to spread the word called global warming. Many laughed and called him a false prophet but his apostles continued to spread the word. Slowly, the earlier prophets began to see the light and gave up their false gods of saving the rainforest and riding bicycles as they prostrated themselves at the feet of Kyoto, who was pleased. But, he still had a problem. For although Kyoto had converted the prophets, he still had to get the word to the people. Then one day, out of the wilderness, came a new apostle, a man of renown, who had once worshipped the god of power but who, after seeing a vision of hanging chads, had given up all to follow Kyoto.

The apostle Al Gore strode forth among the people and, putting forth his PowerPoint for all to see, they were in awe of his wisdom. He spoke the message of global warming, now known as climate change, as the savages who had previously believed in the plague of pollution, willingly bowed down to the one true god, Kyoto.

And it was good.

The apostles of Kyoto strode forth into the world and brought new converts to their cause. There was the apostle Jack, who put forth the message, with his concubine Olivia, from a bicycle. And the apostle David, who renounced the false gods he had worshipped known as pollution, smog and wilderness destruction, and embarked on a campaign to convert the rulers of the northern tribe known as Canada. As they went forth, they performed miracles for as the message of Kyoto was accepted, smog disappeared, the rainforest was resurrected and all wildlife was restored. No more would the world suffer from such plagues as animals roaming the Arctic, as the Mastodons had done thousands of years ago. The missionaries told how humankind would be saved from the natural effects of the earth’s heating and cooling, as the god Kyoto had decreed the last thirty years would be called Normal. All other temperatures were an aberration and must be driven from the face of the earth.

False prophets who dared to challenge the one true god were smote with the mighty PowerPoint. Clad in their pagan trappings of old-fashioned research, the shamans of the false gods - such as climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado in Boulder - were shunned by the believers. His writings were struck from the media. His heretical teachings that “there are several climate forcings, in addition to the burning of fossil fuels, that are the main drivers behind global warming” were only spoken in whispers as they gathered in fear of the true god.

The ancient texts of the pagan priests were read with amusement. How naïve, the people thought. Pity those who believe such things as University of East Anglia’s study that showed during the years 1998-2005, the global average temperature did not increase. How could the savages cling to the belief that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation and the cooling that occurred between 1940 and 1965? How could these people still worship the idols of false science that said the Arctic Ocean was 74 degrees Fahrenheit 55 million years ago or that there have been over 600 rapid increases and decreases in temperature in the last million years? The heathens even believed in astrology, for who, other than savages, would put any faith in the science that showed both the moon and Mars had also warmed during the same period.

So, as the unbelievers huddled in their basement temples at universities and research institutes the world over, the mighty Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave the people a new bible and sent forth its priests to interpret it for the uneducated masses. Wielding it as a sword, they struck down the heretics who preached against the true god and shunned them as radicals. They proclaimed the righteousness of their preaching, for they had reviewed their own work and pronounced it as right.

And so, as they went forth, the people breathed a sigh of relief, for all was good. All pollution except CO₂ had been banished from the world and man was in control of the climate. Decrees such as the Clean Air Act, which would ban smog-creating emissions, need not exist, declared the prophets. We need only repent and ban greenhouse gas and the world would never warm, or cool, again.

And it was good.

The Fabric of Canada

2006-11-11T16:07:00.000-05:00

In honour of Remembrance Day, I decided to repost this.

In an age of almost infinite information at our fingertips, you would think ignorance would be virtually eliminated. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Perhaps an over-saturation is the problem. Print publications, 24-hour news and the internet allow almost everyone a soap box to promote their message and a forum for people of all political stripes. With all this muddying of the waters, it is not surprising that the truth is often lost in the shuffle.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the discussion of the Canadian Armed Forces’ involvement in Afghanistan.

First the basics.

Canadian troops are not in Iraq!

To some this might seem self-evident but, unfortunately, experience has shown otherwise. For instance, during a recent radio discussion on what would attract young Muslims to extremist ideology, two different people stated Canadian involvement in Iraq. More worrying is these people were both students at the University of Toronto. This has also been echoed in numerous blogs.

Another point that should be self-evident, but does not appear to be, is we are Canadian not American!

So much of the online debate centres on viewing our troops as if they were from the US. The very people who fume about Canada being Americanized, and take offence at being compared to an American, do exactly that to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Is it ignorance of our Armed Forces? The effects of watching too many “war” movies? Or is it that in the rush to condemn anything Bush, they push aside everything in the quest for their ideology?

It may be a combination of them all or none.

The Canadian Armed Forces are a reflection of Canada as a whole. The men and women of the Armed Forces are your neighbours, schoolmates and relatives. They were not born in a vacuum or created by some lab bent on creating the ultimate soldier. They are not Rambo, John Wayne or Clint Eastwood.

Our soldiers are Canadians who have grown up with the same experiences as you and I. They come from all walks of life and every region in the country, from Toktoyaktuk to Windsor, St. John’s to Victoria.

Our soldiers are highly educated. Almost every officer has a university degree and not necessarily a military-oriented one. It could be a degree in History, Psychology or Arts. Captain Nicola Goddard, who died in a Taliban ambush on 17 May 06, had a degree in English and was a member of an artillery unit.

Contrary to what you see in movies, our troops are not brainwashed or sheep. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are allowed to voice their opinion, debate politics and the validity of a mission. Over a beer in the mess, or having coffee in the canteen, discussions can be heard on many subjects. Their brains are not removed at the recruiter’s nor are their ethics. They are expected to react instantaneously in combat and follow the orders they are given but are also expected to uphold the principles and honour of Canada. They are the ambassadors of Canada and are expected to represent the fabric of Canada even when dealing with people who are trying to kill them.

They are Canadians with the same hopes and dreams as any other Canadian. These do not change just because they put on a uniform.

The biggest difference is the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are willing to make sacrifices in pursuit of those hopes and dreams.

Our troops give up much to defend and protect, not just Canadians but others who are incapable of defending themselves. They live a life that most could not tolerate let alone do so willingly.

The movie image of the soldier waving gleefully while marching off to glory is just that - a movie image. It bears as much reality as that of King Kong climbing the Empire State Building.

There is no glory in deployed operations and no glee in leaving on them. Soldiers, more often than not, miss their child’s first steps, first words, first day at school and graduations. They live for months on end in dirt, dust, heat or cold. A shower once a week is a luxury and even a hot cup of coffee is not guaranteed. Hard physical labour is the order of the day, as are long hours and little sleep. They shave and bathe with cold water, both summer and winter. If it is quiet, they may get the opportunity to actually heat up their rations and a fresh egg is like filet mignon.

The majority of their time is spent fighting boredom. Standing guard duty for hours at a time in the middle of the night is not exactly exciting. Neither is the constant drudge of endless patrols in the middle of nowhere carrying 50 lbs of equipment. The typical day of a soldier is one of wearying routine coupled with sore muscles and bumps and bruises from being bounced around in an armoured vehicle. Through all this, their mind must remain sharp for that instance when danger does rear its head.

But they “soldier” on.

Why? Not because they are dupes, sheep or warmongers. They know that they are not in Afghanistan to fight a war for oil or as part of any American war of aggression.

The Canadian Armed Forces are in Afghanistan to try to bring stability and peace to the world and help a people in need.

From the moment the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden after the American embassy bombings in 1998, it was realized something needed to be done. As supporters of terrorism, the Taliban was rapidly becoming a threat to world peace as well as a brutal, repressive government. Afghanistan was the training ground for the insurgents that were raising tensions between Pakistan and India, two countries with nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda, and numerous other terrorist groups, freely operated in Afghanistan. Plans for going after Bin Laden were already in the works when the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 occurred. After the Taliban refused a final demand from the United Nations to hand over Bin Laden, it was realized the world could no longer afford to sit idly by.

This time was different though, this time the world finally got it - you cannot negotiate peace with people who don’t want peace. Fanatics, such as Bin Laden, want only to impose their form of order on the world. Like Adolph Hitler, nothing would appease, and they would not stop until democracy was destroyed. They wanted nothing short of Taliban-style rule worldwide.

And our soldiers are pragmatists. They realize that in order to allow peace to thrive, those bent on destruction must be subdued. They realize people who believe it is appropriate to fire rockets at children or bomb schoolrooms cannot be rationalized with. They know hospitals, schools and wells cannot be built while there is a constant threat of attack. And, most of all, they realize it will be dangerous.

So, day after day, they go out into the dust and heat, rain and cold, day and night, to seek out a threat to a suffering people. They don’t do it for fun but in the belief that they can help to bring a better life to the average Afghani.

As the grandfather of the little Afghani boy with cancer, who the Canadians attempted to help, stated “Canada is the first country to come to Afghanistan with pure intentions.”

Remembrance Day Petition

2006-11-05T13:06:00.000-05:00

For Immediate Release

Over the past several years, discussions have been held by politicians, legion members and the general public about the value of Remembrance Day and its observance around the country. There has been the opinion that it is no longer relevant. But now, with our Canadian troops in Afghanistan and many losing their lives, Remembrance Day takes on new meaning and an online petition is calling for politicians to recognize the troops’ contribution by making Remembrance Day a statutory holiday.

The burgeoning petition website allows people to express their opinions and put issues on the table in a way not available in the past. The petition to make Remembrance Day a statutory holiday takes advantage of an petition site to make the opportunity to sign more available than ever.

“It isn’t just about having the petition online but getting people to know it is there,” said Robbin MacQueen, author of the petition. “It all started with Army.ca, a website for discussion about the military. There are constant discussions about the conflict in Afghanistan and how the Canadian public doesn’t understand. It really brought the concept of Remembrance Day front and centre, each and every time one of our soldiers died.”

Provinces each have their own rulings on whether Remembrance Day is a holiday.

“That’s one of the reasons for the petition as well,” he stated. “If the federal government made the ruling, the practice of observing Remembrance Day would be consistent across the country.”

Using online technology allows for people in remote areas to get their opinions heard. The petition has been signed by people all across the country and in all walks of life.

“But more signatures are needed,” expressed MacQueen. “The more people who believe Remembrance Day should be remembered appropriately, the more the politicians will have to listen.”

MacQueen recognizes that one of the barriers to adding a statutory holiday to our calendar is the affect on business. Business owners do not want another day where they have to close shop and their workers stay home. As well, MacQueen has been challenged that people would not actually attend ceremonies but instead use the time to relax and “hang out”.

“Sure, I’ve been challenged by people who think no one would use the holiday to actually observe Remembrance Day, to actually think about our men and women in combat and those who laid down their lives before them,” he added. “But under that philosophy we might just as well cancel Christmas and Canada Day. Not everyone celebrates them for the reasons or in the ways they historically have been intended. But for those that do, it is worthwhile.”

To view the petition, visit www.petitiononline.com/nov11th/petition.html

Robbin MacQueen

The History of Terrorism Part 1 - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 3)

2006-11-01T08:47:00.000-05:00

Terrorism has been around for centuries.

During biblical times, the first recorded acts of what we now call terrorism were perpetuated by a radical offshoot of the Zealots. This group, active at the time of Christ, was known to use daggers to assassinate Romans and any Jews who collaborated with them in broad daylight, often in public places such as crowded markets or on feast days. Like modern terrorism, the Zealots actions were intended to send a message to masses.

During the crusades, a group of Muslims called the Assassins emerged. Viewing self-sacrifice and martyrdom as a way to ascend to heaven, this group used the same methods as the Zealots in their fight against the Christian Crusaders who had invaded what is modern day Syria.

Toward the end of the French revolution (1789-1799), a new trend in terrorism began to emerge. Until this point, most terrorism had been religious based but in the 1800s nationalism, anarchism, Marxism, and other political movements started to appear. Initially antimonarchical, rebels used modern terrorism in the latter part of the French Revolution.

During the same period, a group calling themselves The People’s Will were active in Russia. Selecting targets that represented the state’s power base, the group embraced a philosophy of “propaganda by the deed”, educating the people about inequities imposed by the state and attempting to rally support for revolution. Some of their more notable targets were the governor-general of Saint Petersburg, the head of the secret police, and even Tsar Alexander II.

The assignation of the tsar inspired another group who got together to discuss how to create a worldwide revolution. Known as Black International, their goal was to coordinate and support a worldwide terrorist campaign designed to overthrow both monarchies and democratically elected government. During the first 20 or so years after their formation in 1881, the anarchists were successful in assassinating United States president McKinley, the president of France and Spain’s prime minister, Empress Elisabeth of Austria and King Humbert I of Italy. Anarchists are also accused of fomenting labour unrest in the United States in which many of the disputes turned violent.

Perhaps the greatest example of the effects terrorism can have on a modern society is the assignation of Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand. While on a visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia he was gunned down by a Bosnian Serb radical with close ties to Serbia, Austria’s enemy. This act is credited with starting World War One.

Terrorism Evolves

Between WWI and WWII, the rise of totalitarian regimes that employed terror as a means of controlling the people overshadowed acts of terror by individuals. State sponsored death squads, beatings and torture became the norm in many countries.

After WWII, terrorism once again became a revolutionary tool. At the forefront was the use of terrorism as a weapon against colonialism. One of the deadliest attacks of the period was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Irgun Zvai Le’umi (National Military Organization) in 1946. The bombing, which took place because the hotel housed the military and administration offices of the British in Palestine, killed ninety-one people and injured forty-five more. Also of note was the fact that this terrorist group was led by Menachem Begin, who would one day become the Prime Minister of Israel and would win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978.

As time progressed, terrorism started to evolve from a revolutionary tool and started to assume more ideological motivations. Many groups and factions attempted to use terror as a way to draw attention to their cause.

In the mid 1960s terror took on a new and even deadlier role.

Going Global

In 1966, Cuba held a conference that would change the world. Sponsored by the Soviet Union, the Tri-Continental Conference brought together terrorist groups from all over the world. Groups from the Middle-East, Europe, Asia and Latin America formed alliances and began to work together. Organizations such as the German Red Army Faction allied with the French Action Direct, the Italian Red Army Brigade and the Palestinian Black September while the Japanese Red Army allied with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). These alliances included financial, political, operational and intelligence cooperation. Cuba also became a training ground for many of these groups.

On July 28, 1968, three men from the PFLP hijacked an Israeli airliner enroute from Rome to Tel Aviv. Commercial airplanes had been hijacked in the past but this was the first political hijacking to have occurred. This was also the first recorded terrorist act to have originated outside the country involved.

Two years later, the group staged an even more spectacular attack. Hijacking one Swiss and two American planes, the group flew them to Jordan where they proceeded to blow them up after evacuating the hostages. This was strictly a media event designed to broadcast their cause to the entire world. This was also the first time that innocent civilians from countries not involved in the particular conflict were targeted.

During the 60s and 70s, terrorist organizations quickly learned how to take advantage of the growing areas of international travel and communications. Many incidents were designed to get the maximum amount of TV and newspaper coverage to reach a wider audience.

The most infamous example of this was the killing of eleven Israeli athletes by Black September during the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. The world watched in horror as the grisly events unfolded, ending in a botched rescue attempt by the German police that saw all the hostages, terrorists and one German police officer killed.

Terrorism came full circle in 1979 with the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Once again, religion became the driving force behind terrorist attacks. This was further hastened by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of their ideological, material and financial support.

The Past Was Once The Future - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 1)

Robbs Rants: The End of Peacekeeping? - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 2)

Wounded in Afghanistan - Pipers Lament

2006-10-16T17:03:00.000-04:00

Picked up from Army.ca

It has been 2 month and 2 days since I deployed to Afghanistan, with 8 Platoon, Charles Company, 1 RCR. I was honored, as a reservist augmentee, to be attached to such a great group of probably the best soldiers our country has to offer.

In the three short weeks I was in Afghanistan, I learned more about commitment to my military family than most soldiers learn in a life time. It seemed both unfortunate and amazing that it took battle and blood shed to forge such a strong bond.

It has been 1 month and 12 days since I was wounded and pulled from the battlefield. When I was in the hospital in KAF, I had hoped that I would stay in Afghanistan to recover. Why would I want to stay in such a horrible place that almost claimed my life? I didn’t want to leave my family.

Germany and Toronto (hospitals) were a blur of Morphine, Demerol, Fentanyl, IV lines, wound packing’s, shrapnel removal surgeries, catheters, bad food, and good care. I think back on it and it seems dizzying. But when I close my eyes, only 2 images flash and they take me back to where I’m supposed to be.

I see Panjwayi; the fields of pot. Rockets and bullets. The smell of burning and the heat. Then all I see are the bodies of soldiers I helped carry to the CCP. 2 covered by body bags (WO. Richard Nolan, Sgt. Shane Stachnik) and 2 on stretchers; my platoon warrant (WO Frank Mellish), and a soldiers I new only casually from living in the shacks in Petawawa (Pte.Will Cushley)

While at the CCP I find out that a very close friend (from my reserve home unit) had been wounded by shrapnel from Taliban RPGs. His sections LAV had been left on the battlefield. For a long while, I didn’t know how badly he was wounded. (He’s still over there, thus no names) I’ll never forget the feeling; the sense and fear of loss.
I will never forget those who were lost that day.

I try to think of the good times I was privileged enough to have with my Platoon. WO. Mellish made me the unofficial piper of 8 Platoon, (shortly there after; Coy piper) and I played reveille as per his request (and everyone else’s distain) anytime I was able.
In dreams I still hear him shouting “Piper!!! Black Bear!!”… The last tune I played on my pipes… at panjwayi. (I still don’t have them back)

When I close my eyes, I also see the morning after Panjwayi. Sparks, smoke, fire… then the burp of the main gun of the A-10. I remember the feeling of panic as I crawled for my Weapon and PPE, thinking we were under attack. I can still feel the burning on my legs and back, the shock of thinking my legs were gone.

I can see the faces of the injured… the twice wounded soldiers of Charles. I see the face of the soldier who saved my life by applying tourniquets to my legs and stopping the bleeding from my back and arm… (He will remain nameless for now)

From then, everything’s a blur until I’m back in KAF. I remember asking if everyone was ‘ok’... Reaching from my gurney to other wounded soldiers walking by, trying to peace together what had happened… more confusion. I asked again and again…
Pte. Mark Graham. An inspirational man whom I only really started to get to know shortly before deploying, a brother in our family of warriors, was dead. My heart sank even more.

Our CSM (who was also wounded) came over to me and asked if I was going to be able to play the pipes for the ramp ceremony the following day. I held up my right hand, which was numb, and looked at my fingers. The tips of 2 of them looked like they had been chewed up in a blender. I felt tears run down my face. Not because I thought I’d never play again, but because I couldn’t play for my departed brothers the next day… I would have given both of my hands and more for their lives.

I had hoped to attend the ramp ceremony the next day, even if I couldn’t play, but I couldn’t move my legs and they couldn’t put me in a wheel chair because of the shrapnel in my back. I was sedated that day, and came to on the plane to Germany.

I couldn’t attend any of the funerals of my fallen family, and I feel no closure.

It has been a month and 12 days since I lost my brothers in Panjwayi and it might as well have been yesterday.

When I close my eyes at night I not only see the ones who have paid the ultimate price, but also the ones who are still there… and I feel as though I am betraying them.

My life seems to be dragging me on. My fiancé and I are planning our wedding and future. My family and I get together often. I’ve been able to socialize with my friends… and yet each thing I do here makes me feel guilty, because I shouldn’t be here to enjoy this.

I wake up every day and plan and plot. I think of only one thing; how can I get back to my family… How can I get back to Afghanistan? My wounds are almost healed. Only 3 holes left and they’re almost closed. I can walk pretty well now, but I need to run.

My family and friends don’t understand. They don’t want me to go back. My fiancé has threatened to end our relationship if I chose to return… and yet this doesn’t dissuade me. I have to get back to my boys. I have to get back and do my part no matter the cost to me. I love my family here in Canada, but no one’s shooting at them.

