BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

Harold: "Uncle Red, maybe we should call the Air Force!"
Red (looking at wrist watch): "It's past six o'clock. He's gone home."

Quando omni flunkus moritati

If some country wanted to invade Canada, considering its size, I don't think there are enough Canadians to raise a sufficient military force to defend the country. That's just the way it is. But since you don't generally go around kicking sand in people's faces, why would you need to?

But military force is not the only deterrent that Canada has. Because of its size and topography, not to mention the weather in much of the county during certain times of the year, can you imagine what a bitch Canada would be for some invading force to try to conquer and occupy? That, in itself, would give any potential invader second thoughts. On two occasions, Napoleon's invasion and Hitler's invasion, Russia let winter work for them. That may have something to do with the fact that nobody much seem too enthusiastic about invading the Scandinavian countries. The Swedes are used to it. If what my son tells me is true, people in and around Ottawa are used to it (actually, he said he'd never get used to it). I don't think Canada had much to worry about from the mighty desert-dwelling hordes of Saddam Hussein.

If some country posed an actual threat to Canada, I think the United States would already be deeply embroiled in such a conflict. It is therefore in the interest of the United States to be willing to keep Canada under its own defensive umbrella, and accept whatever military assistance Canada can provide in doing so. Canada has always been there in a pinch, and Canadians have always been stalwart fighters when push comes to shove. In a civilized and sane world, that fact that Canadians disagreed with Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes is a mark in their favor. Theirs was a much more realistic (or truthful) assessment of what was going on. And since when do Canadians have to be mindless puppets of the United States?

What mighty threatening force is this that the United States has to defend Canada from? The Klingon Empire?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM

I know this is a folk page but ne of the greatest influences for me musically was RUSH! Just wish I could get the radio stations here to stop playing the same three Rush songs. Oh, and thanks for Bob and Doug McKenzie as well. I know that they stereotyped the worst Canada had to offer but they were good for a laugh which is better medicine than what your HMO will give you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:30 PM

Don Firth said, "What mighty threatening force is this that the United States has to defend Canada from? The Klingon Empire?"

The only country that some of us fear is the US, Don, and I don't know if that is paranoid or not. Given the increasing scarcity of resources (gas for the SUV?) and Canada's supplies of them, who knows?

As far as climate goes, modern warfare has, I think, made climate fairly irrelevant. If our cities were hit by bombs like the US used in Iraq (both times) we would be toast. 95% of Canadians live in a 150-mile strip along the US border, where the land is more habitable.

I don't think the geographically largest country in the world, with one of the smallest populations, has many options when it comes to defence. We would fight, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:41 PM

Whoa there, pdc. Are you suggesting that anyone in the US is contemplating invading or attacking Canada????? Or did I misunderstand the post?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM

No Mick, I'm not suggesting that at all. I will say that we get a lot of "joke" threats from rightwingers in the US who are angry that we didn't jump into the Iraq war. When Canada refused to join in, a lot of Canadians had problems in the US, but only from some people.

A former prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, once said that we were a mouse in bed with an elephant. That kind of situation creates a lot of paranoia for the mouse, especially when the elephant is prone to militarism. Many people here believe that the US went into Iraq in order to control the oil. Canada has a lot of oil, natural gas, water, and other resources that are running short.

I don't for a minute think that our alliance and friendship with the US could deteriorate to the stage that we became enemies. But some of the remarks I get from right-wing Americans (on another forum) are a little over the top.

One other thing, which is a little off the topic of this post: Canada's so-called "free ride" is an exaggeration for another reason. Any attacks on the US put us at immediate risk as well. Bombs don't know borders. If Seattle is attacked, what happens to Vancouver and Victoria? If Detroit is attacked, what happens to Windsor? We parallel each other right across both countries.

And one more thing (I'm at home with pneumonia, so have lots of time on my hands): I must confess I would be very, very happy to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Ashcroft, and the whole cabal out of office, so we (and the rest of the world, presumably) could feel comfortable again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: flattop
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 01:56 PM

As for Canada's contribution to world security, I'm surprised that no one mentioned the burden Canada bears, with its bears, just being a civilizing influence on Big Mick and the Americans.

