Killer Domestic Drones, Did Rand Paul Change His Mind?

There is a bit of a debate about the use of drones to kill people.  Over the last ten years, the use of drones has increased, and the technology has moved forward.

Basically, a drone is a remote controlled airplane.  I guess the actual definition continually varies, but to me it means an airplane with a video camera in it that relays the view back to a remote operator.  Apparently the real definition of drones includes non-human non-remote computer controlled aircraft, but I think that is an entirely different thing.  For me, the key thing about drones is that they are using human intelligence.  The controversial use of drones is to assassinate suspected terrorists with missiles fired from the drone, which results in a lot of collateral damage (i.e. probably innocent people killed or maimed in the strikes.)

Recently, the US administration announced that they would expand the use of drones to Americans as well as foreigners, which resulted in a great outcry. Then it was announced that absolutely no Americans would be killed in America.  This targeting of Americans would only be if these people holding American citizenship were overseas engaged in anti-American terrorist plots (or suspected of doing so).

But now we come back to America.  Rand Paul, the libertarian politician and son of Ron Paul, filibustered the use of drones in America. But  after the Boston Marathon bombings, Rand Paul backed down and said that he never opposed using drones in an immediately threatening situation, for example a person coming out of a liquor store, after committing a robbery,  with a gun and fifty dollars.

The Young Turks (Cenk Uygur rant about Rand Paul's about face)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07MH-WhrlK8

Rand Paul (Before Boston bombings)

“No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” 

Rand Paul (after)

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” 

A political blogger commenting on Rand Paul
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-faces-blowback-after-new-drone-comments/

How can we ever have an intelligent debate about topics like this when people appear to be willing to shift their position dramatically depending on how they feel on a given day?  I believe this is a dramatic shift in position, although many right wing conservatives do not think it is.  Apparently, for right wingers, it was so obvious drones would and should be used for killing bad guys, that they forgot to mention it.  They are only opposed to drones flying over their outdoor hot tubs.

More questions: Since when is somebody carrying a gun fair game in the USA?  I thought there was this thing about "the right to bear arms"?  I am probably missing something, but when this person comes out of the liquor store with a gun and fifty dollars, how do you know that he committed the crime?  And is he (she) really an immediate threat?  Wouldn't that depend on what kind of gun they were carrying, on where they were pointing it, on whether it was loaded, or if maybe it was a toy gun?  I'm thinking that a person coming out of the liquor store with a gun and $50 is relatively harmless unless you try to stop them.

A domestic police drone would probably not be equipped with Hellfire missiles.  At least I hope not.  Some possible weapons a domestic drone could be equipped with would be smaller guns, rubber bullets, tear gas, a taser, paintball bullets, maybe a net?   A domestic drone only needs to detain, slow down, or track an individual.  A foreign drone  kills mainly because it operates without human police assistance.

Being a Canadian, I don't really understand the USA, but I remember back in the early nineties, in Panama City Beach, Florida, seeing a sign "Drive Thru Liquor and Machine Gun Rental".  Assuming I went in there and rented a machine gun, then the person behind me in line pulled a robbery, I could be killed by a drone on my way out. (according to Rand Paul's scenario.)

Picture: Huffington Post comments on drones replacing police helicopters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/domestic-drones_n_2854589.html

Who Owned More Slaves, Grant or Lee?

The answer to the well known question about General Grant, which is "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb", is Grant. That question was more like a joke or a riddle than a real historical question.  But there is a real historical question: "Did General Grant own slaves?"  This is a very interesting question, given that Grant was the top General fighting for the Union in the US civil war, and that many people argue whether or not the war was mainly about slavery.  (and I assume everyone knows the Union was the side allegedly opposed to slavery)

The problem with trying to research questions like this is that there is no one source of "truth" in the U.S.A. (or maybe any country, but the distinction is really obvious in America)  So you may find in one book, that Grant did own slaves, thus proving that the Civil war was NOT about slavery.  And you may also come across this quote from Robert E. Lee, the top general of the Southern Confederate states (the ones who allegedly supported slavery)

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." Robert E. Lee December 27, 1856

That quote, along with Grant's ownership of slaves seems to prove that the war  was not really about slavery.

But hold on just a minute.  If you are to learn anything about the "truth" it is that truth can be manipulated.

By doing some further research, you will find out that Grant bought a slave and set him free.  Does that mean that Grant "owned" slaves?  Of course it does.  From the moment a slave is bought, you own him until the moment you officially set him free, which will take at least a few days, or so I imagine.  It's true, Grant owned slaves.  Or one slave, anyway.  And you will also find out that this slave helped Grant build a log cabin, before being set free.  And that later on Grant hired him again on salary as a free man.  And you will also find out that Grant's wife inherited slaves, and that Grant did not set them free until the end of the war. From there you can dig deeper and deeper and never find the truth.

On the other hand, you can research Robert E. Lee's statement about slavery ("as an institution")  being evil.  And then find out that Lee had slaves and whipped them, and sold their children to break up the family units.  And that although Lee knew that slavery was evil, he also "knew" it was ordained by God, and God would forgive the evil (but necessary) deeds of the slave owners.  And that Lee hated abolitionists a lot more than he hated whipping his slave women.  And again the further you dig, the harder it becomes to root out the truth.

For every argument there is a counter argument.  For every interpretation, there is another interpretation.

Be careful when seeking the truth, it's easy to get lost and never find your way home.

REFERENCES

The Book on Amazon  "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" claims Grant owned slaves.
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-American-History/dp/B006J3VA60

Book Review of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by right wing Christians
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/review-the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-american-history/

Wikipedia article on Grant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Historical_reputation

Another bash at Grant vs Lee, with lots of interesting comments at the end.
http://www.american-presidents.org/2007/02/grant-was-slave-owner.html

General Lee's views on slavery in a letter (The whole letter is on this page, not just a cherry picked quote)
http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

Picture: The house built by Grant and his slave from this page.  http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94503889/

Was Hitler Really A Gun Control Freak?

Last Sunday sitting at Tim Horton's a friend of mine stated that Hitler had taken guns away from the German people, the implication being that putting in gun controls in the USA would be a precursor to tyranny.  Although this statement was likely to come from dubious sources (like the NRA), I had to let it go, but remembered to look it up when I got home.  What I found was the exact opposite of the belief that Hitler was a leftist gun-control freak.

First, from Wikipedia, a bit of history around gun controls in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

After Germany lost WW1 in 1918, it was the victorious allies that made it illegal for German citizens to own guns, not Hitler. Hitler had not yet appeared on the political scene, and would not have substantial power until at least ten years later.

In 1938, Hitler did pass a "gun control" law for the German people, but it was actually to ease off the original harsh disarmament after the occupation of WW1.  So Hitler actually made it easier for German people to own guns.  Surprisingly, Hitler's gun control law did not specifically exclude Jews from owning guns, although the law did exclude people of questionable trustworthiness, whatever that means to a Nazi.  And apparently many Nazis did think that Jews had questionable trustworthiness.  But Jews were a very small part of the German population, less than 600,000 in a population of 60 million.  Overall gun ownership in Germany went up under Hitler.

It kind of makes sense that Hitler supported increased gun ownership too, because this law helped the entire firearms industry, that the Nazis would be needing soon.  Because they could sell more guns, they could ramp up production easily for war.

Hitler did make some comments about disarming the people.  I got this from a right wing web site: "Hitler was a Leftist"

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

This is Hitler's statement.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942,

I'm surprised that the quote seems to be intact, often it is found with the part about "in the occupied Russian Territories" left out.   But Hitler is quite right about disarming countries that you conquer.  He also disarmed the Dutch people after they surrendered in 1940. After WW2, the British, American, French and Russians also disarmed the Germans, as the Allies did after WW1. It is commonplace, and it does not make you a "leftist" or a "rightist" either.  Everybody seems to agree on disarming conquered people.