Every time I see more soldiers killed over there a piece of me dies, and I feel the urge to return grow stronger. And each day I enjoy in my freedom here, I feel as though I have betrayed their memory. I need to finish my job over there. I need to go back.

I can only think of the families of those who have died, and I can only say this, and hope it provides some solace:
A warrior’s sword is made from the finest steel, forged by hammer and anvil to create and edge, baptized in hot coals and flame for strength, then quenched in cold water to harden it.

Our brotherhood of Warriors, the finest of men, has been forged by Battle; Baptized by fire and Quenched by tears…

We became and will always be a fraternity of blood with a bond stronger than death.

Pro Patria

Remembrance Day Petition

2006-10-15T10:19:00.000-04:00

There is a new online petition to have Remembrance Day declared a national holiday. Currently, there is a private members bill in front of parliament and if we increase the pressure on our politicians perhaps, they will do what is right for Canadians instead of caving into big business. To show your support, go to http://www.petitiononline.com/nov11th/petition.html. Please pass this on to all your friends and keep the ball rolling.

Robbin

A Debate by Any Other Name...

2006-10-09T11:05:00.000-04:00

Occasionally I but heads with people online whose ideas are diametrically opposed to mine. No one debates me as fanatically as tbuce (blog Free Your Machine) and the latest, on Freethinkers Oasis, was no exception. The post was a simple question, Why Are We in Afghanistan? Below is my response and the ensuing debate between tbruce and yours truly. I will leave it up to you to form your own opinion.

rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/24/06 @ 09:49

You claim to be a free thinker so I will take the time to post this and see. Unfortunately, too many claim to be free thinkers while closing there minds to anything other than their narrow points of view.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Here are a number of reasons.

Massacres in Yakaolang

Detention and killing of political personalities

Flagrant abuse of the right to life and dignity

Continuing atrocities against civilians

Women in Afghanistan: The violations continue

Afghan workers killed in ambush

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TERRORIST ATROCITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 - AN UPDATED ACCOUNT

Terrorism: Near Eastern Groups and State Sponsors, 2001

It is interesting to note that many people feel that we should pull out of Afghanistan and put our troops into Darfur. Since the Sudanese government has already declared that it will not allow it, we would then be forced to invade Sudan in the same manner that many are condemning for Afghanistan. We would, no doubt take casualties and, once again, we would hear cries about our troops not being "peacekeepers".

However, Canadian peacekeeping is a myth. The Liberal government to justify cutbacks in the Canadian Armed Forces put out the idea of Canada as a peacekeeping nation. While telling everyone that we had become a peacekeeping army, and therefore did not need a lot of heavy (expensive) equipment, the Canadian military involvement was relatively low. Often it was only one or two people involved in a peacekeeping mission and our largest commitment was in Cypress where there hadn't been any shots fired in decades.

Then in the 90's things changed. Suddenly factional fighting became an issue. Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, these kinds of conflicts started to garner attention. Unfortunately, traditional peacekeeping proved wholly inadequate to deal with it. Bosnia proved this as 27 Canadian peacekeepers were killed (without much media coverage) while the conflict showed no signs of abating. Quite the contrary, the UN was used by all sides as shields for their own advancement. It was not until the UN sanctioned NATO (much like they did in Afghanistan) to use force did the conflict grind to a halt. Under UN peacekeeping rules soldiers are only allowed to use their weapons when directly threatened, hence, they were forced to stand idly by while rapes, torture and murder took place. They were not allowed to intervene. (The Bosnian conflict also had one of the highest levels of PTSD than any other modern conflict due to the atrocities witnessed while soldiers felt completely helpless to do anything)

Now we are in Afghanistan for the same reasons. Canadian soldiers are there as part of the UN sanctioned NATO force taking the battle to the bad guys. They are there to stop people who believe that killing women and children to further their cause is not only justifiable but their right. They are there to drive these people out so that they can begin to rebuild without having the Taliban come back and destroy what has been built and taking retribution on the innocents who accept the help. And they are there to bring peace and security to the people of Afghanistan, not just for today but for tomorrow.

That is why we are in Afghanistan.

tbrucemilne
http://www.freeyourmachine.org
09/24/06 @ 20:03

ROFL! Thought maybe you'd found a new target for your repetitive regurgitation of rationalizations for our unjustified attack on Afghanistan, eh?

Canadian soldiers are there as part of the UN sanctioned NATO force taking the battle to the bad guys.

Nope. Once again you've trotted out the Big Lie that the UN sanctioned the use of force in Afghanistan.

Never happened. The UN did not once, ever, in any way, issue a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Taliban hillbillies, a bunch of dirt-poor wingnuts who could not have masterminded a 7/11 robbery, never mind 9/11.

...aaaaand, here it comes once again...'b-b-but there were BIG TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS in Afghanistan, I've seen the satellite photos myself!'

Uh huh. Been there, done that. The Taliban wanted those Al Quaida assholes out as much as anyone, they were bringing down too much grief on their heads. Unfortunately, Al Quaida being very well funded and equipped by our ally Saudi Arabia, the Taliban could do little about it.

Hold off on questioning other people's 'free thinking' when all you ever do is repeat the same tired agitprop over and over and over and over and... :P

Sorry, Canuck, if this is too 'edgy' for your blog, but I've gone through this argument with RMacQueen before, with exactly the same rationlazations as you are seeing here.

It's old, RM, no one believes it anymore, certainly not a majority of Canadians (the ones you told me 'had no right to even comment on the military because they're a bunch of pussies', or words to that effect).

Oh wait, I have it right here. Betcha wish you'd thought first before you coughed this one up:

The reality is that the Politicians and the majority of the Canadian public have lost any right to have a say in what the Armed Force do. Perhaps in a few years when they have shown that they actually care for more than a microsecond because it is in the news, then the soldiers might respect their opinion again. Until such time, Canadians will remain a pathetic bunch of hypocrites undeserving of the sacrifices our soldier are will to make in their name.

RMacQueen in all his Glory, folks! I'd link to it, but it's on my blog, and apparently that's called 'pimping' ;)

The 'mission' is illegal, and by all sane accounts, an utter failure, as we prop up the drug lords in order to fight some bogeymen that the US doesn't even care about anymore. The best way we can honour our soldiers is to bring them home from this idiotic misadventure.

rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/25/06 @ 00:30

Boy tbruce, you do brown bag, trotting out what people have said in the past in an attempt to belittle them.

The argument can go back and forth over the legality of the invasion of Afghanistan. Ultimately, the initial UN response could be deemed ambiguous. Legal experts have been arguing for 5 years with no resolution. It all depends on your point of view. It is interesting to note that the UN has never condemned the use of force in Afghanistan either.

However, Canada is now part of the UN sanctioned International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF). If you want, I can find you the resolution.

I do have to thank you though for proving my point. Ignoring the facts about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and making up your own fantasy about the Taliban not wanting Al Qaeda is not freethinking; it is revisionist history. Your mind is closed and you attempt to advance your argument by sarcasm and attack. That is not freethinking, that is bigotry!

As for the above quote from me, I do regret having written that. I should have proof read it first.

tbrucemilne
http://www.freeyourmachine.org
09/25/06 @ 14:24

I do have to thank you though for proving my point. Ignoring the facts about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and making up your own fantasy about the Taliban not wanting Al Qaeda is not freethinking; it is revisionist history.

You know, I saw this coming, but I thought I'd let you trot it out as per the script you run with. 'Revisionist History' is one of the favs of the 'let's try to justify something but not let the facts get in the way' crowd. It's pretty much the adult equivalent of covering your ears and shouting 'la la la la la la!'.

Your mind is closed and you attempt to advance your argument by sarcasm and attack. That is not freethinking, that is bigotry!

Er, no, I provided a rather cheeky but factually accurate (as you've now admitted, finally...the UN never once authorized the use of force...huzzah! there is hope for you yet!) rebuttal to your (old) argument.

But feel free to call me any name you wish, the more shrill and aggressive you people get, the better.

One thing to keep in mind. You may think your views are somehow 'mainstream' and everyone else is just 'wacko' or 'burying their heads in the sand' (what, do you write down and memorize the propaganda?).

Nothing could be further from the truth. Your militaristic view is shared by...well, not very many people, and if you want to look at it in global terms, you're kickin' it with about 1/10th of 1% of the population.

If you'd been paying attention over the last few days, in fact, you might have noticed that a lot of your precious military daddy-figures are even questioning the logic of this war. Karzai himself said there was 'no millitary solution' to the Taliban and Al-Quaeda in his country.

Buuuuut, keep hangin' on by your nails and trotting out the NeoCon Propaganda, one of us will always be there to take it apart, piece by piece

rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/25/06 @ 18:43

Why am I not surprised that you get your "facts" from the sound bites the NDP put out? The so-called Karzai comment was taken out of context (much like you enjoy doing to my comment on the hypocrisy of Canadians, but here, let people read it for themselves Canada's Afghan Quagmire Especially interesting are the links I provided which tbruce refuses to read). My god man, you even cut and pasted it right off the NDP website into your blog.

If you had actually researched (as you say you always do) you would have discovered that Karzai was referring to the need to deal with the radical Islamist schools in Pakistan. In that same speech he also said "“Terrorism,has only enemies and knows no boundaries. The only course is to kill it. You cannot train a snake to bite someone else.”(Karzai Says Pakistan Holds Key to Ending Afghan Violence)

I realize that your mind is closed and I only post this so other people might see a counter and make up their own minds. Your twisting of words to fit your own cause (see above UN comment and compare it to what I really said), your disregard for established facts and your reversion to name-calling shows the weakness of your arguments (btw, if you read above you will notice that I did not call you any names. Try dictionary.com to look up meanings of words, I find it is very helpful)

In forwarding ones viewpoint in debate, one should not have to resort to using lies, misquotes and sophistry. That sort of behaviour belies the soundness of your argument. Which reminds me, would you please provide a link to the statistics you quote showing how my opinion is not mainstream? I would be very interested in reading the methodology used in coming to this conclusion.

tbrucemilne
http://www.freeyourmachine.org
09/25/06 @ 20:01

(btw, if you read above you will notice that I did not call you any names.

Bigot? Liar?

Try dictionary.com to look up meanings of words, I find it is very helpful)

Evidently not in this case! You might want to double-check your use of 'sophistry'.

Oh, and as to your viewpoint being in the tiniest of majorities...just look around you. Europe: fed up, and not playing Bush's game with Iran; even the British are waaaaaay against this War, and want its architect, Blair, turfed out. South America: overwhelmingly against this War on Terror. All of Asia, most of Africa, etc.

And as for Canada, well, try Google. It took me about three seconds to find this.

A recent Globe-CTV poll shows: "A robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have a vote on the issue." The poll also found 62 per cent of Canadians said no to sending troops to Afghanistan, and barely 48 per cent supported further Canadian participation in the war against terrorism.

...and that was 8 months ago. Imagine what it's like now with all the body bags that have come back since then.

Anyhow, you take the last word, make it a doozy, cuz I's done with ya here.

rmacqueen
http://rmacqueen.blog.ca
09/25/06 @ 23:33

you're kickin' it with about 1/10th of 1% of the population.

Hmmm, your "research" did not exactly come up with the number you purported to know all about previously. You wouldn’t be making things up now would you? What about the statistics for the rest of the “global population”?

While I am on that subject, sophistry - 1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation. 2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument. Yep, according to dictionary.com, I used it right.

You may also want to re-read what I originally wrote. At no time did I call you a bigot and, if you take the time to look up the actual meaning of bigotry, you would see that. Since the actual sentence was

That is not freethinking, that is bigotry!

and you have taken offence to it then I would have to question why?

The NDP Wants To Negotiate with This?

2006-09-23T10:44:00.000-04:00

I will not profess to have compiled this myself but have, in fact, lifted these from various other sources. In the face of various comments made lately by "Taliban Jack" Layton (this is his new nickname within the Canadian Forces, the ones he says he supports), and the NDP's descent into some of the worst practices (taking quotes out of context to support their cause) I thought it might be useful to take a look at the very people he wants Canada to negotiate with.

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 2001

Massacres in Yakaolang

For several days Taleban forces massacred over 300 unarmed men and a number of civilian women and children. The victims were either summarily executed or deliberately killed.

Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International: "Some people in Kata Khana ran to the mosque for shelter thinking the Taleban would respect the sanctity of the mosque, but they were wrong!" They said they saw Taleban guards deliberately firing two rockets at the mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter. The building collapsed on them but the Taleban guards would not allow anyone to go to their rescue for three days, by which time all those in the mosque had died except for two small children.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 1999

Detention and killing of political personalities

Up to 200 Afghan political personalities have been arrested in the past year apparently on account of their peaceful political activities and opposition to the continued armed conflict in the country. Those arrested include Afghan intellectuals, community leaders, former army officers or civil servants. The vast majority of the detainees are reportedly non-combatants arrested solely for their activities in support of peace and a broad based government in Afghanistan. Most of these detainees have reportedly been severely tortured. Over a dozen of them have been killed after their arrest. Some of the detainees have been released but as of February 1999, around 100 still remain in detention.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Mar 31, 1998

Flagrant abuse of the right to life and dignity

In recent months, at least five men convicted of sodomy by Taleban Shari'a courts have been placed next to standing walls by Taleban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them. At least four alleged murderers have been executed in public by the family members of the murdered persons. At least five men have had their hands amputated on allegation of theft, and at least one man and one woman have been flogged by Taleban officials on allegation of adultery.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Aug 31, 1997

Continuing atrocities against civilians

Amnesty International has recently received testimonies from the survivors of a massacre in the Afghan village of Qezelabad, near the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif. These testimonies reveal that about 70 civilians, including women and children were deliberately and arbitrarily killed on 14 September by armed Taleban guards as they were retreating from some of the positions they had captured in the area. All of the victims reportedly belonged to the Hazara minority which in recent years has frequently been targeted by the Taleban.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan May 31, 1997

Women in Afghanistan: The violations continue

...
Taleban restrictions imposed on women deny them some of their most basic and fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and employment. Similar restrictions imposed by any other group would equally amount to a violation of these rights;
Women in Taleban controlled areas of Afghanistan continue to be beaten by Taleban guards for defying orders about dress or for working outside their home;
Women detained or otherwise physically resticted under Taleban codes solely by reason of their gender would be considered by AI to be prisoners of conscience.

More on Link

BBC - 22 September 2006
Afghan workers killed in ambush

Nineteen construction workers have been killed in southern Afghanistan when their bus was hit by a bomb and then fired on by insurgents, officials say.

And the NDP spin? The Reality Check section on their website uses the Quote

"Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages. You do not destroy terrorism by launching military operations in areas where only the symptoms have emerged."

—Afghan President Hamid Karzai, speaking at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, CBC Newsworld, 21 September 2006

Not sure what reality is to them though as they also left out the part of the speech where Karzai also says

cooperating with terrorists is like "trying to train a snake against somebody else."

"You cannot train a snake. It will come and bite you," he said.

The NDP website also says

Given Karzai's stern condemnation of the military operation today, it's clear that the highest levels of the Afghan government are less supportive of this unbalanced military mission than the Conservatives are letting on.

These comments do not seem to match the reality shown by various media out lets such as Karzai praises Canada as 'model' for world, Karzai: Canada's military presence "is a must",
Karzai thanks Canadians for support or Canada gave its word on Afghan undertaking

Have a look and see if you can spot the "stern condemnation".

The real reality check came from Conservative MP Jason Kenney during question period in the House of Commons. Responding to NDP Leader Jack Layton's questioning of the government's commitment to balance its efforts in Afghanistan he said

“Mr. Speaker, let me say the NDP says they're in favour of multilateralism, but they want to pull out of Afghanistan unilaterally,” he said.

“They say they're in favour of the United Nations, but they're against our participation in the world's most important UN Mission. They say they're in favour of peace and development, but they don't want protection so that we can do civil reconstruction and development.”

That's the reality!

Some Facts For The NDP About Afghanistan

2006-09-18T00:00:00.000-04:00

I try to stay informed. I read various newspapers, watch the news on TV, listen to talk radio and read blogs of all sorts. I try to get the feel of the land, so to speak, from all sorts of sources no matter what the political leanings. I like to keep an open mind to new ideas and points of view and place it all in context.

This is why the current left-wing thinking on Afghanistan is so disturbing; it is out of context.

So much of the thinking by the left, in regards to Afghanistan, is based on out-of-date thinking or naivety. For instance, many times I have heard how the war in Afghanistan is because of the United States’ need for oil, or, more specifically, a pipeline proposed by Unocal in 1995, which was to carry natural gas from Turkmenistan to India. This was before the Taliban seized control and, even at the time, many in the petroleum industry thought the idea was ludicrous and ignored the political realities of the area. Pipelines, by their very nature, are extremely vulnerable to attack and require a high degree of political stability to even be constructed, let alone used. When the Taliban rolled into power in 1996, they attempted to reassure Unocal that they could guarantee the safety of western construction workers but, with the northern part of the country still in the hands of the Northern Alliance, there was no way to do that. By 1998, the plan was effectively dead and remains that way.

When the pipeline was first proposed, Turkmenistan, desperate for foreign investment, was eager to sell its gas reserves to other countries. Russia, who had traditionally bought all of the Turkmen gas, was, in the mid 90’s, in an economic slump and its purchases had dropped by over 25%. On top of that, they were refusing to let Turkmenistan use Russian pipelines to transport Turkmen gas to non-Russian customers.

Today, the situation is completely different. Due to the increase in oil prices, Russia is having an economic boom. Russia is again purchasing Turkmen gas and, as part of the deal, is allowing Turkmenistan to use their pipelines. In addition to that, the security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has deteriorated and no bank is willing to finance such an economically questionable pipeline.

As a side note, to back up their claims, many on the left point to a myth that Hamed Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, once worked for Unocal. This is based on an article that appeared in a French newspaper Le Mooned. Although this article suggests he worked for Unocal for a short period, both Karzai and Unocal have denied this. A quick look at Karzai’s life also indicates that the only period he could possibly have worked for Unocal was in 1983, long before the Unocal proposal and while the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

The strangest part is these seemingly intelligent people appear to believe that the Bush government was willing to risk the lives of its soldiers for the profitability of one company. Worse, that other governments were also willing to have their own citizens die for Unocal. They believe countries around the world all eagerly stepped up to the plate and committed troops, and billions of dollars, for the sake of a pipeline. Forget about the terrorist groups (Al Qaeda was not the only one) that were operating out of Afghanistan, the fact the United Nations had already demanded the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden two years earlier, and the repressive nature of the Taliban in general, NATO rushed into Afghanistan to further the cause of an American company.

What Now?

The current NDP position seems to have been formed in a vacuum with no consideration of the consequences should their plan actually see fruition. More troubling still is the rush by left-wing minded individuals to support him.

So let’s switch it around a little and ask the questions.

Therefore, if I am correct, Jack Layton is in favour of Canada breaking its treaty obligations under NATO. As you may recall, after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 of the treaty that says any attack against a member nation is considered an attack against all NATO countries. This was the basis for our involvement in Afghanistan; to go after those that had attacked the United States or, given the Article 5 interpretation, had attacked Canada through the United States.

Now, the NDP wants Canada to ignore a treaty obligation and unilaterally pull out. Are we not then hypocritical for expecting other countries to live up to treaties they have signed with us? Just look at the uproar over the softwood lumber issue under NAFTA. How can we chastise the United States while at the same time breaking a treaty ourselves?

Okay, so Canada pulls out of Afghanistan because it is the “wrong” mission for us, to use Jack Layton’s words. Do they then think all of NATO should pull out or is it okay, in the NDP’s mind, for other countries to do the fighting in Afghanistan? If that is the case, then why is it wrong for us to be there? If we support other countries fighting the Taliban then, by extension, are we not indicating it is the right mission?

While we are on the subject of the right and wrong missions for Canada, what is the right mission to the NDP? I would suppose it would only be the missions the NDP support, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks.

