Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Reefer Madness | Main | Trouble for Christians in Gaza »

Monday, October 15, 2007

Dealing With Communism/The Long Telegram

My friends at the National Review have an extended discussion going on the Long Telegram, the present state of the Global War on Terrorism, and the advisability and logistics of confronting the Soviet Union in the period immediately after the Second World War.

It began with a related question – why has there been no “Long Telegram” in this war?  That is to say, no galvanizing and transcendental document which lays out simply and clearly the path of victory.  In short (I mean it, because the rest of this is very long) there’s been no “Long Telegram” in this war because there was one in the last war.  Kenan’s document and the strategy that it laid out – and how it was followed in the years thereafter – exhausted the American people and left them incapable of following such a simple and direct strategy in a state of relative unity.

Political life, I’ve often said, is kind of like a locked steering wheel.  When parked, you can shift it only slightly from one side to another – and that with a high degree of force.  When unlocked, however, one can spin the wheel wildly to one side or another before choosing to lock it again.  When so locked, it will again move only slightly – but from its new centre.

The choice here wasn’t between either ordering Eisenhower east in June 1945 and the “Long Twilight Struggle” of the Cold War.  The other option – the best option – runs somewhere in-between.  In the day, they called it Rollback. 

What could have been doing in 1945-1946?  Nuclear production could have been ramped up.  Military production could have been vastly increased – many of the weapons which were due at the end of the war were, frankly, amazing.  Another two to three years of research and development within the West at the rate of 1945 would have put the weapons of 1955 or so into Allied hands by the end of that period of time.  Meanwhile, the Soviet Union – cut off from foreign assistance – would be lucky to get as far as they did in our timeline.

Yes, the American and British people were exhausted.  And so, just like in 1918, they made a conscious decision not to finish the job – not to put the screws in while they had the chance and, thus, they paid a terrible price in the years that followed.  “Republic’s cant fight wars,” lamented the Civil War diarist Mary Chestnut.  She was at least half right.

Combine high-level military spending, a far more aggressive approach to Soviet espionage, constant covert warfare against communism wherever it might be found, and finally an ultimate policy of waging a war of liberation against the Soviet Union itself and you get, in the end, a chance – if things move fast enough – to create the kind of world order – a true Pax Americana – which could have lasted for centuries.

(Continued at adamyoshida.com)

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 15, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f0c01438834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dealing With Communism/The Long Telegram:

Comments

Yep, there is always 2 truths in war...the ones you tell the population and the ones that actually happen.
Strange that the left wants to have the freedoms to do what they want when they want it, but over regulate EVERYTHING because we cant control our selves...talk about confused.

Posted by: Sean | 2007-10-15 4:13:36 AM


This theory is worth what its name is: a theory.

There could have been another way: let the Nazis destroy communism, than take the nazis over.

I think the main problem that could have easily been solved was to prevent China to fall into communism hand. A huge mistake. Without communist China, communism would have been much weaker.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-10-15 8:16:37 AM


Here's another way to deal with aggressive communism, despite Leftoids cries that "IT WON'T WORK!"

"Ground-Based Interceptors Work"

by Rep. Trent Franks

For decades, people have derided even the theory of Ballistic Missile Defense. Never, they said, would we be able to hit a bullet with a bullet and shoot down a missile flying through space, carrying a nuclear weapon to destroy an American city. But there’s bad news for the naysayers: ground-based interceptors work. And if we deploy them, instead of delaying them, our children and grandchildren will not be defenseless against an attack by rogue nations or terrorists.

This GBI capability was recently demonstrated in the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) successful completion of a flight test involving the intercept of a threat-representative missile launched from Kodiak, Alaska. The missile was successfully destroyed by a long-range Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The GBI is designed to protect the United States against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack by intercepting an enemy missile in its midcourse phase of flight more than 100 miles above the earth.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22831

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 8:29:39 AM


O/T but. . .