And let's not forget Canada's satirical songwriters like Joe Hall, who, in Canada most multi-cultural cities, wrote a bus song to a reggae beat, The Third World. It goes something like this:

they're leaving Soatto (sp?)
they're coming to toronto
don't drive the bus off the cliff
please don't drive the bus off the cliff

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:16 PM

Flattop, the Canadian singer/songwriters are among my most potent influences. I consider myself an adopted son and have great admiration for the Canadians. They have such a sense of place, both in their songs and when one speaks with them. I don't believe anyone out there that I have listened to touches me as much as the Canadian singers and the songs they write about the land and its history. My admiration rivals that of my love of the music of Ireland and Scotland. They have already tamed me, and I respect that land and the people I have met there. In many ways, I wish the States would pay a little more attention to the lifestyle of our northern neighbors. The only thing I am doing here is asking for a little restraint on the part of the US bashers. There is also much to admire about the Americans, both north and south of the US border.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Raptor
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:16 PM

I personaly would like to invite our American friends to the Ontario Meeting at my humble abode and a possible chance to see the World famous Clinton Hammond (if the bugger shows up).

Please see the Possible Ontario Meeting Thread up in the non BS section!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:16 PM

Sadly Big Mick, there is a constantly updated plan that the American government has been working on since the McKinley era. The old 54-40 or fight is not dead in the psyche of some US citizens and politicians nor in the psyche of some Canadians either.

There was a interview of an ex-military author here this week, regarding his recent book, that calls for more significant, immediate, investment in the Canadian Military.

His premise was that if Canada didn't do it and quickly, the US would use Canada's lack of military preparedness, as an excuse to step in and take over, in the guise of protecting America, because militarily Canada's ability to do so is limited. And there goes the last semblance of Canadian sovereignty.

There is hardly any political move that is made in Canada without trying to second guess how it will effect our relationship with the US and the subsequent economic and political ramifications. This is the consequence of living next to a nation that likes to win...everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

Sorry, Mick -- I forgot to mention, even emphasize, that we have a lot of over-the-top rabidly paranoid people here in Canada who are constantly coming up with conspiracy theories involving terrorism, or the US, or "the loss of Canadian identity because of immigration" and other nonsense. I didn't mean to sound as though all extreme remarks come from south of the border!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:21 PM

Hmmmm, Metch, and I thought all the paranoid wacko's lived here in the States. I must tell you that any politician that tried that would be done in a heartbeat. Trust one thing, I have been a part of the politics of this country for a long time. I have never heard any discussion of anything close to this. And I don't know anyone who would support such a ludicrous proposition. If that is a concern of the Canadians, I am going to have to hear it from more than just one person. I have never heard it discussed amongst my Canadian friends or my US friends. Nor would I ever support such a ridiculous suggestion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:22 PM

Metchosin, we cross-posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM

Yeah, Metch and PDC, it is really something what folks come up with. Although I understand the predicate that the retired military officer, I just can't see how that would ever fly in the States. I know that if the Canadian Government asked for military assistance due to a threat on Canada, we would respond positively. How could we do anything else? But move to take over the sovereignty? I hardly think so. But I am open to debate on the issue.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: kendall
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

Face it folks, no one has a corner on stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 02:45 PM

Well, Mick -- what if the economy in the US continued to worsen, and resources became scarcer, and Bush was re-elected, and the right wing went even further right? The populace of any country can be convinced with rhetoric to do anything at all, IMO, so if enough lies were told, especially about "protecting Canada, our friend and ally," people would read it, buy the whole idea, and turn to the sports page. In both countries.

Of course that's not going to happen, and you and I know that. But there are enough nuts out there that sometimes the unthinkable actually gets thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:00 PM

Maybe not quite the stretch you envision Big Mick, when people are frightened enough, a substantial number can even be made to believe that an an invasion of Iraq is a sane and reasonable way to protect themselves from terrorists.   

However, America doesn't have to invade Canada to control it economically or politically, we've got enough of our own citizens and politicians who are only too happy to let you have control or sell the whole damned country to you, little by little, piece by piece.

