Peter F
-
Posts
2,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Peter F
-
-
all war is "terrorism" whether it is done, using conventional, or guerilla maneuvres or tactics.
looking at the most basic definition of "terrorism" The systematic use of terror, the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for bringing about political change
we see that all warfare is the warfare of terrorism, despite the over the top, overblown rhetoric, of this present time, which I assure you will pass, all warfare is terrorism, as it is the systemic use of terror, to bring about political change.
I mean really what was "shock and awe" all about? The infliction of terror on the Iraqi people! To demoralize them, scare them, and to show that change was coming and it was going to be big and bad. Terrorism!
Well, if its justified then to use terrorism to overthrow tyranny, and terrorism is no different from war, then Bush et al are justified overthrowing Saddam via invasion.
Whats the dif?
-
Actually, the guerilla warfare vs traditional warfare concept still stands true today.
One need only look at Vietnam, Iraq, and IMO, the recent Israeli loss.
In all cases, the guerilla fighters, were underarmed, severely underarmed, and yet, Goliath was slain, in all three cases. I include Iraq, because it will never be "won".
One also can look at the occupation of Palestine by Israel, which, so long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territory, there will be guerilla warfare, despite all the rhetorical nonsense. It's classic guerilla warfare.
Therefore peterf, I would have to say, though outgunned, the guerilla fighter can most often outmaneuver, and has numerous other options.
Concluding, the American founding fathers were correct then, and there thinking still is now.
True, but then the freedom fighter will of necessity be adopting the methods of terrorism. Thats bad.
-
Then why, with your logic, should English Canada pay through equalization and "cultural support programs" for the inefficiencies created by Quebec's manic policies?
Political expidiency. Quebec has lots of votes. Any party seeking power isn't going to change it.
('it' being cultural support programs. Equalization being a different kettle of fish)
-
Betsy:
The Liberal waffling after 9/11 was inexcusable. Legally.What waffling?
Hello?
Remember Chretien sitting on the fence???
That was the time, btw, when my attention was drawn to Harper for the very first time....and he was the only one who stood behind the Americans, reminding us of our obligations as allies!
Chretien was too concerned with political points, knowing that the looney left Canadians were anti-Bush...no matter what! The only Canadians who did anything useful were those so-called ordinary citizens, such as those who accomodated the Americans stranded because of airport closures and our firemen who rushed to NY to do the right thing!
What fence-sitting? I think you may be confusing the events leading up to the Iraq invasion as events that occurred after 9 sept 2001.
edit 1427pm:
Ah. I see you have clarified things somewhat with the addition of the Mckenzie piece.
The question here is Canada, as a member of NATO, coming to the USofA's defence as per the NATO agreement. America being attacked on 11 September 2000.
Ok, but what does that have to do with joining the co-alation of the willing in the attack on Iraq?
-
Betsy:
The Liberal waffling after 9/11 was inexcusable. Legally.What waffling?
-
Somehow the logic seems inconsistent. Either they're civilized and entitled to the benefits and burdens of nation-statehood, with its trappings of passports, access to international aid mechanisms and whatnot or they're not.I'm all for self-determination. If the Afghans believe abusing the prisoners is the right thing to do, I say 'carry on. It's none of our business'. Our business is ensuring those captured by Canadians are not abused.If Afghans are abusing them, then the answer is simple: Stop turning them over to Afghans.Being entitled to all the benefits and burdens of nation-statehood etc is neither here nor there. If they are abusing prisoners (contrary to the agreement with Canada who turned those prisoners over to them) then Canada should cease turning prisoners over to them. Is there any point to the Canada-Afghan agreement regarding detainee's at all?
-
True, the Louiisana citizens were permitted to keep the civil system for non-criminal offenses and the US has always tolerated all religions. However, as a result of French not having "official" status Louisiana was not allowed to make French the "default" language for education, not were they allowed to require publicly displayed signage to be in French.
That is an interesting point. I have no knowledge of how the education system in Louisiana functioned in the past or present. I imagine that presently if you send your kid to public school in that state then that public school will be an english-language one. I imagine that at the time of the Louisiana purchase a public school (if there were any) would have been a french-language one. Probably the idea of public education occurred long after the purchase, by wich time English language instruction would have been the defacto 'default'.
