How Many Hero Highways Do We Need?

Today, the mayor of Canada’s largest city is renaming parts of a major highway to honor fallen Canadian soldiers – their bodies are brought back home on these parts of the road.

Toronto Mayor David Miller will officially rename parts of the Don Valley Parkway and some local connecting side streets the “Route of Heroes.”

Previously, the province of Ontario renamed a section of Highway 401 from Trenton to the Don Valley Parkway the “Highway of Heroes.”

Both are part of the route the Canadian flag-draped caskets containing the bodies of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan take, to the coroner’s office, before being released to their families for burial.

The sacrifices men and women make for their country at times of war should be honored, respected, and as many a war memorial says “never forgotten.”
However, Canada is not at war.

SO, why are so many bodies traveling down Canadian roads – enough to prompt petty politicians to use the highways as a promotional vehicle for their own slimy images, by cutting ribbons and making declarations about heroic routes?

As of today, 147 Canadian Forces personal have been killed since their first deployment to Afghanistan in 2002 – just over the weekend another solider had died, which was not even two-weeks after the last solider was killed in the line of duty.

Yet, again – we aren’t at war.

Originally, when then-American President George W. Bush announced his shock and awe bomb attack, in response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United Nations Security Council didn’t agree.

The UN wanted to find a peaceful solution first, and barring that, a planned and well-thought out approach to using military muscle.

But in keeping with his “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists,” narrow-minded approach, President Bush went ahead and destroyed most of the infrastructure of Afghanistan and Iraq, all under the guise of getting their alleged ring leader – Bin Ladden.

Whatever happened to Bin Ladden? We never hear about him, other than the occasional poorly recorded audio or video of him ranting like a crazed lunatic.
You’d probably go crazy too if you had a redneck American president making threatening statements about having your head on a platter.

Not that Bin Ladden wasn’t crazy before all this – he may have been – we’ll never know.

President Bush failed in his attempts to nail the blame squarely on Bin Ladden, so he went after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and eventually did get his head on a platter – sort of. Hussein was hung quite publicly for the world to see on YouTube – probably the first world leader to be executed live, on the Internet.

Regardless of whether or not Bin Ladden, Saddam Hussein, or anyone else the Americans have labeled “terrorists” – Canada really has no part in their so-called “war on terror.”

Yes, we are allies of the States, and should support them in peace and in war.

But in typically Canadian fashion, our politicians have sat directly in the middle of the fence on the issue and that is what is killing our soldiers.

Canada isn’t officially at war, and being the backbone of the United Nations peace keeping forces for so long, we have a reputation of supporting the UN at all costs.

Yet the UN hasn’t stepped into the American’s so-called “war on terror” because they never supported the poorly planned vengeful attacks by their redneck leader, President Bush.

So our government sends thousands of Canadian soldiers to bolster up the Americans war efforts, with little planning – because the Canadian politicians don’t want to alienate the UN – and we end up with a never-ending parade of flag-draped caskets traveling our renamed highways.

Maybe our politicians should spend more time planning military strategies and tactics, instead of how to creatively rename a highway to get a photo op.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fallen soldiers honoured with 'Route of Heros' (ctv.ca)
• Toronto to designate Don Valley Parkway as 'Route of Heroes' (nationalpost.com)
• 'I'd do it again' President Bush tells Michigan crowd about waterboarding KSM Inc. and company (chicagoraysrants.com)
• George Bush admits US waterboarded 9/11 mastermind (guardian.co.uk)
• Canada's mission in Congo (thestar.com)
• Obama Supposedly Stands With Israel, But Will Our Pro-Palestinian Press? (newsbusters.org)
• Military can't staff all missions (thestar.com)

Another Korean War – But This One IS Different

Today, North Korea’s leaders have stopped talking to their counterparts in South Korea, because of alleged intrusions by the South Korean Navy in North Korean waters.

Ironically, it was North Korea’s Committee for Peaceful Reunification of Korea which made the announcement.

For most of this year and part of last year, American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been outspoken in her bid to unite the two countries peacefully.
That’ll never happen.

Not just because the north falls under the Communistic idealism which conflicts with the views of a more open Capitalistic south, but because of politics of another sort.