No invasion needed in the short term, as long as we don't turn left again and do something radically socialistic, as we did with universal medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM

Too right, Metchosin! That was one of the few aspects of Chretien's leadership that I liked -- with same sex marriage and looser marijuana laws he took us at least a little away from the economic and cultural dominance of the US. Now we'll have to see what Martin does, as he's a businessman who is further right. I hope he's not like some of our previous leaders who would sell anything in our country for a dollar.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:42 PM

Heck, we've already got New Hampshire, the UP, North Dakota and Montana...who needs Canada? Toronta and Vancouver are nice, though...how about a short-term lease? Gotta stop saying "eh" and start saying "y'all", though.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:50 PM

Eh? I already say y'all. Thought the Yanks got it from us, eh?

And, Chief Chaos, you have seriously pissed me off with your notion that Bob and Doug stereotyped the worst Canada has to offer. That was the BEST. Just for that, give us back William Shatner. Gloves are off now, man. Hey, Raptor and LH, you hear what this guy said? Says Bob and Doug are hosers, man. We gonna take that layin' down? Or should we just take it sprawled on the floor, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Raptor
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 04:08 PM

Aw Take Off Eh

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 07:47 PM

pdc, he operated his company by expediency and gutted the Canadian medical system when he was Finance Minister, why would one expect anything better from him as Prime Minister.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:04 PM

And we still need some bloody helicopters for our Armed Forces and SAR people. That's a national disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 08:31 PM

Metchosin, there is a theory that Medicare's problems stem from Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which Martin had to cave in on. If you google Canada +Health Care +NAFTA, you will probably come up with some interesting stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:02 AM

Just remind America that the reason we dont have a large military is our never ending supply of corrupt politicians, who waste our money and resources on other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM

It is interesting to note that the countries that spend the greatest amount of their GNP on the military are North Korea and Angola.

It is also interesting that the US is pushing Canada and not Mexico to increase its military spending. But then again when you supposedly want to "level the playing field", regarding NAFTA, I guess aspiring to the lowest common denominator of the social well being of the "players" seems to make sense to the US. After all, it seems to believe it is the arbiter of all standards.

The Case Against More Military Spending in Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:21 PM

"Canada is a peaceful country and has no enemies." The inference, I suppose, is the U. S. is not a peaceful country. To that I say horse pucky.

In the first place if you think Canada has no enemies you are sorely mistaken. Last time I heard, Canada is a free country and Terrorists do not like countries that are free. I wouldn't count on Osama giving Canada a pass were I you.

As far as the question is concerned, no, I do not think Canada is getting a free ride. It seem to me that country was among the first to send troops to Afghanstan. I'm not sure if any Canadians are members of the coilition forces in Iraq though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:31 PM

We were in the Gulf War; not this one, Doug. However, as ever, we have a few ships in the Persian Gulf for interdiction and rescue. Did when last I knew of it, anyway.

We do not feel the sense of impending terrorist doom that Americans feel. Not to say it couldn't happen. But, I trust that our government would give JTF2 a license to count coup. I don't think anyone has ever really pissed this country off, but if I know the people here, we'd applaud a hunting license for our special forces if anyone f#cked with us. And fact is that JTF2 is as good as they get--with all respect to SAS.

Glad you're back--I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 02:44 PM

DougR - Terrorists are terrorists because they do not have the big guns to fight their oppressors in an all out war. Where did you get the idea that, Terrorists do not like countries that are free??? Seems to me that its an act of self defense and an act of independence.

Do you think the IRA did not want a free country?

Canada is not a target of terrorism because it is not a country that tries to bully other countries politically or economically.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 03:14 PM

Dianavan, you anticipated my post. Thank you for stating the case so well.

Just one little extra: DougR said "The inference, I suppose, is the U. S. is not a peaceful country."

That made me laugh out loud. No, the US is not a peaceful country -- it was, and could be again, but at the present time and since WWII, the US is not and has not been, a peaceful country. Pre-emptive war is not "peaceful," no matter the justification. Peace generally means the absence of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 03:55 PM

DougR - Terrorists are terrorists because they do not have the big guns to fight their oppressors in an all out war. Where did you get the idea that, Terrorists do not like countries that are free??? Seems to me that its an act of self defense and an act of independence.

Do you think the IRA did not want a free country?

Canada is not a target of terrorism because it is not a country that tries to bully other countries politically or economically.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:08 PM

While I accept that the US is currently a country that bullies and coerces other countries politically and economically, and that preemptive war is morally unjustifiable, I would also chip in that Canada is not a target of terrorism because it is a marginal, usually symbolic, player in geopolitics.

