Venandi

I'm reminded of the rhetoric leading up to the WMD coalition. I remember watching Colin Powell give a speech to the UN and feeling badly for him as the evidence/intelligence presented was pretty weak. The CIA director looked a tad uncomfortable with it all too as I recall. When considering what is tenable and not, unanimity amongst separate bodies doesn't necessarily imply correctness any more than offering an opinion here implies arrogance. Getting it wrong in that part of the world through force or coercion, assuming that the people there want what you want, that they share your views, your values, your interpretation of historical events or can be bullied into accepting resolutions devised by others is how I would define arrogance. As an instrument of foreign policy, that particular brand of arrogance hasn't worked out so excellently over the years... at least from what I've seen. Frankly, I see a lack of situational awareness on display here but most of it (I think) is well intentioned, even if it isn't well informed, practical, or acceptable to the belligerent parties as a workable option. Trying to negotiate with Hamas is a bit like some of the conversations I see on this very forum. Any and all matters of substance are drowned in a sea of ridicule and name calling... and that's on far less difficult topics than this. The only simple part of this equation are the motives that drive Hamas, and even that seems to be a matter of some debate.

Something like this maybe: - Declares that basic human rights are based on the recognition of the value of man, the sanctity of his life, and the fact that he is free. Defines human freedom as right to leave and enter the country, privacy (including speech, writings, and notes), intimacy, and protection from unlawful searches of one's person or property. Any violation of this right shall be "by a law befitting the values of the State, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required". This law also includes instruction regarding its own permanence and protection from changes by means of emergency regulations. - Guarantees every citizen or resident the right to engage in any occupation, profession, or trade". Any violation of this right shall be "by a law befitting the values of the State, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required". This law also includes instruction regarding its own permanence and protection from changes by means of emergency regulations. I left the word Israel out of the above on purpose. Here's a bit more with the word left in... Hamas will always and forever choke on this part: - Defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The Nation-State Law also asserts that the Jewish people have the unique claim to national self-determination in the State of Israel, defines Hebrew as the official language of the state, and gives Arabic a special status in the state. It additionally defines the national symbols, holidays, and calendar of the state. I'll just leave it at that I guess, I don't see Israel as the impediment to peace here. It might just be the neighbours...

OK, I don't know what that means, how it can be used productively or even how to respond to it. If you're suggesting that peace can't happen if Hamas remains a viable entity there then I tend to agree. IMO, peace and Hamas can't even co-exist in the same sentence. Maybe there's a way forward with them at the helm but I just don't see it. I'll leave it at that I guess... very little of the debate here makes sense to me as it doesn't fit with my experience in the area. That said, this guy has a perspective worth listening to regardless of your opinion... personally, I find little here to disagree with for whatever that may be worth:

Yes, the people have to want peace and getting rid of the primary impediment to peace would have been a good first step... not electing it in the first place even better. Unfortunately that choice is off the table now, Israel will remove Hamas as an entity capable of inflicting further harm on them. Stopping short of that objective is to ensure there will be no peace. I believe that's how they see it and I tend to concur with their estimate of the situation. I get that people don't like it, but I don't see them leaving Hamas as a functioning entity. I don't see either side agreeing to that. Israel will never accept foreign meddling in its own defences and forcing western solutions on Islamic peoples hasn't proven to be the most excellent of options either. I'd love to read the proposed Status of Forces Agreement though. The trouble here is that Hamas has managed to turn an ethnic struggle over land into a religious event. Based on my experience there and IMO of course, that wasn't the issue prior to Hamas. It was about land and the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people, which is a difficult enough thing to solve in and of itself. I haven't been there (Gaza area) post Hamas but all of it seems to have changed and not for the better. Turning this into a Jihad (and Hamas has worked hard at that) makes peace even more elusive and intervention more difficult than it was before. My goodness... scripturally so wrong (so deliberately self serving) that correction falls on deaf ears and coherent thought swallows its own tail. If you are going to put forward a brand new doctrine it should at least be consistent from one paragraph to the next. You have a lot of amendments to make and I suspect having them received as divinely inspired will prove significantly more challenging than the rewrite itself. Best of luck... On the other hand though, the forum has just promoted me to the rank of "collaborator." Might be a good time for me to be quiet eh?