Bill Clinton has announce that he is entering a dental college programme in California:

"Embattled Calif. Dentist Says Breast Rubs Necessary"

WOODLAND, Calif. — A dentist accused of fondling the breasts of 27 female patients is trying to keep his dental license by arguing that chest massages are an appropriate procedure in certain cases. Mark Anderson's lawyer says dental journals discuss the need to massage the pectoral muscles to treat a common jaw problem.

Police say Anderson said during recorded phone calls that he routinely massaged patients' chests to treat temporo-mandibular joint disorder, or TMJ, which causes neck and head pain.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 9:01:23 AM


These days we are too often fooled by labels; Left, Right, Fascism, Communism, etc., so perhaps one would be better to take a closer look at the components of regimes/systems we oppose in order to better identify the enemy. One can never defeat a non identified enemy.

One of the principle components in my opinion is the forced control of people (the masses) and unfortunately we have an increasing amount of that in the West. It is done through regulations, "laws", intimidation and force (police). True we live under the label of democracy, but to what extent is this still true when we have various agendised groups imposing their will through non elected judicial activists.

I am not in the least a supporter of communism and am in no way attempting to defend it. I do believe however that we need to identify exactly what we oppose instead of reacting to labels. There is too much confusion and even common ground between many of them to-day. While we often think we are fighting an enemy out there our liberty and freedom at home continue to be eroded.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-15 12:13:21 PM


Alain,

I agree with you. We have freedom, or we have some level of scialism/communism. Since all things are either dying or growing, allowing socialism is to allow a continued errosion of freedom & liberty.

But it is slow and most policies that erode our freedoms & liberties do so in such a small way that we can't generate enough public oposition. So the change keeps happenign little by little.

We live in a highly regulated market, where the government has a direct hand in many things we do from schooling, to food choices, to radio/tv choices, etc. So even though we live in a democracy, we less free than many of us would like.

Posted by: TM | 2007-10-15 12:33:19 PM


Alain:

I like the way FOX commentator Bill O'Reilly frames the cultural struggle.

It's a battle between those who uphold traditional values and secular progressives.

A debate between values that have proven to work over time and values that are either new or have been disproven to work in the past.

I like traditional values since the other viewpoint promotes the absence of any kind of values and is an anything goes, moral relativism which has difficulty distinguishing between right and wrong.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-15 12:38:37 PM


Exactly TM. The desire to control/dominate others is an inherent, but base, human/animal trait, which is why most religions try to get us to cultivate charity, compassion and tolerance. When you include in the equation a complacent population freedoms and liberties are soon lost.

All good parents likely have an understanding of this, since as a parent we must be careful not to be controlling of our children which is not indifference. We do our best to guide them so that they can make informed decisions. Actually it is so what the same in marriage, since the best way to end a marriage is for the husband or wife to seek to control the other.

Freedom is not bestowed on us by any government or regime but is a gift from the Almighty. Yet our fellowman throughout history is determined to destroy it.

Freedom requires vigilance.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-15 12:49:35 PM


While we often think we are fighting an enemy out there our liberty and freedom at home continue to be eroded.

Posted by: Alain | 15-Oct-07 12:13:21 PM

Obviously you didn't get the memo. The Government isn't taking our freedoms away, the freedom is taken away by those evil terrorists in caves that want to kill us all.

Talk to obc and SYF, they can explain in detail to you why you are wrong and they are right.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 12:54:40 PM


Nice try snowrunner. Contrary to you I fully recognise Islamism as another deadly ideology intent on not only controlling people but murdering those who disagree. That said I might add that they are here and now with us and not simply out there.

I object to your leftist secular ideology which uses every means to impose its ideology on us be it through regulations, the courts, propaganda and intimidation. As for using violence let it suffice to note that this ideology is in bed big time with Islamism.

In fact because of the stupidity of this ideology authorities to profile the enemies thus subjecting aged non Muslim grandmothers to the same treatment as suspected enemies. What about the leftist outcry of tapping telephone calls of suspected terrorists? It came from your ideology.

