Advocat

Hmm. I'd like to read this "Pax Americana" of which you speak. Do you have a URL handy? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A story on this from the Christian Science Monitor is available: A Bush Vision of Pax Americana This story is based on the 2002 release of the US National Security Strategy

The problem with the public mindset when the term "War on Terrorism" is mentioned this that they reflexively think of WWII conventional warfare; if they see troops in combat then to their minds the "war" is being prosecuted. What the public hasn't quiet realized yet is that the face of war is changing. Fighting a group like al Qaeda involves intelligence, military, paramilitary, law-enforcement, political and economic components. Simply saying "go get them" is rather like ordering the military to start punching fog. I should also point out that the use of economic and political means includes both isolating and cutting off financial, material and psychological support for terrorists, as well as using money/persuasion to help improve the political/economic/social condition of potential recruits, thereby cutting off a source for new members. Using old tactics of massive movement of troops and equipment against non-national movements which hide within the borders of friendly nations, which use terror tactics designed to have maximum civil and economic effect (rather than military effect), which uses the strengths of a society against itself, will be ineffective and may indeed play into the hands of the terrorists. The public must be educated so they can demand their leaders use the full range of their nation's power to fight. How has warfare changed? From The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation (the seminal work on this topic) Military analysts define modern terrorism using three specific descriptors: - Terrorism (the use of violence to create terror for political ends) - Asymmetric Warfare (war where one of the protagonists is either much larger/powerful than the other) - Fourth-Generation Warfare (war not between nation/states as has historically occurred, but between a nation/state and an amorphous group/organization located in multiple countries). Al Qaeda is defined as a group/movement using forth-generation, asymmetric warfare and terrorism to achieve political goals. A few more articles of interest on these topics include: Fourth Generation Warfare - How the Tactics of the Weak Confound the Strong Thinking Asymmetrically in Times of Terror Unconventional Forces for an Unconventional War Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) Asymmetries and Consequences

A new and potentially very useful site has come to my attention. Though still very much under development: How'd They Vote, it has great potentinal. Information to be documented on the site includes MPs, their web sites, their voting records and statistics, plus an up-to-date list of bills before Parliament. From their "About Us" page:

For those who may be interested, you can view a listing of the Parliamentary Press Gallery at: http://www.gallery-tribune.ca/members.html Looks like there's a couple of hundred people listed, along with the stations/media they represent; I don't have the time to score how many people represent the different media, but the information is there for those who want to check.

This may be of interest to some of our members... The Terrorism Knowledge Base (TKB), unveiled July 5 partly to commemorate the Oklahoma bombing, is a cooperative project between the: - National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism - Department of Homeland Security - National Counterterrorism Center - DFI International - Rand Corporation - National Terrorism Project The Knowledge Base can be search by incident, group, group leader or member, nation or region. As part of the unveiling of this new site, a revised estimate of terrorism incidents from 2004 was released: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/07/05/terror.site/

As far as I can see, both the Republicans and the Democrats have gone so far into fringe territory in an attempt to "mobilize their base" that their base is now the fringe 10-15% on each side of the extreme of the left/right. According to sources, "42.45% of the U.S. population voted in the 2004 election using the 2000 Census number of 286,196,812 people in America". This means almost 60% of the population was so disaffected and left apathetic by what that candidates offered, they couldn't be bothered to vote in what the media was promoting as one of the most important votes on America's future in decades. The only way the parties are going to motivate the non-voting majority is to return to a more moderate/centrist position within their party's platform and basic tenets.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the above. I think there has been a polarization of media: Liberal/Conservative; East/West. Each pole tends to report on "their" side with gentleness and the "other" side with invective (or at least insinuation). As most news services belong to one of the four or five major chains, it tends to be easy to figure out what the editorial/managerial preference is for each chain... and you'll read the same news/commentary in each of their papers or from their stations. I do agree Canada needs an objective and hard-hitting national news service, but I'm not sure one could survive in the modern age of conglomerate media companies.