For my money that's about as operational as it gets and likely qualifies as something of an oddity in terms of duration of service too... well done. It's more their take/opinion on what will achieve peace I think, that's how I look at it anyway. I just don't see it happening with Hamas at the wheel. They chose a COA and should they survive it as an entity, everyone there will be left with the legacy of it for many years to come. I know a lady who lives in the border Kibbutz's that fell under direct attack from Hamas, she knew everybody there, her car and belongings were trashed. Luck of the draw I guess, she was visiting her daughter in the US at the time. They need (or feel the need) to rid themselves of Hamas, unfortunate but I tend to agree. As I see it, nothing goes anywhere with Hamas continuing as a player. This would be over the second Hamas surrendered and released the hostages. Choices have been made... IMO, Palestinians can have peace anytime they want it. Rooting for you but I doubt it. You can separate the belligerents with a blue hat force but that doesn't solve the underlying issues, And (big AND there) Hamas will never (NEVER) IMO address any of the outstanding issues or legitimate grievances on behalf of the Palestinian people. From the river to the sea isn't a slogan with them, it's a statement of intent. No, professional curiosity I guess. I just don't know anyone who has spent significant time there who thinks anything good can be accomplished with Hamas in place. That's not to say they heartily approve of what's happening, only that most agree with the idea that one way or another, Hamas has to go.

I can't help but wonder if you ever served in any of the UN missions in the area... UNTSO, UNEF, MFO (which wasn't UN, it replaced UNEF)) etc. Flying in and out doesn't count IMO, I think it requires more time and many conversations with locals to assimilate it all in any meaningful way. Even then solutions are elusive and I don't pretend to have one. My last tour was the MFO in 89 but I did do a month of training with the IDF in 2010 and personally, I sense that the players.are more entrenched then they were in 89 (and previously). In other words, the situation is getting harder to resolve not easier. Hamas will never address the legitimate grievances of Palestinians, they are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. so if peace is to be had, there needs to be a new player for Israel to negotiate with. With no partner for peace the process goes no where. If left to survive as an entity, Hamas will fight itself to a standstill at every opportunity and happily deflect relief aid to that endeavour. In short though, I don't know any veterans who have done any or all of those tours (UNEF ended in 79) who would agree with your position. That doesn't mean they aren't out there of course but I'm guessing those who would qualify as rare.

Simple soldiers call it reality. Reality doesn't care what you think or what you believe... the sun rises in the east whether you believe it or not and a woke compass will just get you lost. Unless you happen to have a woke map to go along with it. And in that case, no one else will be able to find you. Look at that... always a plus side eh? The very people simple soldiers hope to encounter "over there", you get home sooner. If Canada is to be destroyed it won't be a foreign adversary that causes it, we'll do it to ourselves and the current trend toward a narrative of self loathing comes to mind (at least for me). Remember this song? It got lots of play in 1967. Woke Liberals would literally loose their s---- if it got the same amount of play time now:

Although wildly off topic (and admittedly not comparable in substance), I found the "Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" saga analogous for three reasons: first it shows what can be accomplished when the media and national security forces (in this case intelligence) are aligned with, and weaponized by, a motivated government. Secondly, it serves as an example of how long it takes to sort through the trail of deception (usually two years or more). And thirdly, by the time the trail is uncovered and documented voters (mostly) don't remember and/or don't care anymore... The people doing this aren't dummies, they carefully analyze the cost / benefit ratio before any action is taken and plausible deniability (at all levels) is anticipated in advance. It's done in "bite size chunks" and each chunk (on its own) doesn't initially appear to be part of the same zebra that's being systematically devoured by a pride of ravenous lions. You have to reassemble the pieces... it takes time, effort, a box of rubber gloves and nose plugs to accomplish. All of that simply to say, that like some of the more liberal posters here, I was intrigued by the motivations of the 50 (or so) analysts who cosigned the document asserting that the laptop (and information contained) was "clearly" a Russian disinformation effort intended to effect the election outcome. I questioned how and why it could possibly be. But suspecting that it was the exact opposite of what was on offer, I went looking for the names and bios of the analysts, their likely motivations for making the assertion, and the markers/evidence that lead them to do so. It was another example of "thirsty work" and limited search skills on my part. I got nowhere with it and abandoned the chase after a bit but it does show how easily it was deployed, how effectively it was communicated and how fleeting voter interest in the deception was. It seems to me that it serves as the perfect example of a well thought out cost/benefit analysis and I can only say "well done." When considering the ease of deployment vs the difficulty of disproving/overcoming it, the NS wolf hoax (accidental deployment by reservists) is instructive... and IMO, cute and funny. But that's just me. Done purely by accident, it was harder to undo and more embarrassing than you would think if viewed as a hypothetical before the fact. Bogus stationary and recorded wolf howls (on a loudspeaker) had greater deployment efficacy than anyone could have reasonably anticipated in advance. That said the effects were certainly limited in both scope and duration but if carefully fed and left to fester, it would have been fun to see how long its legs could have grown. In this case it's noteworthy that that the provincial government shut down all rumours immediately and the media was in lockstep with them. In short, deployment efficacy requires all members of the trinity (government, media and security forces) to be onside. Taking one of those entities out of the equation results in the total collapse of the 3 legged stool that the deception sits on.

OK... I think I can do this too: Goddess, you are wasting your time discussing this with pro vaxxers. There is no changing their embedded thoughts. They feed of each other LOL. Of the 1.6K posts, it is stroking, patting on the back, and sexual enjoyment by a half a dozen or so posters LOL Pro vaxxers are, well, just that, pro most things liberal and woke. They will always come up with something to dispute. The recent outbreak of measles and the unfortunate death of a child from measles was all in unvaccinated persons. The sad consequence of a well earned lack of trust in previously trustworthy institutions. Like, what did they think was going to happen like? I visit here to see that things have not changed. The group is what they are and will always be How'd I do..... Edit: Ooooops, forgot the LOLs , RTFLMAOs, and grade three emoji thingies...

Since you've chosen to be silly I'll leave you to it... our conversation is over. Because experimental vaccines seem to resonate with you I suspect you'll be glad to hear that a new one is under development for the food industry. Bill Gates is supporting startups who are developing vaccines to prevent cow farts and thus save the planet from global warming. Eventually this may get so silly and so dangerous that you notice. Perhaps we can talk rationally then.

Like this? - Once again, you've pooped your pants and proven how much of a clueless bullshitter you are; Or this maybe: - They get in the jello wresting pool and jerk each other off and around. 1.3K posts to admire each others 1diocy. BTW, using a 1 instead of an I in order to post words that fall outside the forum rules doesn't help the argument being put forward. Unless they're lying and deliberately suppressing the very information and "meritorious discussion" you now seem to favour. Ya... I tend to agree. Where was that? Seems to me it's only happening now and most of the people who cheered when their neighbours got fired have gone strangely quiet in the face of information they previously never bothered to search for... or even question. I could readily forgive that were it not for the pervasive ridicule of those unable to even discuss the issues at a high school biology level. I must have missed that whilst searching for the banned opinions of Phd level immunologists. Getting answers to my questions was what my grandfather used to call "thirsty work." Maybe it was because so many of them were, de-platformed, fired and publicly ridiculed. Literally one hours worth of honest research would have been sufficient for the Ivermectin "are you a horse?" crowd to ask sensible questions rather than spewing those "hyperbolic adverbs" you refer to. It's still going on BTW, take the inquiry into the Emergencies Act. If 87% of the source documents remain deliberately classified and thus unavailable for distribution, analysis and reflection, you might as well save the money spent on the inquiry and simply give Canadians the middle finger they voted for.