As an aside, I'm not sure that my three BC sisters above know (maybe some do) that Big Mick saw some of the worst that the Vietnam conflict had to offer. (There's a thread that describes it in part.) I know all three of you are sincere in your writings, and I would never suggest sugar-coating substantive debate-- I'm not even saying that its directly relevant --I'm just . . . tossing in a tidbit that you might consider useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:36 PM

So is Spain, but they sided with the Brits and Americans in the UN (over the Iraq invasion) didn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:44 PM

And maybe someone ought to watch Bulgaria.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:48 PM

Well, that's a third angle. But Spain does not "bully other countries politically or economically." So dianavan and I would both have been wrong if we had been suggesting that there were only her way (bullying) or my way (being a major player)to attract notice from Al Qaeda.

No, the Spanish sure as hell didn't get a free ride, did they.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Backstage Manager(inactive)
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:52 PM

Canada is not a target of terrorism because it is not a country that tries to bully other countries politically or economically.

Canada is also a country that, not too many decades ago, stood up to its own domestic terrorists, the FLQ, a group whose arguments were not that different from the ETA in Spain.

As a western democracy, it is not clear that Canada can count on continuing to be free of the type of terrorist attacks suffered by the USA on 9/11, or by Spain this week.

Terrorists are terrorists because they do not have the big guns to fight their oppressors in an all out war. Where did you get the idea that, Terrorists do not like countries that are free??? Seems to me that its an act of self defense and an act of independence.

That is utter nonsense. Terrorism has nothing to do with self defense and independence. One of the goals of terrorists is to break down freedom. Restrictions of freedom and civil liberties are almost a by-product of terrorism. Terrorists, by and large, are also well aware that their actions are going to bring repression and reaction on to the very people that they claim to be representing. By and large, they don't give a shit about people or about life itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Backstage Manager(inactive)
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:55 PM

Restrictions of freedom and civil liberties are almost a by-product of terrorism.

What I meant to say was: Restrictions of freedom and civil liberties are almost *always* a by-product of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:07 PM

Terrorists have no objection whatsoever to countries that are "free"...nor does anyone else, except certain great powers who resent people who don't meekly follow orders.

He who follows orders that are against his own interests is not free.

Terrorists have objections only to this: anyone that they perceive as threatenting THEIR freedom. The USA practices terrorism, Israel practices terrorism, and Al Queda practices terrorism...all aggressors practice terrorism...all of them for their own specific reasons. They each perceive their FREEDOM as being threatened.   Their freedom to do exactly what they want, where and when they want, that is...which is an immature jerk's definition of "freedom". He means: freedom for ME and my friends but not necessarily for anybody else.

Every aggressive country around seems to rest under the illusion that it is a bastion of freedom, and educates its young people to believe that. It's mere propaganda. Every society is free in some ways, not so free in others.

Terrorists are NOT opposed to freedom. They are opposed to those who happen to be opposed to them over a variety of nasty issues, such as who has the power, who has the money, and who calls the shots.

Killers out of uniform are called "terrorists". Killers in uniform are called "soldiers". To those killed, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:15 PM

I'll rehash something I said on another thread. The purpose of terrorist activity is to terrorize civilians. You don't really do that by killing the military. You do that by killing indiscriminately--and if there are children and women in the group, so much the better from a terrorist point of view. The response from governments is fast and often causes divisions within the country that was attacked. It happen in Quebec with the FLQ, it happened in the USA with the 9/11 attacks, and it may happen in Spain. Governments react to reassure their respectyive citizens, but sometimes they get a little 'hard' in the way they respond.

I think people ought to examine whether or not that is the REAL goal (strategic goal) of terrorism. The tectical stuff is straight forward. But response by governments can be predicted, also. Look there a bit more, IMO. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:16 PM

Hmmm ! - On the terrorism side, does anybody recall what happened to an Air India 747 that departed from Canada some years ago.