Here is another article on Gun control in Germany by William L. Pierce.

http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

The most ironic thing about all this is that Hitler's main tool for gaining control of the German people was Propaganda, not Gun Control.  And this little story about Hitler being a gun control freak is basically modern right wing propaganda that many people seem to be falling for.  A strong democracy depends on an informed population.  Disinformation is the tool of tyrants, and far more powerful than gun control.  Hitler used propaganda to make Germans hate the Jews, just like right wingers today use propaganda to make people hate liberals, Muslims, socialists etc.  Once the hatred for Jews was accomplished, Hitler had full control of Germany.  The propaganda of hate is the real precursor to tyranny.

Picture: from http://americainchains2009.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/dictators-and-gun-control/

Benghazigate: Coverup or Statesmanship?

I was just reading through Canada's National Post on the subject of General Petraeus and his remarks today on the Benghazi situation.

First I will rant about the headline of the National Post story contradicting the text, with the headline as usual leaning to the right and the text (and presumably the more accurate and fact-checked) text of the story skewing to the left.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/16/david-petraeus-says-he-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack-all-along-but-talking-points-removed-by-other-agencies/

The headline was

"David Petraeus says he believed terrorists behind Libya attack all along as pressure mounts on Obama’s version"

The text contains this

"Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Petraeus disputed Republican suggestions that the White House misled the public on what led to the violence in the midst of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
“There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Schiff said after the hearing. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.
“The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda,” Schiff said. “He completely debunked that idea.”
Schiff said Petraeus said Rice’s comments in the television interviews “reflected the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

 So the headline suggests that Petraeus testimony conflicts with the President's version.  But according to an eyewitness (I'm taking this from the text of the story), Petraeus backed up the President's version as "the best intelligence at the time that could be released publicly.”

Once again, the title composer at the  National Post seems to have a right wing agenda.  But I suppose I should be thankful that the text itself is not pure fabrication, like Fox News in the U.S.  I'm thinking the real title, before the composer redid it, might be seen by reading the computer filename in the internet link (which I suppose the title composers forgot to edit: )

"david petraeus says he believed terrorists behind libya attack all along but talking points removed by other agencies"

Next, I made the mistake of reading some of the comments. Woo-wee!  Is it just me or is the tone of the comment section going to h-e-double hockey sticks in a handbasket?  It is quite clear that people are divided along party lines.  Some people suggest that, had they been President, they would have sent in a large enough contingent of Marines to protect the Ambassador and all the people in the the US embassy.  And furthermore they suggest that Obama failed to do this through sheer laziness, and then lied about his incompetence and dereliction of duty so that he could get re-elected, while 52% of the American public are simply too stupid to realize they have been duped by the mainstream media, and voted for incompetent Obama again thereby completing the destruction of America so desired by people with their heads up their asses.

The pro-Obama side are inclined to give Obama a break for the following reasons: 1. You cannot send marines into a sovereign country to kill people without an invitation, or you risk war, or at least a backlash that could end up killing more Americans and tipping the political balance to the anti-American side.  2. This was not in the embassy.  The consulate, unlike the embassy, is not technically U.S. territory  3. S-h-double hockey sticks happens.  4. The president is not obligated to keep inbred hillbillies informed of every nuance of foreign affairs. 5. Sometimes, diplomacy requires you to keep your thoughts to yourself until the right time.

I am not really sure why Petraeus is such an important witness anyway? He, like Obama, was not on the scene.  Both were in Washington getting their information through the usual channels.  He is not even really a General any more, as head of the CIA. Notice he is wearing a business suit now?

In the final analysis, this difference of opinion shows how much the entire world needed Obama to win the 2012 election.  To keep out the "Shoot first and ask questions later" crowd for at least four more years.  Just to give us some rest before the pro-war faction gets their next turn.

Stephanie Cutter Wades into the Consular Attack Debate

Last month, there was an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed the US ambassador and several other people.  This attack is now becoming part of the Republican campaign to win the US presidential elections.  Because making a political football of this attack seems like a strange tactic, I decided to investigate.

It seems strange to me that this attack would become a campaign issue.  How is President Obama responsible for the death of the ambassador?  The attack took place in Libya, where President Obama has little capacity to guarantee the safety of anyone.  Of course, the Ambassador himself would have been guarded, and would try to stay safe, but security is a gamble in any war zone.  I will need to research the Republican arguments to find out why they think Obama is to blame for the attack, and why Obama deserves to lose the election because of it.

I read this web page, which is a right wingers point of view, I don't really have time to read all of them.  So I'll assume this is representative.  It is at Townhall.com, by Guy Benson, political editor.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/10/02/whoa_obama_administration_denied_repeated_requests_for_increased_security_in_benghazi

The main thrust of this is that Ambassador Stevens has made repeated requests to the white house for more help, which were denied, leading to his death.

How are we to interpret this?  Well, for one thing there is no documentation at this point saying what the requests were, who they were made to.  Was he requesting a transfer out of the danger zone? A request for more money to hire local guards?  Was he requesting a US military presence in Libya?  Not likely, as the entire Libyan operation was being done without an overt US military invasion.

Here is the statement on this by Guy

"More security for US interests would have meant more US forces in Libya -- which could be perceived as escalating a new war of Obama's doing.  Couldn't have that politically, so we proceeded with an exceedingly "light footprint," to a lethal fault." - Guy Benson

I guess this brings us the the essential point - all bullshit aside.

The Republicans want US soldiers on the ground in Libya, and they think that will make everyone safer, including the US ambassador. The Democrats do not want the Libyans to think that the USA is invading their country.  That is the basic difference between the two political points of view.  One is to invade the foreign country, the other is to not invade, but to try to manage with diplomacy and intelligence gathering.

Which approach to foreign war is better? I believe this is a point where we separate right wingers from liberals in foreign policy.  My own opinion is that Obama has done a remarkably good job in foreign policy, even though he has the right wing extremists hampering his every move.  But then, I thought the war in Iraq was also a mistake, and we could actually live in a safer (and wealthier) world if it had never happened.  The only country to benefit dramatically from that Iraq war fiasco was Iran, a sworn enemy to Saddam Hussein.  Anyway, that's just my opinion, we'll never know.

Recently the momentum in the presidential election race has apparently been on the Republican side.  The best news for the Democrats recently was Joe Biden's vigorous defence in the Vice Presidential Debates (Laughing aside).  And one other bit of good news, a new hero emerging from the Democrats ranks, Stephanie Cutter.

Here is Stephanie Cutter being attacked by right wingers

http://conservativewatchnews.org/?p=29844

Here is why Stephanie Cutter is being attacked: this video (below) where she accused the Republicans of making a campaign issue out of the attack in Benghazi.  Her accusation has resulted in a storm of protests from Republicans demanding her resignation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrWPUlbKcAE

Bikers Guide to the Brampton Flying Club Open House

Today "The Lost Motorcyclist" visited the Annual Brampton Air Show. Actually, calling it an Air Show might give the wrong impression, because it is different from the well known Air Shows that are staged at the bigger airports all over Canada and the rest of the world.

The first difference is that this is more like a flying museum. Or should I say, like an aircraft museum where the airplanes actually fly. The Brampton Air show is an annual open house event at the Brampton Flying Club. For $5 per person, you can wander through their extensive museum, and also look at airplanes that have flown in for the event from other flying clubs.

The result is an extensive array of World War 1 (and I saw one WW2) air planes. Some are parked on the ground, some are flying, landing and taking off. Some of the planes are scaled down replicas (some are 7/8 or some may 3/4). Most have upgraded engines for flying purposes, meaning a modern Lycoming engine - however many have more authentic looking radial engines. Again, these may be more modern versions, but I was not able to tell exactly what had been done to get these birds to actually fly.

Some of the other interesting points: For $40 you could fly in an open cockpit biplane. There is also an informal antique bike and car show, I saw several interesting bikes - particularly an old Brough Superior. There was a power boat on a trailer that was being fired up, and I didn't get a chance to find out what kind of engine it had, but from the look and sound of the exhaust I'm guessing it was either a rocket or a gas turbine. There was a very small twin engine airplane. Each engine was a one cylinder, two stroke engine. The whole plane looked like an overblown radio controlled model, except that I was told it had a human pilot in the cockpit.