Let’s then suppose all of NATO pulls out of Afghanistan, then what? Currently, NATO troops are supplying security to Afghanistan, allowing the rebuilding effort to move forward. At the same time, they are helping to train the Afghan National Army so one day they will be capable of supplying their own security. One day!

If NATO were to pull out now that would all come to a screeching halt. The Afghan government is struggling with corruption while the military is struggling to gain control of the country. In an attempt to clean up some of the corruption, President Karzai has asked the US Ambassador to Afghanistan to investigate whether his own brother is involved in the drug trade. This but an example of the attempts they are making but it takes outside support to do so. Without that support, there is every likelihood the country would slide back into anarchy much as it did after the Soviet withdrawal. Warlords and the Taliban would fight for control of the country while terrorists would once again be free to use the country as a staging area for attacks worldwide.

There is also the suggestion we should negotiate with the Taliban. I have given a lot of thought to how this would be possible and, for the life of me, cannot figure it out. What is there to negotiate? This is a group that stone and beat people for minor offences, where women do not have rights, and feel it is appropriate to murder women and children just for going to school. Since negotiation would mean the making of concessions to the Taliban in exchange for what we desire, what does the NDP suggest we give up?

So what is the NDP vision? According to their website, they believe Canada should only be involved in Afghanistan “through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process”. At the moment, humanitarian and reconstruction workers cannot operate in southern Afghanistan due to the threat the Taliban poses. Prior to coalition forces exerting control in Afghanistan, humanitarian workers were increasingly targeted by the Taliban with 32 aid workers being killed between March 2003 and June 2004 including five aid workers with Doctors Without Borders. This prompted them to suspend operations until security could be assured. The same was happening with reconstruction with many projects being destroyed by the Taliban as soon as the workers left. There is no reason to believe this situation would not return the moment troops pulled out.

This leaves the so-called “comprehensive peace process” but what, in reality, is that? Is it negotiating with the Taliban as mentioned earlier? The NDP are not clear on that point.

Fundamentally, though, either the NDP shows a lack of understanding in what they say or they are purposely twisting things for their own advantage.

Jack Layton recently used the decision to send Canadian tanks to Afghanistan as proof we are on the “wrong” mission. According to Layton, "sending tanks to destroy the homes of innocent Afghani civilians only serves to demonstrate even more strongly the futility and immorality of Stephen Harper's cheerleading for George Bush." He did fail to mention that France landed tanks in Lebanon as part of the UN mandated peacekeeping force there, a mission he says we should be involved in. Does this now mean the mission in Lebanon is wrong?

Now Layton is saying Canada should bring home the troops to engage in enforcing our sovereignty in the ocean. According to Layton, "Dealing with the fishing fleets off our coastline who are coming in and destroying the ecosystems that in many ways provide the livelihood for our coastal communities. That has a place for both the Coast Guard and possibly the military and the navy," This makes absolutely no sense since the majority of the troops in Afghanistan are ground troops and would be of no use on the ocean.

This shift in direction on the part of the NDP, and Jack Layton in particular, while appealing to the more radical elements of the left is already in the process of alienating some of the current members of the party. The grandstanding and uninformed rhetoric, while appealing to those who follow with blind faith, is slowly eroding any credibility the NDP had gained. While basking in his perceived power in a minority government, Layton is sure to drive away the critical thinkers within his own party. Instead of moving to a broader appeal, the NDP will once again be relegated to the ranks of radical socialist.

I bet the Green Party could not be happier.

The End of Peacekeeping? - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 2)

2006-09-14T15:04:00.000-04:00

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the cold war, a new and less secure, world emerged. Former Warsaw Pact countries were left in limbo struggling to come to grips with stagnating economies and crushing debt. Groups formerly supported by the Soviet regime suddenly had no political or strategic guidance. Worse, there was no one to exert control over the numerous guerrilla groups the Soviet Union had once influenced and supplied.

The United Nations which, until this point in its history, had worked well, found itself under attack. Riddled by an inefficient bureaucracy and highly politicized, the UN showed that, while capable of moderate successes, its failures came at a terrible cost. Furthermore, it rapidly became apparent they were not prepared to deal with a New World order in which small groups could create so much havoc. Their sense of self-importance blinded them to the reality that some factions, with their own agendas, neither respected nor feared the UN.

It didn’t take long for the cracks to show up in the facade of the United Nations.

The Cost of Myopia

When the Berlin Wall was torn down in 1989, very few people realized how much the world was about to change. Expectations ran high that peace would finally reign. Three events in quick succession would shake the very foundations of peacekeeping.

The first was in a little known African country called Somalia. This country of approximately eight million people would soon be thrust into the limelight.

Embroiled in civil war since 1977, the country was in turmoil. In 1991, insurgent forces ousted the government and took control. The same year the northern part of the country declared independence. The country descended into anarchy with warlords seizing control and the total collapse of all infrastructure. Famine soon followed.

In order to stave off a humanitarian crisis, the United Nations sent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide assistance. This quickly proved to be a futile exercise as warlords, to feed their own soldiers and buy weapons, seized approximately 80% of the aid. It became obvious quite quickly that order would have to be restored in order to help the people.

By December 1992 over 500,000 people had died and 1.5 million were refugees. Obviously, something else had to be done so the United Nations sent in troops. Securing a cease-fire, signed by all 15 warring parties, the UN deployed to restore order and end the suffering.

The mission quickly turned to disaster.

Just over two months after the cease-fire, UN troops experienced what it was like to deal with factions who had little regard for peacekeeping. On 5 June 1993, 24 Pakistani peacekeepers were ambushed and killed in an area near Mogadishu. From that point on the situation rapidly spiralled out of control culminating in the Battle for Mogadishu, on which the book and movie Black Hawk Down is based.

By March of 1995 the UN had withdrawn.

Rwanda, The Face of Hatred

The second, and worst, was the Rwandan genocide. Following a cease-fire agreement between the ruling Hutus and the Tutsi-dominated Rwandese Patriotic Front, the UN sent in a vastly under funded and understaffed contingent commanded by Canadian General Roméo Dallaire. Their job was to monitor the cease-fire.

Even though there was a cease-fire, fighting between the two sides continued while anti-Tutsi propaganda increased. In April 1994, the Rwandan president was assassinated and the country descended into hell. Seeing what was happening, Dallaire requested more troops and money from the UN but his requests went unheeded. In the end, between 500,000 and 1,000, 000 people were slaughtered and the UN contingent had to be quickly evacuated for their own safety.

The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Probably the greatest example of the failure of traditional peacekeeping came during the Bosnian and Croatian war in the former Yugoslavia.

The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was formed in 1992 with the mandate of creating the conditions for peace talks and to protect "United Nations Protected Areas", the so-called “safe haven.” These areas were supposed to be demilitarized and safe for civilians.

From the beginning, UNPROFOR was dismissed or ignored by the combatants. The various military and para-military units used the safe areas to build up strength and launch attacks against the Serbs and the Serbs regularly shelled these areas in retaliation. Other areas were subject to sniper fire and mortar fire. In one instance, Serbs dressed in captured UN uniforms to an attempt to abduct more hostages. Due to the restrictive nature of the UN mandate, the UNPROFOR troops were too lightly armed to enforce the UN resolutions. They were further hampered by prohibitive “rules of engagement” that did not allow them to intervene unless specifically threatened.

Throughout the war, the UN appeared to be completely out of touch with the realities in the field. They continued to attempt to keep peace in a war that had none. UN inaction, and a belief in their own power, led to some of the worst atrocities seen in Europe since the Second World War.

In April 1992, Croatian forces attacked the village of Ahmici and systematically killed every Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) they found. Out of a population of 1,178, an estimated 116 people were killed, including a three-month-old baby burned alive in an oven and a 96-year-old woman. Through it all the UN could do nothing.

Srebrenica

The most blatant show of UN irrelevance in the conflict happened at the UN designated safe area of Srebrenica in Bosnia.

The UN declared Srebrenica a safe area in April 1993. The well-armed Bosnian Serb forces surrounded the enclave while the poorly organized and ill-equipped 28th division of the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina remained inside.

From the outset, both sides violated the “safe area” agreement and access by international aid agencies was limited to the area. Serbs prevented Dutch troops, who had been given the job of protecting the enclave, from returning to the area after leave, and their equipment and ammunition were also prevented from entering.

By early spring of 1995, the strength of the Dutch contingent in Srebrenica had declined from 600 to 400 and they were so low on fuel they were forced to patrol the area on foot. Fewer and fewer supply convoys were making it through to the enclave and an already desperate situation for the civilians there became even worse.

In March, President Radovan Karadžić ordered the Serb forces to “create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica." Desperate pleas by the Bosnians for the humanitarian corridor to be opened went unheeded and unknown numbers of civilians trapped in the area died of starvation.

In July 1995, the enclave was overrun by Serb forces while the UN did nothing. Civilians fled to the UN compound at Potočari, located within the enclave, while urgent requests for NATO air support went unanswered for two days. When air strikes finally did happen, they were quickly abandoned due to Serbian threats to kill UN troops that had been captured and to shell the UN compound where approximately 30,000 civilians had gathered.

The Serbs then proceeded on a campaign of terror. They set fire to houses and haystacks and told Bosniaks to leave or be slaughtered. Witnesses reported piles of bodies and one witness reported seeing a Serb soldier kill a child with a knife. Soldiers picked people out of the crowd of refugees and took them away. Many did not return. A Dutch medic came across two Serbian soldiers raping a young girl, and stories of rapes and murder circulated through the crowds. Screams and gunshots were heard all through the night.

Bosniaks were systematically taken away and executed.

Between 1,000 and 1,500 Bosniak men were crammed into a warehouse in the village of Kravica. Serbian soldiers then proceeded to lob grenades and shoot into the crowd inside. In another instance, approximately 1,000 people were taken in small groups to fields and then executed. Earth moving equipment was used to bury them.

In all, it is estimated over 8,100 civilians were massacred.

Through it all, the UN troops could do nothing, either because it would be a violation of the “rules of engagement” or they were too lightly armed. The lack of sufficient response by the UN led NATO to abandon its arrangements with the UN and initiate action on its own in an attempt to stop the Serbs. This led to UN peacekeepers being taken prisoner and being used as human shields against NATO air strikes.

When the Bosnian war finally ended, 320 UNPROFOR personnel had been killed on duty, an estimated 105,000 civilians killed, over 40,000 raped, and 1.8 million displaced.

The legend of the mighty United Nations had been shattered.

The Past Was Once The Future - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 1)

The Past Was Once The Future - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 1)

2006-08-31T19:22:00.000-04:00

The recent deaths and injuries to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have Canada’s involvement once again in the spotlight. The airwaves and Internet are positively a buzz with talk about it. There have been calls for a Canadian withdrawal. Many have said we need to return to our traditional peacekeeping capacity or we shouldn’t be there until it is safe for our troops.

Through it all, I have noticed much of opinion is based on misunderstanding, confusion and downright ignorance about our military and, more ostensibly, the current role it is filling in Afghanistan. Of course, the Canadian penchant for having a short memory doesn’t help either.

A little history.

Canadians often take pride in Canada’s reputation as peacekeepers. It is a job that our military is well suited for and excels at. Since 1947, we have been involved in over 70 international missions and we have contributed everything from a few people to the thousands involved in the Korean War. The idea of peacekeeping on the world stage is attributed to Prime Minister Lester Pearson and Canada has been recognised for its contributions by the United Nations.

That was the more public face of the military.

During the same period, Canada was also a major player in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). NATO, which was formed in 1949, was intended to defend its members from aggression by other nations. The core of the agreement was Article V, which basically states that an attack upon any of the member nations would be considered an attack upon NATO and would be treated accordingly.

As part of its NATO commitment, Canada stationed troops in Germany in preparation for war. During the time that the idea of peacekeeping was being romanticised by Canadians, the bulk of the Armed Forces had their guns trained towards the Iron Curtain, waiting for a war that, thankfully, never happened.

What is peacekeeping?

Most people do not realise there are certain criteria that must be met in order for a peacekeeping mission to be launched.

First, before the United Nations can even consider sending in a peacekeeping contingent, both sides in the conflict must agree to it. Often, it is United Nations pressure that causes them to ask for help but it may also be a realisation that the conflict must end. This could be due to humanitarian considerations or, just as easily, be because it is costing too much money.

Secondly, the warring parties have to agree to an end to hostilities and be willing to pull back. Again, not an easy task, especially if it has been a long, drawn out conflict which can leave a lasting feeling of animosity towards the other side.

Finally, the soldiers who become part of the peacekeeping contingent are expected to be lightly armed and only use their weapons for personal defence. This means if one side or the other breaks the cease-fire the only thing the peacekeepers can do is keep their heads down unless threatened. They are not allowed to interfere in the internal policies or activities of either side. The peacekeeping contingent is allowed to give humanitarian aid under the auspices of the UN, but mainly they are expected to monitor and report on adherence to the cease-fire agreement only.

The system worked in keeping conflicts from spreading. Although they often caused stalemates that could last decades, Cypress and Korea being prime examples, the threat of a world war was minimised.

Then the Cold War ended.

Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Intro)

Can Canada Take It?

2006-08-15T19:20:00.000-04:00

We, as Canadians, pride ourselves on not being American.

We wrap ourselves in the cloak of moral superiority, feeling that we, as a nation, have taken the high road to the US’s base imperialism. Repeatedly we look on with disdain, as the US seems to stumble about alienating nations worldwide.

Many Canadians rolled their eyes at the US invasion of Iraq believing the American public would change their support the moment soldiers started dieing. After all, isn’t that what happened with Vietnam? Canadians derided the US as weak-willed, taking on only the easy stuff and running away when the going got tough.

Now we see the US and Canada are not different at all.

In the wake of the September 11^th terror attacks of the World Trade Center, we stepped up to the plate with all the ardour of a country ready to combat tyranny. With much flag waving and chest thumping, we were determined to put an end to terrorism and its threat to the world. We watched as a final ultimatum, put to the Taliban in Afghanistan, told them to comply with the UN resolution demanding the surrender of Osama Bin Laden or face the consequences. When the Taliban refused, we, as a nation, stood up and demanded action.

Then Prime Minster Chrétien announced on 8 October 2001 that Canada would be joining the US in the war on terror in Afghanistan.

"We are part of an unprecedented coalition of nations that has come together to fight the threat of terrorism," Chrétien said. "I have made it clear from the very beginning that Canada would be part of this coalition every step of the way."

He also warned it would not be quick or easy.

"The struggle to defeat the forces of terrorism will be a long one. We must remain strong and vigilant. We must insist on living on our terms, according to our values, not on terms dictated from the shadows," Chrétien said.

"I cannot promise that the campaign against terrorism will be painless. But I can promise that it will be won."

Canadians responded positively. Prior to the announcement, an Ipsos-Reid poll showed that 73% of Canadians believed we should join the US in the war on terrorism while an Ekos poll showed that 57% of Canadians supported the idea of military retaliation in response to the September 11^th attacks and 22% neither supported nor opposed.

The fervour did not die down once Canadian troops were actually on the ground. An Ipso-Reid survey January 2002 found that 66% of Canadian favoured a combat role for our troops while only 33% favoured a traditional peacekeeping role. Another Ipso-Reid poll in the same month also found that 67% favoured an expansion of military activity against other countries in the war on terrorism.

Even a year after 9/11, Canadians still felt the military should be involved in Afghanistan. An Ekos survey done in August 2002 found that 58% of Canadians still supported Canadian involvement in Afghanistan while only 20% opposed.

Now, suddenly, we are hearing calls to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

Have we forgotten why we went in the first place? Have we forgotten that the Taliban was one of the most repressive regimes in the world? Have we forgotten that the Taliban not only gave refuge to Osama Bin Laden but also actively supported his terror training camps? What about their refusal to abide by the UN resolution to turn Bin Laden over for his part in the attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998 killing 220 people and injuring almost 4,000? What about the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground for, not just Al Qaeda, but numerous other terrorist groups bent on attacking the west?

We talk about wanting to be taken seriously on the world stage yet, when our country is asked to do the hard jobs needed, certain politicians and members of the public want us to turn away. We cannot be a country that runs as soon there is trouble or we become nothing more than a joke. There is a reason we send soldiers and not boy scouts overseas and that is because it is dangerous. However, if we are to be a world player we cannot shirk our global responsibilities and run whenever the job gets tough.

If we pull out now, we might as well be the US. From our mount of moral superiority, we point out what happened in Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, and we shake our collective heads. Nevertheless, are we any different if we pull out of Afghanistan now? No.

It would also leave Canada in a tenuous position in the future. If we were to pull out of Afghanistan now, then we would be a bigger target if we needed to intervene in any future situations around the world. The US is a target partially because the belief is, if you kill some Americans, the US will tuck tail and run. We would be in the same boat.

We have to stand up to threats wherever they emerge in the world. We have to expect there will be casualties because those who live by violence will not stop until they are forced. Threats to world peace, and our way of life, will not go away on their own. Burying our heads in the sand will not make the world safer; it will only ensure the violence eventually comes to our country, our homes. They have declared war on our way of life and in war there are casualties.

The main question is, are we strong enough to face the challenge?

Soldiers recall heroism, horror of Canada's bloodiest day in Afghanistan

2006-08-08T10:23:00.000-04:00

Copied from Yahoo News
By Terry Pedwell

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - The day started as expected, with the soldiers of Charlie Company of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry setting out in the early morning darkness on orders to root out Taliban fighters.

It was Thursday, Aug. 3, 2006.

What they would not discover until many hours later was that they had witnessed what would become known as Canada's bloodiest day of combat so far in Afghanistan.

"We got our orders early in the evening for the mission," recalled Sgt. Patrick Tower, a blond, bespectacled 34-year-old whose body language displays a sense of authority.

"The mission was to move into a school in Pashmul, which is in Panjwaii District," he said.

The troops drove out in their heavy green machines under cover of darkness, heading west, and almost instantly got into a fight.

"As we were coming up to the objective . . . we saw an enemy position lined up in front of us," Tower recalled.

Master Cpl. Tony Perry was the 2nd Platoon crew commander of the Light Armoured Vehicle, or LAVIII, at the front of the assault.

He radioed his commanding officer, asking if there were Afghan National Police patrolling the area, to make sure he wasn't about to hit friends.

"No, there's not," was the response heard back on his headset, clearing the way for Perry to light up the guns, the loud rat-tat-tat of machine gunfire cutting through the night air.

Within only a few minutes, the initial engagement over and the enemy destroyed, Two Platoon moved forward.

They were far from being out of danger, however, as the third vehicle in the convoy, another LAV, was struck by two roadside bombs.

It would be their first casualty of the day. Despite valiant efforts to save him, Cpl. Christopher Reid would later succumb to his injuries from the bigger of the two blasts. The vehicle's platoon commander was also hurt, but survived.

Once the casualties were in the hands of medics, the troops moved on to what would become a 12-hour battle marked by blood, heat exhaustion and a storm of grenades and bullets.

Even under heavy fire, the Canadians were able to overtake a school that was at the heart of their mission.

"On the initial assault, I was on the first wave," explained Cpl. Jason Hoekstra, describing how Afghan police officers who were part of the mission were being overwhelmed.

"We took a lot of fire, but they're just police officers," he said. "So we took the initiative and we took the school."

But the Taliban - between 150 and 200 of them - weren't about to give up without a fight.

Forming a horseshoe and nearly surrounding the building, they attacked with a vengeance.

"At that time, we started taking fire from multiple spots," Hoekstra recalled.

The Canadians fought back hard.

"We just, we hammered them," said Hoekstra.

"If we had four deaths, I can guarantee you we had four times that. We gave it to them."

Military officials refused to say how many Taliban fighters were killed. Sources say, however, that dozens of bodies littered an area around the schoolyard.

As bullets flew and rocket-propelled grenades smashed the building, at one point coming every few seconds, it's unclear when the Canadians realized that they were literally in the middle of a killing field. The Taliban had strategically planted landmines throughout the compound.