I believe the fragments, and corpses, splashed in Irish teritorial waters.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:28 PM

I guess we didn't take it personally Gareth. (no emoticons allowed)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:51 PM

I don't exactly agree with your definition, Bruce. Every since the invention of strategic bombing it has been common military policy to kill vast numbers of civilians and to attack the entire civilian infrastructure of a targeted country, thus causing death and misery to noncombatant men, women, and children. Italy did it before WWII in Africa and Spain. Germany did it in Spain. Japan did it in China. Then came the World War, and the Germans, British, Americans, and Japanese did it in numerous places (the Japanese mainly in China). To put it simply, they all did it wherever and whenever they had the power to! The intent was to terrorize the enemy civilian populace to such an extent that there would be a complete collapse of social organization in the targeted country. The most effective use of strategic bombing was by the RAF on Germany, and by the USA on Japan. It killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, possibly even a million or more. This was deliberate intent to terrorize civilian populations and demolish mainly civilian targets. Allied fighter pilots in late '44 and '45 were instructed to strafe "targets of opportunity" which included any human being, vehicle or domestic animal they saw on the ground in Germany. American submarines were running out of full size ships to sink around Japan around that same time, so they took to massacring Japanese fishermen in little wooden boats. It's documented. The Japanese were doing even more hideous stuff to civilians in China, and had been for years.

Sounds like terrorism to me.

Other examples of terrorism: the Holocaust, and Stalin's purges.

I find it amazingly hypocrytical that those with the money and power to field great national armies call other people without such money and power "terrorists" when the only difference in the final result is this: the so-called "terrorists" must operate clandestinely and they manage to kill far fewer people in the long run (because they have far less manpower and firepower at their disposal). The basic impulse is much the same...the ruthless use of raw power for the purpose of victory...or if not victory, vengeance.

When is a killer not a killer under this system of thinking? Oh, that's easy, they say! He's not a killer when he kills for "us". "Us" being the good guys, of course.

And if you happen to be born on the other side, just reverse the faces and names of the heroes and villains, and call those opposing you "terrorists". It's that simple.

Every revolution starts with acts of terrorism. The American revolution did, and so did the creation of Israel. When the terrorists win, they become "freedom fighters". When they lose, they remain only "terrorists".

"Terrorist" is a handy insult word used by the powerful and ruthless to describe the less powerful and ruthless.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 08:13 PM

LH you (I hope its not adhoministic to say) "always" fail to acknowledge any value to the concept of an army being sent lawfully into action under the governing documents of a people, which documents in turn should be drafted in recognition of international agreements. Of course it's an extraordinarily imperfect system, and I can understand the meaning of "dispossessed," but can you not give any credence whatsoever to attempts to have international treaties and efforts directed at creating rules of military engagement? Can't guys with guns and loyal guerrilas ever be bad guys, too? Do you vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:22 PM

Heric said, "you ... "always" fail to acknowledge any value to the concept of an army being sent lawfully into action under the governing documents of a people, which documents in turn should be drafted in recognition of international agreements."

I believe that the last time the US participated in war action with that many caveats to make it lawful was WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:40 PM

Clauswitz was clear, LH, and I do not dispute your post in that regard. The difference I think occurs when the deaths happen in war or on a calm Tuesday or Thursday faternoon when people are thinking about supper and a night of TV or whatever.

I guess we can spin the semantics, but terrorisms business is to terrorize. I'm aware of Coventry, the allied refusal to bomb Auschwitz (when they did the Polesti oilfields), the raids on Germany to set firestorms: what you say is true, but that was to break the will of the people in a declared war. It is terrorism, but there is a distinction: there is no war in Spain between that country and any other. That's the difference I see.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:18 PM

Yeah, sure, Bruce, I get your point about that, and I agree that the act carries a more shocking quality, in a sense, simply because it is totally unexpected. And, yes, it is despicable terrorism to do such bombings, and I am entirely opposed to such terrorism.

I am about equally opposed to the terrorism launched by aggressive governments who hide behind the fig leaf of their own legality or the pretense of it. Hitler did that too.

Heric - Yeah, for sure I vote, but not with much optimism generally speaking. :-) I also acknowledge that governments must sometimes fight wars. Clearly. Although, given a little more maturity on both sides, it wouldn't have to happen. Maybe that's too much to hope for?

I don't admire revolutionaries who blow up innocent people any more than I do governments who blow up innocent people. What burns me is that the governments have this false notion of their own legitimacy. They think that their style of murder is legitimate, even heroic. They think they're better than killers out of uniform. I think they're living in fantasy land to make such an assumption. Stalin, with all the august authority of his government at his command, killed way more people than Al Queda is ever likely to. So did Pol Pot. So did Mao. And so has the USA in its various adventures, Vietnam being the most protracted and destructive of those so far.