I didn't see this, but I was told that at previous shows they had staged such events as a biplane bombing a vintage motorcycle/sidecar with sacks of flour, while riding/flying across a field. I would not be surprised if it was cancelled because of ever-tightening insurance restrictions on these airshows.

I visited the show on my motorcycle, with a few friends also on motorcycles. Afterwards we went for a motorcycle ride on the very scenic roads near the airfield, including the Forks of the Credit road. That road is only about 10 km, but it has the sharpest corner "The Lost Motorcyclist" has ever seen. I suppose somewhere on Earth, somebody may have figured out how to make a corner sharper than that, but I can't believe they would do it on a regular width paved road, while climbing a fairly steep hill.

Next we went by the Cheltenham Badlands, or "Clay Hills", which looks a lot like the badlands of South Dakota except much smaller.
http://www.ontariotrails.on.ca/trails-a-z/cheltenham-hills/

So that was the end of the motorcycle trip. Except that we still had to drive back to Kitchener. Normally I would just hop on the 401 after a tiring day and get home in the shortest amount of time, but Mary Ann wanted to avoid the boring freeway, so we took about twice as long and were really tired when we got home. But this time at least I didn't get caught in a downpour.

Picture: From the club's website. They apparently had rain that year. We had sunshine all day long, while thunderstorms produced hail and rain to the southwest.
http://www.bramptonflightcentre.com

World Peace in a Nutshell

Recently Obama made a very courageous statement (for an American President) that Palestinians had a right to their pre-1967 borders, with some land swapping to be negotiated with Israel. Once again, the domestic right wing criticism of Obama's statement highlights that Obama is more in tune with international community than he is with the political factions inside the USA. And I mean that in a positive way about Obama, as many political factions in the USA tend to be somewhat warmongering.

I recently viewed a blog by someone who put into words this warmongering character I mentioned. A warmonger is someone who believes that war is justified and inevitable, and more particularly, whoever is stronger has the right to take land from anyone who is weaker.

Here is the link to this blog, and the argument presented on the Israeli border issue.

http://paulmbrown.blogspot.com/2011/05/wealthy-man-on-welfare-and-israeli.html

What is interesting to me is the complete disconnect between Paul Brown's view of world peace, and all the work that has been done in the last hundred years to avoid another world war. I am going to assume Paul Brown is just putting into words what a lot of other right wing Americans are feeling. (And right wing Canadians too - lets not forget my family and friends!)

So as a public service, I will post here the shortest possible condensed version of world history over at least the last 100 years, which explains partly why we have the United Nations and may help to explain why we have not had a third world war (even though it has been pretty close at times).

From the beginning of recorded history, and probably all through human evolution, groups of men have tried to acquire territory or resources by aggression or warfare. But as the world gets ever more crowded, and as the weapons of war become ever more deadly, we have reached (or are reaching) a point in human evolution where war must be regulated, or contained, or damped down. Otherwise, the entire habitable world could be destroyed.

The realization that mankind needed world peace actually grew long before the atomic bomb was discovered. Even by 1899, many people realized that human weaponry would soon become so powerful that entire civilizations could be wiped out by flying machines dropping massive bombs.

Attempts to regulate wars were made before World War 1, then with even more urgency after World War 1 actually happened, and proved more devastating than even the peaceniks predicted. ("The War to End All Wars"). But even then, the efforts were not enough, WW2 took place, leading to more efforts toward world peace.

After the horrors of World War 2, it seemed that the number one problem leading to war was that of countries trying to invade each other for territory or resources. So the United Nations was set up, with the participation of almost every country on Earth, with the main goal of avoiding another world war. It was decided that as a basic principle, that the UN should recognize and document international boundaries, and that no country had the right to invade another across those international boundaries, without the consent of the United Nations. The United Nations had a voting process and a charter that determined how this consent should be achieved.

No matter how flawed this process might be, it was our best hope for world peace, and for many years the principle of not invading neighbours without the permission of the UN was more or less followed. But this required the leadership of the most influential democracies after WW2, namely the USA, France, Germany, Japan, and Great Britain. The USSR and China were influential, but not being democracies, it was expected that they would also be natural warmongers.

Lately, it seems that this system is breaking down, and not because of rogue warmongering dictatorships like Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR, but because of "democracies" like the United States of America, Britain, and Israel. Until now it was believed by many that a democracy was inherently peaceful. It was thought that most educated, democratic people would not vote for offensive wars. Now, however, that principle has been challenged by Israel (occupying and carving up the U.N. sanctioned territory of Palestine) and the USA and Britain, which invaded Iraq under false or mistaken (depending on who you believe) pretenses, without the approval of the U.N. Although to be fair, the USA and the UK (and a few other countries including Australia did claim they had the approval of the U.N., while Canada, France, Germany, Russia, China and most other countries said they did not have that approval.

So where does world peace stand today? Are we back to the world where the strongest invade and occupy the weakest and steal their land and resources, or are we still trying to find a framework where all countries can live in peace?

That is the essence of Obama's statement on Israel's boundaries.

Killing Bin Laden Catches Republicans Off Guard

This morning I woke up to the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by a US special forces team. As this is a stroke of luck of epic proportions for Barack Obama, I was wondering what the unlucky Republicans would come up with to counterattack. Maybe they would make it look like Obama tried to block the military strike?

First I heard Donald Rumsfelt on NBC this morning. He seemed to think that he himself (Rummy) was the one who actually set up the situation that caught Bin Laden. He claimed it was all about intelligence, having good information. And why do they have this good information? Because of the prisoners being held at Guantamo Bay, which he initiated and Obama opposes.

I thought Rummy's opinion was amusing, if not downright sidesplitting. How can prisoners in Guantanamo provide minute by minute info on Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts, ten years after being taken captive? LOLIG (stands for LOL I GUESS).

But I was really waiting for Rush Limbaugh, the guy who usually sets the party line for the conservative right wingers. And Rush's response truly floored me. He gave all the credit to Obama for thinking of sending special forces instead of carpet bombing. Now the worry is that Rush may have been saying this sarcastically, of course. Especially when he said "Thank God for Obama" (how can you thank God for the Antichrist?) But anyway, a lot of people are going to be scratching their heads over his response for some time to come. Was he on drugs? Is Limbaugh's message a hoax? When is Rush going to get back to shi*t*ng on Obama as usual?


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/rush-limbaugh-on-bin-ladens-death-thank-god-for-president-obama.html

The First No-Fly Zone Was In 1776

This is a comparison of the Libyan No-Fly zone to a similar policy in the American War of Independence.

Back in 1776, the navy was like the air force today. There was no such thing as an air force back then. The equivalent force would have been the navy. A navy was able to move freely, and relatively speedily across water, was able to bombard cities and carry troops and supplies.

Think of how the Libyan struggle is like the American War of Independence. The obvious parallels (though unflattering I suppose), the British forces in 1776 as the equivalent of Gadhafi's forces, and the American forces as the equivalent of the Libyan rebels. The Americans would have been less professional, and would not have had a navy for support, while the British had a professional army, and naval support. The Libyan rebels are less professional, and have little or no air power, though I suppose they have popular support.

Another similarity would be that some Americans, possibly one third of the population, supported the British, like some Libyans (I don't know how many) support Gadhafi. The fact that many Americans supported the British is not well known to Americans today, however it is very well known to Canadians. One of the founding groups in Canada was the Americans who were forced to flee after the defeat of the British in the American War of Independence.

So now we come to the philosophy of the no-fly zone. There was no United Nations in 1776 to declare a "No Sail" zone. So the French decided to send in their navy to neutralize the British navy off the coast of the colonies. In a sea battle called "The Battle of the Chesapeake", the French navy drove off the British navy, and allowed Washington's army to force the surrender of the British army at Yorktown. Shortly after, King George signed a deal to allow the American colonies to go free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake

If this history is anything to go by, Gadhafi will eventually step down. But the rebels will show very little gratitude to the people who stepped in to help them, just as the Americans largely turned their backs on the French, once independence was achieved.

Picture: Battle of the Chesapeake from Wikipedia, with my own red circle superimposed in Photoshop.

Why There is a No Fly Zone Over Libya

Is there any way to make sense of Canadian and US actions in Libya?