With nine soldiers down, three of them dead, they knew they had to get out.

"Are you sure you guys want to do this?" the LAV platoon commander asked his fellow soldiers as they desperately pleaded to move in to save their brothers in arms.

No one who was there will reveal the identity of those who risked their lives by literally driving through a daisy chain of mines to reach their comrades. The actions of one should never overshadow the actions of many, they insist.

"Every one of the soldiers that were there can be proud of the way that they acted, with heroism and bravery and courage," said Tower.

"I don't want to take away from any one of them by trying to identify a specific soldier who outshone the rest," he explained.

"They're all heroes to us, and that's how they'd want to be thought of."

Canadians also need to understand, Tower stressed, that those who lost their lives that day were not unwilling participants. Everyone knew the risks of the six-month tour of duty.

"The soldiers that died weren't victims," he said. "They were fighting. And they were fighting for each other."

"People at home should be proud of the quality of soldier that's over here."

On Saturday, many of the 10 Canadians injured in the operation shed tears on the tarmac of Kandahar Air Field as they watched four flag-draped coffins being loaded onto a C-130 Hercules aircraft bound for home.

More than 3,000 soldiers from Canada and other NATO countries serving in Afghanistan stood shoulder to shoulder in impressive formation, silently saying their goodbyes.

The bodies of Reid, Pte. Kevin Dallaire, Sgt. Vaughn Ingram and Cpl. Bryce Jeffrey Keller returned home. Those who remain behind for at least a few more days or weeks in southern Afghanistan vowed to carry on.

"We've got to keep going to honour them," said Hoekstra.

"Because if we stay (at our base), what good it is then?"

As if someone, or something, was telling them 'your time here isn't over yet,' the week ended with yet another tragedy: the death of another soldier in what appeared to be a simple traffic accident.

Master Cpl. Raymond Arndt of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, died Saturday, just hours after the four killed on Thursday had left Afghanistan, when a large truck collided head-on with a Canadian G-Wagon, about 35 kilometres southeast of Kandahar. Arndt, 32, of Peers, Alta., was married.

The Canadians would have to endure yet another ramp ceremony to again mark an unexpectedly early journey home for one of their own.

Three other soldiers were injured in the accident, two of them being flown to a hospital in Germany for further treatment.

One of the injured, Cpl. Jared Gagnon, a reservist with the Loyal Edmonton, was listed in very serious condition.

Are you ready to wave our flag?

2006-08-06T10:55:00.000-04:00

Are you ready to wave our flag?
From the Toronto Sun
By JOE WARMINGTON

A Canadian flag costs $8.

How many will go this weekend and buy one in support of our men and women in Afghanistan? How many will then stick one on their front lawn in memory of all our troops who have already died fighting for freedom over there?

"We sell at least one a day," Akeem Segree, 21, said last night at the Canadian Tire at Yonge and Church Sts., which has been selling flags since 1922.

It would be nice if thousands were sold across Canada and displayed so the troops over in Afghanistan would see we are behind them 100%. But are we?

It's not clear. This became evident to me while guest co-hosting with Craig Bromell on his radio show on AM640 yesterday. A poll question asked whether Canada should pull out of there? The results showed 84% said yes.

If this is how Canadians really feel, this may be one of those times of truth in Canadian history that expose what we are really made of. The question is simple, really. Do we have the resolve? The Taliban doesn't think we do and is counting on weakness. This is the time for strength.

Four more Canadian soldiers are dead and almost two dozen have already been killed and there's bound to be more. The numbers are sickening but so is the suggestion it is time to cut and run.

Political agenda

But you can see some planting that seed --- enhancing an agenda to hurt Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the next election -- despite the fact it was a Liberal government that put the troops there in the first place. But the politics doesn't matter. What matters is the soldiers on the ground; the memory of all those who have been killed or injured; and that we back them in this fight.

Every time our left-leaning media and politicians talk about running away, it gives the Taliban a giant morale boost. It could result in more Canadians being killed.

"We were very worried about the handover from the Coalition forces to NATO because of this kind of thing," a senior NATO official told me. "We have the ability to win but do we have the will?"

NATO officials have faith that Harper does have the will. They are not so sure about some other countries. They had better find the guts because the alternative is the Taliban getting back in control and maybe even Osama Bin Laden being allowed out of his cave.

All of this has to be put in perspective, Conrad Winn, president of the Compas polling company assures me. "Wanting people to (say stay in Afghanistan)is absurd."

Nobody, he says, is going to want to see our kids coming home in caskets.

Yet, the majority don't want to turn tail and run. And if you commissioned a poll that asked people just that, "the same people who said we should come home would say we should not leave," says Winn.

Dumb question

"It's like asking people, do you want to help single mothers or have lower taxes?"

The real question, he adds, is this: "When it comes to terrorists, where do you want to fight them? In Mississauga or Afghanistan?"

It doesn't matter how the opinion polls swing, he says, the reality is Canada is there and will continue to be. "Realistically speaking there's not a chance an NDP government would pull us out, either," says Winn, who has been doing polls for two decades.

Meanwhile, where is our patriotism? Where are the people across Canada letting the enemy know we are not going to budge and have the backs of our troops?

Coach Don Cherry has been wondering the same thing. "Some of them think they are forgotten," he told me last night, ironically while writing letters to soldiers. "Ron MacLean and I run into them in airports and they appreciate the support."

And Cherry agrees with me on the flag: "There is a Canadian flag in front of my house and it is there 12 months a year."

How many will be placed on lawns in Canada this weekend?

Time to Re-think Peacekeeping

2006-08-02T07:57:00.000-04:00

In light of the current situation in Lebanon, I have begun to wonder about the effectiveness of the United Nations and, more precisely, peacekeeping. Have they, in fact, made things better or worse?

The Middle East is probably one of the most watched places on the earth. The first UN peacekeeping force deployed to Israel in 1948. Its mandate was to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and the surrounding countries of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. It is there to this day.

Another peacekeeping force was put in place in 1974 to separate Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights and another into Lebanon in 1978 to monitor the Israeli withdrawal. Both missions are ongoing.

With all the peacekeepers in an area about the size of Prince Edward Island, you would think Israel would be one of the safest places on earth yet, as we have seen, this could not be further from the truth.

One can argue, rightly so, that the intervention of peacekeeping forces put an end to those particular conflicts and, on the surface, that would be true. Unfortunately, UN intervention does not seem to put an end to the war.

And therein lies the problem.

Instead of putting an end to the war, direct hostilities are simply put on hold. Using the UN as a shield, adversaries continue to skirmish and lob rockets at each other. Some countries sponsor guerrilla groups to continue the war underground and many more people continue to die.

As we have also seen in the Balkans and Lebanon, groups who are not answerable to the UN use UN observers as human shields. In Lebanon, Hezbollah guerrillas frequently set up rocket launchers near UN observation posts using their proximity to UN personnel as protection. In Bosnia, UN safe havens were used to stage strikes against the enemy.

In fact, one could argue peacekeeping is responsible for thousands more deaths than if the UN had not intervened.

In Lebanon, all of the deaths in this current crisis are directly attributable to the UN. If peacekeepers had not intervened in years past, the war would have been finished one way or another and the current war would not have happened. Add those deaths to the thousands that have happened in the region since 1978 and you have to wonder if it was truly worth it.

In fact, the history of UN involvement in conflict is not exactly stellar. The UN has been in Cypress since 1964 with no resolution, the Kashmir region since 1949, Georgia since 1993 and the Western Sahara since 1991. Of course we know about the really spectacular failures of Bosnia, Somalia and, especially, Rwanda.

Perhaps it is time to rethink the idea of a UN brokered ceasefire. We need to look to finding solutions to the actual war not just the momentary conflict. And we need strict enforcement of these solutions.

We definitely need to fix this situation before "peacekeeping" causes more innocent deaths.

Survey Question

2006-08-01T23:48:00.000-04:00

I recently completed an online survey by a company used by McLean’s magazine and Can West Global. I found the following question very interesting.

Which of the following is a bigger threat to world peace?

Please select one response only.
Iran
Hezbollah
Israel
North Korea
Lebanon
Syria
Don’t know enough to say

What I found interesting was that the United States was left off this list but, as my wife always says, “if you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question”.

The Real Zionist Threat

2006-07-24T18:11:00.000-04:00

With Israeli forces pounding Lebanon, the Zionist threat has once again been exposed. It is not a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world or control the world’s finances. The real Zionist threat has nothing to do with Israel’s actions but in the west’s willingness to allow it.

Ever since the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, our collective guilt over the holocaust has caused us to consistently overlook Israel’s violations of United Nations resolutions and International law. Like a schoolyard bully, Israel continually demonstrates an aggressive nature with little regard for the consequences of its actions and no demonstrated recognition of the gift it has been given.

The idea, when the United Nations created the state, was to allow the Jewish people to have a homeland in which they could flourish in peace. From day one, they abused this privilege with the tacit approval of the western countries. Rather than creating a state where all people could live in peace and harmony, they made heroes of people who would be considered war criminals in any other country.

This country, many of whose citizens have suffered persecution at the hands of others, has perpetuated the very acts that were the basis for the creation of their country. They have participated in the mass murder of civilians, the execution of prisoners of war and assassinations. There are many documented cases of incidents such as the 1953 massacre at Qibya, Jordan, where Israeli’s used machine guns to herd people into their homes which they then blew up killing 66 civilians.

The U.S. State department denounced the massacre and demanded those responsible be “brought to account”. The result? The unit responsible was made part of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) paratroops corps with their leader, Ariel Sharon, becoming Prime Minister in 2001. A little over a year after he became Prime Minister, the IDF conducted a raid on the Palestinian refugee camp at Jenin that was said to be modeled after the Qibya slaughter.

Now, in response to an incursion by Hezbollah into Israel, they have once again over-reacted by mounting massive attacks on Lebanon and killing hundreds of civilians. The United States and Canada have both called them “measured” responses.

That is were the threat comes from.

For years, the west has enabled Israel to disregard International Law in an effort to ensure the survival of the only pro-western democracy in the Middle East. In the process, we have undermined any credibility we might have had with the surrounding, predominately, Arab countries. We appear hypocritical in their eyes, and are viewed with mistrust.

But now, pro-western sentiment in the region is starting to emerge within the Arab nations. Lebanon currently has a pro-western democracy; Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are becoming more open and Iraq is slowly becoming democratic. As this happens Israel will become more and more irrelevant in western eyes.

The problem is a huge part of Israeli wealth comes from the foreign assistance that has been pouring into it for decades. A country of only seven million people, they have managed to produce the best equipped fighting force in the region. According to official estimates, Israel, who has a smaller population than Ontario, spends 7.7% of its Gross Domestic Product, or $9.5 billion, on its military, an amount similar to Canada. Still, they manage to field an impressive military force.

However, as their importance to the west wanes, the economic benefits to Israel of this aid will also decrease. With that comes the risk that Israel will attempt to destabilize the region in order to emphasize its importance. Thus, they will show the need for continued military support while reaping the economic benefits. This may already be the case in Lebanon.

Our nations need to stop enabling this sort of behaviour by ensuring it is more costly for them to create war than attempting to live in peace with their neighbours. They must join the fold of responsible and law abiding nations or face serious international consequences. To do nothing risks war and innocent deaths every time Israeli importance declines.

Just like the schoolyard bully, they must be stood up to and put in their place. Then, maybe, they’ll finally figure it out.

2 Canadians killed in Afghan suicide bombing

2006-07-23T10:05:00.000-04:00

A suicide bomber rammed into the last vehicle of a coalition convoy near Kandahar City then blew himself up. Two Canadian soldiers died and eight others were wounded.

CTV.ca News Staff

Cpl. Jason Patrick Warren (left) and Cpl. Francisco Gomez are seen in these images made available by the Department of National Defence.

The blast killed Cpl. Francisco Gomez, 44, of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton, and Cpl. Jason Patrick Warren, 29, of the Black Watch, the Royal Highland Regiment of Canada, based in Montreal.

Gomez was a native of Edmonton. He was unmarried with no children. Warren was a native of Quebec City. His marital status wasn't immediately known.

"Many of these soldiers are just finishing a tough six-month mission here. Cpl. Warren had just three weeks to go," CTV's Steve Chao reported from Afghanistan on Saturday.

The eight wounded soldiers suffered non-life threatening injuries, but Chao said one was airlifted to Germany for further medical treatment. Two of them were from Shilo, Man., and the others from Edmonton.

It was the largest single-day number of total casualties Canada has suffered in Afghanistan since the 2002 "friendly fire" incident that killed four and wounded eight.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Cpl. Gomez and Cpl. Warren," said Col. Tom Putt, deputy commander of Task Force Afghanistan. "We will not forget their sacrifice."

Eight Afghan civilians were also hurt in the explosion.

The suicide bomber struck a Canadian Forces Bison armoured vehicle, traveling near the end of a 20-kilometres-long convoy returning to Kandahar Air Field, around 5:30 p.m. local time.

Chao says he interviewed soldiers at the convoy's head who were amazed no one died in the tough fighting they had experienced over the previous 12 days. At that time, they didn't know about the bombing.

Lt.-Col. Tom MacKay, commanding officer of the Black Watch, said Warren had lived in Montreal since 1995.

"He was a soldier under my command for several years," said MacKay. "I knew him to be an outstanding soldier, a very tough soldier, and someone we could rely on.

"My understanding is that he was very keen to go (to Afghanistan), he volunteered to go. This was his second mission overseas. He wanted to do his duty to his country."

Since early 2002, 19 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in Afghanistan.

Second suicide bomb attack

Some claim Canadian soldiers fired on Afghan vehicles after the first blast. "They shot at everybody, including women and children," said one witness. Canadian commanders denied that claim.

About one hour after the first attack, a second suicide bomber struck just 30 metres away from the first blast. Up to 10 Afghan civilians died and 30 more were wounded.

"We all came running to see what happened," said one Afghan, "but when we got here, another man with explosives came at us. I can't believe this happened."

"This is the first time in Afghanistan that we've seen follow-up suicide bomb attacks like this one," said Chao. "It's a tactic we've often seen in Iraq, but not one employed here."

Afghan government and Canadian military officials say the second attacker was on foot. No coalition troops were involved in the second attack.

Both suicide bombers died in the attacks.

A purported Taliban spokesperson, Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, claimed responsibility for the attacks and said both were undertaken by Afghans.

He also warned that more suicide attacks and ambushes will follow.

However, Chao said this type of double-suicide bombing is a hallmark of al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, and this was the first instance of the tactic being used in Afghanistan.

"We believe they probably are bringing in foreigners with very strongly religious beliefs to carry out suicide bombings," said Maj. Jim Blackburn, a British explosives expert.

Witnesses said a military helicopter airlifted the injured soldiers out of the area. A coalition statement later said they were taken to the multinational hospital at Kandahar airfield, where they received treatment for their injuries.

Official reaction

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces, said in a statement that she was "very saddened to learn today in Italy about the incident near Kandahar, Afghanistan that cost the lives of Corporal Francisco Gomez and Corporal Jason Patrick Warren and that also injured eight other Canadian military personnel.

"The increasing toll of our brave soldiers killed or injured while conducting reconstruction operations in Afghanistan, on behalf of Canada and in solidarity with a civilian population that has suffered such hardships, serves as a painful illustration of the tense predicament in which this country finds itself.

"With each new incident, we are getting a sense of the sacrifice and efforts needed to restore peace and justice to this part of the world. We lack the words to properly recognize the immense determination and selflessness of the members of the Canadian Forces who day in and day out carry out their noble mission to ensure the safety and improve the living conditions of the Afghan people.

"Corporal Gomez and Corporal Warren served their country admirably. From the bottom of our hearts and with the utmost respect, we wish to express our deepest sympathies to their families, friends, loved ones and comrades and to assure them that all Canadians stand with them during these very trying times.''

Prime Minister Stephen Harper also issued a statement.

"On behalf of Canadians, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Gomez and Corporal Warren, who lost their lives today as a result of a suicide vehicle attack in Afghanistan.''

"Today's tragic incident also injured eight other Canadian Forces members, who are currently receiving treatment.''

"Canadians will never forget the sacrifice these men made on behalf of our country. While deeply saddened by their loss, we are proud of the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who continue to stand on guard for Canadian values around the world, in spite of personal risks to their own safety.''

Brits may pull back: report

The Sunday Telegraph newspaper in Britain reported that the British Army may pull back from some isolated Afghan village outposts that have been the focus of numerous Taliban attacks.

They quoted officers as saying the rationale was to concentrate on a smaller geographic area and get reconstruction work underway.

The British hope to staff the outposts with Afghan National Army or Police personnel.

The British are operating in Helmand province, which is adjacent to Kandahar province, the area of operations for Canada's military. In the past two months, six British soldiers have been killed in Helmand. The total British force is about 3,600, with plans to raise that to 4,500 by October. Canada has about 2,200 troops in Kandahar.

A senior British defence ministry official refused to confirm or deny the Telegraph story.

With a report from CTV's Steve Chao and files from The Canadian Press

Close call in Afghanistan kept quiet

2006-07-20T18:47:00.000-04:00

Friendly-fire incident: U.S. dropped 225-kilogram bomb on 17 Canadian troops

Ethan Baron
CanWest News Service

Thursday, July 20, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Canadian troops narrowly missed death and serious injury when an American jet dropped a 225-kilogram laser-guided bomb on their position earlier this month in an incident frighteningly similar to the friendly fire attack that killed four Canadian soldiers in 2002.

Soft ground prevented a bloodbath, soldiers said of the incident the military has kept quiet.

Private Rob Adams, who was kneeling five metres from where the bomb landed and was completely engulfed by the fiery flash, received a concussive head injury. He was airlifted by helicopter to hospital at the coalition's Kandahar Airfield base.

His condition was assessed as very good and he has been released from hospital, said Canadian Forces Major Marc Theriault.

Although 17 Canadian troops were within 45 metres of the blast, and shrapnel splinters up to a half-metre long littered the farmer's field where the laser-guided bomb hit, nobody died. But nearly a dozen soldiers were blown through the air.

"We heard it coming. What went through my head was, 'I can't believe they bombed us,'" said one soldier who had been standing just over 10 metres from the impact point.

Another soldier, 25 metres away, was smashed so hard to the ground that the edge of his helmet was pushed in. He is still suffering severe headaches from the July 8 incident.

The explosion blasted a different soldier three metres into a mud hole.

The incident was all too similar to an attack by a U.S. F-16 aircraft that killed four Canadian troops during a training mission near Kandahar in April 2002. Eight other Canadians were injured.

A Canadian soldier who was outside the blast radius in the latest attack saw the bomb hit, and immediately concluded his comrades were dead.

"I thought for sure that everyone was toast, because there's no way you get hit by a 500-pound bomb and walk away," he said.

Had the ground been harder, the three closest soldiers would be dead, and several more severely injured, soldiers said.

"It was soft dirt, so [the bomb] went way deeper than it should have, and the blast went straight up," said one non-commissioned officer.

The crater measured about three metres deep and two metres across.

The near catastrophe occurred around 7 a.m. midway through a chaotic 12-hour battle in Pangawayi, 30 kilometres west of Kandahar. The pilot of the A-10 Warthog ground-attack jet mistook the Canadians for Taliban, the NCO said.

"He's coming in fast, he's coming in low, he's in the middle of a war zone, and he made a wrong call," the NCO said. "That happens. Those guys cover us a lot."

Another soldier was less forgiving. "Pangawayi isn't that big. I don't know why they were dropping bombs."

Other soldiers questioned the Canadian military's response. "It's kind of funny that they haven't come to talk to us," said one. "They haven't even sent us to a doctor. They're going to bury this one deep."

Maj. Theriault said the bombing occurred during "complex combat."

"This happens in dangerous situations where you have multiple directions to look after at the same time. Fire is coming from different directions, and you have fire also coming from above," he said.

"Fortunately, our soldiers suffered only minor injuries."