America’s relationship with North Korea has always been on shaking ground – from as far back as the Kennedy Administration to present. That’s a long time to hold a grudge.

And a grudge it is – North Korea sees attacks on the south as an attack against an American ally, which is why so long as an American politician is leading the way towards unification – it’ll never happen.

Although U.S. Secretary of State Clinton’s heart may be in the right place, her mind must be elsewhere. Because as long as she’s at the head of the peace talks, the two sides will grow ever further apart.

Yesterday she made matters worse, be admitting her country’s stance, saying that America’s “support for South Korea’s defense is unequivocal,” and that North Korea should “stop its belligerence and threatening behavior.”

This threat by the American politician came after South Korean President Lee Myung-bak announced his country was suspending trade with North Korea, closing their waterways to North Korean ships, and adopting a more aggressive military posture.

All of this sounds like anything but peace – if anything it looks more like the prelude to war.

Although outside representatives should be present to arbitrate the tensions between the two opposing factions, American politicians need to step back from the situation, as their presence is only adding to the tensions, with their support already firmly seated in the south.

The United Nations must move in, first with a peace envoy – who isn’t American – to try to quash the war before it begins.

Failing that, the UN will need to take sides, and put an end to a war, before it gets out of hand.

North Korea has been testing nuclear weapons – and although everyone knows the dangers to the planet of launching such massively potent weapons, their rulers don’t have the patience which the American and Soviet leaders had during the Cold War.

So a war between the north and the south could be truly catastrophic, sending nuclear material into our atmosphere, destroying populations far outside the warring nation’s battle grounds.

Which makes it all the more important that the Americans get out of the discourse, because their presence is just making matters worse. And when a country has it’s fingers on “the button” worse isn’t where you want to go.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Korean War never ended (cnn.com)
• With US Support, South Korea Cuts Trade With North (usnews.com)
• Obama backs South Korea stance on ship's sinking (cnn.com)
• 'Ensure Readiness': Drumbeat of War in Korea? (abcnews.go.com)
• Report: Kim tells troops to prepare for combat (msnbc.msn.com)
• North threatens military action against South (cnn.com)

A Visit to the White House – What a Nice Distraction

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a joy ride south of the border last Wed. – or at least that’s probably how it seemed to him.

He met with American President Barack Obama for an hour-long meeting in the White House’s Oval Office. The two leaders discussed the economy, just ahead of the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh starting today and running through the weekend.

They also discussed each country’s roles in the mission to Afghanistan. Canada has had soldiers in the battle-whipped country for over eight-years, but there are plans to pull all Canadian Forces troops out in 2010.

President Obama on the other hand is pushing for more American soldiers to be sent to Afghanistan this year and next year.

Canadian Soldiers should never have gone to Afghanistan in the first place – and will most likely end up in another place they should never be sent – Iraq in 2010 or 2011.

Afghanistan and Iraq are strictly American conflicts, begun by then-American President George W. Bush. Bush, the sly scoundrel he is, used the intense emotions stirred in his citizens by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 to launch attacks on these two relatively innocent countries.

President Bush originally launched air strikes in Afghanistan in what he called his “shock and awe” military attack, to get Bin Ladden and those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on American soil.

Almost a decade later, Bin Ladden (who boldly boasts of his success in his involvement of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but no one anywhere has actually provided proof of his involvement) is still running free, occasionally popping up to in grainy videos to taunt the Americans.

As the hunt for Bin Ladden dragged on, the American political machine needed a new scapegoat to distract the public’s attention from their failing mission in Afghanistan (the goal was to get Bin Ladden).

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

That’s when President Bush and the rest of the executive branch of the White House launched their smear campaign against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

They claimed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and urged the United Nations (UN) to take actions against Iraq. Despite all the doctored images – which looked real at the time but have since been proved tampered with – the UN didn’t budge and would not support an outright attack against Iraq.

The UN did begin sanctions against Iraq, and sent over their own inspectors, to look for these weapons of mass destruction.

None were ever found, and the UN was satisfied Iraq and its leader were in the clear.

But trigger-happy American President Bush still launched an attack against Saddam Hussein, and in the process destroyed all the infrastructure of the tiny Middle Eastern country in the process.

Canadian soldiers are dying in great numbers in Afghanistan, as American soldiers are dying also in great numbers in Iraq.