That's the stupidest, dumbest, most moronic idea I've ever read! Heh. You see, attacking the idea can still be seen as an offensive attack on the person who put forth the idea. So while I think that idea has merit, there are still plenty of ways to have a forum full of yelling and screaming even with it in place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Notice I also mentioned the use of innuendo as an offense; a lot of people will try to walk that fine line between direct insult/belittling and insinuation in the hopes of getting away with insulting people. If someone tries that, they should be held just as accountable as if they had used a direct insult, IMO. It's up to the moderators to draw the line at what is permissible; if people find the atmosphere too contentious, they'll simply vote with their feet and move on. On the other hand, maybe the moderators have decided they like that kind of argumentative forum. The mods build it, and then attract the kind of people suited to the atmosphere they maintain. Just my two cents...

I've found from long experience both in running my own forums and participating in others that there's one cardinal rule which cuts down infighting... "members should attack the idea, not the poster". Discuss the thoughts/ideas, but don't get personal; insults and attacks just show a weakness in the insulter's argument. A person who can't discuss a topic without retreating into personal slurs or innuendo should certainly be banned from the topic in question, as their invective detracts from the items under discussion and the tone of the forum as a whole. If the same person shows they can't restrain themselves from personal attacks in multiple forums, they should be banned from the board, for the same reasons.

He exaggerates, perhaps, but I don't think this line of thought is completely off base. Are we giving people the wrong message? That depends on how people want to perceive the day, I suppose. Levant's comment displays a somewhat xenophobic viewpoint of immigrants and an apparently paranoid view that someone, somewhere is planning the destruction of Canadian/European culture by sponsoring immigration. On the other hand, most people I know -- including myself -- view Canada Day as a day to celebrate our country and all the peoples who make up our nation. Do I think immigration needs to be better managed, i.e., settling new immigrants in areas outside Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal; faster removal of those whose claims are rejected, etc.? You bet. Do I want a review of the yearly ceiling for immigration? Yep. Do I think immigrants are ruining the country? Nope.

We should all note that Homolka herself is not asking for police protection, realizing she's not going to get it (almost no one does), but she is (through her lawyer, Christian Lachance) asking for a media ban on the reporting her whereabouts: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/ame....0704canada.php She's also requesting the media publicize the ban, which could then possibly be applied to the bloggers who are reporting on her, and where many of the death threats mentioned appear. Just as an aside, if you or I saw web sites where someone was threatening us with death, the police wouldn't supply us protection either... they'd try to track down and arrest the author, and they'd certainly have the site pulled, but that's it.

Measuring education is always difficult, due to differences in programs, teaching methods and access to books/equipment/technical support in different regions/countries. In order to try and find some common ground for comparisons, the international educational community has developed a variety of studies, which generally compare the results in different countries to a baseline, or they compare the results to an average (so results are shown only as below/at/above average). These studies include the: Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Reports on the above mentioned international education indicator studies can be found at: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international/IntlIndicators/ The report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicator's Program can be found at: http://www.cesc.ca/pceipE.html While there is way to much information contained in each report, you can generally focus on "Elementary-Secondary Education" sections of each to see how students at this level compare on the given study. Hopefully this information will give some depth to the discussion. Generally, Canadian students score in the top half to top third in each study.

It's extremely rare for police services to give 24/7 protection to anyone other than a politician or a witness to a case before the courts. No police service in Canada has the manpower to assign 2-4 officers per shift (needed to cover a building), 3 shifts per day, 7 days a week for an unlimited period, to a single person, just because they've received death threats; you have no idea of just how many people receive death threats daily. The cost of 6-12 officers a day would have to be carried by the local municipality (i.e. the taxpayers), and these officers wouldn't be available for their normal duties, causing an extra burden on the service in question. Normally, rather than guard the person in these cases, the police go after those making the threats, since "Uttering death threats" is a chargeable offense under the Criminal Code. Quite often a person receiving serious threats is simply told to move to a different location and to change their telephone and other contact info while police attempt to track/catch the threat makers; if there's enough reason there are actions the courts/government can take to help the person relocate under an assumed name/identity until things cool down. If long term protection is needed, suggestions to threat recipients include hiring professional security companies; of course, the person in question has to pay for this service themselves.

In the short time he's been posted to Washington, Frank McKenna has made a fair splash in the news, as you can see on this Google search. From explaining Canadian policy to reaming out US ranchers, he's making news. But is making a lot of press the same as being effective? Is reaching news media as important as reaching US policy makers? I found the item on McKenna asking snowbirds to help fight the "Fox factor" particularly whiny. Does he think Canadians in the US haven't already been telling Americans the facts about Canada? On the other hand, he hasn't been afraid to open up on US rancher groups who still want Canadian beef blocked from entering the US. So, the question is, what grade would you give Frank on his effectiveness as Canada's Ambassador thus far, and why? Myself, I'll be kind and give him a C- He hasn't visibly accomplished much in the way of influencing US policy, but he's been good at making a lot of noise and being visible (part of the job of an ambassador), keeping Canada on the US radar.