An investigation is underway, as in the case of any operation gone wrong, he said.

He wasn't sure if the U.S. Army had been notified.

"If it involves a U.S. aircraft, it's pretty much certain contact would have been made with the U.S." Maj. Theriault said.

All of the involved in the incident, except for Pte. Adams, have been in the field and fighting ever since.

© National Post 2006

Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Intro)

2006-07-17T19:08:00.000-04:00

Canada is finally paying attention to its military again. With our advance into southern Afghanistan and the dangers inherent is such a mission, the debate about the role and future composition of the Armed Forces is in the forefront.

It is a subject that is near and dear to my heart.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions and ignorance over the role of Canada and the state of the Armed Forces. Canada has a proud history of peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts that continues to this day, often despite the leadership back home. Unfortunately, the general population of the country is woefully ignorant of our men and women in uniform.

With over 16 years as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, my opinions are often diametrically opposed to that of the general public. I have a unique perspective, having served with all three branches of our military. Since I got out, I often seek out the opinions of the people around me on the subject and eagerly drink up any new information that comes my way.

I have written several articles in the past about the role of the Canadian Armed Forces and some of the issues faced by the men and women in uniform. Usually these have been in reaction to some current event or government policy that affects them.

Over the next little while I will be doing a series of articles that pertain to the military, its roles in the world and the changes proposed by our new government. Hopefully it will open a few eyes and minds. If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to email me.

Robbin

We should be ashamed!

2006-07-15T09:12:00.000-04:00

We should be ashamed!

Corporal Anthony Boneca gave his life in the service of this country and all certain members of the media care about are some emails he sent. Headlines like “Slain soldier felt `misled'” and “Reservist was disillusioned with military” were plastered all over the place.

This is not the time!

At a time when his family should be left alone to mourn their loss, members of the media are acting like a pack of slavering dogs with the scent of controversy filling the air. Tripping over themselves to get the scoop, they have shown little consideration for the fact a man has died.

The media have managed to paint this soldier as a whiner, an image that will probably stick to his memory for years to come. And, at the time his family should be left alone to plan for his funeral, his father is forced to come out and defend his only son.

They should all be ashamed - and we should too. We have enabled the media by buying into this feeding frenzy instead of turning our backs on this circus and behaving like decent human beings.

We should be ashamed!

Call The Hospital, Robb Has His Tools Out Again

2006-07-10T01:00:00.000-04:00

How many of you have seen the scene in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation where the ladder falls out from under Chevy Chase while he is working on the Christmas Lights? Funny stuff, huh?

Well, believe it or not, I know someone who did this for real. The poor man was taking down his Christmas lights and while standing at the top of the ladder the bottom slid out. Unfortunately, rather than ending up hanging from the gutters, he instead rode the ladder to the ground where he landed on top of it. He busted four ribs in the process. Who was this hapless soul? It was none other than my father.

Before everyone bursts into a collective aaahhh, I told you this story because what happened after that shows how there is a thread that weaves through the universe connecting all. There have been studies showing that, even when separated at birth, there is a psychic connection with one’s genetic parents.

That is my excuse for what happened next. Sure, you could say that subliminally my father’s fall was in the back of my mind and I would accept that, because it is better than admitting that I was stupid. You see, I broke my toe on the weekend.

How did this nefarious thing happen, you may ask. Was I involved in the dramatic rescue of a kitten, stopping the destruction of the rain forest or possibly even, catching Osama Bin Laden? These would all be good guesses (mostly because they stroke my ego) but alas, I dropped a crowbar.

Of course, Sir Isaac Newton is partially to blame, for if he had not come out with his theory of gravity this would not have happened. I probably will never know who the evil character was that placed the crowbar on top of my step ladder where I was working, or what evil force of nature caused it to shift to that particular position, but the end result was the same. When I went to move my ladder, down it came, pointy end first, right onto my baby toe.

My wife, being the caring and devoted soul that she is, dove for cover as I spewed forth string after string of profanities. Upon reflection, I realise that I could have improved upon my grammar and possibly thrown in some conjunctions to make it a proper sentence but, for some reason, it just didn’t seem to matter at the time.

As I danced about the kitchen, the aforementioned expletives spouting forth, my doting wife rolled her eyes and went to get the first aid kit. I can’t be sure, but I could swear there was glee in her eyes as she poured gallon after gallon of peroxide onto my gushing wound. As she placed a Snoopy Band-Aid on, what I considered to be a critical mutilation, a life threatening injury of the greatest concern, she sighed and announced that I should probably go to the hospital.

Of course, as many will attest, my wife adores me, hanging on my every word, cherishing my very being. Because of this, I knew it was with a heavy heart that she announced she would take me to the hospital after supper. After all, if we left immediately the roast would be over cooked and it was only another two hours until it was done.

Unfortunately, her concern for me ruined supper. I could tell that the worry made the taste of the food turn sour in her mouth as she had a second helping. It was even more evident as she unloaded and reloaded the dishwasher and stopped to do her nails.

Finally we were on our way to the hospital. Attempting to divert her attention from the distress she must feel she turned on the stereo. With Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves blaring we headed down the road. (note to self: complain about the state of those roads).

I must commend the hospital staff for their professionalism. The triage nurse was great and once she heard my story and stopped laughing I was immediately sent to tell my story to another staff member. I could tell that my wife was very upset by this behaviour as she had tears in her eyes and was complaining about her sides hurting.

They were very thorough as well. There was a bit of momentary panic when I could not remember whether I had received my tetanus shot last year, when I was at the hospital because of the plaster I got in my eye while tearing out some of the ceiling and not wearing safety goggles, or, when I was in having that same eye checked two years ago after getting a branch in it while picking up shingles. I do know that it wasn’t when I stepped on the nail because I didn’t bother going to the hospital that time. After all, I knew my tetanus was up to date and they all seem to laugh too much when I’m there.

The doctor, of course, had much more decorum than that. Entering the room, he was all business as he poked and prodded my toe. Looking studious he announced that, in his opinion, having had years of medical training and experience, my toe was broken. Or bruised. It didn’t really matter though because the treatment was the same. Nothing. It turns out there is nothing they can do other than prescribe mind-numbing drugs (yippee) and tell you to take time off work.

So, here I sit. I have to admire the pretty purple colour my toe has become, but then again, that may be the drugs. I do know that I am bored. There is only so much television that one person can watch and tormenting the cats loses its shine relatively quickly. That Judge Judy is quite the character though.

Ultimately it is my fathers fault. After all, it’s genetic.

Mexican Evolution?

2006-07-09T13:23:00.000-04:00

Debilitating debt.

Corruption in government.

An election needing a recount.

Accusations of election fraud.

The president being decided by the courts.

Throw in some hanging chads and the Mexicans will have no reason to sneak into the United States.

Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan

2006-07-09T10:58:00.000-04:00

he battle with the Taliban continues to take its toll.

Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan

2 Canadian soldiers wounded in Afghanistan

Making the Punishment Fit the Crime in Urination Case

2006-07-08T10:14:00.000-04:00

According to CTV (Accused has 'no memory' of night at War Memorial) the three men photographed urinating on the War Memorial on Canada Day have all apologized.

The oldest, Stephen Fernandes, has stated "I didn't mean any disrespect to any veterans, any soldier serving in country right now, or any Canadian citizen. And I'd like to extend my apologies to anybody that I offended on July 1st."

Because there is no charge in Canada for stupidity, Fernandes has been charged with mischief while the other two, being teenagers, have not been charged but have agreed to do community service.

In order for justice to be served, Fernandes should also be given community service as his punishment. Then all three should be given brushes and buckets of soapy water and sentenced to scrub the War Memorial. That would be a punishment that "fit" the crime.

Canadians have not earned the right to share our grief

2006-07-04T17:39:00.000-04:00

Ian Parker, National Post
Published: Thursday, April 27, 2006

As a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I'm disturbed by the media frenzy and the artificial public outcry over the government's decision to restrict the media from CFB Trenton for the arrival of Canadian war dead. I fully support this decision, and I am ashamed of my fellow Canadians. For the past dozen years, when the Liberals were decimating the Canadian military, there was no public outcry. There was no media frenzy. You did not care. Canadians have -- due to their self-centred, insatiable demand for social programs -- wilfully neglected the men and the women of the Canadian Forces and allowed the federal government, under the Liberals, to gut the Canadian military. And now the media and other pundits wish to share in the grief of the military families for their fallen ones?

Where were the public outcry and the media frenzy over the government's obvious agenda to emasculate the Canadian Forces? There was no outcry when the air force was arbitrarily cut due to lack of resources; no outcry that the army, cut to the bone, is now unable to survive on a modern high-tech battlefield; and there has been not been a word over the decimation of the once-proud Canadian navy. In short, there has been no outcry that the Canadian Forces cannot fulfill its mission to defend Canada.

The Canadian media -- and Canadians -- have not earned the right to share our grief. Shame on the Canadian media, and shame on Canadians.

Ian Parker, Carleton Place, Ont.
© National Post 2006

Don't Leave The Toilet Seat Up

2006-07-03T11:53:00.000-04:00

Originally posted 10 Oct 2003, I thought in light of the recent spending announcements on the military it might be interesting to revisit my opinion from a couple of years ago

I left the toilet seat up this week.

Once my wife finished berating me, having used every argument in her arsenal including the United Nations Convention on Sanitary Receptacles, vis a vis Women’s Issues, I did as all good Canadians seem prone to do these days. I blamed someone else.

Unfortunately, I have a daughter so I couldn’t blame her. What to do? The dog? Nope, that wouldn’t work. How about the cat? No joy there either. Then it hit me. I used the tried and true method of blaming the government.

Yes, I blamed the government for my wife’s misfortune, just as so many now days blame them for the sorry state of our Armed Forces. Not only do I get to deflect any thoughts of my own culpability in the matter but have a ready-made scapegoat.

Sure, I may have trouble sleeping but I figure if members of the media can sleep at night with all they have done, why can’t I. A little cold porcelain is nothing compared to collective guilt of our illustrious news.

This became even more evident recently with the tragic deaths of two soldiers from the Royal Canadian Regiment on duty in Afghanistan.

Once again the editorials are hitting the papers remonstrating about the inadequate funding for our Armed Forces and how they are using obsolete equipment. And nothing is more illustrative of how two faced our media is than the example of the Sea King helicopter and our four Upholder submarines.

When I heard a commentator in a sarcastic voice belittling the Armed Forces for buying four leaky submarines I couldn’t believe it. Here’s a scoop for you guys, I will solve the mystery of that purchase right here and now. Are you ready?

The reason our Armed Forces bought these substandard boats is because when they attempted to buy better ones the media had a fit. It was too much money, they said, too extravagant, they said. Well guys (used in the asexual way), you get what you pay for.

As for the Sea Kings, I can’t even begin to count how many editorials I have read recently condemning the government for allowing these dinosaurs to continue to fly. The media has yelled and screamed for replacements. Excuse me?

Let’s have a little reality check here. The truth is that the Sea Kings would have been retired by now if the media and the Liberals had not made the purchase of the EH101 replacement helicopters a political issue. It would seem that they have forgotten that if the purchase had gone through, not only would we, as taxpayers, have saved the $800 million cancellation cost but also the Sea Kings would be retired.

I would love to know how any Liberal can sleep at night knowing that the only election promise they kept was the one that has killed people. Remember the GST promise, the one to kill it when elected? Nada. The renegotiation of NAFTA? Zip. How about an independent Ethics Commissioner? Zilch. But hey, why not needlessly endanger the lives of the people who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Disposable people, what a concept.

I know, as I looked upon the flag draped casket of one of my colleagues I was angry. Even more so when I was talking to the heavily bandaged Captain who was the only survivor of the crash, the same Sea King yours truly had flown in a few months earlier.

But I did not only blame the government, for they were only doing what people had voted them to do. For, in my mind, anyone who voted for the Liberals in the 1993 election is equally guilty.

So we all must share the collective blame in this. The media for making being two faced and the voters for buying into it. We need to start looking at the down the road effect of the decisions we make and the reality of the situation.

As an example, if the Canadian Armed Forces signed a contract today for new helicopters it would be a minimum of 10 years before they received them. And the funny thing is, if the politicians stay out of it, the best one is still the EH101.

So here’s what we can do to help expunge our collective guilt. Email, write or phone our politicians to let them know that we care about our troops. Tell them you want them to actually start to fund our troops rather than the window dressing that they gave us in that last budget. The $800 million increase probably won’t even pay for their deployment to Afghanistan.

Remember these are human beings we are talking about. These are men and women who are living a life none of us would want. Because of the cutbacks in personnel, a lot of these people will deploy for 6-8 months, come back home for a couple and then be gone again. I read recently of a soldier who has been in the forces for five years and has already had six overseas deployments. That’s a minimum of three years away from friends and family!

I heard a rumour that the person listed below might have some influence in the Department of National Defense. With a federal election in the not too distance future he may be inclined to listen so give him a call.

The Honourable John McCallum

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Phone: (613) 996-3374

Fax: (613) 992-3921

Email: mccalj@parl.gc.ca

As for me, I think I will fess up and promise to make sure the seat is down in the future. Initially, there will be hell to pay but at least I will sleep better.

Rediscovering our military

2006-07-03T10:05:00.000-04:00

It's time we understood the importance of our forces

By Linda Williamson, Toronto Sun

If you thought last week's string of massive military spending announcements -- $15 billion and counting -- was all about buying new toys for our boys and girls in uniform, you really missed the boat. And the plane, truck and helicopter.

It was about something much more fundamental: Our government finally doing its job by rebuilding our armed forces and reminding us all of their importance.

But if you didn't get that, you aren't alone.

Canadians' relationship with our military has been so eroded in this country over the past few decades that it will take a lot more than new equipment to fix the problem.

I'm not talking about the ambivalence of some Canadians toward our current, dangerous mission in Afghanistan. I'm talking about the ambivalence of many of us toward anything to do with our armed forces, period.

Thanks to government neglect and years of recharacterizing our fighting soldiers as "peacekeepers" (little more than armed foreign aid workers), many of us grew up thinking of the military as practically unnecesary and vaguely shameful.

Coming of age in the shadow of Vietnam and under the threat of nuclear war -- and too far removed from the two World Wars to truly understand soldiers' sacrifice -- my generation absorbed a largely negative view of all things military.

Government slashing of defence budgets seemed just fine -- less money for the war-makers, more for health care, right? Besides, this is Canada. Aren't we too nice to fight?

The scary thing is, this idiotic, naive attitude became so pervasive in Canada, it left us with a military crisis that is now going to cost us more billions and decades to turn around.

This troubling tendency to see our military as "peripheral" -- instead of crucial to our survival as a nation -- is the focus of a stunning chapter of the latest report by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, released on the eve of the government's spending spree.

Most news stories on the report concentrated on its call for a lot more spending than the government's planned $15 billion (the senators, who have warned for five years that Canada can no longer defend itself against a serious terrorist attack, natural disaster or pandemic, want a much bigger, much better-equipped fighting force than even the Conservatives envision). But its passionate call for renewed public understanding of the military is its far more important message.

In fact, it's the title of the report: The Government's No. 1 Job (available online at sen-sec.ca)

"Too many Canadians are indifferent toward -- or wary of -- the concept of a healthy and effective Canadian military," the report warns. While it praises Prime Minister Stephen Harper for things like his stirring speech to the troops in Afghanistan about how Canada must stand strong in the world and no longer cheer from the sidelines, that's only a start.

From before Confederation through the Korean War, Canadians understood the importance of their military, the senators argue -- but post-Vietnam, they "lost touch" with it, culminating in a "monumental lack of interest" by governments and the public by the end of the 20th century.

"Everybody went to sleep," they lament.

Not vulnerable to attack

Even post-9/11, the attitude persists that as long as we're not the big, bad USA, Canada isn't vulnerable to attack (though perversely, many Canadians believe the U.S. will defend us if we are). Cost-cutting, vote-seeking politicians are equally to blame, say the senators, as are (hello!) journalists.

"We have more than 2,300 of our sons and daughters in one of the most dangerous places in the world, and 32 million Canadians should be there with them, but until recently most Canadians probably didn't even know they were there," the senators fume, in an urgent call for informed public debate.

We can -- and should -- argue with each other over the particulars of things like our ongoing mission in Afghanistan. (For instance, I support the mission and strongly disagree with Eric Margolis' view on Page C6 -- but I applaud him for furthering the debate.) What we can't argue with, however, is our duty as a country to rebuild an effective armed forces -- and to support them wholeheartedly in whatever we ask them to do.

"No matter what we think about the rationale for this mission, we have a duty of care to these people," the report declares. "They are there for us. We need to be there for them."

At last, we're giving them the tools they need to fight our battles -- the least we can do is give our hearts and minds as well.

Happy Canada Day? Not for Everyone

2006-07-02T10:01:00.000-04:00

As Canadians, we should be ashamed of ourselves on this Canada Day weekend. No, I am not talking about Afghanistan, the Conservatives or softwood lumber but our self-centered attitudes as we force others to work for our own convenience.

As many sit back to enjoy the sunshine and a long weekend, there are many more for whom this not a holiday at all. And, it’s going to get worse.

Whining about losing profits, some large retail stores have stated they will defy the Retail Business Holidays Act and open anyway. Number one among them is A&P Canada, which owns Dominion, and Shoppers Drug Mart.

Shoppers plans on taking advantage of the portion of the law which allows pharmacies smaller than 7,500 square feet to be open. As we have seen in recent years, these small pharmacies have been rapidly replaced by large stores in which medical supplies are the smallest portion of their business and much bigger than 7,500 square feet.

When it comes to grocery stores, the law states it is illegal for stores bigger than 2,400 square feet to be open. In this age of big box stores, there are very few that meet this criteria.

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors complains that this law gives an unfair advantage to the smaller retailers. It would seem that the small local grocery stores being open on a holiday are a threat to the mega profits of A&P. This complaint also comes at a time when big chain stores are putting small family owned stores out of business.

According to spokeswoman, Kim McKinnon, “as an industry we've been working to have the act changed, it’s always been based on consumer need."

It is not consumer need but the convenience of the selfish consumer.

We need to remember that, as we buy our loaves of bread we forgot to pick up the day before, someone else is forced to work in order to supply this item. As we stroll up and down the aisles picking up those last minute items, numerous people have to leave their friends and families to work, all in the name of convenience and corporate profit. Even if a store is closed on the holiday, the retail worker still does not get a long weekend because it will be open on the Monday and they will be expected to be there.

Even more insulting is the fact these large corporations are putting profit ahead of allowing their employees to celebrate the birth of our country. At a time when our troops are fighting and dieing for our freedom, A&P and Shoppers are more worried about money than the nation that has contributed to their prosperity. While the people who run these companies are sipping their drinks in the sun, they treat their employees like serfs.

Instead of loosening the laws, they need to be stiffened. No large store should be allowed to be open on a holiday, especially Canada Day, no exceptions. Anyone who violates this should be fined heavily to offset any profit they might make. Maybe we should also force the owners to perform community service on weekends and holidays. And we, as consumers, should boycott any store that defies the holiday and opens.

Or, maybe the laws should be changed to allow stores to open but only if managers and company officers work while regular employees have the day off. Then we would see how important their profits actually are.

Ultimately, we need to see those in front of us and realize the consequences of our actions.

This is my Canada

2006-07-02T10:00:00.000-04:00

It was a beautiful day for an outing.

The sun was shining with just a scattering of clouds to keep it from becoming overwhelmingly hot and there was just the wisp of a breeze. It was a great day to be at Canada’s Wonderland.

It was also an interesting look at the fabric of Canada.

Standing in line waiting to go on the Psyclone, and wondering how I had been talked into this, I started observing the people around me. Perhaps it was a distraction technique to take my mind off the fool act I was about to commit, but I found it fascinating none the less.