But both these missions were unnecessary, and mismanaged from the get-go. American President Bush didn’t really care about bring those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to justice, he just used that event to go after the countries in the Middle East with the richest oil reserves, to secure oil for his country, and his former colleagues in the oil industry from where he originally came.

Image via Wikipedia

Now America’s current leader, President Obama has to deal with the massive cost, lost lives, and lack of any signs of real victory in two wars. He’s also struggling with his push to launch universal, government-funded healthcare across all 50 States, similar to our Canadian healthcare system.

Here on his home turf, the Canada’s top politician is being made to jump over massive hurdles, just to do his job. Some of the heat is due in part because he’s only got a minority government, the other part is due to the childish antics of the opposition parties.

Prime Minister Harper is always facing threats of election calls for his head, by the Bloc, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party, or a combination of them. Currently, the Liberal Party is threatening to call a non-confidence vote to end the Prime Minister’s rule, and lead Canadians into yet another federal election – has it even been a year since the last election?

With the intense pressures both the current American and Canadian leaders are facing, their meeting must have been a nice distraction from the horrors of their worlds. Let’s just hope that distraction was short lived, and they can both get back to the business of running their respective countries.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Canada To Avoid Immediate Election (huffingtonpost.com)
• Harper to meet with Obama at White House (ctv.ca)
• Bin Laden calls Obama 'powerless' (msnbc.msn.com)
• Canadian PM Harper Says He Won't Extend Afghan Mission (huffingtonpost.com)
• Osama Bin Laden releases new audio tape (netnewsdaily.com)
• New York remembering 9/11 victims (ctv.ca)
• Bin Laden tape mocks 'powerless' Barack Obama (telegraph.co.uk)
• G-20, G8, G-Whiz Does Anyone Get Anything Done? (jordansdaily.blogspot.com)

Reflections on the War on Terror

Where were you yesterday morning, eight-years ago?

I remember exactly where I was. I was working for a medium-sized financial software company, and I had been busily typing away on a tight deadline. I had got in early that morning, so around 9am when my co-workers started to arrive, I had already been in the office for a few hours.

“Did you see what happened,” one of my co-workers said as she came in.

Image via Wikipedia

I had no idea what she was talking about, and when she told me a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York, I didn’t believe her.

Then more colleagues came in, saying another plane had crashed into the other twin tower.

We didn’t have a TV at the office, but we all had Internet access, so we all were watching the horrific events of September 11, 2001 unfold on the various news websites. I was on CNN.com – which kept updating their front page with the latest headlines – this was long before live video-streaming was popular online. In fact, there were so many “hits” on the CNN.com site, that it eventually crashed.

Image via Wikipedia

When news spread of the collapse of the first tower, we were all in shock. The office was located above a shopping mall, and there was a RadioShack downstairs.

We hustled downstairs, and gathered around people from other offices and shoppers in the mall at the RadioShack, all trying to see the live coverage on the TVs for sale.

I don’t think anyone got much work done that day – we were all so wrapped up in the events which eventually launched the American “War on Terror,” dramatically increased the security at all airports and border crossings, and changed the world in many other ways.

The attacks on the World Trade Centers eight-years ago really did change the world. The most powerful nation on the planet had taken a major hit, and since then, as been involved in a war which sees no end, has cost thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars.

It’s even involved a beheading or two – probably more – but these gruesome acts pale into comparison to the tragic oil-greedy American invasion of Iraq.

Despite former American President George W. Bush’s claims, and later Former Secretary of State Colin Powel’s presentation to the United Nations (UN) at the time, the American’s never were able to prove Iraq’s perceived threat. At the time, they claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and were trying to sway the UN security council to get on-board the attack the Americans were about to engage in.

“You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists,” threatened then Am

Image via Wikipedia

erican President George W. Bush – the ultimate bully in the so-called “War on Terror.”

President Bush created a war machine which immediately sought justice for the attacks of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center eight-years ago. Within hours after the attacks, they had already started spreading rumors that it was Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein.

The Americans began bombing Afghanistan to get Bin Laden – destroying the infrastructure, displacing millions of innocent civilians, killing thousands – but never ever catching Bin Laden. For all we know, Bin Laden is living the good life in the States, protected by the very people supposedly out to get him – with or maybe even without their knowing it.