Do not take people's comments out of context and try to twist their words, for doing so leaves no doubt about the group to which you belong.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-15 3:34:18 PM


I meant: authorities refuse to profile the enemies...

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-15 3:50:13 PM


Snowy said

"Obviously you didn't get the memo. The Government isn't taking our freedoms away, the freedom is taken away by those evil terrorists in caves that want to kill us all."

I take it from your sarcasm that you still subscribe to your earlier thoughts as posted thusly:

"Sorry, but the only one who is doing most of the terrorizing right now are our own Governments. "

Hence, our goverment is the enemy of our freedoms.

So, why are you here? I noticed that you posted a complaint (rightly so) about someone threatening to out your name, address, etc. on another thread.

If you were so concerned about that, why aren't you so concerned about the gov't coming after you for exposing their efforts to terrorize the general public? Or are they too busy planting evidence on the Toronto 17 to read your posts here at this blog?

It should be a piece of cake now for them to "disappear" you if they can get away with such terrorism against its own subjects that we don't even notice the terror.

Please be careful and check in often so that I know you are still safe!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-15 4:49:56 PM


Alain ~

You are correct. Snowflake & the Muslims are in bed together which explains his antipathy to us.

We recognize the enemy - he sides with the enemy.

In the end, they wish to behead him as much as the rest of us, but his ideology blinds him to see that fact.

Daniel Perle was a Leftist - and he could not maintain his head on his shoulders.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 4:53:33 PM


Oh, the surprise, the usuals are coming out of their woods again "interpreting" what I have written to fit their own view of the world.

Maybe you should smoke up less (I heard it contributes to schizophrenia), considering how you supposedly stand for individual freedoms and minimal Government, yet have no problem with the Government snooping around without much of oversight all in the name of "protecting us".

It is also par for the course that anybody who objects this is painted with the "islamist huggers" paintbrush, obviously the person who resists the meddling of the Government must be a Muslim hugger. Oh wait, that'll make OBC and the rest muslim lovers too....

And yes, H2, I do believe the Government uses the thread of terror to terrorize us, so that we all shut up and sign off on any amount of freedoms they want to take away in the name of protecting us, you know, all those freedoms all those people have died for in the past to wrestle away from the Government, beginning with the Magna Carta.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 5:04:11 PM


Snowy said

"And yes, H2, I do believe the Government uses the thread of terror to terrorize us, so that we all shut up and sign off on any amount of freedoms they want to take away in the name of protecting us, you know, all those freedoms all those people have died for in the past to wrestle away from the Government, beginning with the Magna Carta."

but you said

"last time I will "talk" to you in any way."

Your inability to stick to a coherent and contiguous thought is again highlighted.

Anyway, I fail to see where I signed off "on any amount of freedoms they want to take away in the name of protecting us".

I challenge you and you jump into black and white mode completely bypassing the "shades of grey" again. When will you learn?

You are out of your depth here.

"I do believe the Government uses the thread of terror to terrorize us"

Still, I want to know why you feel so safe you can criticize the gov't so openly yet complain so openly they want to reduce your freedoms and terrorize you?

You look ridiculous.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-15 5:15:51 PM


obc:

Daniel Pipes was not beheaded BECAUSE he was a leftist.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-15 5:18:23 PM


Still, I want to know why you feel so safe you can criticize the gov't so openly yet complain so openly they want to reduce your freedoms and terrorize you?

You look ridiculous.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 15-Oct-07 5:15:51 PM

And you look stupid, but I guess you don't see that.

Why am I not shutting up like a little wuss just because I believe the Government is (not only in Canada) trying to curtail individual freedoms? Because unlike you I am not just brave enough to hide behind a moinker and a keyboard and an internet connection, but actually do believe that in a democracy you have to be willing to stand up for what you believe in (and in other "cultures" too).