There was a time I would have looked at that crowd and seen mostly Caucasian faces looking back. Not anymore. This crowd covered the spectrum of colours, from black to white, and all shades in between. It struck me how different this was from my youth and how much this represented the Canada of the 21st century.

Most interesting of all was the intermingling of cultures.

Behind me was an East Indian woman with her head leaning on the chest of a man of African descent. A little way over was a Lebanese girl holding hands and talking animatedly with a Caucasian guy. In the next row over, I could hear the animated conversation, about which Power Ranger was the best, going on between three girls in their early teens, one Caucasian, one Asian and one Muslim. (blue or red Power Ranger?)

I looked around some more and noticed most of the people were in western style clothes. There were some obvious Muslims, with their headgear and designer jeans, and the occasional Hindu. All of them were talking excitedly, as people will while at the amusement park, clutching their cokes and eating junk food.

Sitting by the entrance to a rollercoaster, I spotted a woman in a burka with her children, all of them obviously wound up by what was going on around them (parents will know what I am talking about). Standing in line to get funnel cakes and candy were, again, people of all nationalities and religions, white, black, Muslim, Christian, Hindu.

And it struck me; here we were, all together, to have fun. There was no racial intolerance, no religious extremism, no terrorist plots, just a bunch of people enjoying a day out with the family, having a good time and eating junk. No one cared that the person in front was black or brown or that the person behind was Muslim or Buddhist. We were just people who were enjoying life.

And it gave me great hope, for this is my Canada.

The Hamas Paradox

2006-07-02T09:55:00.000-04:00

The recent situation in Israel has painted Hamas into a corner.

Whether you side with Israel or Palestine, the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by the military wing of Hamas puts the very legitimacy of the government on the line and sets the stage for continued strife in the area.

It boils down to this, does Hamas actually have control of its military wing and, if it does, did they not just commit an act of war?

If Hamas does actually control the militants then you have a situation where a governing body ordered the attack on a sovereign nation. Given the confusing status of the region they either committed an act of war or insurrection.

If they didn’t order the attack and do not control the militants then are they not merely figureheads who in reality govern nothing? They would lack legitimacy. Why then would any country deal with them since they obviously do not have the power to deliver on any promises they make.

Either way, the Palestinians people lose.

A Reflection of Canada - Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan

2006-06-13T18:06:00.000-04:00

In an age of almost infinite information at our fingertips, you would think ignorance would be virtually eliminated. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Perhaps an over-saturation is the problem. Print publications, 24-hour news and the internet allow almost everyone a soap box to promote their message and a forum for people of all political stripes. With all this muddying of the waters, it is not surprising that the truth is often lost in the shuffle.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the discussion of the Canadian Armed Forces’ involvement in Afghanistan.

First the basics.

Canadian troops are not in Iraq!

To some this might seem self-evident but, unfortunately, experience has shown otherwise. For instance, during a recent radio discussion on what would attract young Muslims to extremist ideology, two different people stated Canadian involvement in Iraq. More worrying is these people were both students at the University of Toronto. (For another view on universities read “University - A Breeding Ground for Ignorance”) This has also been echoed in numerous blogs.

Another point that should be self-evident, but does not appear to be, is we are Canadian not American!

So much of the online debate centres on viewing our troops as if they were from the US. The very people who fume about Canada being Americanized, and take offence at being compared to an American, do exactly that to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Is it ignorance of our Armed Forces? The effects of watching too many “war” movies? Or is it that in the rush to condemn anything Bush, they push aside everything in the quest for their ideology?

It may be a combination of them all or none.

The Canadian Armed Forces are a reflection of Canada as a whole. The men and women of the Armed Forces are your neighbours, schoolmates and relatives. They were not born in a vacuum or created by some lab bent on creating the ultimate soldier. They are not Rambo, John Wayne or Clint Eastwood.

Our soldiers are Canadians who have grown up with the same experiences as you and me. They come from all walks of life and every region in the country, from Toktoyaktuk to Windsor, St. John’s to Victoria.

Our soldiers are highly educated. Every officer has a university degree and not necessarily a military-oriented one. It could be a degree in History, Psychology or Arts. Captain Nicola Goddard, who died in a Taliban ambush on 17 May 06, had a degree in English and was a member of an artillery unit.

Contrary to what you see in movies, our troops are not brainwashed or sheep. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are allowed to voice their opinion, debate politics and the validity of a mission. Over a beer in the mess, or having coffee in the canteen, discussions can be heard on many subjects. Their brains are not removed at the recruiter’s nor are their ethics. They are expected to react instantaneously in combat and follow the orders they are given but are also expected to uphold the principles and honour of Canada. They are the ambassadors of Canada and are expected to represent the fabric of Canada even when dealing with people who are trying to kill them.

They are Canadians with the same hopes and dreams as any other Canadian. These do not change just because they put on a uniform.

The biggest difference is the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are willing to make sacrifices in pursuit of those hopes and dreams.

Our troops give up much to defend and protect, not just Canadians but others who are incapable of defending themselves. They live a life that most could not tolerate let alone do so willingly.

The movie image of the soldier waving gleefully while marching off to glory is just that - a movie image. It bears as much reality as that of King Kong climbing the Empire State Building.

There is no glory in deployed operations and no glee in leaving on them. Soldiers, more often than not, miss their child’s first steps, first words, first day at school and graduations. They live for months on end in dirt, dust, heat or cold. A shower once a week is a luxury and even a hot cup of coffee is not guaranteed. Hard physical labour is the order of the day, as are long hours and little sleep. They shave and bathe with cold water, both summer and winter. If it is quiet, they may get the opportunity to actually heat up their rations and a fresh egg is like filet mignon.

The majority of their time is spent fighting boredom. Standing guard duty for hours at a time in the middle of the night is not exactly exciting. Neither is the constant drudge of endless patrols in the middle of nowhere carrying 50 lbs of equipment. The typical day of a soldier is one of wearying routine coupled with sore muscles and bumps and bruises from being bounced around in an armoured vehicle. Through all this, their mind must remain sharp for that instance when danger does rear its head.

But they “soldier” on.

Why? Not because they are dupes, sheep or warmongers. They know that they are not in Afghanistan to fight a war for oil (see "No War for Oil!” published in the liberal paper “The American Prospect”) or as part of any American war of aggression.

The Canadian Armed Forces are in Afghanistan to try to bring stability and peace to the world and help a people in need.

From the moment the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden after the American embassy bombings in 1998, it was realized something needed to be done. As supporters of terrorism, the Taliban was rapidly becoming a threat to world peace as well as a brutal, repressive government. Afghanistan was the training ground for the insurgents that were raising tensions between Pakistan and India, two countries with nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda, and numerous other terrorist groups, freely operated in Afghanistan. Plans for going after Bin Laden were already in the works when the attacks of September 11th, 2001 occurred. After the Taliban refused a final demand from the United Nations to hand over Bin Laden, it was realized the world could no longer afford to sit idly by.

This time was different though, this time the world finally got it - you cannot negotiate peace with people who don’t want peace. Fanatics, such as Bin Laden, want only to impose their form of order on the world. Like Adolph Hitler, nothing would appease, and they would not stop until democracy was destroyed. They wanted nothing short of Taliban-style rule worldwide.

And our soldiers are pragmatists. They realize that in order to allow peace to thrive, those bent on destruction must be subdued. They realize people who believe it is appropriate to fire rockets at children or bomb schoolrooms cannot be rationalized with. They know hospitals, schools and wells cannot be built while there is a constant threat of attack. And, most of all, they realize it will be dangerous.

So, day after day, they go out into the dust and heat, rain and cold, day and night, to seek out a threat to a suffering people. They don’t do it for fun but in the belief that they can help to bring a better life to the average Afghani.

As the grandfather of the little Afghani boy with cancer, who the Canadians attempted to help, stated “Canada is the first country to come to Afghanistan with pure intentions.”

Canadian Universities a Breeding Ground for Ignorance

2005-11-13T15:12:00.000-05:00

Freedom is not an ideal, it is not even a protection, if it means nothing more than freedom to stagnate, to live without dreams, to have no greater aim than a second car and another television set.

Adlai Stevenson (1900–1965), “Putting First Things First,” (New York, Jan. 1960).

I heard a disturbing story on the radio last week.

As people prepared to attend Remembrance Day ceremonies, and given it is the Year of the Veteran, I was distressed to hear a story about students at York University in Toronto forcing recruiters from the Canadian Armed Forces off the campus. As part of the story it was mentioned the University of Guelph was planning on banning recruiting from their campus as well.

There were actually two incidents at York. On September 22nd, a recruiting officer from the Canadian Armed Forces was at York University for an information session at the Student Service Building. There, she was confronted by a group of students and ended up having to be escorted to her car after students protested her presence. According to the Excaliber, York University’s newspaper, the students “expressed” their concerns and “asked” the Canadian military not to return.

The following week, recruiters from the Canadian Armed Forces returned to set up a recruiting booth at the university career fair, that they had been invited to attend. They were met by student protesters chanting "Army out of Afghanistan, Army out of York". According to a member of a student group known as the Grass Roots Anti-Imperialist Network (GRAIN), “the demonstration happened because of the Canadian military's participation in illegal campaigns of aggression and our opposition of the use of York's campus as a space to strengthen those campaigns."

According to the University of Western Ontario Gazette, the president of the York Federation of Students, Omari Mason, said “the students were not happy with military policies, and students should have a right to debate or challenge anything on campus, as long as it’s peaceful.” Given that the military recruiters had to have York security present in order to dismantle their display and exit the venue, it would hardly seem like peaceful debate. Even his statement in the Excaliber is far from peaceful. In it he is quoted as saying "We gave them a warning a week before about their presence on the campus but they came back for the career fair," says Mason, adding, "They shouldn't be on our campus."

Gave them a warning not to return? Hardly a recipe for peaceful debate. In fact, to my mind, when one side uses force to quell dissenting opinions, it is often called a dictatorship.

That is what is so disturbing. Lately there seems to be a growing trend at universities to force their views on other students. These institutions, whose very existence is supposed to be dedicated to the expansion and open discussion of varying ideas, are becoming institutions dedicated to ignorance and close-mindedness.

The justification for their actions is Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and Haiti.

In calling them illegal campaigns of aggression one has to ask what they think should have been done? Afghanistan, for instance, was a proven training ground for terrorists from around the world and one of the most oppressive countries known at the time. The Taliban imposed its will on the people of Afghanistan with harsh consequences for any that opposed them. They brutalized, raped and killed with impunity, keeping the masses in poverty while enjoying power and privilege. Although a small country, they were a definite threat to the world by their very support in the training and export of terrorism.

Should we bury our heads in the sand? Should we allow others to suffer while we live in peace? The fact that we were willing to pay the price, and continue to pay it, in the name of justice and freedom for an oppressed people is hardly an act of aggression. Our troops in Afghanistan do not risk life and limb forcing their will on the people of that country but rather do so to stop others from doing it.

It has also been said that we forced out a democratically elected government in Haiti. We could argue this back and forth but, from what I have seen, Canada did not force out the government in Haiti but did rapidly step up to the plate to help when that country was in a state of disarray and the common people were suffering for it. Again, risking death, the soldiers of the Canadian Armed Forces rushed in to help the vulnerable people of that country.

Even the statement that because it was a democratically elected government we should do nothing shows a lack of knowledge. We have only to give a moment’s thought to modern history to see the vulnerabilities in this argument. Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, was “elected”, as is the government of Sudan and most recently the president of Iran, the same person who is calling for the total destruction of Israel. Perhaps the most famous democratically elected leader in the last century is Adolf Hitler and we all know what happened there.

As one comment on a blog points out, “Pacifism is evil because it can only thrive under conditions whereby someone else is willing to do your fighting and dying for you.”

Unfortunately, the students at various universities seem to be pushing their own agendas forward while pushing common sense and knowledge to the background. The policy that is currently espoused by the Central Student Association (CSA) at the University of Guelph highlights this issue.

The policy states they oppose “military recruitment initiatives at the University of Guelph. This includes tabling in the UC, ads in washrooms, or any visible presence on campus by any military organization(s) that is/are known to have participated in, or supported in any way, activities that are clearly illegal.”

Clearly illegal to who?

This attitude imposes their own view on others and, as the incident at York demonstrates, if they do not get their own way then you can count on some form of disruption will force it to happen. Banning recruitment by the Military also limits the opportunities for those students who would like to take advantage of the Canadian Armed Force policies of paying for a recruit’s education.

They apparently have also assigned themselves the role of judge and jury in deciding what is an illegal activity. Neither the actions in Afghanistan nor Haiti have been deemed illegal except by countries whose activities are also questionable. The very act of them deciding what is illegal and then compelling others to submit to their decision is, in itself, worrying. What is their opinion of countries that behave that way? Do they support this kind of thinking on a national level? I doubt it, so why do they expect others to accept it when they behave in this manner.

The CSA policy also states they will actively oppose “military research and research on behalf of military organizations at Canadian universities. Research that benefits military-related organizations involved in, or closely tied to, war crimes will be opposed by and campaigned around by the CSA.’

Grave accusations given that they are partially targeted at the Canadian Armed Forces. We, as a country, have long gone out of our way to prosecute those who have committed war crimes, to the point of placing our troops and public servants in harm’s way to retrieve the evidence to do this. Are they now saying our involvement in the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo were war crimes since these were both NATO actions and not immediately sanctioned by the United Nations? This view is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s, the British Prime Minister in 1938, policy of appeasement that was partially responsible for Hitler’s bloodless conquest of Austria and Czechoslovakia.

We also have to ask what they plan on opposing? With the statement that they will oppose any “research that benefits military-related organizations” and given that this apparently applies to the Canadian military would they then oppose the development of things like water treatment equipment, emergency medical procedures and engineering equipment used in rapid deployments? All of these are things developed for use by the Canadian Armed Forces and then, by extension, used by Canada’s Disaster Assistance Response Team. These are very shortsighted statements and show a lack of knowledge of the uses of military equipment in modern society, especially in Canada.

Given the ambiguousness of the idea of “research that benefits military-related organizations”, this can be applied to a huge amount of equipment and appliances in everyday use. Research in Motion’s Blackberry is considered so integral to the everyday running of the United State military that the US government is getting involved in RIM’s patent dispute. They are afraid a court injunction banning the sale of the Blackberry in the US would actually be a threat to national security. It is not hard to find other examples of “research that benefits military-related organizations.” Global Positioning Systems? Military. digital and analog telecommunications? Ditto. Computers, aircraft design, lasers, portable medical diagnostic equipment, etc, etc. The list is enormous.

If a university were to ban all research that involves a military application then they may just as well close down. But, according to Hannah Draper, the communications commissioner for CSA, “we don’t think a university campus is the right venue for the military to be recruiting. We have a code of conduct around suppliers and which employers and recruiters we want on campus.”

So here are the future leaders of industry and, most worrying of all our country, showing a lack vision and an unwillingness to understand the complex issues at hand. In a country dedicated to peace and equality, the lip service paid to this idea while imposing their views on to others, is a disturbing trend. We, as a nation, cannot afford to negate what others have to say, even if it differs from our own beliefs, for in ignorance lies destruction.

Universities are supposed to be institutes of higher learning. Unfortunately, it would seem, ignorance knows no bounds.

Canadians Are Suckers

2005-11-05T09:18:00.000-05:00

Easy on the eyesight
Compere collar hair
Mass appealing tonsils
Poisoning the air - no fair

Clap hands for the media man
He always know what to do
Clap hands for the media man
But does he think when he has to read the news
Media man - that's right he's a media man

Media Man - Flash and the Pan, “Lights in the Night (1980)

When I wrote my article on avian flu, I knew I would be revisiting the subject of spin, I just didn’t think it would be this soon. Unfortunately, there is so much spin on the news anymore that it is hard to avoid.

As I pointed out in my previous article, so much of what you read and hear in the news is designed to grab your attention and make it exciting. The problem is so much of it is spun, in one form or another, it becomes extremely difficult to tell what the real story actually is.

Many stories are spun by the people involved. George W. Bush and Condolezza Rice have been giving us wonderful examples of spin for the last few years. One has only to look at how the White House has managed to intertwine Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein together to see spin at it’s finest. Even though there is no evidence of a connection, (in fact, the exact opposite appears to be true) the Bush administration has been so successful in spinning the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that a majority of Americans still believe the connection.

Recently, there was a story on CTV news that caught my eye. The content of the story itself was not of huge interest to me it was the way the story itself was spun by the media. The anchor of the news introduced the story by saying that a new spending scandal had been discovered. The federal government, she went on to say, had spent $90 million dollars on land in Vancouver that had never been used, more than the entire Gomery inquiry had cost.

The very fact that the anchor referenced the Gomery inquiry is, in itself, telling. The attempt here was to place the so-called scandal in the same category as the whole advertising scandal in Quebec. It is in the meat of the story where the real details become apparent but only if you pay attention and actually think about it, something the news hopes no one will do.

The story goes that the federal government leased land in Vancouver to build a new Pacific Centre for Environment Canada. The land itself is being used by various rail companies and is now contaminated so that the government is on the hook to clean it up before anything can be done with the land. Where the spin comes in is in the accounting used by the news. You see, this $90 million dollars is spread over 30 years, compared to Gomery, which cost approximately $80 million in one year. They also did not bother to report how much the government was leasing the land to the rail companies for.

It is difficult to separate the spin out of the stories, as everyone seems to have their own agenda. Perhaps it is an attempt to make the government look bad (like they need help), it may be someone’s personal bias or it could be a good old-fashioned attempt to create a need where there isn’t one, often called marketing.

Just look at Listerine.

Listerine was invented in the nineteenth century as a surgical antiseptic. Later it was sold, in a distilled form, as a floor cleaner and a cure for gonorrhoea. It wasn’t a huge success until the 1920’s when they came upon a condition called “chronic halitosis”, more commonly known as bad breath. Until this point, bad breath was not considered to be that big of deal but Listerine changed that. According to James B. Twitchell, Professor of English and Advertising at the University of Florida, “Listerine did not make mouthwash as much as it made halitosis.” The revenues of Listerine went from $115,000 to more than $8 million in just seven years.

The same could be said for Head and Shoulders shampoo. How many of you were afraid to even scratch your head in public during their ad campaigns in the 70’s and 80’s showing people worrying about dandruff if they did? Now we have to worry about wearing dark clothes because of flakes.

Politicians are the experts of spin. They like to do tiny things that really do not have much affect on our lives, or may be totally useless activities, and then tell us how wonderful they are. A good example of this is the recent implementation of the child booster seat law in Ontario.

Although the goal behind this law is laudable - the idea of saving children’s lives - the reality has to be put into perspective. A recent study found a child was four times more likely to suffer serious injury when wearing a seat belt alone than if they had been using a booster seat. This sounds like a no-brainer but is it really such a priority?

Statistics for the year 2002 show that there were 203,704 injuries and deaths in Canada due to motor vehicle collisions. Of that amount, 16,021, or just under 7%, were children aged 0-14. How many of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented by the use of a booster seat is unknown but even if only one child’s life were saved the law would be worthwhile. The question becomes whether the triumphant pronouncements by the government on how much they are saving our lives are justified?

A lot can be extrapolated from other safety initiatives that have taken place in the United States over the years. Much has been made about how child safety seats have saved out children over the years. The designs, say the manufacturers, are allowing more and more children to survive. But is it the $200 car seat or the fact that they are now placing their children in the back seat, facing backwards and belted in as opposed to carrying the child in the parent’s lap where they become a projectile in a car accident?

Recent innovations give us some clues. Child-resistant packaging saves approximately 50 lives per year, flame-retardant pyjamas 10 lives, air bags in cars five children and safety drawstrings on children’s clothing two lives. When you consider that nearly five million car seats are sold each year, one cannot help but be suspicious. It is a case of creating an outrage greater than the actual hazard. The recent Pit Bull ban in Ontario is another example.

Which is why we should all take these stories with grain of salt and try to keep it all in perspective. After all, it would nice to prove PT Barnum wrong when he said “there is a sucker born ever minute,” wouldn’t it?