Despite the UN’s uneasiness in what was obviously an American-led war to secure more oil in the Middle East, Afghanistan became a humanitarian cause. Now the UN gets involved, not to defend American interests, but to police a wild country, where even the local population has been pitted against each other, just to survive.

Canada, being a strong supporter of the UN since its inception has sent thousands of Canadian soldiers to

Image via Wikipedia

Afghanistan, resulting in far too many Canadian deaths for a war which should never have occurred in the first place.

Canadian soldiers will probably continue to die in the Middle East – most likely in Iraq, when the UN will eventually tackle the latest American Viet Nam.

Viet Nam was a war to stop the spread of Communism, started by the ever-trigger-happy Americans. The war was so poorly planned, it turned into a blood bath for both sides, with no real winner, but many losers.

Iraq is just like Viet Nam – it has been poorly planned, organized, and should never have happened. It has resulted in continuous deaths of Americans, and locals, and there is no clear winner – but again – many losers.

I remember where I was on September 11, 2001 – and worse – I see how our planet has been scorched by it, in ways we will never be able to repair.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Eight Years After 9/11: Why Osama bin Laden Failed (time.com)
• New York remembering 9/11 victims (ctv.ca)
• Al-Qaida: eight years after 9/11 (guardian.co.uk)
• How America Ended its Own Dominance: Wen Wei Po, Hong Kong (themoderatevoice.com)

G-20, G8, G-Whiz Does Anyone Get Anything Done?

This week, eight of the most powerful world leaders are trading barbs in Italy, as the G8 gathers in the European country, drinking fine wines, eating the best Italian cuisine, and having their photos snapped as they shake hands, smile, and make nice-nice.

As if putting eight high ranking politicians into one room isn’t enough, let us not forget about the G-20, which is a grouping of the world’s twenty economic powerhouses’ financial ministers and central bank governors.

Lots of “G’s” but do these organizations, representing the richest, most prosperous, and most powerful countries on the planet, actually make a difference?

Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has shown publicly just how important these summits are – he almost missed the group photo opportun

Image by Gobierno Federal via Flickr

ity earlier this week, having to rush in among jokes from the other leaders about his whereabouts.

Today, Prime Minister Harper indicated how old-school and irrelevant the G8 may have become.

“Some people say that the G8 is not a representative body in the modern world,” he said during the closing remarks of this year’s summit. “It is not representative of the power, it is not representative of the economic realities of the modern world, it’s not an appropriate forum for global governance. I agree with that, I don’t think those of us who continue to support the importance of the G8 suggest that it is a body of global governance.”

So why bother wasting jet fuel for these meetings?

Prime Minister Harper hinted that the G8 may soon be the G9, G10, or maybe even the G20 (minus the hyphen of the financial G-20), as other countries – including ones in the developing world -- have been invited to participate in the next G8 summit, which will be held next year in Muskoka, Ontario, Canada.

Inclusiveness is always better than exclusiveness, but the more people sitting around the conference table, the harder it will be to pass motions, make policies and effect change upon the world.

Image by gabemac via Flickr

That’s always been the problem with the United Nations (UN). Although the UN means well, with 192 member countries, each with their own delegation of representatives, each with its own country’s best interests at the top of the agenda, UN meetings turn into endless debates, which often pass motions so watered down to please as many member states as possible, that it renders their policies ineffective.

Though one can even question the value of just having eight world leaders locked in room talking shop.

Thanks to technological improvements, and changes in the global economy, we have lived in a constantly shrinking global village. But even the most open-minded world leader will always put his or her own country’s interests ahead of the group – what matters to most politicians is pleasing those who have the power to vote them in – or out – of office.

During this past week’s G8 Summit, debate raged on over climate change, democracy in Iran, and the economy, but did anything really get done?
Will the world suddenly be a better place, thanks to this week’s series of meetings, debates, and discussions?

Originally created in 1974 to tackle the on-going oil crisis which begun a year earlier, the G8 even defines itself as an informal forum, so it doesn’t have the same structure as the UN. There isn’t a permanent secretariat, official offices, or even a president. The president of the group rotates through the member countries, starting with each New Year on January 1.