But that is a matter of American History of wich I am ignorant.
Kapitan Roberts statement to Leafless wich we barged into was:
Find me an example of a people (a group speaking the majority language of the locale, for instance French in QC) voluntarily choosing assimilation. To my knowledge, assimilation has always been forced. Please try to prove me wrong.You responded with the Louisiana episode as (I assume) an example of volountary assimilation. It turns out that the conditions of admittance to the union did in fact constitute inevitable assimilation. Wether those signing the agreement knew this and accepted it, or suspected it but were determined to avoid it, or sold it to the populace as a guarantee they wouldn't be assimilated is beyond my ken.
Perhaps, due to the mixing of Spanish, French and English, they didn't consider it a big deal. Wich is to say they were not concerned about assimilation at all.
But that "one bilingual employee" is most often a Francophone with broken English rather than vice versa. This is true for several reasons. First, many Francophones are in English immersion from birth, living in an English-speaking continent.Second, the political reality is that official bilingualism was enacted largely at the behest of and for the benefit of Francophone politicians and civil servants.I am not sure that what you state is true at all. Many Quebecers are indeed immersed in English, in Montreal, the Ottawa Valley, and most of the south shore. But many Quebecers only hear English when surfing through the channels of thier TV's from SRC to TVA. In Quebec City, where I lived for 10 years, English is only heard on the tube or from tourists on the street. It has been my experience that while most French Quebecers know a smattering of English most are not bilingual. Those who are learned thier English from a close relative (immersion) or in school.
I do not buy the argument that most Quebecers are bilingual and therefore most Quebecers profit from a bilingual civil service. This, I think is false. If it were true then there would be more civil servant who learned English as a second language than civil servants who learned French as a second language. I have also heard the many stories of Englishmen contacting a federal govt agency only to have to deal with some Frenchman who could hardly speak English at all. The assumption is that the Frenchman only got the job because they are bilingual and/or French. The funny thing is we can never hear of the Englishman contacting the civil servant only to be met with and Englishman who speaks french terribly. I guess we never will. But it has probably occurred far more often.
I thoroughly disagree with the contention that official bilingualism was enacted in this country so that Francophone politicians and civil servants could benefit from it. That is Leafless's argument and in that regard I am firmly in agreement with Kapitan Robert.
Then why, prior to 1974, did families in many parts of Quebec have the option to have their children educated in either or both languages?Because they always had that option. They still do, its just that the government is no longer going to pay for it unless one of the parents was educated in English. I have the option of going on the next Russian rocket up to the Space station. So do you and so does everyone else on this planet. What inhibits us is our lack of cash. Prior to 1974 Quebecers did have the option of sending thier kids to English school but few took that option for many reasons. Most didnt see any advantage to an English education. Many found that there were no English schools nearby. Some found those English schools already full.
I moved from Quebec to SW Ontario with 2 children in tow. The youngest hadn't yet started school and the other had spent 2 years in English grade school. When it came time to enroll them I found that it was going to be impossible to have them enrolled in French school. There were none available short of bussing them 3 hours each day. So English school it was.
When I moved to NW Ontario with the same 2 children in tow (now starting grades 3 and 5) I tried again to enroll them in French schools but sorry, in order to be enrolled in such a school they needed to have commenced in grade 1.
But I certainly can't deny that French education was an option.
In 1974 the option of English education for most Quebecers vanished. This was a blow to those who had access to English schools. But the Government, PQ and determined to put an end to English Supremacy, decided to not fund English education except in cases where they, more or less, had to. But they never withdrew the option to parents of an English education - only that the government was no longer going to finance it. Of course the curriculum at French schools includes English language instruction all the way through and vice versa for English schools. I find this to be perfectly reasonable.
-
Polly:
they have secret science.Otherwise known as 'Black Magic'
-
I couldn't have been more then 6 when I fell for Diana Rigg of the Avengers
He same with me!
-
This study discredits any argument that under the Taliban there was at least order and stability. There is no justification for a regime that watched dispassionately as babies, and often their mothers, died in delivery - Ctz page A14
So is the problem that the Taliban watched mothers die in delivery or that that were dispassionate?