You and OBC et. al. may consider yourself "liberitarians", but the reality is your committment to the ideas of indiviual freedoms stop at your pocket books, as long as you can "pay your way to freedom" you're perfectly happy to proclaim that individual freedom is all that matter, but the moment things aren't that easy anymore you clamp up and cry for the nanny state you have despised just a moment before.

The sad part is (as always) I don't fully disgree with every thing you guys write, but you have gotten into the habit of trying to "prove me wrong" in the same way that a pavlovian dog was trained.

You guys are "itching" for a fight in order to prove yourself, but none of you would ever even dare sitting down with me and have a face to face discussion (I know, I tried, I invited several Edmonton people last time to meet me for a beverage of their choice and they could tell me all those nice things to my face, but guess what, they "declined" because they were afraid of me).

Keep pretending that you care about a small Government, individual freedoms and personal responsiblities, anybody who has followed your (and obc et al.) rantings for a while quickly realizes that outside of a keyboard very little will ever come from you.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 5:22:24 PM


set ~

You confuse me. Daniel Pipes is a columnist - and a breathing one, too. He is no Leftist but a conservative thinker.

Daniel Perle was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal - and WAS beheaded in Pakistan about 5 years ago, even though he was a Leftist.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 5:22:54 PM


Just a keyboard? Heck, I rented a billboard in Calgary last month, making national news!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 5:26:32 PM


Just a keyboard? Heck, I rented a billboard in Calgary last month, making national news!

Posted by: obc | 15-Oct-07 5:26:32 PM

Sorry missed that, wasn't anywhere in my newsfeed.

Got a link?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 5:28:46 PM


Yup, I do.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 5:31:53 PM


Snowy,

Still talking to me after all, I see.

"You guys are "itching" for a fight in order to prove yourself, ..."

No. Not really. I fail to see to whom I am proving anything to anyone by challenging you to a fight. Perhaps you can tell me to whom I am trying to prove myself.

"Why am I not shutting up like a little wuss just because I believe the Government is (not only in Canada) trying to curtail individual freedoms? "

Good for you. But weren't you accusing them of terrorizing us instead? Big difference.

"Because unlike you I am not just brave enough to hide behind a moinker and a keyboard and an internet connection, but actually do believe that in a democracy you have to be willing to stand up for what you believe in (and in other "cultures" too)."

How do you know I am not standing up openly elsewhere? More black and white prejudice.


"Keep pretending that you care about a small Government, individual freedoms and personal responsiblities, anybody who has followed your (and obc et al.) rantings for a while quickly realizes that outside of a keyboard very little will ever come from you."

As I have no illusions to achieving anything of consequence here, I plead guilty. Why are you arguing with me on an anonymous blog again?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-15 5:32:22 PM


obc:

Sorry. I meant Daniel Pearle.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-10-15 5:35:29 PM


set -

No problem.

My point was that his leftoidism didn't save him.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 5:38:52 PM


Snowy

"...but none of you would ever even dare sitting down with me and have a face to face discussion (I know, I tried, I invited several Edmonton people last time to meet me for a beverage of their choice and they could tell me all those nice things to my face, but guess what, they "declined" because they were afraid of me)."

Wow! The arrogance of the assumptions built into this. Perhaps they lead busy lives. Perhaps they think you are a psychopath. Perhaps they don't want to be charged with manslaughter when they accidentally run you over because you refused to let go the door handle as they drove away.

You complained about your privacy being violated yet you expect others to expose theirs to your veiled threats.

Here let me show you.

"but guess what, they "declined" because they were afraid of me"

"but you have gotten into the habit of trying to "prove me wrong" in the same way that a pavlovian dog was trained"

"Because unlike you I am not just brave enough"

"itching" for a fight"

That's a considerable amount of testosterone laced language you have thrown down.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-15 5:53:48 PM


"I rented a billboard in Calgary last month, making national news!"

"Got a link?"

"Yup, I do."

...and he's the only one: the news stood for 24 hours and then dissapeared from any online papers and web search. He even changed his email adress.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-15 5:59:17 PM


Snowy,

"but none of you would ever even dare sitting down with me and have a face to face discussion"

Your weight class?
Your height?
Your reach?
Are you a south paw or righty?
Do you have martial arts or military training?