A few nights ago, I watched a panel of experts discussing Libya on TV Ontario, "The Agenda" with Steve Paikin. A serious question was asked. Why take the trouble to bomb Libyan forces and ground installations, when we are not doing the same in Yemen or Bahrain, where protesters also have been killed? And why do people who opposed the invasion of Iraq support this? From what I heard not one person on the panel had the obvious (to me anyway) answer.

If the question is "why are we bombing Libya, but not Yemen and Bahrain", the simple answer is "Because Libya is the only government using the air force to bomb their own cities." To me, it seems fair and even reasonable to deny the dictators the use of air space when it comes to bombing their own people. But that is only the first part of the answer. Second part, possibly even more important, is that the United Nations agreed to a no-fly zone to protect the Libyan people from their own air force. It is very difficult to get the UN to agree on taking forceful steps. In Iraq, the UN did not agree. For Libya, the UN agreed. Of course, if you hate the UN, as many conservatives do, this approval means nothing.

Now, if the uprising in Libya fails, it is at least going to fail on a more level playing field.

To summarise, the two main reasons are: 1. Libya is the only government bombing its own people using its air superiority. 2. Libya is the only country that the UN placed in a no-fly zone.

Both these reasons carry a huge amount of weight with me, I cannot understand why most commentators in the US and Canada downplay them. Even Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, who I normally agree with, seemed to ignore these reasons for bombing Libyan facilities.

If only one country, or one isolated group of countries tries to attack another country despite widespread disapproval at home and internationally, that smells of warmongering. That's what happened with Iraq, and it was a big mistake, regardless of excuses.

If just about every country in the United Nations, (including in this case Libya, but that would not be typically necessary) agrees to use force on Libya, to establish a no-fly zone, this attack is not warmongering.

Now for the people who said Obama did not act fast enough. I never heard any mention of the many US and Canadian citizens working in Libya when this protest broke out. What do you think Gaddafi would do to those people if air strikes were called before they could be found and evacuated?

With this type of discussion going on on TV, its no wonder people can't make sense of anything.

Just another example of what I call mindless babble on TV. I saw an ABC news show this morning, with a picture of the downed US jet, and the News Anchor commenting that "when you see the pictures there, of just the damage from the crash, the fact that these two pilots are OK this morning, that's just incredible." Given that the crew bailed out, what does the condition of the plane after it hit the ground have to do with their survival? Then the expert, Martha Raddatz, talked about how the crew knew very well how to eject. Exactly how much training is it supposed to take to know how to hit the red eject button? I'm thinking the tricky part is knowing *when* to eject.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/target-libya-us-fighter-jet-crashes-13191340

Once we used to say "You know it's bad when the Comedy Network does the best news reporting on TV." Now, "You know it's a lot worse when even the Comedy Network News can't get it right."

Picture: F15 from the Internet

Darwin Did Not Inspire Hitler

One idea proposed by the Born Again Christians is that without Charles Darwin, Hitler would not have started World War 2, and would not have tried to exterminate the Jews.

Of course, the reason they want to show this connection is that Hitler is considered so evil, that if you can somehow connect Hitler to your enemy, your enemy becomes as evil as Hitler. And therefore your enemy's logic will be disproved.

Well I intend to prove the exact opposite. Charles Darwin could not possibly have inspired Hitler to exterminate the Jews. On the contrary, Hitler drew much of his inspiration from the very Christian southern USA slave holding states, including the tell-tale use of the word Aryan.

But to get back to Charles Darwin. It is true that Darwin preceded Hitler, thereby making it possible for Hitler to have read the Origin of Species, and natural selection. But the idea that "only the strongest survive" was not invented by Charles Darwin. The idea of "the strongest survive" has been with us ever since humans have been able to think. It is the idea that has fuelled wars since the beginning. I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan operated on the theory of "the strongest survive". There has never been a battle in history where the defeated leader ever said "well, by golly who would have guessed that the weakest would lose the battle. Next time we will make sure we are the strongest."

I think the confusion exists between the inputs and the outputs of Darwin's thought process. One input to Darwin's theory was the well known law of "survival of the strongest". The output (and here was Darwin's original thought) was that evolutionary changes result from survival of the fittest. What Darwin was saying was that by eliminating the unfit, that a species would begin to morph into a different form.

Born Agains argue that Hitler wanted to "evolve" the German race by purifying it of its bad elements (Killing the mentally handicapped, the genetic mutants, the Jews, etc.). And the way to purify it was to kill the non-pure members. Again, this was not an idea that Darwin thought up. Long before Darwin, humans had learned to modify a species by killing or breeding it selectively to achieve the traits they wanted. Dogs, horses, pigeons, seeds. This is called "Selective breeding", and has been known almost as long as "survival of the strongest".

So Darwin did not invent either "survival of the fittest" or "selective breeding". And those are the two ideas that Born Again Christians accuse Darwin of inventing that lead directly to Hitler. But because both those ideas had existed long before Darwin, that logically refutes the connection between Darwin and the Nazi holocaust.

But there is more. Hitler also needed a something else to be able to go ahead with the holocaust. He needed a moral justification, which he would never get from Darwin. And he needed an example of some other country that had benefited from genocide and racism. He needed to look no further than the Christian USA, which used the Bible to effectively argue for the moral goodness of slavery and racial superiority during the time of the conquest of the Indians and the enslavement of the Africans. And, it seemed to Hitler that the USA had achieved remarkable success following this path of religiously sanctioned genocide and racism.

I forgot to mention one other thing Hitler needed and that was maybe just a touch of insanity.

In any case, I wish the Born Again Christians would let up on their endless attacks on Darwin. It is far more likely that, without the USA, Hitler could never have thought up these ideas of genocide leading to wealth and power. Charles Darwin had absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/markwmann/kirk-camerons-darwinhitler-connection-e5y
http://www.darwinistdictators.com/articles/hitler.html

"Turn the Other Cheek" Also Means Nations

I have had a second conversation with Jesus, this time he explained what he meant by "Turn the other cheek".

J: Hey, it's me again.

Me: I thought we agreed to not talk until after the Stanley Cup, and then only if the Canucks won, proving that you were actually God.

J: I know. But they just had a 19 game winning streak, and are on top of the standings, so I thought you might be willing to take a short message for me.

Me: That is a pretty impressive start for the Canucks. So why not? Fire away.

J: I wanted to leave a message for the world to re-explain what "Turn the other cheek" means. A lot of people get that wrong.

Me: You know what would be easier, God? Why not just return, like you said you would. You can explain it to humans yourself instead of going through this blog.

J: That's a fair question. Long story short. There are about a thousand other planets with intelligence similar to yours that seem to only understand when other intelligent beings are sacrificed. It takes on the average about 30 Earth years to sacrifice myself for each planet. I have to do one at a time. I expect to be back to Earth in about 30,000 years. I'm giving you this message now because it only takes a few minutes, and who knows, it may catch on.

Me: Wow! I would love to know more about the other forms of intelligent life out there.

J: I'm sure you would, and I'm sure they would like to know about you too. Now lets get back to the subject. I read your highly sarcastic blog about why turning the other cheek does not work. I want to explain my point of view again, and give you time for a little Q&A, then I have to be off to another planet to sacrifice myself.

The whole point of "Turning the other cheek" is that people must live in peace. My story is of course a bit exaggerated, in order to make the point in a dramatic way. In other words, it is not literally true. I obviously did not mean that to be a lesson in what to do only if you were hit on the cheek. By extension it covers head butting, punching in the mouth, eye-gouging, kicking shins etc. Furthermore, it applies to group acts of violence, such as gang rumbles, civil war, attempted genocide, world wars, etc. Being struck on the cheek was a simple allegory for all violence where retaliation may be considered as an option.

Turn the other cheek is easier to understand as "do not return violence with violence". All that does is to perpetrate more violence in an increasing cycle.

I have heard all the objections to "Turn the other cheek". A lot of people do not get it. In fact, out of a thousand planets with intelligence roughly the same as yours, only about half "get it". Unfortunately that does not include Earth. On Earth, even among Christians, I hear objections like "This does not apply to nations, only to individuals." That argument actually hypocritical, when it comes from people who do not practice "Turn the other cheek" in their personal lives either. If you can really understand on a personal level, you will understand on a group level and on a national level too.