Mothers die in delivery quite often - particularly in third world countries. It seems that according to the Ottawa Sun the real crime is that the Taliban were dispassionate. Says who?What was the study's measure of passion?
The present government of Karzai is far better, I think, than the government of the Taliban. But accomodation doesn't mean let the Taliban form the government.
This Ottawa Sun editorial you present has zero to do with the article I posted.
-
Maybe we should ask the previous government! They were the ones who signed up with NATO in the first place, didn't they?
True enough. That would be Louis St.Laurent's Liberal government of 1949.
Especially, if it's true that NATO had not signed the Geneva Conventions.Anyway, the fact that we've signed up with NATO...and that this is a NATO operation....makes it NATO's problem.
No, Its Canada's problem. Nato being a collection of soveriegn states each agreeing to help defend the other should any one of them be attacked. There is nothing about treatment of prisoners, capturing of prisoners or anything else to do with prisoners. That would come under each nations concept of the Laws of War. In Canada's case, we have agreed to apply the geneva conventions and Canada has also signed the agreement against torture of prisoners. Domestically we accept that prisoners - no matter how heinous their crimes - shall be treated in a humane manner. So our concept of how prisoners should be treated are fairly Liberal in that we do not torture them, or abuse them, or starve them or beat them, or deny them mail, or religion or water or anything else. We treat our prisoners humanely.
So if our government, as they have, enter into agreement with the Afghan government where they take our prisoners from us and in return we get to check on the prisoners from time to time to ensure they are treated in a humane manner, I find that very acceptable. If however, Afghanistan treats the prisoners poorly, then of what use was our government and/or Hillier in entering into an agreement with Afghanistan?
Did we not negotiate in good faith?
-
Why, were the prisoners being detained by our soldiers when the alleged abuse happened? Or were they already handed over to the Afghans?
If by "captors"....you mean the ones who had captured them right from the start....well I guess I misunderstood.
My answer was based on the word "captors" meaning those who currently holds and detains them.
So maybe, we don't agree.
And after reading the rest of your post (my pov on this had been posted already somewhere here)...then I definitely say, we don't agree. It's NATO's problem.
From my understanding of the scandal, the prisoners claim being abused by thier Afghan keepers. Back home in Canada the opposition parties have criticized the government for turning over captured taliban to Afghans who abuse the prisoners.
According to you , we Canadians treat our prisoners humanely...its just that we don't have any prisoners nor do we want any prisoners, so we turn them over to others and if those others are abusive well then thats not our problem.
So yes I guess we don't agree.
NATO, as far as I know, has not signed the Geneva Conventions nor the conventions against torture. Nor does NATO have any organisation in place to keep or care for prisoners. That is done by the individual nations that are part of NATO. So to say Canada has no obligations to prisoners - NATO does, is Monty Pythonesque.
Apparently, in 2005, Gen.Hillier entered into agreement with the Afghan government to turn over any persons captured by Canadians to the Afghans for detention. Such an agreement was not between NATO and Afghanistan, it was between Canada and Afghanistan. If there are any problems with that agreement, then it is not NATO's problem - it is Canada's problem. Canada should deal with it, or not, as we will. What we can't do, and apparently its what you think we should do, is admit we entered into agreement with Afghansitan regarding treatment and monitoring of prisoners we capture, but we really don't have anything to do with it so its not our problem....Why then did Hillier enter into any agreement at all? But he did, so it must mean something.
-
When Louisiana petitioned for admission to the United States, one of the conditions was that they adopt English as their official language. No one held a gun to Louisiana's head. They could have maintained territorial status, as Puerto Rico has (though now labeled "Commonwealth there is functionally no difference, except there is no customs barrier to US entry as there is with the US Virgin Islands).
But, considering the circumstance of the day, they considered that a small price. The condition for admission in no way required them to stop speaking French or give up thier civil laws or religion. The USA was not requiring 'assimilation'. It never has.
Do you mean that forcing me to talk in two languages at the same time is a good thing? Or is it better to turn a country into a Tower of Babel?Thats the thing. No Canadian is required to speak in two languages. No one in Louisianna is required to speak English. The governments of both the USofA and Canada allow for translators when necessary. The difference being in Canada you may communicate with functionaries of the Federal government in either English or French. This, of necessity, requires the Federal government to hire those who speak the minority language of a given area in order to supply the service. The government, to achieve efficiency, prefers to hire one bilingual employee at the point of contact, rather than one English speaker and one French speaker.