Are you now or have you ever been under medical supervision for psychiatric/hallucinatory conditions?

Do you have a criminal record for violent behaviour?

Just trying to help Edmontonians figure out the risks of walking the streets with someone holding your aggressive stance.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-15 6:16:17 PM


h20 ~

Perhaps he has a "wide stance", a la Idaho Senator Larry Craig. :)

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 7:12:02 PM


Well, snowflake - Look who's eavesdropping on private conversation nows, and not for the purposes of nabbing terrorists - but for POLITICAL REASONS!

"GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping"

By Alexander Bolton

Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance.

Government surveillance will be at the forefront of the political debate this fall as congressional Democrats and President Bush square off over legislation allowing electronic spying on U.S. soil without a warrant.

Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents.

In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”

A GOP official said, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.”

Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape playing. He has not revealed the aide’s identity. Clinton’s campaign has not disputed any facts reported in the final version of his book, which became public this spring, he said.

“It hasn’t been challenged,” said Gerth. “There hasn’t been one fact in the book that’s been challenged.”

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 7:36:31 PM


And this is what happens when Leftoids get their way on the issue of wiretapping:

"America's 'Useful Idiots' Prevent Our Soldiers from Being Rescued"

With American soldiers fighting deadly terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, do we want to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to introduce new judicial and bureaucratic obstacles to rescuing our troops if they are captured on the battlefield? And, with the American homeland in the crosshairs of international Jihadists, why are House Democrats and the ACLU so determined to make life miserable for telephone companies who have acted patriotically by helping our intelligence agencies monitor people who may be targeting this country?

On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to debate legislation called the RESTORE Act – that will in all likelihood require the government to get judicial permission before wiretapping terrorist communications that could aid the search for captured American troops. It could also be a potential windfall for trial lawyers hoping for a big payday by suing telephone companies for cooperating with the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

Two US soldiers' eyes were gouged out, they were castrated, and tortured further until they died because 10 hours passed before permission for tapping was given by a FISA court before these men might have been rescued. THE HELL WITH LEFTOIDS!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-15 7:48:07 PM


More madness expected in bureaucrats. I hope Ron Paul get the Republican nomination. I like New Hampshire motto: live free or die.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-10-15 8:57:19 PM


Yoshi, i couldn't have said it better myself. as an unapologetic foreign policy neo-con, i worry about the effect of guilty, self loathing, suicidal social liberal behavior on the public consciousness.

we have to break it down to its elements:

us or them

our system or their system

individual and economic freedom or religious and authoritarian tyranny

private property rights or fear of expropriation

free speech or "head down and shut up" (hmmm... this sounds more like the Canadian Supreme Court all the time)

our justice system or Sharia...

man, i could go on all night. but you get my point.

think about this, social liberals: love it or hate it, where would we be today if not for American foreign policy since WWII? i shudder to contemplate. oh yeah, do your homework before retorting.

we've got to stop commiting suicide (msm, universities, etc.) and think of the tangible, objective reasons we have for not being afraid to call a spade a spade, and uphold and protect Western values. we have a moral (that's right, social liberals) obligation to go into nations we perceive as an immediate or perceived threat, and impose Western values upon them. better to try and do this now than to be forced to crush them later (Iraq is very expensive right now. if America's back was against the wall, economically, and there was a military threat looming, it would be much less expensive to simply destroy it outright. something else to think about, social liberals).

as long as we squash most domestic policy neo-con tendencies regarding social policy, we have nothing to apologize for in the foreign policy arena. there's nothing wrong with self preservation and imposing Western values on potential threats. better this than outright destruction.

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-15 9:10:40 PM


we have a moral (that's right, social liberals) obligation to go into nations we perceive as an immediate or perceived threat, and impose Western values upon them.