Don't strike first. Don't strike at all unless there is no other way. And if you are going to strike you must not do it based on hate, lies, and false information. You must never gain materially from violence. If you must strike and injure another human, you may not profit in any way from that action. This principle applies to individual people as well as nations.

You must never strike another person who cannot fight back. Never torture prisoners, for example. Do not use violence to "teach someone a lesson". Any questions yet?

Me: So what would you think about Israel vs. Palestine.

J: That is a great question. It brings out all the issues. First issue is that some Palestinians are hitting back with rocket fire against Israel. My advice to Palestinians would be to forget it, a perfect example of violence accomplishing nothing but to create more violence. Second advice, this time for Israel. They have a perfect opportunity to turn the other cheek. The Palestinian rocket fire has not really done much harm, so in this case turning the other cheek basically means let it go if you can, and especially do not punish all Palestinians for the actions of a few. And finally, under no circumstances must Israelis use their military superiority to steal land and water from the Palestinians. Unfortunately neither side ever formally accepted my teachings, did they? But still, a lot of so-called Christians support the Israelis morally, (by twisting my own words!) and with money and by giving them weapons. Without misguided Christian support this violence would not have continued so long. And of course the big issue, "God told us this land is ours". Well, no I didn't. I want all countries to follow international law, but I'm going to leave that complicated issue for another time.

Me: I don't have any other questions about that, but I have plenty about the other planets with intelligent life.

J: OK Just one more question. Then I really have to get going, a mob is already getting impatient to crucify me on planet number 759.

Me: Only one? OK Does all intelligent life look about the same, or are we all really different?

J: Humans are about average actually. Two hands and two feet are pretty normal. So are two eyes, a head. So the crosses look about the same on most planets, but there are some very strange variants among Octopus people. Well, thanks for your time, see you after the Canucks win thus proving for sure I am the Lord God creator of Earth and all the Universe.

Me: See you next time. Amen?

Picture: Martin Luther King from this blog post "Turning Cheeks and Tables"
http://www.bagpipeonline.com/2007/11/29/2867/

Liberals or Conservatives: Who is Best at War?

Before I start, this is going to be hard reading for anyone who does not understand the difference between conservative and liberal. I know the conservatives have spread more than one stereotype for liberals, such as welfare freeloaders, immoral, and gay. I can't deal with every one of these stereotypes at once, and for now I just want to deal with a common stereotype, that liberals are soft on defence and don't support the troops.

Conservatives take great pride in their hard line stand against enemies. In contrast, Liberals are accused of being weak on defence. I am going to acknowledge that conservatives take a harder line against enemies than liberals. And this pays off for them at times when the enemy is a real threat.

But in the long run, things tend to even out between liberals and conservatives when it comes to survival. If it didn't, we would all of us be conservatives today. Liberals would have died out thousands of years ago. Instead, we have more liberals today than we did under the Roman Empire. More than there were in the Mongol Horde under Genghis Khan. And many more than in the days of cave dwellers.

Conservatives spend more on defence, including weapons and training soldiers. Liberals let the military go to hell in a handbasket, focusing more on social justice and education. Conservatives are the people of "No surrender, no talking, and no aid or comfort to the enemy." Be prepared and fight to the death.

How do things even out? Well, though it may not be immediately obvious, this conservative hard line has fatal flaws. One is the tendency to overreach. Another is the tendency to make enemies out of potential friends. And when it comes to a fight, it is not always possible to actually kill everybody who is against you. In fact it rarely is possible. Those people you have pissed off, can often bide their time and finally rally against even a well prepared military, and defeat them in the end.

On the other hand, liberals tend to not be ready when war comes, and lose the early battles. But in the long run, their better education pays off with better machinery, better manufacturing, better organization, better code breaking and electronics. You may be surprised, but education goes a long way in war. Also, liberals tend to attract more allies, even among the enemy. They earn respect by respecting the rights of others. This gives them better chance to win in the long run.

Conservatives tend to be better prepared at the beginning. But they also can go off half cocked, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy. And despite early overwhelming victories, in the end get worn down because of missteps, and incomplete knowledge of the enemy. Also their brutal tactics, greed for spoils, and disregard for human rights and justice turn off even some sympathisers, also hurting them in the long run.

One scenario, rarely considered by conservatives, is that of an outer space invasion, where all mankind must unite in a common cause. In that case, liberals have the edge, because they get along better with all races and ethnic groups. Liberals of every country are more palatable to foreigners than the conservatives. Look at the hate the conservatives in the USA have for France, or for Mexican immigrants, not to mention Muslims and Arabs. Liberals are more tolerant towards others of different religions and skin colour. So what happens when the Martians invade and we all have to work together? Better let the liberals take over. And by the way, this scenario is not so far fetched as you might think. Substitute any enemy that all mankind must unite in order to fight, and that enemy may also be something Earth based. Either a world wide epidemic, or a giant comet, or global warming. Conservatives don't really like thinking about such things because their rigid belief systems do not allow them to communicate in a meaningful way with people not like themselves. Conservatives are far more comfortable shooting, detaining and and torturing other humans than empathising with them. And often that hard line militarism doesn't even help to win wars.


Any similarity to Iraq, Afghanistan, the fall of France in 1940, or The Empire that Strikes Back in Star Wars, are purely coincidental.

Picture: I Photoshopped a Republican bumper sticker onto an F-16

North Korea's Side of the Story, Hope this Helps

The recent military incident between North and South Korea may baffle some people. To hear the pro-west propaganda, you would swear that the North Koreans are evil bullies.

I would like to help clarify the extremely confusing situation. One problem is that we only hear one side of the story. Obviously, we don't get Pyongyang's Cable Network News station in North America, nor do we find the DPRK People's Daily newspaper at the corner newsstand. But surely by now these guys have figured out how to use the Internet to set up a website, and learned a little English to give us their side of the story.

I think I have found it here: http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

Hopefully this is not a hoax website, because after all it has that .jp suffix that I assume means their service provider is in Japan. Maybe it was cheaper than any of the local North Korean Internet companies.

If you want to read the page for yourself, just remember DPRK stands for "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and that is what most of us call North Korea (i.e. the bad guys), and what I assume Sarah Palin calls "South Korea" (because she said the North Koreans are our allies.)

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86235/20101127/sarah-palin-united-states-north-korea-barack-obama-gaffe-republican-facebook-thanksgiving.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023899-503544.html?tag=stack

So I am here to help English speaking people understand the North Korean side of the story. It could take a while, because first I have to to undo the years of hateful anti-North propaganda.

I am going to begin with the "Dear Leader". I have no idea why the people of the west make fun of this term. What part of "dear leader" do you not understand? He is a dear, i.e. darling cute, cuddly, sweet, helpful, lovable. And he is a leader i.e. He tells us were to go, what to do, what to believe. What more does a person need in life than a dear leader? You Americans have your own Dear Leader, whose name is Jesus Christ. But our dear leader is even better. (Hint, he has a pulse.) Aren't you people sitting around waiting for the second coming jealous now? I thought so.

Lesson two, where I explain the meaning of "Puppet Group". South Korea is not a real government, so for the sake of truth in advertising, we always refer to them as the Puppet Group. That implies that they have no independent thought, unlike the DPRK. The Puppet Group is forced to jump around according to the puppet master, who is the arch evil United States of America.

Now what good has the Dear Leader done for North Korea? For sure, we have avoided the epidemic of obesity that is afflicting the USA and their puppet states alike. Next we have provided millions of good paying jobs, with pensions, in the military and secret services. And we lead the world in coordinated mass flag waving ceremonies, and we produce the biggest posters in the world of our Dear Leader. Our country is the sole remaining paradise on Earth, unspoiled by terrorism, capitalism, and Evangelical missionaryism. We are the only country where the press tells no lies. And second only to Newfoundland and Labrador in percentage of popular support enjoyed by political leaders. (Newfoundland 93% for Danny Williams, DPRK 89% support for Kim Jong Il.)