Why, if an immigrant from, say, Italy, settles in Montreal, should they have to educate their children in gibberish, or some obsolete second language, when they're on a generally English-speaking Continent? Why should people have to handicap their children in that manner?French is neither Gibberish nor an obsolete second language. Should the state be required to fund the education of the children of the Italian immigrants in Italian? No. The default language of education in Quebec is French. Elsewhere in Canada its English. If the immigrants wish to have thier children learn English then they should fund such education themselves (home schooling is allowed - but of course French would be part of any curriculum) or immigrate to some other place other than Quebec.
-
I guess the Left is against self-determination when the results of it aren't to their liking, and in favor of self-determination when the West is hurt by it. I guess it's heads I win tails you lose.Betsy:
Safety of the prisoners. They are unarmed and at the mercy of thier captors. It is the duty of the captor to do all in thier power to ensure thier safety.Let's say you're given a choice, either the safety of our soldiers, or the safety of the prisoners. Which do you choose? It IS a simple question. What is your answer?I'm all for self-determination. If the Afghans believe abusing the prisoners is the right thing to do, I say 'carry on. It's none of our business'. Our business is ensuring those captured by Canadians are not abused.
If Afghans are abusing them, then the answer is simple: Stop turning them over to Afghans.
-
Betsy:
Let's say you're given a choice, either the safety of our soldiers, or the safety of the prisoners. Which do you choose?It IS a simple question. What is your answer?
Never mind about the torture aspect.....just let us know your choice.
Safety of the prisoners. They are unarmed and at the mercy of thier captors. It is the duty of the captor to do all in thier power to ensure thier safety.
If the prisoners are in your hands. If our soldiers are the ones holding and detaining the prisoners. Yes, I would expect that. That's how we've believed and keep on hoping it will be.
...
Why should we burden our own soldiers? Why should we put them at a greater disadvantage? UNNECESSARY RISK? Why should we stick out their necks any further?
So we agree that the Captor should do all in thier power to ensure the safety of the captured. Yet, you also say the Captor should take no unnecessary risk. What then is unnecessary risk in regards to captured Taliban/suspected Taliban?
Is it unnecessary risk to ensure the prisoners have access, say once a month or so, to representatives of the Red Cross/Red Crescent? or to have those organizations inspect the conditions that said prisoners are being held in ?
....all you need is one detainee to make allegation that our soldiers are torturing them. Then what?We start grilling our own soldiers?
Of course....the National Association of Taliban Ombudsmen will want an inquiry!
Of course we want an inquiry. Canadians capture the enemy. Canadians, have signed onto the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty/convention banning torture. Canadians have an obligation to ensure that such captured enemy are not tortured and/or abused. Because we hand them over to Afghans for keeping doe's not relinquish our obligation to ensure the prisoners we have captured are not abused and/or tortured.
If the prisoners claim they are being abused/tortured then do we have an obligation to investigate those claims? If we do, is it at greater risk to our soldiers?
So, according to the Globe and Mail links provided earlier, some 30 detainees have claimed to be abused/tortured by thier Afghan keepers.
Do we ignore them or do we investigate?
Doe's our duty to ensure the safety of the captured end upon turning them over to another power?
According to some on this thread we have no duty/right to make the Afghans treat those captured by Canadians in the same manner we would treat them ourselves. I absolutely agree with that. Therefore, considering our obligations we must then set up our own detainee camp with guards and wire and everything else required. And why not? Prisoners are part of War. Surrender is something we want the enemy to do and we must also do all in our power to make surrender a viable option for the Taliban, either individually or in groups or in its entirety. We don't do that by beating our prisoners, or tortureing them. We don't encourage surrender by turning them over to other powers that do abuse them/torture them.
I know, the Taliban are very nasty people who in no way deserve fair treatment. Nevertheless, If our aim is to get them to give up the struggle, then we must be absolutly brutal to those who continue to fight us on the battlefield and absolutly humane and mercifull to those who no longer wish to fight us.
If Duceppe and Layton and Dion are making political hay out of this then I say good for them. Secrecy is the cornerstone of abuse.
