Peter F

Looking at the poll results from the link provided by Leafless Ipsos Geez, Quebecers couldn't identify and English poem. Shocking. As for 38% of Canadians who didn't know what the poem 'In Flanders Fields' is, is not really surprising either. The only time its read is on Rememberance Day if one attends the ceremony, wich practically everybody doesn't. Or students have to read it in class or memorize it - but its boring poetry and more like a task or homework for most students. The strange thing here is not that it is a remarkable poem - but that it was written by a Canadian . The claim to fame is that a Canadian wrote it. So everybody should know it, and if not then somehow our education system has failed. I find that reasoning very petty. I think I addressed this point earlier....but for only 6% of Quebecers recognizing what Vimy is, Quebec already has its 'Defining Moments'. Most created prior to the Conquest. Vimy isn't a big deal to most Quebecers for the same reason Juno isn't a big deal to most Canadians in terms of Patriotic Defininition. There really is Two Solitudes in this country...and most Quebecers like it that way for to be otherwise will of necessity banish thier history and 'Defining Moments'. Why would Canadians know about Arthur Currie? Any movies about Arthur Currie? Good Books? References to Arthur Currie in WWII? or Dieppe? Did he write a famous poem? Do actors regularly play him in the movies? Did he recite any famous lines to be milked by the propaganda machine? "I shall return"? "England expects every man to do his duty"? Besides, Vimy was won by General Byng - or at least he soaked up the credit for it, even became Governor General of Canada for it (in part). That may have something to do with the Canadian Corps being part of the British 3rd Army fighting the battle of Arras at the time of Vimy Ridge and the fact that most soldiers were in origin 'British'. Currie wasn't. He was a 'colonial', born in Napperton, Ontario. There was no way in hell, in 1917 or post war, that Currie was going to get any glory or be used as a Defining Icon of Canada. The fact that 40% of Canadians actually do know of him, is, I suspect, a result of recent research by actual Canadians looking for a Canadian Hero - and not a british born one. That is because of the fundamental nature of the Vimy Ridge Glorious Victory: British citizens becoming Canadian. Currie didnt fulfill the requirements then, he may fill the requirements now... As for most Quebecers not recognizing the battle, why would they? There was nothing spectacularly French Canadian about it. Thus its a non-event to them.

Leafless: - Canadians, in general, cannot identify glorious battles of the past. Therefore we have an identity crisis. - Americans don't seem to have this identity problem because they can point out many glorious victorys. - If we were more like Americans in being able to identify glorious victorys then we wouldn't have the identiy crisis. But thats the point, isn't it? We arn't Americans. Why would we look to them for Canadian self-identification? Vimy Ridge was fought by the Canadian Corps, which in 1917 was made up of primarily immigrants from Britain. A great tactical victory ensued and as the historians point out, this was a great event for the Canadian Identity. It was a big deal because as a result of that glorious victory, the troops, who previously identified themselves as 'British', for the most part, now began to identify themselves as Canadian. Not a small thing, as the 'old country's' emotional hold was replaced in a large degree by the emotional hold of thier new home Canada as a result of the shared disaster the soldiers experienced. But, it appears to have lost its 'meaning' for Canadian Identity. Of course it has. Most Canadian's in the here and now do not have an emotional attachment to another country. The example of Vimy Ridge as a Canadian defining moment no longer holds emotional water. Why would it? Juno. Failure of most Canadian to identify Juno Beach as a glorious victory is not surprising either. Juno is part and parcel of D-Day, and most Canadians I venture would have some idea of what D-Day is. There is nothing specifically gloriously Canadian about Juno or D-Day. The Americans and British also succeeded gloriously at Omaha, Utah, Gold and Sword. So Juno is just another beach on a glorious day for the Allies. If the Americans and British had failed and Juno succeeded, then you would have a Great Canadian Defining Moment. But that didn't happen - so no moment. Though not with lack of trying "Canadians made the furthest advance on D-Day" etc. So, if Canadians had have joined the Americans in the conquest of Iraq, would then Canada have had a Defining Moment as a result? I doubt it. Defining moments come from a hard fight against near insurmountable odds against a coldly ruthless, cunning and superior enemy. Such as the Germans! No such circumstance existed in Iraq during the conquest. Even if there did it wouldn't wash since any opportunity for a glorious victory would be diminished by the probably overwhelming participation of the USAF and USN. Those seeking Glorious Victory wouldn't have found it in Iraq. But the '72 Canada-Russia series! Now there's a good one...