Now let's deal with this military incident which has confused so many people. Why is puppet group groundlessly taking issue with the army of the DPRK over its due punishment meted to the aforementioned puppet group?

What happened was that the puppet group military recklessly provoked and taunted the heroic, but peace loving army of the DPRK. And although the heroes of the DPRK army have streadfastly resisted temptation to pound the crap out of the puppet group for about fifty years, this time they could take no more, and with tears streaming down their cherubic faces, they loaded their heavy artillery and pointed their guns at Yeonpyeong Island. After about ten minutes of pin point surgical retaliation bombardment, they had killed two puppet group terrorists, and neutralized many of the Puppet Group's terror weapons of mass destruction.

Then, the Puppet Group claimed DPRK had killed two innocent civilians. How typical of their lying ways!!! We cannot confirm or deny this claim, as our inspectors were not allowed onto the island. But if we have killed any innocent Koreans, we are extremely sorry for the Puppet Groups tactic of using their Korean civilians as human shields.

Picture: The DPRK Self Defence Force parading in front of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea.

The War on Terror is Really About Cults

The "War on Terror" is not going as well as it could, and we really need to rethink our basic assumptions about it. By basic assumptions, I mean we need to question what is the essence of terrorism, and if we know what it is, then can we come up with an effective method to fight it?

We could think of terrorism as a criminal activity, or a cult activity, or we could think of it as a clash of civilizations. Each one would require a slightly different approach, and maybe terrorism is a broad enough concept to have elements of all three. But the approach we seem to have committed to most strongly is treating it as a clash of civilizations. Therefore we are fighting two wars using modern military technology against guerrillas (terrorists, freedom fighters, militant Islamists). This technique seems to be a self reinforcing diagnosis, and the more we treat it as a war, the more it becomes a war. And as I said, this is not working too well.

We could treat terrorism as a crime, but we do not seem to have the international system of justice and enforcement to bring it totally under control. So that seems unsatisfactory also.

We rarely try to treat it as a cult activity. A cult is a group that makes members psychologically dependent on it, and controls their behaviour this way. I suspect that a large part of terrorism has cultish aspects. Although we often blame the Islamic religion, the truth is that these are cults within Islam. A cult does not have any true religion. A cult adopts whatever religion is handy. We have many thousands of cults or near-cults in North America, and many of them use the name of Jesus. Back in the sixties, it seemed cults had a lot of success with eastern religions, and so many of them went with Hare Krishna or some other faddish religion. In the middle East, these cults go with Allah, because the usual way for cults to work is to start off with a popular local religion and simply use the local God as one tool in their bag of mind control tricks.

The reason we don't want to face the reality of cults is that so many North Americans are in cults, and they do not want the light of reason to be shone too brightly on their activities. Many of these cults are benign, and don't disobey the law in any way, although some are violent and perform terrorist acts. But even law abiding cults still cause grief to families who lose members to them. Deprogramming is an effective technique to use against cults, and many cults have been weakened, as their followers have been rescued through these techniques.

Take for example Omar Khadr, a story that has elements of all three. He was rounded up using a war, with bombers, and soldiers killing most of his cult-like party. He was tortured during interrogation, and I don't even know whether that activity falls under war, justice, or some sort of medieval throw back to the dark ages or the inquisition. Then he was put on a show trial, with some elements of a legal system, however flawed that might be. As a result, he will spend the next year in solitary confinement, after which he may be eligible for release in Canada. All of these things are unsatisfactory to some degree.

If we had recognized the cultish aspect of terrorism, we could have used deprogramming from the start. Instead we seem to be increasingly blaming the Islamic religion.

Many cult like churches in the USA, have an agenda that includes a broad based struggle against deprogramming, so this was never tried in our "War on Terror". The cultish Christians also have a belief in the end of the world, and the superiority of Jesus over Allah, and as a result find a holy war not only acceptable, but pre-ordained by God. Of course they are going to suppress any talk of terrorism being nothing more than another form of cult activity, which happens to borrow its rhetoric from the Koran instead of the Christian Bible. (And in case you are wondering, the Bible has plenty of quotes to support any kind of evil activity if you twist the words enough) For example, Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers were Jesus based cultists who used the bible to justify kidnapping and rape.

Americans do not really need the cults to fight a war on terror, as they have the military. But some people in the middle East have discovered the use of cults as a serious weapon in their fight against the USA or even the USSR.


Deprogramming works: http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1814

Top Ten Cults: http://listverse.com/2007/09/15/top-10-cults/

Picture: Cultish practices, http://www.squidoo.com/wordoffaith

Words About Child Soldiers from Col. George Carsted

The Calgary Herald often proudly carried conservative points of view, and that is where I found this anti-Omar Khadr rant by Col. George Carsted.

He recounts how he was only 14 when he took up a gun against the Red Army as it approached his town. But although his action was similar to Omar Khadr, he feels no sympathy for him.

Here are some of his arguments, starting with the point that since he did not see himself as a child at 14, then neither was Omar Khadr a child at 14.

He says:

"I did not see myself as a "child." I may have been scared, but I knew what I was doing."

"He [Omar] did not fight for his country, but supported the aims of a fanatical segment of Islam, whose actions are abhorred by all having one ounce of decency -- regardless of religious affiliation"

"I deem it time for the introduction of a law that strips anyone, whether born in Canada or being a naturalized citizen, who commits an act of terrorism or takes up arms against Canadian troops or those of her allies, of that citizenship"

I would not call George a child "soldier" at 14, from the description he was not part of any military training, nor was he in an organized group. He was just a kid with a gun.

He says Al Quaeda is "abhorred by all having one ounce of decency", when the well known fact is that Al Quaeda was financed and armed by the US government to fight the Red Army in the nineteen eighties. Ironically, the same army he fought when he was 14.

But please, let's not introduce a law that blindly strips anyone of Canadian citizenship for taking up arms against Canadian Troops or those of her allies, because Col. George Carstead would be among those to lose his Canadian citizenship. He has publicly confessed (in writing this article) to taking up arms against the Red Army, which were our allies at that time, against the Nazis in WW2. Maybe if George had been a bit older, he would have known that to fight the Soviets in WW2 was to help the Nazis. But he was just a kid, and probably didn't know what he was doing, no matter what he thinks now.

It's not as easy as you think to write laws condemning someone for the very same thing you do yourself. Double standards are difficult to uphold in the Canadian legal system, and I like it that way.

Picture: Some more teenage soldiers, from the movie "Red Dawn", fighting the Red Army.

About Supporting the Troops, Canadian Style

I just read a headline in today's newspaper "Taliban Smell Victory". I think they could smell victory quite a while ago, or they would not have been able to recruit so many people to run around blowing themselves up and planting land mines.

The point where I realized that the war in Afghanistan was going nowhere was at a CIGI talk given by the Canadian Brigadier General Denis Thompson, April 15, 2008 in Waterloo. He gave a presentation of all the methods Canadian forces were going to employ to pacify Afghanistan. Afterwards was a question and answer, where one person asked "Since the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan, what makes you think Canada can win?"

The Brigadier General answered "Because we were invited there." I knew right away he had made a slip up, because the Russians had been invited too. However, the Q&A was not a debating forum, you simply asked your question and the speaker replied and then on to the next questioner.

http://www.cigionline.org/events/archive/35?page=4

I'm sure if any Taliban were sitting in the room at CIGI with us, they could have smelled victory right there, too.

I do not particularly like being accused of "Not supporting the troops" when I say we are not going to win this one. In order to win, you need to know what you're up against. We lost it a long ago when we allowed the Christian Fundamentalists to make this into a Holy War against Islam. We lost it when we admitted that we could not stop the torturing of detainees. We lost it when we started thinking that we were going to advance the cause of women's liberation in Afghanistan. We lost it when the U.S. decided to pull out and go fight Saddam for the oil, instead of hunting Bin Laden. The fighting itself is now just window dressing. You can't win a war if you can't think, and we cannot think while we have our heads full of ridiculous propaganda.