As an aside, I think O'Connor is actually doing a pretty good job as MoD. The guy who has fucked this all up is the CDS. General Hillier. Now that guy is probably a very good field commander. But is otherwise a Dork.
He's the one that should go - and I suspect he will. As CDS anyways.
-
Here are a couple of links relating to old Ben and the First Continental Congress.
http://www.andrewcusack.com/blog/2007/03/the_men_who_sav.php
Thank you very much, Leafless, I have just ordered the book. Fresh thought on old things.
-
The only realistic hope for Afghanistan is accomodation with the Taliban
NATO countries do not seemingly now have the resolve to invest the huge new financial, human, andlogistical resources – and long years – required to vanquish the Taliban on the battlefield. If NATO states
it will only be satisfied with a decisive military victory, the Taliban will call our bluff. The Taliban have
demonstrated greater resolve, tactical efficiency, and ability to absorb the costs of war over the long term
than have NATO forces. While the Taliban cannot achieve decisive military victory on the ground, as
spoilers they are able to continually undermine the capacity of the central government. They are
convinced that continued fighting will further reduce the resolve of NATO forces and increase the
potential for Taliban victory. Thus, the current calculus of interests for Taliban decision-makers favours
continued fighting. Given the costs of war, NATO needs to look candidly at the prospects – aware that
there can be no guarantees – of a political solution.
IE: Start negotiating.
See 'Canada in Afghanistan. Is it working?'
at Canada Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute
-
Kuzad:
IMO, the founding fathers of the US understood why guns guaranteed freedom, IMO, it was largely, but not soley, for protection against tyranny, from their own government, as it had been alleged had been their experience with Britian.The American founding fathers certainly did understand why guns guaranteed freedom. Guns of the 18th century being muskets. The most fabulously equipped European armies of the time were equiped with the best weaponry money could buy - muskets. Of course it wasn't all that difficult for lowly citizens to acquire the very same weaponry as any elite European army (excepting cannon, of course) - more muskets.
But things have changed. Anyone that thinks that their and thier fellow citizens 9mm Glocks, Smith and Westons, the odd kalishnikov and Ruger, are going to stand up to Tyranny's grenade launchers, rocket launchers, armoured vehicles, 25mm chain guns, mortars, medium MG's, 500lb bombs etc - is, simply, a fool.
-
Betsy:
Let's say you're given a choice, either the safety of our soldiers, or the safety of the prisoners. Which do you choose?It IS a simple question. What is your answer?
Never mind about the torture aspect.....just let us know your choice.
Safety of the prisoners. They are unarmed and at the mercy of thier captors. It is the duty of the captor to do all in thier power to ensure thier safety.
-
Not so fast!!! The American colonies were, to my knowlege, indistinguishable from "Canada" up untill the Rebellion started in 1774. The American colonies, including the ones now in "Canada" were more prosperous than mother England. Especially Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. For whatever reason, Massachusetts was "ground zero" for rebel sentiment, and the others were dragged along kicking and screaming.
No, Canada was very distinguishable from the other colonies. Canada was very French, very Catholic and very (as David Bowie sang) scared of Americans.
I suspect that given the way British taxes worked, the bite was hardest there, and softer in Halifax.I think the taxes were just as burdensome in Halifax and Canada as any other NA colony. The reason there wasn't 14 stars on Betsy Ross's flag was that the wealth of Nova Scotia was primarily derived from Royal Navy gold flowing into Halifax. For Nova Scotia that wealth took precedence over taxation. For Canada (ie ex-New France) fear of losing thier laws, society and faith took precedence over taxation. Thus the First Continental Congress doesn't include anyone from the Nova Scotia, and I'm not too sure that the other colonies were all that interested in accomodating the Catholic Church in Canada.
-
jdg:
Everyone, I thought this whole controversy was settled on the Plains of Abraham.One would think. But things rarely work out the way they're supposed to. After France chooses filthy rich Guadeloupe over Canada in 1763, the English colonists don't flock to Canada. The stories of Canada's horrid winters are widely beleived, 99% of its population is French and Catholic. Not particularly appealing when a prospective colonist can go to English protestant pleasant Virginia instead.