[...]

there's nothing wrong with self preservation and imposing Western values on potential threats. better this than outright destruction.

Posted by: shel | 15-Oct-07 9:10:40 PM

Ever heard of "live by the sword, die by the sword"?

What are these "western values" that you think need to be brought with the sword to countries that don't subscribe to them?

Your proposal is in large part an antithesis of what I perceive as Western values (and no H2 or OBC, I am not going to go into detail right now just so that you can pull out the one or two things I am not going to cover).

What you are proposing is essential the building of an empire (on that notion, you may be delighted to know that the US right now has more than 700 military bases all around the world) and a constant state of war, were every idea that runs counter to your "Western Values' deserves to be answered by a gun.

Is that what you want? A world in constant violence while you (and I) sit "safely" on the North American Island? Do you honestly believe that 300 Million can stand against more than 6 billion? When is it in your opinion justified to use nuclear weapons to "contain the thread"? Who is going to make these decisions?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 9:53:31 PM


So obc, in your opinion just because someone else does something wrong everybody is allowed to commit a similar crime? By that logic good luck with your convinience store robbery.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 9:56:33 PM


And with regards to OBC's and Shel's comments, I find it interesting that there is made much of "Western Values' and a "war of ideologies" that we are supposely about to lose, and yet, one of the corner stones of Western Society is the seperation of lawmakers, law enforcers and judges, commonly refered to as "Checks and Balances".

And yet, every one of these "ardent defenders of Western Values" has on more than one occasion spoken about about the audacity of Judges to actually ... Judge.

Maybe you should consider again if you really want to live in a Western Society. I am getting the feeling a Police State would be more to your likings.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 9:59:32 PM


And with regards to OBC's and Shel's comments, I find it interesting that there is made much of "Western Values' and a "war of ideologies" that we are supposely about to lose, and yet, one of the corner stones of Western Society is the seperation of lawmakers, law enforcers and judges, commonly refered to as "Checks and Balances".

And yet, every one of these "ardent defenders of Western Values" has on more than one occasion spoken about about the audacity of Judges to actually ... Judge.

Maybe you should consider again if you really want to live in a Western Society. I am getting the feeling a Police State would be more to your likings.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-15 10:00:10 PM


Snowrunner, as you continue to demonstrate a lack of intelligent discussion, preferring to twist the posts of others and resorting to name-calling, I shall ignore your rants.

No one here is against the separation of legislators (lawmakers as you call them), judicial system and law enforcement. However any honest person knows the difference between the mandate of the judicial system (courts/judges) and the legislative branch (elected members of government) and can recognise when judges place themselves as gods and decide they have a mandate to legislate.

You spout about our parliamentary democracy and seem to have little understanding of it. Perhaps you would feel much more at home in Eurabia, Germany most likely.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-16 1:18:51 AM


Snowy

"... you may be delighted to know that the US right now has more than 700 military bases all around the world) and a constant state of war, were every idea that runs counter to your "Western Values' deserves to be answered by a gun."

Yet, here we sit, relatively helpless beside that goliath, negotiating trade, security, and immigration issues where we differ...all that and nary a gun fired.

Hardly a constant state of war. Hardly a case of every countered western value answered by a gun.

After all, as Canadians are fond to point out, we have socialized Medicine and the US doesn't. Who claims the western value there?

We have gay marriage, they, generally, do not. Who claims that as a western value?

We opposed joining the war against Iraq. The US disagreed. Who owns the western value there?

You really are feeling terrorized. I'm beginning to wonder whether it's really the chaos of democracy that you fear.

Finally,

"And yet, every one of these "ardent defenders of Western Values" has on more than one occasion spoken about about the audacity of Judges to actually ... Judge."

Imagine that, citizens with the right to free speech actually using that right to criticize bad decisions made by their employees.

What is this country coming to? Snowy?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-16 1:50:38 AM


Snowy,

"... you may be delighted to know that the US right now has more than 700 military bases all around the world)..."

And you may be delighted to know that Canada has soldiers spread around the world as well.