But when it comes to supporting the troops, I am right there. Recently, a friend of mine died, and I went to a reception after the funeral. The reception was held at the local Royal Canadian Legion. I had no sooner walked in than somebody hissed at me that I was dishonouring the dead and I needed to remove my hat. Apparently the dead he was referring to were the war dead. Later I found out that every branch of the Legion has the same inflexible rule. Hats off to honour the dead. No headgear of any kind. I took my hat off. I want to support the troops after all.

But last week, there was a Halloween party at the Royal Canadian Legion in Campbellford, and somebody dishonoured the dead by wearing a hat. Did somebody tell him to remove it? NO. He was given a prize for his costume. Was there any talk of dishonouring the dead? Apparently not. It sounds like a double standard to me. I cannot wear a baseball cap that says "Canada" on it, but this guy can wear a Ku Klux Klan hood, and carry a noose draped around the neck of a pretend black guy, and wins a prize.

Not one article or comment I have seen about this has anything to say about the "no hats rule". I don't want to get into a ridiculous argument of whether or not this was bad taste. But apparently I'm the only one who remembered that wearing any hat at the Legion hall dishonours the dead, let alone a KKK hood. Next time, you sanctimonious hat haters, how about reminding the racists to remove their hoods, too.

I just want to follow up with the comment that if people at the Legion, presumably with some military sensibilities, cannot figure out whether this KKK guy should be kicked out immediately, then we really have no chance winning a war in Afghanistan, because winning requires some cultural smarts as well as air strikes. If we are going to be idiots, we should stay home and be idiots.

Here are the links to the rule, that requires anyone entering a Canadian Legion (an Armed Forces veterans’ association) premises to remove their hat.

http://www.aroundtaber.com/Default.aspx?alias=www.aroundtaber.com/tleg
www.openschool.bc.ca/features/samples/law12_sample.pdf

And about Sikh Turbans in the Legion???
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/moan-zone/93334-hat-etiquette.html
http://www.williamgairdner.com/poppies-trump-turbans/

Considering all the controversy about wearing headgear of any kind, how come the KKK guy gets a free pass and a prize to dishonour our war dead?

Picture: Bikers supporting troops, from this website. http://westerncanada-un-nato-veterans.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

The Omar Khadr Case: Is the War on Terror a Real War?

Although the Omar Khadr case is full of contradictions, it also holds the key to understanding the "War on Terrorism". You can read about it in this Australian news story, much easier to understand than any Canadian papers, as we Canadians are too involved with it.

This case sums up the contradictions in the war on terror. The essential ambiguity is that it is not a real war. In a real war, you have countries fighting each other with uniformed soldiers. Terrorism is stateless, there is no enemy country. The military is fighting underground organizations. There are some people who think that the fight against terror should be an international police effort, that terrorism should simply be considered a crime, and the perpetrators captured and put on trial in a normal court of law. But other people argue that it is more than criminal activity, and police action is not enough to stop it.

The Omar Khadr case exemplifies the confusion between war and police action. In a real war, it is not considered illegal to throw a grenade, or shoot a gun. In fact Americans do it all the time. But yes, in peacetime, it is actually illegal to throw a grenade at someone, even a soldier.

Yesterday, Omar Khadr was found guilty of throwing a grenade, and sentenced to 40 years behind bars. Does that make sense in the light of what actually happened? This is the situation. A fight took place between a handful of AL Quaida members and about 100 soldier, US and allies. The American assault included air strikes that basically killed every one of the Al Quaida people, except Omar Khadr. The assault was not illegal. But at some point, a grenade was thrown at an American, and this act was considered the criminal act.

Omar may in fact be the one who threw the grenade. There is no question that he was in the house during the slaughter. Omar was the sole survivor on the Al Quaida side, and badly injured during the fight. He was also 15 years old, and a Canadian citizen. But he was not a legitimate combatant, so it was illegal for him to throw grenades at American soldiers, or shoot them, or do anything against them.

The Americans wish that it was a real war, and they could drop all the pretense of "due process of law". It would be ideal for them if the enemy would form up in battalions with uniforms, tanks, generals, barracks and headquarters. They wish the enemy would name a country that they belong to. Then we could have a nice clean war like WW2, where it is obvious who would win. (assuming the enemy had no comparable air force of course, or atomic bombs). But the real weakness of the military is that they are always fighting the last "good" war, and have no understanding of the next one.

So what we have is a new kind of war. A war where the usual conventions of war don't apply, but the usual conventions of the peace time criminal justice system do not apply either.

We actually need some new rules that make sense. Right now, Americans are making up the rules as they go along, nobody else is being consulted. And maybe they are right. But what they decide is what military combat will probably look like for many years to come.

There will be no rules to protect the enemy. Once a certain group is declared to be terrorists, then it will be legal to bomb villages where they are thought to be hiding. It will be legal to kill civilians who may or may not be the enemy. It will be illegal for anyone to shoot back, to possess arms which may injure the legitimate army (whatever country that may be, USA, or China or Russia for example). It will be legal for a country with a strong military to invade another country to root out the terrorists, and the invaded country will not need to be a real threat, or even be belligerent. It will be legal for the military to detain anyone for any reason, and it will be legal to torture detainees into naming collaborators or confessing to crimes. It will be legal to assassinate (for example by missile strike) foreign leaders who are thought to be cooperating with terrorists. It will be legal to hold trials for terror suspects, without giving them any of the traditional benefits of the legal system. It will not be necessary to honour the Geneva conventions of war unless the terrorists are uniformed soldiers, under orders, defending themselves against an attack. People of a certain religion will become legitimate targets, wherever they live, similar to the old concept of "holy war".

Although none of these characteristics are being written down in a new code of conduct yet, the rest of the world is watching, and getting the message.

Maybe we should learn the lesson of history. The world was horrified that the Nazis starved and killed millions of innocent people in concentration camps. But who invented the concept of concentration camps? I believe it was the British, during the Boer war in about 1900. They rounded up all the Boer women and children, forced them into camps, where tens of thousands of them died of starvation and disease. The lesson is, if you do something bad, sometimes other people will adopt your ways. On the other hand, Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And I believe it's still a good rule today. It's just sad that a country calling itself "Christian" seems to not get it.

Picture: I am not sure what this picture means, but I got it from the website calling itself "Satan's Rapture.com: Point of no return", and their message seems to be that the Muslims are taking over the world and all the women will have to wear a burkah. (Just my own comment here: I lived in a Muslim country for three years and never saw one burkah. So maybe the Muslims should be talking to their own women first before they try to spread that style of clothing around to blue eyed blond women, who are probably Christian or maybe atheists at worst.)

http://www.satansrapture.com/islam.htm

The Fall of France, 1940, Explained

Marc Bloch, a French officer in WW2, wrote a book about the defeat of France. This book, titled "Strange Defeat" survived the war, although the officer did not. After the French surrender, he joined the resistance and was captured and killed by the Nazis a few weeks before France was liberated.

The Wikipedia entry for Marc Bloch has a link to a small Wikipedia article on the book "Strange Defeat". I found a much bigger entry for "Strange Defeat" on Wikipedia in French. I wrote a translation, which I have included below. (Disclaimer: Although I understand French well enough, I am not a translator, and for me this entry was a bit difficult to follow.)

A translation of the French Wikipedia entry about the book "Etrange Defaite" or "Strange Defeat"

The analysis of the French Army by Marc Bloch starts at the bottom and goes to the top levels.

A Sclerotic Army

He denounces first the bureaucratic character of the army, attributing it to peacetime habits: in particular the "cult of beautiful stationery" [maybe "Desk Jockeys"?], and also the "fear of displeasing one with power, today or tomorrow.". These habits led to a dilution of responsibility between too great a number of hierarchies, as well as a delay in transmitting orders. He sees as a prime cause the the advanced age of the French Army's staff, little renewed, as opposed to a much younger German army.

This bureaucratic organization is also founded, according to him, in the training of the officers, which revolved around a cult of theory and tradition. The main source of this education is the "Ecole de Guerre", where Marc Bloch had refused enroll, which he pays for in not being allowed to be promoted past the rank of captain. Based on the experience of the First World War, the teaching of this school, in fact, advocated the superiority of infantry and artillery, as opposed to mechanized units (tanks and aircraft, among others), supposedly "too heavy to move". Similarly, education policy is based on theoretical rules of engagement, elegant and abstract, which do not pass the test of practice. This teaching is associated with a culture of secrecy, which slows the transmission of information, and a cult of command, in reaction to the questioning of authority that took place in 1916 and 1917.