Avain Flu in Canada

2005-11-05T09:16:00.000-05:00

The reader who thinks the news can be delivered untouched by human hands and uncorrupted by human minds is living in a state of vincible ignorance.

Thomas Griffith

There is a crisis looming in Canada, a crisis that may very well be the difference between life and death.

Avian flu is spreading around the world and has the potential to kill millions of people. Just to make matters more frightening, it has just been discovered that the 1918 Spanish Flu was also avian in origin. The Spanish Flu, thought to be the mostly deadly pandemic in human history, ravaged the planet. In a matter of months, this flu killed approximately 25 million people worldwide. Some estimates put the total killed as high as 100 million people; it spanned the globe and very few people were spared. Twenty percent of the world population suffered its affects to some extent and 500,000 to 675,000 died in the United States alone.

Many countries, states and cities attempted to impose quarantines. In many countries, theatres, dance halls, churches and other public gathering places were shut down for over a year. Some communities even placed armed guards to stop travelers. Even so, the socio-economic impact was horrendous with so many people sick that everyday life was brought to a standstill. Stores were closed or people were forced to place orders from outside and there are even reports that there were not enough health care workers, due to their own ill health, to look after the victims of the flu. Mass graves were dug by steam shovel and bodies buried without coffins in many places because there were not enough able-bodied gravediggers to inter the dead.

Beware, the next great pandemic is coming!

Give me a break.

We have all seen these reports in the media - the “beware” warnings, the doom and gloom scenarios, the sky is falling. These are great for grabbing attention and selling papers and, apparently, for unnecessarily scaring the heck out of people.

Let’s take a look at the Spanish Flu outbreak, the one they are all comparing to the most recent avian flu.

Although the Spanish Flu was undoubtedly one of the worst pandemics to actually affect the modern world, it does have to be put in context. As some of you may, or may not, know there was a little known event happening in 1918 called World War One. This little known war may have had a slight affect on the flu.

The fact that it is commonly called the Spanish Flu actually has to do with the war. When the outbreak first occurred, there was more coverage in the Spanish press than anywhere else due to Spain not being involved in the war, ergo, they were not suffering from wartime censorship. Unlike today, public officials also tried to prevent panic by referring to it as “only the flu” or “the grippe”.

The War and the flu may be intricately linked in many ways. It is believed that the flu may have contributed to the end of the war as many countries were suffering the domestic effects of this illness as well as militarily. In fact, more American soldiers died from the flu than from the war itself.

We also have to keep in mind the dreadful conditions the soldiers were enduring at the time. Trench warfare had itself taken a toll on soldiers. Living in cold, damp conditions, soldiers were exposed to a variety of viral and bacteriological conditions, not to mention the use of chemical weapons and the effects they had on their immune system. This could account for the nearly 22% mortality rate suffered within the Indian Army compared to 5% of the general population. Overall, it is estimated that between 2.5% and 5% of the world population died. Interestingly enough, Japan only had a 0.425% mortality rate, much lower than nearly all other Asian countries.

The war also had another affect. A product known as Bayer Aspirin was just hitting the market in the United States at the time. With Bayer being German, many people distrusted the drug and even thought it might be a form of germ warfare. This was even suggested by US government officials.

The reality is the next pandemic may have already happened and we just didn’t notice.

Our technology and medical advances have contributed greatly to our increase in life expectancy. A large part of this is due to the capability of being able to treat many diseases, which at one time killed many people. Measles was once a very deadly disease but with modern treatments it is considered more a nuisance than anything else.

Comparing the Spanish Flu pandemic to modern flu outbreaks is like comparing them to Bubonic Plague. The Spanish Flu was almost 100 years ago and, I don’t know if you noticed, things have changed a little since then.

When the Spanish Flu broke out it spread around the world with little notice initially. In those days, there was no World Health Organization to monitor such things. Look at how quickly they had a handle on the current avian flu. Let’s keep in mind that in the same amount of time that the WHO has been tracking the avian flu, the Spanish Flu had killed millions of people. To date, the latest flu has killed about 60 people after two years.

Medical science has also progressed in the identification of disease. In 1918, doctors thought bacteria were the cause of the flu. Much valuable time and resources went into attempting to treat the wrong thing. The belief was that a vaccine against these bacteria would help cure it when, in fact, it was only one of many causes of the secondary pneumonia with which the epidemic was associated.

Which brings us to medicine. The majority of deaths caused by the Spanish Flu were from secondary causes not the flu itself. Pneumonia was one of the major ones, fever another. Given the prevalence of antibiotics to treat the pneumonia and the ability to just go to the corner store and pick up some Aspirin, or some generic version of it, many of the deaths that happened in 1918-19 would nowadays never happen.

It is good to be vigilant but the near panic that is happening is ridiculous. The recent ban on Australian import of Canadian birds is a fine example. The discovery of avian flu antibodies in these birds, prompting the ban, indicates that at one time they were exposed to bird flu - not that they have the flu. Since they do not actually have the virus, there is no chance of these birds making anything else sick with it. Top it all off with the fact there are some 144 avian influenzas in the world, and they don’t even know what kind these birds had, it can only add up to a panic reaction on the part of the Australians.

So keep it all in perspective and remember that every headline you read and hear is designed to grab your attention. Take it all with a grain of salt, don’t be a Chicken Little.

Year of the Veteran? Not for Me

2005-11-05T09:13:00.000-05:00

Our business in this world is not to succeed, but to continue to fail, in good spirits.

Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–1894), Scottish novelist

Did you ever wonder what happened to customer service?

It seems as if the very concept of customer service is dying. Go to your average department store and you will experience it. Surly clerks, lack of staff and unhelpful managers seem to be endemic.

Since the dawn of the department store we have had inattentive clerks. Contrary to movies, there is always something more important than waiting on customers to a part-time teenage clerk. That is the nature of the beast. When I was that age, girls and hanging with my friends were way more a priority than customers were. Even though I was being paid to wait on them, and did my utmost to appear friendly and courteous, they were an imposition on my time when one of my friends was around.

Small, family-run businesses, on the other hand, thrived on customer service. Members of the community ran these places and, not only would business suffer if the customer service was not up to par, they would have to face the displeasure of their friends and colleagues at the next Chamber of Commerce meeting, the next Shriner’s meeting or even at the bowling alley.

Now, though, bad customer service seems to have crept into all aspects of our lives.

We are constantly being paid lip service from companies. Wal-Mart is a fine example of that. They like to advertise how wonderful they are with all their employees jumping to help but go into the store and try to actually find someone who isn’t wearing a false smile. One can’t blame them really, working under sweatshop conditions, their jobs constantly in jeopardy if they rock the boat, but still, I wouldn’t mind a little customer service. Sorry, but someone greeting me doesn’t really make up for it.

Not to say all companies are like that. Canadian Tire, to their credit, did give me a gift certificate worth $20 to make up for my wife driving into the store to pick something up and then discovering that the item on their website was not actually what they carried. WestJet is also famous for their customer service. Unfortunately, more are like my experience with U-Haul, who gave us a gift certificate that was only good if you rented one of their trucks. Given that renting their trucks was a nightmare, prompting my complaint in the first place, and that I had made it clear that there was very little chance I would ever use their service again, the gesture was an empty one.

But what can you expect when even our politicians have fallen into this model of customer service? Living for the sound bite, they tell you how they are there for the people but then ignore the people.

For example, look at the recent review of the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP). The much-heralded look at the post-secondary situation in this province was supposed to help students continue in school with the aim of helping them find jobs later in life. To that end, former Premier Bob Rae was appointed to look into all aspects of the program.

What did we get in the end? We now have yet another report gathering dust on a shelf in Toronto. Not that it addressed what is probably one of the greatest issues facing OSAP, the ineligibility of the middle class. You see, OSAP is set up to dole out money based on the parent’s income tax returns not real expenses. With ever increasing living expenses, middle class parents have less and less money to pay for a child to continue in school.

But, in keeping with the idea of paying lip service to the customer, the government will throw money at the problem and proclaim the wonder of their existence. Rather than rolling up their sleeves and actually addressing the problems, they will announce some wonderful funding, get some headlines and continue on doing nothing.

Then there is my own personal experience with the Federal government.

After my retirement from the Canadian Armed Forces, I was supposed to get a Certificate of Service, a Service Pin and a wallet card. That was 7 years ago and I am still waiting.

I have attempted over the years to find out where they are. In typical governmental bureaucratic fashion, I was bounced from department to department until, finally, I was told they had been sent to me. But where had they gone?

Finally, this summer, after tracking down phone numbers, leaving countless messages and having to involve my Member of Parliament just to get someone to return my calls I was told...they had been sent. Not where, just sent.

Having had enough of this run-around, I again invoked my Member of Parliament to find out where. Finally, I was given an answer. In a classic example of the ineptness that Ottawa has become famous for amongst the rank and file of the Armed Forces, they had sent it to an address that was two years out of date. Not only was this an old address but, there were two messages correcting it sent to Ottawa and no other paperwork showed this address. But, I should pay for replacements.

Say what?

Being a man of principal (and a bit stubborn), I set out to prove it was their incompetence, and therefore their responsibility, that caused this situation. I gathered up all my documentation, scanned it and emailed it all off to my Member of Parliament, the Minster of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence.

To her credit, my Member of Parliament, Rose-Marie Ur, immediately emailed back an acknowledgement of receipt and some suggestions, but the other two? Nothing!

Finally, after over a month of waiting, I received a response from Veterans Affairs. Again, in their characteristic manner of giving customer service, they informed me that they were passing the buck to National Defence. They did not, at anytime, say they would help but instead, said that since I had written the Minister of National Defence they were sure he would address the issue.

Did I mention that, to date, I have heard nothing from National Defence?

Given this is the “Year of the Veteran” you would think there might be more consideration given to this problem, especially since the main reason I want this now is to get Veterans plates for my car.

Perhaps it is just to make former military members feel like they are back in the service. I certainly feel like it. This is the same sort of run-around one would get as a raw recruit. Maybe that is what they are after, to make me feel comfortable by treating me in a manner that I am used to, one that, like the smell of your mom’s baking, elicits memories of earlier days. Now that’s customer service.

Public Figures Just Can't Win in Canada

2005-11-05T09:10:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the grand illusion,
Come on in and see what happening,
Pay your price, get your ticket for the show.

Styx, “The Grand Illusion” (1977)

With the smell of turkey in the air, and the phantom ache of my missing wisdom tooth in my mouth, I sit and reflect on what I am thankful for.

When we look around the world there are many things, which we, as Canadians, can be thankful for. I have only to look around me to see that.

I have a roof over my head that is not in danger of coming down in a hurricane or being flooded out. I have a TV to watch, although there is usually nothing on and I have warmth that I may be able to afford this winter. My wife would be thankful if I finished putting up the drywall and actually replace the roof on the front of the house but I believe, in the big picture, she is thankful for this house as well.

We are both thankful that we aren’t Americans, given the situation there.

But mostly, I am extremely thankful that I am not a public personality in this country.

We, in this country, seem not to be happy unless we are blaming a politician for something, whether it is their fault or not.

In this province we elected Mike Harris to be Premier. Why did we do that? We believed he would keep his promises. For the entire time he was Premier he did exactly as he said he would. He stopped pandering to special interest groups, he took on the unions and he attempted to represent the silent majority, that group of people who were too busy trying to earn a living to be at Queen’s Park protesting.

For that, he was pilloried by the media, ridiculed by people and has basically been relegated to history as a bad Premier by the populace. Never mind that he was re-elected by a majority and was the one politician who kept to his word. Even now, the media talks about how refreshing it would be to have politicians who were completely up front, the very people who complained about Mike Harris.

Prime Minister Martin is another figure who just can’t seem to win lately. Last week, in a speech to American businessmen and on CNN, the Prime Minister finally got tough over the whole softwood lumber dispute. He pointed out how the American tariffs were adding an average of a thousand dollars to the cost of every new house built in the United States and how it put the entire North American Free Trade Agreement in jeopardy.

Of course, the Conservatives immediately attacked him. Their opinion is that he should stop making threats and get back to negotiating a settlement. It seems to me the whole dispute mechanism was negotiated with the United States; so what is there to settle? And why would we believe them anyway? There is just as much chance we would negotiate a settlement just to have the United States ignore it in the future. The only time they seem to insist on anyone living up to any agreement with them is when the rulings go in their favour. Unfortunately, the Conservatives seem to be so in bed with the Americans that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

It is sad, but a reality, that the Americans only respect strength. Unless someone stands up and slaps them in the face, they tend to ignore the truth. Even the vague threat of linking oil exports to the States to any retaliatory action has finally got their attention. Even the prestigious Wall Street Journal has come out in favour of the PM’s statements.

Perhaps we should keep up the momentum by launching a massive public relations campaign to show the American people the harm their administration is doing with their blatant disregard of NAFTA. Then we should launch a lawsuit against the United States government for breach of contract and damages. These are the types of things the Americans take notice of.

Then there is the whole David Dingwall affair. Dingwall, who was, until recently, the CEO of the Royal Canadian Mint and is a former cabinet minister, has been attacked by the opposition for excessive spending while CEO. Once again we have missed the point.

Sure, one can question the mentality of a person making $277,000 a year submitting receipts for packs of gum and bottles of water but the bigger question is who approved these expenses? He, in the big picture, did nothing wrong with submitting receipts for these. The real problem, and the part that should be the major issue in parliament, is that someone actually approved the payment of these. Sure there maybe a mentality of entitlement within the government, (which may explain why he even thought he should be paid back) but until the people who approve such expense are brought to account this situation will continue.

It is the same thing with Paul Coffin and the advertising scandal in Quebec. Coffin is the person who recently pleaded guilty to fraud for billing the government for services not rendered. The larger problem is that this situation is endemic in the dealing of government contracts, whether federal, provincial or municipal. Advertising, and other service contracts, are considered to be cash cows for any company that gets them. Not only are you expected to pad the bill due to the lack of government oversight, but the officials who are in charge of awarding these contracts expect to be wined and dined by anyone who wants these contracts. Until we address those sorts of issues we, the taxpayer, will continue to be ripped off. Like suckers at a magic show, we continue to be fooled by the misdirection put out by the various players, who with one hand point at someone else while emptying our wallets with the other hand.

So, with this in mind, I am also thankful for my wisdom tooth. At least I knew what was causing the pain and, unlike our politicians, it was easily removed so I can go on with my life.

George Bush, Stephen Harper and Low Black IQs - A Mixed Bag

2005-10-05T08:13:00.000-04:00

Thinking is the most unhealthy thing in the world, and people die of it just as they die of any other disease. Fortunately thought is not catching.

Oscar Wilde (1854–1900), Anglo-Irish playwright, author

Ah, sweet solitude.

I had the opportunity to be a bachelor again this week when my wife went away to a conference. Sitting around in my bathrobe, eating Kraft Dinner and watching whatever I wanted on TV, what could be better?

And the solitude. But in the peace and quite my brain began to work (had to happen sometime). I started to ponder the state of the world, the universe and the meaning of life, all this while calculating how much time it would take to clean up before she got home.

Then I had an epiphany. There are a lot of things in this world that are worthy of note but not much more. So, in that light, here is what you get because I had the house to myself.

Has anyone noticed since George Dub-yah Bush was elected the hurricanes seem to have gotten worse? Just look at Katrina and Rita. Katrina was not unusual other than it hit a city that someone was dumb enough to build below sea level in a hurricane zone. Then along comes Rita, which instead of losing strength when it hits the cooler water stirred up by Katrina, follows exactly along the narrow band of warm water that wasn’t affected by Katrina. Then, once it has gained strength, it heads directly for...Texas, where good ol’ George is from. Florida has also been hit pretty bad in the last few years, you might well say, but who is the governor of Florida? Jeb Bush.

On a related topic, I have also noticed George has visited the hurricane hit areas more in the past few weeks then he has visited the 9/11 site since it happen four years ago. Hmmmmm.

Speaking of Stephen Harper (that is called a samurai segue) did you hear that his lack of popularity is because the “liberal” press is picking on him? Awe, poor baby. Hey Stephen, I have an idea, perhaps it’s because people don’t like you. Given that I was once a member of the Young Conservatives, that I was a card carrying member of the Reform party, before they even had anyone elected to parliament, and that I voted for Brian Mulroney (yes, I admit it) you would think I would be a current supporter. Not!

Maybe it is because they have been acting like a bunch of buffoons that their numbers have dropped. After his behaviour during the V.E. day celebrations, when he kept threatening to bring a non-confidence motion before the house while the Prime Minister was in Holland, he lost any chance of getting my vote. All he would have had to do was stand up and tell the country that this event was too important for politics and, out of respect for the veterans, he would not attempt to bring down the house while the celebrations were going on. But, nooooo, he instead figured it was appropriate to play politics. To me, it just showed that he cared very little about this country and was after nothing else but power. Personally, I think we should have a petition to remove honourable from his title until he earns it.

In the “you’ve got to be kidding” category, did you hear that the Vatican is debating whether to ban the Prime Minister from having communion because of the whole gay marriage thing? Apparently the Vatican feels the necessity to pressure politicians into doing what it believes to be right.

I find it interesting that the very institution that kept quiet while Nazi Germany interred and executed millions of people suddenly feels the need to stick its nose into gay marriage. While thousands of Catholics are being burned out of their homes, beaten and killed in Zimbabwe, the Pope worries about people of the same sex getting married? Of course, we also cannot forget about the particularly stellar history of the Catholic church sticking its nose into the politics of a nation. Let’s not forget what a great job they did with the Spanish inquisition and the Crusades. Is it any wonder that the Middle Eastern countries don’t trust us?

Then there is the story of the radio psychiatrist in Quebec who offended all the blacks. Dr. Pierre Mailloux, a popular radio host in Quebec, said that blacks have lower IQs than other people. His reasoning was, in the past, slave owners would kill the smarter slaves thus leaving the ones with lower IQs. This was all based on an unnamed United States study. Meanwhile, in Toronto they are currently discussing the idea of a special school for black students, which the various black advocacy groups are heralding. It would seem that black students are having trouble with the white curriculum.

Finally, there was the unanimous decision last week by the Supreme Court to allow the British Columbia government to go ahead with its lawsuit against a number of tobacco companies. The reason they are doing this, they say, is to recover health care costs for smoking related illnesses. Once more, in their myopic attempt to get money and garner public support, a provincial government is blindly leading us down a path to destruction.

Given that cigarettes are a controlled substance, if the BC government wins this lawsuit, then smokers can then sue the BC government for allowing it to be sold in the first place. There is also the lawsuit to get back taxes because the reasoning behind taxing cigarettes so heavily was to recover health care costs.

But, the worst part is the precedent that it sets. If BC wins, then one could sue the car manufacturers for not building safer cars and polluting the air. We could sue any company that has ever produced a dangerous chemical or product. How about we sue the municipal government for getting rid of horse drawn streetcars and replacing them with buses, hence exposing us to dangerous carbon monoxide. Or the federal government for allowing gasoline to even exist. And best of all, the provincial government for allowing the coal-fired electric generators to spew it’s crap into the air for all these years. Did I mention that Ontario is contemplating suing the tobacco companies too? This one is worth watching.

So, now you see why I am not left alone very often. But do not worry, my mind has now moved on to more important issues, such as, how I will fit the frying pan, that I am not supposed to put into the dishwasher, into the dishwasher. Luckily, the dogs cleaned the pot that I made my KD in.

Gas Prices Could Cause A Recession

2005-10-05T08:09:00.000-04:00

Fools make researches and wise men exploit them.

H.G. (Herbert George) Wells (1866-1946), British author.

Well, this was not the article I had originally planned on writing. I had, in fact, already started another one but events preceded me. So, instead I find myself changing subjects and writing on the one topic that has been on everyone’s mind lately. No, I am not talking about hurricane Rita but gasoline prices.