StatCan's Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants from 2001 (updated 2003) might also be of interest, and brings up issues such as real employability vs. government estimated employability (including considerations on how just transferable foreign professional accreditation/educational standing is), selection of settlement sites, and other issues. (note, you can download the entire Longitudinal Study in .pdf format at: http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/list...-611-XIE2003001)

I think it's fairer to say that humans and human nature, rather than either a religion or a non-religious ideology, create conflict. Religion and other philosophies may be used to justify the conflict in question (everyone says "God is on our side"), but there are usually other forces at work: political; the need for space, raw materials and resources; control of trade/trade routes/taxation, etc.

Oh, I won't dispute your facts, just like I don't dispute the listing of various oil company boards that Cheney has been chair or CEO of. They're matters of record. But the "obvious speculation" you mention -- otherwise known as conspiracy theories -- well then, it's just like the Cheney/Big Oil theories of the Iraq war. Well, you've just moved from a listing a facts and made a huge leap to a fantasy you've decided must be true. Of course, if you have proof of these actions, please pass them on to me and I'll send them on to the RCMP and CSIS, as these actions would enable us to get rid of Chretien even faster!

I am vastly amused at the "quiet war with French" concept... but we'll leave that alone. Could the Turkish decision have been influenced by the French threat... possibly, even likely. What is of more interest was that Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan had been only elected weeks before the invasion decision had to be made, that he had a precarious hold on power, that he was overseeing a divisive parliament with opposition groups -- and even some of Recep's own faction -- heavily against the US use of Turkey. A Turkish government poll showed 8 out of 10 citizens were against the use of Turkey as a base/staging area. Gee, I wonder if this could have something to do with the thumbs down from the government? Democracy, you know? Billions of US dollars of "inducement" notwithstanding As for "Canada's excuse", it's easy. Remember that democracy thing? The majority of the people of Canada were against the invasion. The government of Canada never changed it's platform... they said before, during and after the whole shebang that they'd only support an invasion if it was UN approved. Simple position, what's the problem? Nothing hidden, nothing sneaky, just a statement of policy and intent. When Bush speaks, the rest of the world does not just "take dictation". Now, don't think I excuse Cretien's and the Liberal government's slam/insult binge on George Bush and US during this period... there was no excuse for that. It was playing to the cameras in the hopes of getting some more votes. It most definitely blackened Canada's eye in the view of many Americans, and of the Liberal government for quite a few Canadians as well. That was not the way responsible government should have been exercised (which is why I can't wait till the New Year when Cretien leaves!) However, as a soverign country, Canada had every right not to participate, and to state the conditions under which they would be willing to take part. BTW, loved the fantasy about French oil... obviously, someone's been reading from the same book as those who blame the whole invasion on Dick Cheney and his pet oil companies. Ah, conspiracies!

Unless French troops physically blocked American progress, this is known as "politics" and "diplomacy". Just because the US doesn't like it (and couldn't find a political/financial threat strong enough to overcome Turkey's resistance... and let's face it, they did try $25 billion reasons for Turkey to change it's mind) doesn't make either Turkey or France an enemy. It makes Turkey a soverign nation who decided not to allow troops in. That's their right. France was against the invasion overall of course. If -- as you suggest, but I disagree -- France was somehow the prime mover behind Turkey's refusal, then it simply means that France had better diplomats or a better policy/plan than the US. IE, politics The US uses similar tactics all the time to inhibit other countries from moving/using troops, particularly in the Third World, the Middle East and Asia (particularly India/Pakistan on the Kashmir issue). Should all these countries be declaring war on the US for interfering with the movement of their troops? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a Causi Belli. Of course, we can just lean back and wait for the US to declare war on France to see who's right.

Interesting how the word "Liberal" is used as a perjorative description by some. Obviously a liberal is a tree-hugging, earth-loving, socialist fruitcake whose words can therefore be ignored. Doesn't work that way, folks. No pigeon-holing, please. Discuss the points of debate, not attributed political orientations. And thanks!