I sometimes wonder if everything we saw could have been accomplished without the efforts of a compliant media. At a minimum, the motivation to gleefully hammer neighbours into the dirt, and then applaud and defend the doing of it would have been a much tougher sell and far less socially acceptable than it seems to be now. The unholy trinity requires government, media and national security forces to be in lockstep. When they are, much can be accomplished. Take even one of them out of the equation though and the task becomes much more difficult. Although gravely disappointed in how most Canadians conducted themselves, I have to say I was impressed with what the government was able to accomplish, largely by controlling the message and limiting (essentially banning) contrary opinion Take a moment and Imagine if Covid had never happened, or consider the opinions that would have existed 20 years ago... then imagine if someone right here (on this forum) started a "what if" thread about a world wide pandemic. Suppose they described exactly what actually happened during covid and suggested that the actions taken by government, media, and law enforcement were right, proper and perfectly understandable under the circumstances. I'd wager that virtually no one here would actually believe that it could ever happen, most would say "no, I would never do that and I would never support any government who would." If you were to then summarize some of the the hateful comments (in this thread alone) and apply them to the hypothetical thread above, most of the authors of those comments would assert that they "would never say such a thing." Such is the power and effect of information management on scared populations. Basic leadership suggests that if you take a group of people who are scared and/ or angry, give them a leader who says "I have the solution, follow me," most (about 70%) will follow. Some out of fear, some out of desperation and some because they sincerely believe in the course of action with a zeal that rivals religion. Then there are those who will have a coffee, calmly smoke a cigarette and compare the compass to the sun, the map to the mountain and say "weight a minute guys, lets just think about this for a second. But sadly, by the time they butt that cigarette out, they're only talking to about 30% of the initial group. Everyone else is already headed to the swamp in eager anticipation of the spaceship coming to rescue them.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears to me that you are suggesting that the origin had little to do with the remedy or eventual outcome. If so, (and with a few caveats like the malicious actions behind suppressing discussion) I tend to agree. But please consider the backstory because that's where the lessons are. There was a lab near the market, that lab just happened to be doing GOF research on the very same virus in question. The research itself was (at least partially) subsidized by US tax dollars and I'm just cynical enough to believe that the key players knew it. In the fall of 2019, two lab workers were hospitalized with Covid symptoms and that became open source information in the first few months of 2020. If memory serves, it was later that we learned about the funding, US involvement and Dr Wonderful's role in all of it. At the Phd level, there were a bunch of people fired, de-platformed and/or deregistered by professional associations for suggesting the possibility of there being a connection rather than simply swallowing the species jump theory and blaming racoon dogs in the market. Random people (dare I say like myself) who payed a bit of attention and managed to connect some of the dots were vilified, ridiculed and suspended from social media for suggesting exactly what the FBI now concludes to be the likely origin. As I've said all along, this is were the lessons are. Even if it wasn't a deliberate coverup, the actions and collusion of government, media, big tech and regulating associations was despicable (and bloody dangerous) by any definition of the word. If you want to defend the actions taken, I would start with justifying that. As I've said here a few times, there are courses in such things and at that level, the people behind the information management efforts are pros. Prior to any deliberate coverup (diversion, deflection, spin, etc) there is always thought given to plausible deniability in case it all goes sideways. The first one that comes up for discussion is usually the notion that "it was a dynamic and rapidly changing situation and we did what we felt was right under difficult circumstances, the health, safety and security of ___________ (insert name of the group hurt) was always our primary concern. You seem to be making the argument that "it doesn't matter" and "it didn't affect anything." If so, I think it's as wrong headed a position as the collaborative action that was deliberately taken (by several key players) to suppress any and all discussion of the possibility in the first place. That's my problem with it.... that's my problem with most of it, and that's where most of the lessons are.

Two parts of the same whole, both noteworthy for showcasing the power of information management techniques when properly deployed against a fearful (or angry) majority. It usually (I'd suggest always) requires a villainous antagonist (one that either already exists or can easily be created) to entrench the outrage... in this case, "anti-vaxxers served the purpose well. The bad behaviour of supporters is then brought to bear in the form of peer pressure while factual debate and contrary minded opinion is suppressed and/or ridiculed. This is deliberately and systemically encouraged (the PM helped this along and it wasn't an accident) until it reaches a point where it's very difficult for those who willingly participated in it to walk back their support after the fact. Ivermectin was an interesting bunny trail that served to illustrate the power of this. No discussion about the possible benefits of off label use of a cheap, innocuous drug that was shown to be effective (but only) at the first sign of symptoms. I'll wager that none of the "horse paste crowd" took 10 minutes to look up the how or why of that. Anyway, that's the issue for me, how easily all of this was accomplished. There are courses in such things and you often see it on full display in places where the unholy trinity of government, media, and security forces is entrenched. There might be a lesson in that too eh?