Afghanistan, Cyprus, Haita, Europe, US, etc.

I'm sure the DND has a complete list of our mini-empire.

What? You don't like that comparison? Perhaps you can provide a per capita quota of soldiers that are currently deployed that is acceptable. Above which, we are an empire, below, not. Is France an empire?

Let's see. US, Canada, and France are fighting wars and sending soldiers overseas in many lands. These countries are capable of going to war AND negotiating treaties at the same time.

"What are these "western values" that you think need to be brought with the sword to countries that don't subscribe to them?"

Perhaps that core western value to which you seek an answer is simply:

the ability of the citizens to decide their fate.

It's called democracy.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-16 2:14:40 AM


"Checks and Balances"

Yes - when Lieberal PM Creton appointed Lieberal judges with no consultations with Parliament, where are the "Checks and Balances"???

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-16 7:19:02 AM


And let us note another great accomplishment of Socialism:

"Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists"

Telegraph (UK)

Almost a fifth of those questioned in the biggest patient survey of its kind said that they had missed out on dental work because of the cost. The research, involving more than 5,000 patients in England, also found that as many as six per cent had treated themselves because they could not find a dentist.


As P. J. O'Rourke said, if you think medical care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-16 7:43:42 AM


To follow up on my previous post:

Do you know where the toothbrush was invented?

In Britain!

How do I know?

Otherwise, it would have been called a teethbrush. :)

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-16 8:01:27 AM


Well said OBC!
And Snowy, you must be reading the wrong papers.
OBC's excellent billboard made front pages in many
publications here in Onscario. I don't believe
The Daily Worker covered it so perhaps that's why you missed it.

Posted by: atric | 2007-10-16 9:05:34 AM


Or maybe atric, I am not in Ontario?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-16 10:02:45 AM


Not in Onscario? Lucky you!
The billboard received all kind of press across Canada. US as well.

Posted by: atric | 2007-10-16 11:00:05 AM


Not in Onscario? Lucky you!
The billboard received all kind of press across Canada. US as well.

Posted by: atric | 16-Oct-07 11:00:05 AM

How about providing me a link then?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-16 11:30:44 AM


Snowy
"Do you honestly believe that 300 Million can stand against more than 6 billion? "

Nope. However, as I side, generally, with the US on many issues, your math is wrong.

It's 5,999,999,999 to 300,000,001.

but wait, there's about half of Canada that identifies with the US more than their enemies.

So it's about 5,984,999,999 to 300,015,001.

Still, again, there is Poland and Australian empathy for the US over the enemies of freedom.

Going further, I wonder how many of the US military bases are being used to suppress the local population.

I have to wonder how many Germans, Japanese, British, South Koreans, etc. identify with the US and don't feel "terrorized" by an "American empire" but rightly fear China, Russia, North Korea instead?

In short Snowy, your 6 billion to 300 million ratio is rapidly dwindling and shows you to be a statistical fraud.

Finally, when you throw in the American work ethic and their productivity vs. say Africa or the muddle east, you really see that ratio plummet if it is a conflict you want.

Your scenario is the stuff of black and white fantasy. Much of the planet realizes that they are the beneficiaries of Pax Americana.

Just ask the recipients of US MILITARY AID after the tsunami.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-16 6:59:42 PM


. . . and after Muslim Indonesia's earthquake.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-16 7:14:22 PM


I am still receiving positive emails of congratulations, even though the billboard came down 6 weeks ago - and from every province - except PEI for some reason. Maybe they were all on vacation in August.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-16 7:19:28 PM


or Marshall plan,

or Eastern European liberation after Cold War defiance.

Balkan independence,

Kuwaiti liberation,

Southeastern protection from the communist dominoes.

South American protection from the narco-marxists.

Polio,

etc.

Let me be the 1st to stipulate that mistakes were made.

Let me be the 1st to emphasize, allowing the existence of USSR and Red China were the biggest mistakes made.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-16 7:23:08 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.