I am simply trying to look past the cultural cliches of my particular era to what is really happening on the ground level to ordinary people who happen to get in the way.

I notice that in the New Testament Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for who? The high and mighty, the proud, the authority figures of his society at the time...scribes and pharisees. They were the guys at the top of the pecking order. He called them hypocrites, whitewashed tombs filled with bones and decaying bodies. I'm not trying to preach religion here, I'm just offering it as a rare example of honesty. He said what most people didn't dare to. The style of his time was this: you can accuse poor people, thieves, moneylenders, prostitutes and such of all heinous acts...but DON'T accuse the high priests of anything, because they are important people with clout and influence and prestige. They are beyond reproach. And they have the power to destroy you if you go too far.

I am saying that governments behave in the same fashion now as high priests did then. It's an analogy. Governments do the same vicious things as terrorists do, and they make the rules up as they go along, and they break the laws when they choose, but they feel it's okay, because they are the reigning authority system.

That's what you call a closed shop. The rich and powerful murder with impunity, and it doesn't get named for what it truly is: terrorism. Except when they lose to the other rich and powerful, as Hitler did. Then it's given a special name: Holocaust. If the winners had launched a holocaust of their own (and they did...with bombers) you wouldn't hear too much said about it shortly afterward that was very honest...or you would hear it justified by some patriotic rationale. As time went by a few obscure books might be written that revealed the horror and named those responsible for making the decisions and issuing the orders. Only one in a thousand people would read them. People prefer to divide the world into guys in white hats and guys in black hats, cos it's so much easier to pretend that life is simple, black and white.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:49 PM

Ya know, LH, that's pretty darn clever. The truth is that we grew up living with the greatest terrorist threat in history: nuclear Armageddon. I recall as a kid being scared about that. My whole generation--at least those who knew--had the good sense to be scared. To this day, I really have a dislike for the people who did that: the playboys and playgirls. It is time to take our world back, and there ain't much of that time left. Between the neocons lookin' for global domination, and the silly bastards who still believe in their twisted ideologies, really there isn't all too much time left.

Good post, buddy. I definitely hear you.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: flattop
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:52 PM

It sounds like we're talking about a hockey game.

While people in Spain and Iraq are suffering unbearable pain and sorrow.

Phil Ochs wrote, 'There but for fortune go you and I.'

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: flattop
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 12:05 AM

Show me a country where the bombs had to fall
Show me the ruins of the buildings once so tall
And I'll show you a young land with so many reasons why
And there, but for fortune, go you or I

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: flattop
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 12:06 AM

GOD ON OUR SIDE
(Bob Dylan)

My name it means nothing, my age it means less
And the country I come from is called the Midwest,
Was taught and I learned there the law to abide
And the people who live there have God on their side

The history book tells it, it tells it so well
The cavalry charged and the Indians fell
The cavalry charged and the Indians died
Our country was young then with God on our side

The Spanish American War had its day
And the Civil War too was soon laid away
The names of the heroes, I was made to memorize
With their guns in their hands and God on their side

Oh the First World War, boys, it came and it went
The reasons for fighting I never did get
But I learned to accept it, to accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead with god on your side

The Second World War, boys, it came to an end
We forgave the Germans and called them our friends
Though they killed six million, in the ovens they fried
The Germans now too have God on their side

For many long years I've thought about this
That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss
I can't do it for you, you've got to decide
If Judas Iscariot had God on his side

I've learned to hate Russians all thru my whole life
If another war comes, it's them we must fight
To hate and to fear them, to run and to hide
And accept it all bravely with God on our side

But now we've got weapons of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to, then fire them we must
One push of the button and a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions with God on your side

So now as I'm leaving, I'm weary as hell
The confusion I'm feeling, ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head and fall to the floor
If God's on our side, He'll stop the next war

Copyright Warner Brothers, Inc.
@war @political
recorded on Newport '83
filename[ GODONSID
TUNE FILE: PATGAME

Subject: RE: BS: Is Canada getting a Free Ride?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 12:07 AM

Sometimes, talkin' about it is the way people deal with it.