What I'm suggesting is that It had no chance to shine. Even my poorly articulated grade 13 biology questions were met with ridicule, usually by people who couldn't even spell LNP. Any contrary minded information at the Phd level instantly became misinformation, its authors de-platformed, villainized, fired and deregistered by professional associations who in some cases seem to be singing new hymns now. Scanning the horizon, that might just be a future problem, maybe there's something here to learn. There was only one mob that truly mattered, and it was frightened voters. Without them, little traction could have been gained by other entities. I understand the motives of the other players in this and I'm not surprised by their conduct... but the horrid performance of neighbours and acquaintances, people on social media etc was disappointing, I didn't expect it. And perversely, many of those same people now condemn (at least some) of what they once vigorously supported, in some cases it's almost as if they would have you believe they never supported it in the first place. I'd offer the dismal uptake of vaccine boosters (something like 18%) as a symptom of that change of heart. The lack of trust in previously trusted institutions and greater vaccine hesitancy in previously trusted vaccines is as problematic now as it is predictable. Have to run. Cheers.

Not the system per se, the people (meaning the majority of voters) who supported and enabled it. Without them, the effort would have been fruitless even in the presence of a compliant media. It really comes down to managing (and by managing I mean exploiting) fear to accomplish an objective. Fear and anger are powerful motivators that can be manipulated by either side of an agenda driven campaign. The success or failure of those efforts depends largely on access to resources and deployment strategy with access (and control) being dominant considerations. Im off again, but perhaps you could point out a few examples where government objectives (say mass vaccination, mandates etc) weren't supported by the media and/or big tech. Off the top of my head I can't. Blocking dissenting opinion, limiting rational (and polite) discussion whilst summarily executing any and all questions that start with "wait a minute now" wasn't an accident IMO. It was a deployment strategy and it was a scared population in the reticle. The answer to why is... because it works. The tool of choice to accomplish the suppression of discussion (in addition to banning it) was fact checks (and I'm being kind there) that were invariably prefixed with "there is no evidence to suggest." Remember all those doctors that would walk a mile for a camel? Getting that done is more audacious (and devious) than it is difficult IMO. "The system" didn't ask questions because they already had answers, all they needed was acceptance, and they got it.

There are other examples too but this particular one strikes me as the poster child for what a frightened population is capable of swallowing and supporting. A moments consideration of the qualifications of some who were de-platformed at the mere suggestion of it (as a possibility) should now give people serious cause to reflect... yet it doesn't. For anyone with a passing tactical interest in information management techniques (veterans and serving members perhaps), this was a master class in what can be accomplished when resources are brought to bear in a coordinated fashion. The manufactured public ridicule of all things "anti-vax," was a measurement of success and a QA means of monitoring the effectiveness of messaging, it also provided an effective venue for modifying that message to achieve maximum effect. It seems that once a majority (or statistically significant portion of the population) commit to weaponized rhetoric and allow hateful, ill informed comments to become the norm, it's hard for those (in this case the majority) to rationalize walking it back and admitting to the possibility that they maybe (perhaps or possibly) got it wrong. It's a wonderfully effective tool... the fact that it takes soooooooooo long to factually disprove an alleged event or occurrence (usually 2 years or more) certainly helps too. You can see that right here on the forum. Personally, I watched this single aspect of the process with great interest. I expected it to be more difficult to coordinate and more costly to those who deliberately did so than what it has proven to be. Fascinating on one hand but certainly scary on the other... And here's the real kicker, all that was ever needed to oppose, and by virtue of opposing thwart this effect were thoughtful questions asked in a polite (and inquiring) manner. So... it's noteworthy that sensible questions were effectively banned, that wasn't an accident BTW. On most of the major topics, and without any prior knowledge, only about two paragraphs worth of reading could have generated the same questions I asked within the ranks of the rabid pro-vaxx community. Just basic stuff like: - What do lipid nanoparticles do? (two paragraphs). - What does the blood brain barrier do? (two paragraphs). - What about spike protein toxicity and inflammation? (two paragraphs) - What prevents systemic distribution of a toxic spike protein in the presence of LNPs? (two paragraphs) -Possible effects of multiple immune system responses (in vaccinated individuals) to a mutated virus that the vaccine doesn't protect against and the associated inflammation that might cause? (that one might be a full page). POOF, 20 minutes of reading and most people would likely have had the same questions I did. I didn't (and actually still don't) know the answers and maybe the concerns I had were groundless, I was open to being convinced. But, and it's a pretty large BUTT, that didn't happen, and the reason it didn't happen was because the f------ questions were banned and those asking them were punished and ridiculed. Later, watching the manufactured ridicule surrounding Ivermectin and reading comments like "are you a horse?" sealed the deal for me. It also earned those information managers a reluctant tip of my hat for a diabolical job well planed, well coordinated and effectively deployed on relatively short notice. I predict we'll be hearing from them again in the future...