So, let me get this straight; I'm a genetic turd high-level functionary in the municipal public service. I pocket $500K over,say, 5 years by skimming off the top of various budgets that come under my control. I am found out and accused by my genetic turd underlings and the insurance company investigates. The insurance company agrees that I have in fact stolen $500k. So the insurance company fulfills the terms of thier agreement and pay the municipality $500k. I am forced to resign but keep my $500k Is that how you say it is working?

Exactly what I was thinking, I think the problem is that they are rewarded for this behaviour. We need to reform the system so that the only way to "win" is to benefit the largest number of citizens. How we would do that....I don't know. I'm digging this up - I thought I'd suggest a thought. We need a system where people are rewarded for benefiting the largest number of citizens, right? Free Market Capitalism is the answer. When you provide a good or service, people will trade with you. They benefit, and you are rewarded for it. John Stossel mentions this in his speech seen here. When you go to a grocery store and buy a jug of milk, you have this weird 'thank you thank you' moment. You say thank you because you want the milk more than you want your dollar, and the clerk says thank you because they want your dollar more than they want their milk. Free Market in action. Is that not a system in which people can only benefit if they reward the greatest number of people? Could it be that this is the answer? This is the answer that has been screaming out to me ever since began forming my current political opinions. I'm wondering if any of you see it this way. Is there a transcript of Mr.Stossel's speach available anywhere? We already have a free market system in politics as well as the economy. Various party's vie for votes. Those that are satisfied with the party will vote for it. Those unsatisfied vote for another party that they think will be more responsive to thier needs. The consumer chooses and society benefits. Economically, there's lots of different milk in the coolers of supermarkets. Lots of choice. Same with gasoline stations -lots of choice there. Cigarettes too. and booze. and beer. and cars. and TV's. and computers.... We already have all these things.

Uh, yeah. That's about the jist of it. Are you suggesting Adm Perry shelled Yokohama to make Japan stronger? Worked like a charm I must admit.

Your point about Commienism is a very good one. Western enlightened thought led to Chinese civil war and victory for the communists - which to many is one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century. Admiral Perry...wasn't he the one who put a few rounds into Yokohama in order to open Japan up for trade? Or maybe that was the Russian guy. And you're correct again. The Great White Fleet did indeed force Japan to seek western methods in order to become a great power; conquering Korea, battling China, siezing Manchuria and so on and so forth and a fat lot of good it did. I wonder what the benefits of Japanese colonialism the colonized profited from? Must have been something that makes the Pacific war worth it for the Philipino's and chinese, and Indonesians. They should be writing a letter of thanks to the Emperor. Exploiting others by force of arms, wich is precisely what colonialism is, is not a good thing. Considering that Ideas are usually transported around in books, do you suppose enlightened ideas would have gotten around even without the economic exploitation of the ignorant savages? True, the Maxim did a fine job of spreading ideas. But then, what do we care wether they do it our way or not?

My guess is they would have eventually. But then maybe not. Should they have? You mean the colonial powers dragged China out of warlordism? And here I thought the commies did it. Japan was never colonialized so I don't think the example applys seems the colonial powers were not very successfull in bringing enlightenment and industry and the ethics of good government. Tell it to the Belgians.