We are all aware of the madness that happened recently when a rumour of gasoline prices reaching two dollars a litre circulated. There were line-ups of panicked people buying gas and a fight actually broke out at one gas station in Toronto. But where did it all begin? No one seems to know.

What did, in fact, happen is a few individual gas stations across the province, and other provinces, suddenly cranked up their prices by as much as seventy cents per litre or more. The only explanation anyone could come up with was it was a reaction to the possible disruption of the refineries in Texas caused by hurricane Rita. (Okay, I guess in a way I am writing about hurricane Rita.)

Chaos ensued with people rushing to buy gas at the current price (no matter what, I cannot bring myself to call it a low price). The premier called on Ottawa to do something and the oil industry spokespeople scrambled to settle everything down. Their explanation was it was a few “independent” stations that did this.

The reality is the stations I have seen on the news with these outrageous prices were none other than (drum roll please) our very own PetroCanada. Not only is this not an independent but these stations are not allowed to adjust their prices without permission from their head office. But the oil companies would like us to believe that these were just a few rogue stations.

Of course, our governments, both federal and provincial, are out to lunch again. Premier Dalton McGuinty, reacting to the madness, called on the federal government to investigate.

"Why is it (gas prices) seem to go up so much faster than they come down?" he said at a Liberal caucus retreat in Kitchener, Ont.

Hey Dalton, who cares? Wouldn’t it be better to investigate their manipulation of the market in the first place? Oh, and by the way, why don’t you actually do something about it like you promised you would?

However, the federal government is investigating, again, why the prices vary so much throughout the country but are regionally the same no matter what the company. Never mind that they were supposed to set-up a department to oversee the petroleum industry two years ago. Why bother, when the oil companies are doing such a good job making sure that they don’t rip us off.

So, here is my theory as to what happened. I believe PetroCanada told these stations to raise their prices. They may have done it in collusion with the other players but the effect was the same, they sold huge amounts of gasoline. The oil companies made a killing last week off these few stations jacking up their prices and, to top it all off, suddenly the current prices seem cheap. Go figure.

Think this if far fetched? Just look at some of the other things that we see and hear. Have you ever seen another industry that says they have to raise their prices to be the same as everyone else to stay competitive? That’s like saying no one is going to buy a car because it is cheaper than other makes.

Then, there was the huge increase early in the summer. According to the industry people, this was due to reserves being low. Why, going into the summer driving season, would they not have increased reserves, especially when this happens every year? I’ll tell you why, because then you can artificially inflate the price and make more profits. Never mind the fact that, a month later, we discover the reserves are in fact higher than they were last year. Oh, and what happened to the prices after this news broke? Absolutely nothing, they stayed the same.

And then there was hurricane Katrina, followed by Rita. With the disruption of the refineries and oil platforms, we were, of course, going to pay more for gasoline. After all, Louisiana is responsible for ten percent of United States refining capabilities while Texas accounts for twenty-six percent. Hmmmm, last time I looked we were not sending our oil down to Texas to be turned into gasoline for Canadians to use. Unless, of course, it is for all those Canadians who like to winter down there.

We desperately need our governments to get off their collective butts and actually do something for a change. The time for mollycoddling this industry has to end or it will destroy this country.

With the increase in energy costs, consumer goods cannot help but increase in price and this includes necessities such as food. Add to that the increased price of fresh vegetables and fruits come winter when they are being brought in from the United States. Five dollars or more is not out of the question for a head of lettuce and, when you are paying those kinds of prices, you have very little left for that new TV. This creates a trickle down effect with people having less and less disposable income to spend on luxury goods. This is how recessions start.

Soon manufacturers and retailers have no choice but to start to lay people off as inflation takes it toll on the economy. Interest rates start to soar as the Bank of Canada attempts to stir investment. All those people who bought their big cars and trucks at employee discount pricing are out of work and can’t afford to pay for them. Families living in quarter million-dollar homes bought while interest rates where low, find the cost of their mortgage sky rocketing while they hang precariously on to their jobs. Money for food is hard enough to come by let alone extras, so the cycle continues.

Scary? It could happen unless the government does something now. And it has to be meaningful. Harebrained ideas like allowing some sort of rebate on income tax won’t do me a whole lot of good if I am out of work because I couldn’t afford the gasoline to get there. I do have to agree with the government on one thing, (mark that on your calendars) cutting the gas tax would not help, the fuel companies would only pocket the money.

We have to stop looking at oil like some manufactured product and start treating it like the natural resource that it is. We don’t send all our lumber to the United States and then import more from Europe nor do we send our iron ore there and then buy steel from China. Why then do we allow the oil producers to ship the majority of our oil to the United States and then buy what we need for domestic use from overseas?

We need true action now. You and I know we are being gouged, you can see it just in the difference in price between London and Strathroy, so why can’t our government? The truth is they can but refuse to do something about it. But, for a change, we have some power because there is an election coming in the near future. Just for something different, let’s keep the pressure on and get something done. Put aside the typical Canadian apathy and force your Member of Parliament to actually earn the title of honourable. This time there is too much at stake.

Screwed Up Government Priorities

2005-09-25T12:02:00.000-04:00

There's too many men
Too many people
Making too many problems
And not much love to go round
Can't you see
This is a land of confusion.

Land of Confusion, Genesis(1986)

It’s all a matter of priorities.

Some priorities are self-evident. Case in point, the roof on my workshop.

As Trish so eloquently pointed out in an earlier column, she saw me on the roof tearing things off and hammering things together. This was because whenever it rained outside, it also rained in my workshop. We had a choice, either turn it into an open-air patio or fix it. So, it became a priority.

Unfortunately, it should have been a priority sooner as the shape of the wood underneath indicated. And that is the thing with priorities; they constantly change. It was not a priority at 9:25 Sunday morning to unlock my car but at 9:30 when the car alarm suddenly went off, it became a priority. I won’t even go into the fact that we didn’t even know it had a car alarm, which now makes going to the dealership in London a priority.

Some priorities are less clear.

My wife has the opinion that putting up drywall in the living room is a priority. For some reason, she has the opinion walls are an integral part of the house and, without them, as she so delicately puts it, the house looks like Harlem. I, on the other hand, think it is a priority to download that song I want off the Internet (which, at the time of this writing is still legal in Canada). According to my wife, I have what is called “misplaced” priorities.

All this may explain why I do not understand our provincial government. I just cannot figure out the reason behind their priorities.

First they shove through the closing of the coal-fired generating plants. On the surface, this may seem like a good way of getting rid of some of the air pollution Ontario suffers through every summer. Unfortunately, with a 400 percent increase in coal generation in the United States over the last 20 years, the chances are it will make very little difference. Also, when you consider that coal generation produces 25 percent of our electricity at 50 percent of the cost of other sources, I kind of like having them running.

It is unclear to me why the government couldn’t just require the coal plants to put in scrubbers. Not only is there technology to remove the sulphur emissions but there are also new technologies for removal of carbon dioxide. It wouldn’t have done much to reduce the pollution from the US since Americans only require scrubbers on new plants so everyone is busy expanding the existing ones, but hey, it would have made us feel better. It may also have cost money but, even if it cost as much as a natural gas fired plant, it would still be cheaper than closing them down and building new plants.

Then, there is the Pit Bull ban.

This ban, put in place in the name of public safety, confuses me. One cannot argue that the attacks by these dogs are horrific but you have to wonder about the thought behind this ban. First, there is the vagueness of it. If you happen to own a dog that looks like it might be related to a Pit Bull, you fall under the new legislation. Did the government set this up so they could keep their lawyers employed? The vagueness of the definition of Pit Bull practically ensured it would be challenged, especially since Pit Bull isn’t even a real breed.

Perhaps, we should ban all breeds that are involved in fatal human attacks. This would, according to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, ban such dangerous breeds as West Highland Terriers and Cocker Spaniels. Typically, no group in Canada tracks this sort of thing.

Meanwhile, back in the Bat Cave, a store clerk was recently shot in the foot during a robbery attempt in London. A few weeks before, there was a spectacular smash and grab in London that ended with gunshots and two dead. Almost weekly, it seems, there is another gun death in Toronto. Gun violence is on the rise in this country and what is our government doing about it? Sweet diddly-squat.

The Premier of Ontario, when asked what his government’s plans were to deal with this wave of violence, responded they were putting 1000 new police on the streets. Only when you look closely, do you discover the government will only pay half of the cost of these additional police officers while the municipalities are expected to pony up the remainder. These would be the same municipalities that are struggling to get out of the red.

Of course, one cannot just blame the province for ignoring this problem. The federal government is just as guilty of this behaviour as the rest. With almost $1 billion dollars already sunk into the gun registry, their latest brain wave is to force the police and military to register their weapons. Yep, that will definitely make the streets safer.

Here’s an idea, how about doing something useful?

It is time we forced our politicians to actually take meaningful action and stop with the window dressing. If they want to have a useful registry, then it needs to be a birth to death registry. Any gun made needs to be registered before it even leaves the factory. Furthermore, to make it actually useful, there needs to be a ballistic fingerprint taken so the police have something they can actually use in an investigation.

We need to beef up our security at the borders and along the coasts so these weapons can be intercepted. According to the union representing border guards, only one in twenty illegal weapons are being caught. We need more people to search for these weapons. Of course, they could come across by boat and we can hope that one of the three Coast Guard ships that patrol ALL of the Great Lakes intercepts them.

In the meantime, we can all feel better knowing that in the future the smog we are breathing isn’t being produced by an Ontario coal-fired generator. We will also be able to walk down the street safe from a vicious dog attack, our only worry being those pesky bullets.

But, then again, perhaps my priorities are misplaced.

Honour? Not in Canada

2005-05-05T10:18:00.000-04:00

You have got to be kidding with what has been going on in parliament especially with the Conservatives.

Stephen Harper and his cronies have shown no sign of any type of leadership but a definite desire to rule this country at any cost. How do they believe that paralysing the house is to the benefit of Canada? The only thing that is obvious in this whole debacle is a Conservative desire for power at any cost.

Ironically, this situation reminds me of another country who suffered the same problem.

Germany in 1933 had a divided legislature with a young upstart party known as the National Socialists who had gained a number of seats in the previous election. They used intimidation and strong arm tactics to paralyse that house as well until they were given the concessions they were after, namely making Hitler chancellor. Once in that position he solidified his party standing and we all know where that led.

Now, in Canada, we have the Conservatives behaving the same way.

It would have been so easy for Mr. Harper to have stood up and promised not to bring a non-confidence motion before the house during the period of the Victory in Europe celebrations. This would not only have shown leadership but respect for the veterans who willingly sacrificed their lives for the very freedoms Mr. Harper enjoys. But nooooo, instead he uses it to control Prime Minister Martins movements and shows utter disdain for the veterans. While the Dutch are turning out in droves to applaud our people this pathetic excuse for a Canadian is strutting around Parliament play acting at being Canadian.

I have no great love for the Liberals and the fact that Mr. Cretien seems to be getting away virtually unscathed by the mess he created in Quebec, at least Prime Minister Martin doesn't make me want to be sick. As a one-time member of the Reform Party it saddens me that a concept for fixing the country has been perverted to this garbage. Where is Preston Manning when you need him?

As long as Mr. Harper is in charge of the Conservatives they will never receive my vote. I will not condone powermongering nor will I have a part in this un-Canadian behaviour. We are a caring, tolerant society and this redneck behaviour has got to end and it has to end now before this country is destroyed.

Of Mice and Belinda Stronach

2005-05-05T10:17:00.000-04:00

Today Belinda Stronach became a Liberal. The one time candidate for head of the Conservative Party has crossed the floor.

I have heard many journalists panning her for her decision to become a Liberal and many disparaging remarks but I am on her side.

She has been accused of opportunism and desertion. I cannot accept that. Belinda has always been a strong person who held to her convictions no matter what. She made a public stand against the Conservative view on equal marriage and it has always been known that she was a "progressive" Conservative. Unfortunately, the rest of the party isn't.

This is not the same Conservative Party that she ran for a year ago. At that time there was much hope for it to emerge from the amalgamation of the Progressive Conservatives and the Alliance to form a bright new alternative to the ruling Liberals. This did not happen.

Instead the Conservatives have degenerated into a bunch of hooligans. They have shown no grand vision for this country and their policy seems to be nothing more than to disagree with whatever the Liberals say. They have become mean spirited and completely disdainful of the Canadian people. The "bring down the government at all cost" attitude is yet another example of this. Even though poll after poll has shown that Canadians do not want an election at this time Stephen Harper continues to forge ahead.

With this kind of leadership and the obvious lack of consideration for what is actually best for all of Canada is it any wonder she switched sides?

I think her decision to become a Liberal shows that she is one of the few politicians going right now that truly cares for the country and not just their own little world. She is a woman of conviction and principle who just could not put up with the redneck behaviour of her former party.

Even in her address to the media she took the high road and toned down all the things that she could have said about Harper and his cronies. Too bad he couldn't do the same but then again what can you expect from that bunch.

Which leaves only one thing to be said, I, for one, would definitely vote for Belinda as Prime Minister.

McGuinty Government Accused of Election Fraud

2004-11-14T10:31:00.000-05:00

Those of you who faithfully read my column every week, know how hesitant I am about voicing my opinion. This is especially true when it concerns politics. Everyone knows that politics and religion are two subjects that should never be discussed in friendly conversation.

This week I am going to ignore that rule.

With that in mind, I am about to get on my soapbox and lay it on the line. I am not talking about a box of Tide either, but the bona fide, down and dirty, wooden box of the good old days. And, what I have to say is, "enough is enough!!"

I have been watching with great chagrin the behaviour of our current government. The Liberals, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, seem to care very little about the promises they made during their election campaign. Everyday it is a different promise broken.

We will, of course, be told the deficit is the cause. Yeah right! If I hear that one more time I am going to scream! (at which point, some men in white coats with a special jacket for me, will probably come to take me away). Not that there will be that many surprised.

The problem is we have come to accept things this way. We all expect the politicians to lie to us. We have created a culture where we are expect to be sheep and just accept what we are told. Then the politicians wonder why voters are cynical.

Well, I for one have had it. As they said in the movie Network, "I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore".

I mean really, if you or I were to stand up in front of a crowd of people or reporters and promised things, it would be considered a contract. If we broke that contract, we, at the very least, would be sued. Not that they could get anything out of me because, as the saying goes "you can’t get blood out of a stone" but, they could try.

Purposely misleading the public, to me, is fraudulent and a breech of contract. The Liberals are acting more like we are married than as guardians of the province. They are not a husband who promises to do something but never quite gets around to it, they are our workers (used loosely). When we voted we hired the politicians as employees of the province and, as you could with any employee, if they lied during the interview they could be fired.

It is time this ended for good. This breech of the public trust every election is criminal and needs to have a stop put to it. We don’t accept it from companies like Enron, why should we allow it here?

This is what I am proposing. I have started a petition on my new website. In it, I am petitioning the Solicitor General of Canada, Wayne Easter, to immediately ask for either a public or RCMP inquiry into this affair.

If this request is turned down, or ignored, (a more likely scenario) then this list could immediately be used as the basis for a class action lawsuit. I figure what the heck. If it’s good enough for the Americans, why not us?

Of course, I would need the help of a lawyer, so if there are any out there who are willing to help for free, email me. I won’t hold my breath waiting but you never know. I heard a rumour about one with a heart once.

So, people, let’s stand up and be counted. Let’s show them that we expect integrity and honesty from our appointed leaders. Let’s show them what we are made of and that we are not going to take it anymore. Let’s immediately go to www3.sympatico.ca/robb.macqueen.

At the very least, it may scare them enough to make any future politician think twice before they jerk the public around. Then again…

Restructuring the Canadian Armed Forces

2004-11-13T11:06:00.000-05:00

The Canadian Armed Forces is in dire straits.

With a reported shortfall of $500 million, increased deployments and an indifferent government, some drastic decisions must be made.

First, and foremost, the government in Ottawa must stop the double standard of treating the military as yet another government department while sticking its nose into every little aspect of the CF. It is mind boggling that $100 million can disappear in the sponsorship scandal, Human Resources Development Canada can blow $1 Billion and the Federal Gun Registry is allowed to balloon from a couple of million dollars to a projected cost of $2 billion, yet the moment Paul Martin became Prime Minister he froze the program to replace 25 year old armoured vehicles with new ones made in London, Ontario and then acted like he was so wonderful for resuming what was allready in place.

The military is a unique entity and must be allowed to operate as such. It must be allowed to use its budget on the priorities determined by National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ), not by parliament. By necessity, the military must work on extended timelines, as capital procurement takes years, where as politicians only seem to look as far as the next election. These two visions do not mesh nor should either side expect them to.

Unfortunately, even if the military where given discretionary use of its budget, it will do little good without a total revamping of the military hierarchy.

In the past, whenever NDHQ has been forced to make reductions due to spending constraints, the cuts have come from the bottom, leaving the military top heavy. Even under the direction of the Minister of National Defence, NDHQ has continued to play with the numbers to keep the compliment of Flag Officers fairly steady.

The current structure does not reflect the realities of the modern world. Since World War II, the army and navy have carried out the majority of deployments. Even now it is army units in Afghanistan, and naval units in the Arabian Gulf. Yet, the Armed Forces Council, whose job it is to advise the Chief of Defence Staff, has only two army members out of eight people.
It is obvious that a major restructuring is long overdue.

An independent review of the CF command structure should be immediately convened. It should include military experts from all fields as well as representatives of all ranks in the CF. In order to give a semblance of impartiality, it must not contain serving members or anyone currently serving in parliament. And the recommendations must be implemented.

The current financial state of the CF also calls for radical cuts in personnel. With prevailing foreign policy leaning toward ever-increasing commitments to peacemaking, as opposed to peacekeeping, proper equipment also becomes essential. There is the vital replacement of ageing equipment to consider as well. 25 year old Combat Support Vehicles, trucks that are rusting away, replenishment ships sitting idle waiting for replacements, 40 year old helicopters, and destroyers needing either replacement or refit, these all add to the cost of running the military.

There are areas that could be cut that would save millions, if not billions, of dollars. We need to remove the Air Force, Search and Rescue and the Naval Reserve, from the military structure.
There are currently 118 CF18 Hornets in the CF. During the last 15 years we have seen 24 of them deployed during the first Gulf War and 18 sent to participate in the NATO air campaign in the former Yugoslavia. Yet we keep these expensive to run and maintain pieces of equipment. The argument is that they are used to establish sovereignty of our airspace but the reality is that the only threat to our sovereignty at this moment is the United States and 118 planes will not make a difference. We have depended on the US for defence for decades, why not make it official?

Of the 6 Challenger jets, the 4 VIP jets should be transferred to the Transportation Ministry since that is what they do. Let another branch of the government bear the cost of these expensive taxis.

Aircraft that are primarily used by the army should be transferred over to it. The CC130 Hercules transport and the CH146 Griffon helicopter are used principally in support of army operations and should be under army control. The Seakings, and their eventual replacement, should likewise be placed under naval command.

Search and Rescue responsibilities and equipment should be transferred to the Coast Guard, as should the Naval Reserve. Interdepartmental co-operation would make this a beneficial arrangement with the Coast Guard gaining the enhanced capabilities of relatively new Coastal Defence Vessels and the Naval Reserve being given more sea time. Future collaborations on equipment would also ensure new equipment meets Coast Guard needs while ensuring a training platform for the navy.

Maritime patrol aircraft, like the 18 CP140 Aurora’s, would also come under Coast Guard control while the four CC138 Twin Otters would be transferred to the army to continue to support northern operations. The elimination of the CF18’s would negate the need for two of our five CC150 Polaris/Airbus’ to be converted to air-to-air refuellers and all could be transferred to the Ministry of Transport to be used as needed to ferry government or military personnel.

The CF needs innovative solutions to the current crisis our armed forces are facing. We need people who think "outside the box" because inside the box is the past and it is the future we need to be concentrating on.