But they all require the support of voters to implement... no? I think any fix ultimately requires a level of voter engagement, that means paying attention, demanding policy that makes sense, and voting for the people willing to provide it regardless of political stripe. I say that as a confirmed political agnostic, just imagine what could be accomplished if people voted based on policy rather than political affiliation. The notion that "elections are not the time to discuss policy" seems silly to me. Out and gone for a bit so the last word is yours. Cheers

And here's your answer... one of several I could offer up but I think this poster knows exactly what I'm talking about:

I understand what you're saying and tend to agree, the madness (I referred to above) even supports that view until you begin to associate what's happening with other examples of agenda driven insanity (I'm thinking religious zealots here). Given the LSD fuelled policy initiatives that spawned the outcomes on display now, I'm left asking "what did you think was going to happen?" The fact that delusional governments aren't solving this doesn't make the system bad (necessarily) even though it speaks to the "voter mentality vs quality politician" dilemma we seem to be choking on now. Nothing wrong with parallel private and government systems in IMO but switching horses during a serious emergency (that's where we are IMO) never, (n my experience anyway) yields the desired outcome, it only sets it back. Training times are just too long to get this wrong by throwing gas on something we can make work in the interim. Making it work may require something like setting up BATs (big tents) on university property and running courses in 3 shifts 24/7 until we catch up. I'm not recommending that BTW simply saying that after watching the house burn for decades we are only now thinking about the water required to put it out. If something is 60% effective you don't set fire to it during the course of an emergency, you grab it by the throat and make it perform.... then when dust clears you give it the spanking it deserves because you now have the means to do so without shooting your own foot off. Right now we don't even have a belt holding our collective pants up.... it makes spanking this dog of a system difficult at best. Anyway, it always seems to circle back to voters electing the foolish and then getting the policies they voted for... maybe elections are a good time to pay attention, maybe even discuss policy initiatives eh? Think back to defunding police departments, if ever there was a textbook case of voter madness and getting exactly what you asked for wouldn't that qualify? Imagine a world where people voted on policy as opposed to narrative and the sort of political dogma that rivals the best on offer from religious zealots.

And incredibly, it's not the talk of the town. Actually I'm in awe... during an acknowledged shortage of healthcare workers, POOF 2,500 of them gonzo in one fell swoop. It weighs heavy on the attrition side of an already grossly unbalanced manning equation with (seemingly) no consideration of the opportunity cost associated. It may have been legal but that certainly doesn't make the action less insane, the only thing crazier is hearing people defend it as necessary and reasonable when it would likely be defined as the exact opposite during any grade 3 classroom discussion in the country. I've been wondering how this action got (and continues to get) by BC voters... how is it they aren't utterly outraged about the cost they're paying? Where are the protests and occupations? Same question with the safe supply madness.... taken together, how many people have these fools killed with the tacit support of voters who subscribe to Scarlet's theory of rational discourse.