Perhaps the G8 is too informal – over the years, they have created policies to reduce global poverty, find a cure for AIDS, limit the amounts of carbon produced by member nations to eliminate acid rain, and most recently work towards better environmental practices to limit climate change.

However, criticism of the G8 has found that there action – or in some cases lack of action – have contributed to extreme poverty in Africa and many third-world countries, increases in global warming due to carbon dioxide emission rates, and limiting research and medicines for AIDS patients due to strict policies on medicine patents.

In the end, the G8 really is nothing more than a meeting of the minds. But those minds can impact our world in far reaching ways.

Related articles by Zemanta

• G8 fails to agree climate target (guardian.co.uk)
• G8 summit starts amid fears global economy is sinking (guardian.co.uk)
• Calls grow within G8 to expel Italy (guardian.co.uk)
• UK seeks to shame G8 over Africa aid (guardian.co.uk)
• G8 leaders fear double dip slump (guardian.co.uk)
• G8 vows 'ambitious' greenhouse emissions plan (nationalpost.com)
• Canada sticks to own global warming targets despite G8 (nationalpost.com)
• PM to back 2-degree goal at G8 summit (thestar.com)

Cold War Replay -- But This Time The Risk Is Real

Movies, as they often do, reflect the mood and public perception of the time. There’s a great scene in the 1983 movie War Games, with a very young Mathew Broderick and Alley Sheedy, trying to convince the reclusive inventor (played by John Wood) that his computer isn’t playing a simulated war game, but actually is calculating real missile launch trajectories to win a nuclear war.

It isn’t until Broderick’s character teaches the computer how to play Checkers that the computer realizes, just as in a game of Checkers; no one would ever win a nuclear war.

Problem is North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-il doesn’t appear to understand this concept, as his continued nuclear missile tests form the basis for a new Cold War.

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Daily reported that North Korea had long-range nuclear missiles which they are going to be test firing towards Hawaii between July 4 and July 8.

Ironic, just as Americans will be lighting fireworks to celebrate their nation’s birth on the Fourth of July, North Korea may be sending off their own version of a firework – only this one has a long-range Taepodong-2 type nuclear warhead, which has a range of up to 6,500 KM (about 4,039 miles.)

Politicians and diplomats from Russia and China are trying to open a dialogue with North Korea, to stop the continued tests, but talk appears to be cheap. The sanctions by the United Nations Security Council imposed after the last North Korean nuclear rocket launch on May 25 don’t seem to be working.

Japan is particularly concerned, as any rockets fired towards Hawaii must pass over them – posing a grave risk to all inhabitants should th

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

e missile fail to reach its destination.

The country’s leader Kim Jong-il isn’t worrying about the risks associated with these nuclear missile tests.

And here lies the real risk – Jong-il’s lack of concern for the people in the countries around him – or even perhaps for his own citizens -- makes him a very dangerous person.

The real “war” in the Cold War of the 1980’s was a war of words. Each side would verbally threaten the other through use of the mainstream media. Messages were sent by each side, threatening to use nuclear weapons – but in the end, thankfully both the “Ruskies” and the Americans were smart enough to realize the consequences of launching an all-out nuclear war.

Jong-il’s war isn’t one of words, but of actions. The more global leaders talk of sanctions, and diplomats attempt to cool the tensions with discussions and dialogue, the more nuclear missile tests North Korea conducts and the more nuclear-grade weapon materials North Korea produces.

However, when you’ve got nuclear weapons of mass destruction – and you can’t get more massively destructive than a nuclear blast – actions are not the wisest thing to take.

Stronger measures must be taken against North Korea’s nuclear missile program by all world leaders. The United Nations is on the right track, but something more must be done. Otherwise, the face of planet Earth may one day be as barren as Mars. And we have yet to find life on Mars.

Related articles by Zemanta

• US braced for more 'reckless' moves from North Korea (telegraph.co.uk)
• Responding to North Korea: U.S. Leans on Asian Allies (time.com)
• Source: N. Korea may be preparing nuclear test (cnn.com)
• North Korea Preparing for a Third Nuclear Test? (blogs.abcnews.com)
• North Korea's leader yanks the world's chain again (thestar.com)