So Canada remained predominantly French. The Governor-Generals Murray and later Carlton are running the place peacefully enough but also know that with thier scant military resources, they do so at the sufferance of the French populace. Naturally they adopt a policy of appeasement. French civil law is not replaced with English Common Law, the Catholic Church remains unmolested. There is pressure from the American colonies to do the right thing and ban the Church and French. But neither Murray nor Carlton are prepared to bow to the American press.
As it so happens, GovGen Carlton is deeply concerned about the future of the American Colonies. As he sees it, rebellion is inevitable and considering the wealth and disenchanted population of those colonies, when rebellions does come Britain will be in very serious trouble. He is also intimatley aware of the animosity between the 'Americans' and the Canadians. When the rebellion breaks out Britain will need a secure base to conduct operations from. Carlton believes that secure base will be in Canada - particularly Quebec. But in order to ensure it remains secure the Canadians have to be assured that Britain will do them more good than the Americans. This is not hard to do since the Canadians despise the Americans and Vice-Versa.
As Governor General, his opinion matters much to the British parliament in London. So comes the Quebec Act of 1774 guaranteeing that the Church will not be meddled with, that French civil law will continue to function, and that French will be recognized in the courts and in the colonial administration.
So what was the expected result of the Battles of the Plains of Abraham and Sainte-Foy and Quiberon Bay do not come about at all. Political realities force the British to make sure that the British victory in the Seven Years War is pretty much just a flag raising ceremony to the Quebecois.
And so it goes. Until the advent of the railroad the only efficient means of accessing the interior of the American continent is via the rivers. The rivers accessing the interior all exit the interior via two rivers - The Mississippi and the St. Lawrence...and nothing exits the St.Lawrence without sailing under the guns of Quebec.
British colonial policy, until Confederation when it was no longer thier concern, required them to appease the French Canadians. and they did because they were smart.
So French is an official language in Canada. For that we can thank America and Geography.
-
It seems to me a huge stretch to assign the equivlent work of a stay-at-home mom to that of psychologist among other positions. In addition, is not the value of one's work worth exactly what someone would be willing to pay? Would anyone pay $134,121 to a stay-at-home mom?
Of course not. Nobody pays anyone what they're worth. Its called Capitalism.
-
I mean, evidence of a problem would be convenient wouldn't it?
Thank you FTA, for pionting that out , the next question should be "WHY" are we so quick to believe heresay, and my final question is Have the majority of Canadians based thier current opinons on the same type of materials.
From the G&M article immediately prior to FTA's quote
Torture and abuse is rife in Afghan jails, according to international reports, rights groups and even Canada's Foreign Affairs department.A Globe and Mail investigation last week detailed the abuse of at least 30 detainees who said they were tortured while Afghan custody. They had been captured by Canadians and handed over to local authorities.
It isn't about the army...its about Afghani treatment of prisoners - be they legal combatants or not. Considering Afghanistans reputation regarding prisoners I think its quite reasonable to ensure that Canadian authorities can effectively monitor the treatment of said prisoners.
Obviously, the Canadian government felt themselves to be on shakey ground regarding the issue and have taken steps to molify criticism. The scandal got the government to act.
Soldiers and Hillier may take it as a slight on thier reputation but since the question is doe's Afghanistan treat thier prisoners humanely, the oppinions of the military personel don't really matter.
I would hope that the boys continue doing thier job in the professional manner they have been. Good luck.
-
Odd that homosexuals make up from 1% to 5% or the population, but 33% of the pedophile population, eh wot? I wonder why?
There are also homosexual pedophiles in the general population as well, primarily the child molestation type (up to age of consent). In the RC case tho, a great many of the pedophiles also abuse little girls. We may never know the number of homosexuals or pedophiles that have gained ordination within the Catholic church. But as I said in my earlier post, I will exercise my freedom of speech and continue to condemn the organization until major changes are made.
Well, if you're going to condemn the Catholic Church for the miniscule percentage of pedophiles in it, shouldn't you condemn homosexuals for the disproportionate number of pedophiles in that "community"?
Pedophelia is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality...its pedophelia.
3,500 City of Ottawa Jobs to be bilingual
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Indeed, they do. I am presently involved with Revenue Quebec and service is provided in English at my request.