Even though there are clearly religious differences, I don't recall a single conversation there being about religion as causal. Maybe just me, but I never saw it and it was never the grievance I heard. This is a struggle over land by two separate ethnic groups, each with long standing and divergent claims to the area. I'll offer another observation too FWIW. Most of the Palestinian players there that I talked to know what happened to them, their father and their grandfather. That's important because discussions about the Balfour Declaration usually don't resonate with them. They can see the farm on the hill where they grew up, they can point it out, tell you how and when it was lost, they have the keys to the front door in their pocket.... but somebody else lives there now. Hamas doesn't represent those folks, they don't even think about them, they will never negotiate peace or those legitimate grievances in good faith... and when I say never, I mean NEVER. Want to pursue peace? Address legitimate concerns? Achieve equitable outcomes? Get rid of Hamas and find Israel a peace partner they can work with.... or don't. That simple I think. As Yoda would say, "do or do not."

Pretty much how I see it too. I'm not opposed to parallel systems but now is not the time to pour gas on things. I've watched people with gas cans and memos from the 'good idea fairy" try to rewrite fire orders while the building burns... not once have I seen that approach work. Fix the problem within the existing system and then modify as required to achieve efficiencies once you have a handle on things. We got here by losing the recruiting, retention and operational tempo bubble over decades. A slow motion train wreck that was always 100% predictable, there was no other possible outcome. It will take 3 training cycles (5 years each) or 15 total to undo this without poaching foreign trained personnel. And that's if we start today... and we won't. Good Lord, how many health care workers in BC are still out due to mandates after mandates were removed? if you're going to do that during a period of dire shortages then good luck, I got nothing for ya.

Yes it will. You need look no further than this forum to see why there are no easy solutions. I've done 3 tours in the area (the first being UNEF in 1977 at the age of 19) and a bunch of training, I've watched this play out over decades and I have no solution. In fact I usually don't even bother discussing the issue with anyone who hasn't served there. That's because there's no point in it. One things for sure, Hamas is dedicated to the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel. They're closely aligned with other bad actors in the region and that's why refugees are a non starter with other Islamic countries, especially those with monarchies. There is zero chance for peace while Hamas reigns there... zero. I've often used the analogy of negotiating a fence line with the murderous neighbour next door who just got out of jail for firebombing your house and poisoning your dog... this is that IMO and people with the strongest views on this subject always seem to be those who can't get through Christmas dinner with their own in-laws. Like some places in Africa, they will fight themselves to a standstill, pause, regroup, rearm and do it again at regular intervals when assets allow. Until the belligerents want peace, until they are willing to partner with each other to achieve it, there will be no peace.

Maybe I'm not bright enough to see this at first glance so I'll be the dummy who asks the question: If medical personnel shortages are the primary contributor to wait times, I don't see how the creation of a parallel system with personnel drawn from the original one alleviates it. I'm not opposed to it, but If the number of patients, the number of doctors and the associated workload is quantifiable, and support facilities (operating theatres, hospital beds etc) are finite, how does shuffling doctors from public to private and private to public decrease wait times? If the concept is based on the assumption that a private system would be more streamlined and efficient by virtue of a profit motive and case load efficiency would increase as a result of that, then I don't see how that happens in less time than it would take to step up training and streamline processes within our existing system. And even if the profit motive increased access to infrastructure (over time), wouldn't the ratio of those able to afford private care vs those who couldn't remain (essentially) the same thus setting an availability ceiling of its own? If you have 10 airplanes and 10 pilots, paying half of the pilots more by raising the cost of a ticket for half of the passengers doesn't make the planes fly faster, burn less gas, or need less maintenance... does it? I'd say you need bigger faster aircraft with more available seat miles and the limiting factor would be the number of people willing/able to pay big bucks for cold food and hot flight attendants. As it stands now, there are already people jumping the cue by having preferred access, college and professional athletes don't wait 3 years for knee surgery, neither do military members treated outside the military medical system. You see the specialist next week, not next year and everybody else waits longer as a result of it. No?