Read Fat Freddie's post again. They are not saying, nor am I, that simply occupying land is terrorism. Canadians on the whole would not begrudge the right of Natives to protest peacefully. It is when the tactics of a peaceful land occupation crosses the line into intimidation and violence, does it then become terrorism. With all due respect Peter, you either have a comprehension problem or you are a terrorist apologist yourself. It reminds me of a thread I read on the Cafe where the Native Protesters were unhappy they weren't warned ahead of time that the OPP were going to raid the site. Either/or. Well I must be one of them, so pick whatever pleases you. Fat Freddies post So any native occupying any disputed land, according to Freddie, is engaged in a criminal act and can be considered as terrorists and eliminated. I agree that criminal acts should be punished, according to the law. But not all criminal acts are acts of terrorism. To occupy disputed land - then not do anything else is not terrorism. To respond to violence could be considered self-defence (depending on the specifics of the event) and would certainly fall under Assaults, Battery and various other criminal offences...but not terrorism. Verbal threats in a mob is not terrorism. removing lugnuts from wheels is criminal - but not terrorism. Having someone stop your car and ask for a pass in order to proceed is not terrorism. Burning tires probably violates some local law or other, but is not terrorism. Throwing stuff off bridges onto the traffic below is certainly reckless endangerment, but not terrorism. The problem is should the Mohawk Warriors be considered a terrorist organisation? If not, why would it be labled as such in a government document? If so then fine, list them amongst the group of government recognized terrorist organizations and arrest the lot of them and lock them up until the war on terror comes to a conclusion - just like every other terrorist. But the government doesn't consider them to be terrorists and so doesn't identify them as such, and so thier organization is correctly removed from the counter-insurgency manual. Thats fairdinkum, if you ask me. Besides, is there something top secret about the Mowhawk Warriors? Information about them is available from the nearest Police Station or the OPP/Qpp/RCMP or even within the corridors of DND. Its not like the information that has been removed from the manual isn't readily available anywhere else.

Lose it to who? Denmark?

Certainly, the USofA persue's its own interests, just like everyone eles. However, I don't think the US has ever dumped the idea of the necesity of Allies. In Iraq's case no allies were needed, except for show. Thus no big effort to find any.

None of my Grandparents were anywhere near Vimy. Both were back in Canada running the farm and chasing the lonely ladies.

Ok, thanks for the link. Here is the mention of the 'manual': Globe & Mail From wich I quote: Apparently the Minister of Defence is going to have the offending paragraph removed from the manual. Oh, how will the Armed forces ever manage? How will they be able to conduct counter-terrorism ops against future First Nations occupations without that paragraph? This is nothing. Its peanuts. and no, Natives occupying claimed land is not terrorism.

Well, we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Whats the reference in the manual say prior to the change? Whats it say after the change? I wouldn't call Gustafson Lake nor Oka terror. If they had set bombs in mailboxes or walked into white town and started shooting, or started randomly sniping whoever happened to cross thier sights - thats terror. They did none of these things.

The government doesn't sanitize government publications to be wussy? Of course they do. They do it all the time. Its called Political Correctnes - they do it all the time. Its politically smart to do so. The military is not holy ground and is subject to the PC efforts of the government just like every other government department . If there is a detrimental effect of removing the Mowhawk Warriors reference I have yet to hear what it is. As you say the manual is still very usefull.

I like this

The piont is giving the soldiers a ref piont or example of what cion ops are. The tactics are the same wether your black,white or purple with warts on your dick. It is sanitization, the manaul was written by soldiers for soldiers to give them a better understanding of Coin ops, it was not made for public consumption, they used a good "canadian" example something soldiers could relate to or have some knowledge of ...Now that is has been made public it has a few people panties in a knot. and now it's going to be changed, how is that not being sanitized... So they removed references to Mowhawk Warriors and now the manual is of less use?

The claim was that terrorists are likely to be muslim, not that muslims aree likely to be terrorists. And we arew talking about current events, not italy in the 70s or Ireland in the 80s Yeah, so? I'll agree that. Is it okay then to hate muslims? or is it okay to hate terrorists?

Ah, so you have studied the Koran in depth, you even know and understand concepts of Islam such as 'abrogation'. Well, then, you have one up on me. All's I've done is read the thing and I will not be foolish enough to the Koran argue with one who is a scholar of Islamic tradition. In wich case I call: Chicken shit.