The association between the bureaucracy and rigid training leads, on the field, to general disorder, with three captains who succeeded to his post in a few months, and especially serious shortcomings in the management of men and equipment. The soldiers are poorly housed and physically relocated regardless of their ability to move, wasting energy in marching forward and back again. Similarly, materials are in short supply, facing a well-equipped German army. The French army lacks in quantity, military budgets have been sunk in to the fortification of the east border (Maginot Line, among others), leaving open the north. It also lacks concentration, the tanks are scattered in many corps, which makes any concerted movement impossible. Soon this mess on the ground was found at all levels, with rotations too rapid for staff to have time to learn their duties, and a carelessness in upkeep of the premises and records, that in a bureaucratic context, completes the paralysis of the French army.

The incapacity of intelligence services [edit]

The army becomes exhausted, most often, not knowing where the enemy is, and Marc Bloch blamed the intelligence services. It is above all, he believes, due to poor organization. As a captain in charge of gasoline (supply of fuel and ammunition to troops), he will only receive low-level information bulletins, as important information was classified secret and communicated too high in the hierarchy. All information passes through excessively long reporting lines, and ends up being out of date by the time it comes to people who need it.

It becomes impossible to know how soon an order can be executed, which leads to other unforeseen delays in maneuvers, such as retirement of the armies of the Meuse and Sedan, which exposes the rear of the troops in Belgium. Faced with this situation, each corps and almost every officer, including himself, sets up its own intelligence operation, leading to a disastrous competition in services and the insufficient contact between the various levels of command, to the point that the officers often do not know where their own troops are.

The intelligence services have also seriously underestimated the scale and mobility of the German army, causing them each day to send the troops too late to the German advance. It highlights in particular a chronic inability to properly estimate the speed of movement and the number of German tanks and aircraft, by the French armed forces who are still obsessed by infantry and artillery. This inefficiency of information leads to great surprise in the French high command.

This concentration of information, on what was not the spearhead of the German Army, is the sign of a rigid and outdated strategic thinking from the French command. Rather than respond to the errors in estimation, the senior officers are continually surprised that "the Germans simply had advanced more quickly than what appeared to conform to the rule", the rule in question is based on the study Napoleonic campaigns and the previous war. Similarly, officers are often locked into basic plan that they knew to be obsolete, not having been trained to adapt to new situations. "In a word, because our leaders, amid many contradictions, argued, above all, to redo the war of 1915-1918. The Germans were doing the war of 1940."

This neglect naturally had a serious impact on the morale of the troops, beaten down both by a feeling of helplessness and fear, the enemy was never where they were expected by the army command. A man can better endure an expected danger, than the sudden threat of death at a bend in a supposedly secure road.

Command responsibility

"We have just suffered a tremendous defeat. Whose fault was it? The parliamentary system, the troops, the English, the fifth column", say our generals. Everyone, in short, but them. "

Marc Bloch's indictment against the French General Staff was particularly heavy. He first noted a crisis of authority. The big chiefs were reluctant to change collaborators, resulting in a "divorce" between command and those who carry out the orders. He noted especially the inconsistencies within the command, where leaders have a near-total impunity despite major deficiencies, while subordinates are harshly punished for little mistakes. This impunity leads to less accountable leaders who are able to dodge the necessary solutions, as long as they to buy into the thought patterns of the War College. Promotions based on age over competence, which makes it even more difficult because of the [high?] average age of officers. Coordination of command also disappears in turf wars between chiefs, and rivalries between multiple offices and between various army corps.

The Allies

Because of his position, Marc Bloch is often in communication with allied forces, and he draws a gloomy assessment. He first pointed out the difficulties with the soldiers and people.

Although professional soldiers, the British apparently have a disastrous "rape and pillage" behaviour. This reinforces among the peasant population, whom they despise, a latent historical Anglophobia. This feeling is again reinforced when one realizes that the British have turned tail and are fleeing first, and are jockeying to be evacuated, blowing up bridges to cover their retreat without worrying about the French troops remaining behind. "The British refused, naturally enough, to commit themselves to a disaster for which they felt they were not responsible." The British, meanwhile, judge the inadequacies of the French army harshly ("our prestige had outlived itself and they did not try to hide it from us"), and the French command in turn resorts to Anglophobe propaganda to hide its own failures.

On several occasions, as with the breakthrough to Arras, the British did not provide promised aid, seeing the faults of the French strategic plan. These failures led to an abandonment of collaboration between the staffs, a failure of the alliance. The armies were no longer coordinated by common authority following the encirclement of the GHQ (General Headquarters). Without effective linkages, or camaraderie, the French army remains ignorant of the weaknesses of the British army. In the United Kingdom, subsequently, the population welcomed the French, but for the authorities, a "a stiff bit of suspicion" remained.

Examination of Conscience by a Frenchman

Bloch does not attribute responsibility for the defeat solely to the army. He connects the shortcomings of the former with the unpreparedness and the myopia of the French people as a whole.

The State and the parties [edit]

His first target is the State and parties. He denounced "the absurdity of our propaganda, its irritating and rude optimism, his timidity, and above all, the impotence of our government to honestly define its war aims." The inertia and the softness of the ministers are stigmatized, and the abandonment of their responsibilities to technicians, recruited on the same corporate basis (Ecole Polytechnique and Sciences-Po, above). All these petty functionaries are advancing in seniority in a shared culture of contempt for the people, of whom they underestimate the resources.

Political parties are also stigmatized in their contradictions. Thus, the right-wing parties, who forget their Germanophobia, bow to defeat and to pose as defenders of democracy and tradition. Similarly, the left votes down the military budget and preaches pacifism, but calls for guns to Spain. Bloch accuses the unions of philistinism, obsessed by their own immediate interests to the detriment of their future or the interest of the country as a whole. Similarly, he condemned pacifism and internationalism as incompatible with the worship of the country, criticizing in particular their pacifist preaching that war is a matter of rich and powerful that the poor have no power to interfere (a Marxist interpretation of the conflict)

Workers and citizens [edit]

In the population as a whole, he denounces back to back, workers and bourgeois. He accused the former of seeking "to provide the least possible effort, in as short a time as possible for as much money as possible" in disregard of national interests, resulting in delays in war production.

Conversely, he accuses the bourgeoisie of selfishness, and blames them for not having informed the man of the streets and fields on the challenges of the country or even in providing a basic education (reading problem). It depicts a bourgeoisie living off investments, studying only for for their own pleasure and thinking only of having fun. He thus describes "the great misunderstanding of the French, who are facing a bourgeoisie whose investment income declines, threatened by the new social strata, forced to pay for themselves and finding that workers work less and less, and people are poorly educated, unable to understand the gravity of the situation. It highlights in particular the sharpness of a bourgeoisie which has never recovered from the Popular Front. Away from people, the bourgeois "unintentionally deviate from France as well."

In the more immediate level, Marc Bloch describes a people poorly prepared. Propaganda maintains a sense of security, although we have known since Guernica there is no more "sky without threat". Despite the image of Spain in ruins, "we had not said enough to make us afraid, and not enough so we would accept the inevitable new or renewed war."

The class of 1940 had hardly been prepared, and as we did not want war, we went with no zeal, with resignation. Bloch suggests instead that, faced with national peril, no one should have immunity, even women can fight the war. But the politics were to avoid the death and destruction of the previous war: "We thought it wiser to submit to anything rather than accept, again, this type of loss." In this context, the outflow is from a common cowardice, especially the lack of effort by the people to understand, who prefer to return to the rural life and refuse modernity.

Conclusion

Marc Bloch notes therefore a shared responsibility, which leads to a surrender, too quickly, of a war that may have been continued. Few people are blind, but one dares not speak up and denounce the deficiencies before they are revealed by the conflict and, therefore, no one dares to question conventional wisdom.

Picture: Hitler in Paris 1940.