So how is it 'sanitized for political correctness'? The manual 'prepares our soldiers for counterinsurgency warfare nothing more' then what would be the logical point of identifying 'mohawk warriors'? Would there be specific tactics to deal with 'mohawk warriors' as opposed to ...say, Cree warriors? Its not sanitization; Its sensibility. Because niether the military nor the government give a shit if its Mowhawk warriors that will be on the recieving end of any counterinsurgency warfare.

deleted - double post

First off, I have read the Koran (English translation) and found it to be quite a remarkable work. I found it to expouse the priniples of mercy, toleration, humility and concern for your brother man. I also found it to be full of a lot of damnation and fire and brimstone for those who do not follow the path God lays out for them. On the other hand, I am no Imam, I have not devoted a large amount of my time studying the Koran, let alone in its original version, So I'd be a fool to tell you what it says. Obviously you have read it yourself and I'm sure you have also studied it in depth, so can go toe to toe with any Imam about the nature and message of the Prophet. On the other hand, maybe not. Perhaps you're just as much as a rank amateur about the Koran as I. If so, then I think you are being foolish in regards to what the Koran says or doesnt say. What really bugs my ass is a bunch of Christians producing opinion pieces and study's that compare Islam to Christianity and, surprise, surprise, come to the conclusion that Islam is not as good as Christianity. I acknowlege that at present and for the last 30 years, terrorist activity has been mostly carried out by persons claiming to be Muslims. My view of that is: if they are terrorists then they can't be Muslims. My grandfather was a Christian, he attended church regularly, was a fine upstanding man in the community, and after he finished raping his daughters would sit with them and read passages of the bible to cleanse them (his daughters) of thier sin. He was no Christian despite what he said - his actions put the lie to his words. Your argument is that because they are Muslims it is what makes them terrorists. By the same logic I can say that Christianity leads to pedophilia and incest. There are many examples of good christians raping the alter boys or the children at the residential schools. I'm sure somebody knows what logical fallacy would apply here. So you shout the warning that the danger isn't terrorism but Islam itself for, according to you, Islam is terrorism. But you don't say, and you never have that I have seen, What it is that us westerners should be on guard against? What ? Conversion? Don't Convert, is that the warning? Terrorism then? or is it immigration? Too many Muslim immigrants and they'll take over? sorta like the yellow peril of the late 1800's? What are you warning us against? Why this fear of Islam?

'Wilber: Quebec did make up its mind: the Yes side won the referendum and Quebec didn't separate. Thinking Quebecers should all behave as one is silly. Just as silly as thinking everyone else should all behave as one. Democracy and Free Speach recognize that we don't all behave as one.

Not only is that demonstrably false, it is catagorically stupid. We do need need unanimity to define something. Like saying there is no definition of theft, because a few thieves and a wingnut don't agree with the concensus definition. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm I think that is a valid description of Terrorism. Note that the description says that terrorism is unjustifiable. So any terrorists claims that they are doing it for God is bullshit. And any claim that Muslims - by the fact that they are muslims - are more likely to be terrorists is bullshit also. Terrorism has come under all sorts of cloaks - and all bullshit; or have we already forgotten about the IRA and the Red Brigades? or lord knows how many terrorists groups in South or Central America, or the FLQ.

deleted - double post

ScottSA: So I take it you agree that us non-Muslims are just as capable of being pricks as any Muslim. Wich is my point. I'm confused about what your point is. So far I gather you are saying that Islam is a clear and present danger to ... well, everybody, and that if Islam wasn't Islam then Islam would just be as much of a danger as Nazism in the 30's and 40's, or communism in the 30's to 80's. Any fruitcake can use religion to rationalize thier actions. The mistake you are making, I think, is that you beleive that when a Muslim saws through somebodys neck and says they are doing that for the greater glory of God - You beleive them. And so you conclude that its thier religion that demands Muslims to kill non-believers. Therefore a rightous Muslim will proceed to kill unbelievers. If that were true, and with a billion Muslims in the world, there'd be alot more shit going on than there is. Exploding car bombs in Iraq isn't about Religion - its about power, but uses relgion as its justification Just as you attempt to justify persecution of Muslims by your claim that Christianity is a superior religion. I repeat; We are just as much a bunch of pricks as they are. So you can dismount from the morally high-horse.