Saturday, January 07, 2012

Daily Digest January 6-7, 2012


The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN'S to VICTORIA.
ARCHIVED at http://cdndailydigest.blogspot.com/


OPINION AND INFORMATION

_____CANADA

Dec 7th_____

'Paranoid secrecy' behind Defence Department's battle against release of Taliban photos, critics say
The Defence Department is prepared to go to Federal Court and spend whatever it takes to prevent
the public from seeing government photos of Taliban hairdos
because it believes the captured insurgents have a right to their privacy..
MORE...
_____Dec. 6th

>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<<
[]
SAMEDI 07 JANVIER 2012
[]
20h18 - Travailleurs en lock-out · Inacceptable, selon la néo-démocrate Peggy Nash
18h35 - Ottawa · Le NCSM Charlottetown en mission avec l'OTAN
18h09 - Programme d'évacuation · Ottawa évalue l'évacuation de la Syrie par ses ressortissants
07h54 - Économie · Taux de chômage en hausse
06h53 - Travail · Déjà des offres
VENDREDI 06 JANVIER 2012
[]
22h46 - Deuxième anniversaire du séisme · La ministre Oda se rendra en Haïti
20h26 - Papiers White Birch · Proposition de la dernière chance aux employés
20h22 - Conflit chez Rio Tinto Alcan · Les cheminots cèdent
20h20 - Politique · Nomination de sept nouveaux sénateurs
19h03 - Ex-militaires avertis · Possibilités de carrière à l'horizon
16h48 - Santé · L'Ontario obtient le feu vert pour poursuivre les fabricants de tabac
13h14 - La Grenade · Libération des policiers soupçonnés d'avoir battu à mort un Torontois
11h28 - Vatican · L'archevêque de Toronto nommé cardinal
06h36 - Armée · Du jamais-vu en 25 ans !

BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)

Subject: A request of you to take a few minutes of your time.
From: "Merle A. Jacobs."

Thanks Joe. The tail wags the dog.

Merle
 
~ The ability to understand and recognize how things have an effect on us and others allows for a choice of how we resolve to live our lives. ~  Merle Jacobs.
===================================
From: Niel de Beaudrap

My opinions on Stephen Harper's claims regarding Iran are simple.

* I think that anyone examining world events objectively can quite
clearly see that Iran is not the country which is the biggest threat
to world peace and security.

* I think that Stephen Harper's credibility on any subject, and the
credibility of that part of the governing class in the west which is
intensely interested in maintaining political control over Middle
Eastern countries, is sufficiently low that anything they say with
regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions should be regarded as highly
suspect.

* Canadian foreign policy should not be tied to the military actions
of Israel, or of any other country, except to help restore peace and
justice in the event of any one country attacking another.

The proliferation of nuclear technology is an issue that we will have
to find graceful solutions to sooner or later. If we suppose that we
hope for the developing countries to become modestly productive and
stable modern economies, we must assume that they will look to have
robust sources of electrical power; and we must accept that global
supplies of coal and oil cannot support that much infrastructure. (Even
if it could, rising prices will cause developing nations to seek
other power sources.) Unless we develop efficient alternative energy
sources, they *will* all seek to develop nuclear power, because it
will be the only route to sustainable development. Once they do this,
whether or not they develop nuclear weapons will be at their
discretion, unless we turn the UN into a massive police state.

Military intervention will not solve the problem. It may delay Iran's
development of nuclear technology for a few decades, but only at the
cost of deepening and lengthening the rancor felt by Iranians against
those countries which attack Iran. Is the plan then to occupy and
control every country that tries to develop nuclear power, and to
systematically prevent other countries from coming close? This is not
even remotely feasible; consider the enormous drain of resources that
Iraq represented for the US and the UK.

We must find alternative approaches to limiting nuclear proliferation
than military intervention, or it will ultimately bankrupt those who
try to act as world police. We should try to figure out what to do,
while we are so lucky as to only have *one* state with historical
reasons to be unhappy with the English-speaking world which
is trying to develop nuclear technology.

===================================
From: Alex Langford

Hi Joe!
 
It is hard to have a clear sense of the future. I think however, the West should not talk up the risks but be prepared and talk up better relations with the surrounding countries and doing whatever can be done for the vvery large proportion of the Iranian population which does not want to live this way .
 
Alex Langford

===================================
From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: poll

Joe--I voted the third option.  Of course we are being set up, and no, it doesn't matter what our opinion regarding this attack would be--it has already been decided. 
After centuries of nations attacking other nations with no positive results(unless death and destruction are considered positive) we are still practicing the same behaviour.  A 'war' is won by the side that has the best propaganda.  We have no concept about the truth of wars even in our lifetime because the spinmeisters control the 'information' we are fed.  WWII is covered with a blanket of lies because those that 'win' write the history.  For instance, my granddaughter was taught in grade 12 last year that 'Canada never had conscription'.  My father was conscripted. 
We have no business invading another country because we want to stop anything.  It is not our business.  Iran has been on the slate for attack for a long time.  The USI had Hussein attack Iran.  When he failed he was attacked using the same lies and deceit being used against Iran today to justify an attack by us.  Israel, the most war minded group of people on the planet has illegal nuclear weapons and we do nothing but support their genocide.  Iran has been open and honest about their plan to develop nuclear power, israel has not.  It is only because of Vanunnu that we know israel has illegal nuclear weapons, and he is still locked up in an israeli jail for telling the truth.
Don't forget that it was Canada that gave nuclear power to both Pakistan and India. 
Harper will do whatever he is told to do by the US and israel.  It doesn't matter what people think or want in our 'democracy'.  As for this poll--a poll is just putty in the hands of those that can have people 'answer' these polls--and our governments control that also.  A poll is NOT a referendum but I can see the government using this one poll as a vote for attacking Iran. 
Re your question of how attacking Iran will affect the election in the USI--as the attack would be done for israel and no other reason, if we are honest, it will enhance the election of the one candidate that promotes this war the most--they will have money rolling in from israel to fund their campaign and to rig the election machines to make sure the pro war candidate 'wins'.
Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya posed no threat to anyone let alone Canadians.  This is done for power and greed and there is no way any thinking person can believe anything else.  The biggest danger to Canada and Canadians are our governments that have been bought and paid for.

Becky

===================================
From: Rene Moreau <rene.a.moreau@gmail.com>

To Joe;
From Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)

   Say the citizens of the world decided NOT to pay, collectively, for
war with our kids and our taxes and took away the profit of
war-making, what could we expect? Well, from past history, we could be
fairly sure there would be a faked, or engineered 'event', as in 911
or Pearl Harbour, perhaps, to loosen the purse-strings, right?
   Therefore is it not time for a world-wide body such as the United
Nations, to NOT BE CORPORATE-FRIENDLY AND CORPORATELY SUPPORTED, AND
TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE WORLD  FROM CORPORATE RULE WITH IT'S NO
CITIZENSHIP, NO TREASON, AND RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF HUMANS BUT NOT
THE RESPONSIBILITIES, UNLESS MANDATED BY GOVERNMENT, ADVANTAGE?
   Then again, if the powers that be wanted to impose WORLD
GOVERNMENT, against our wishes,  and threaten us with atomic war on
one side, financial bankruptcy on another, Corporate rule of the world
on the other, that's three sides of a box What then, is the fourth,
the anti-christ?
   Back then to Demosthenes ' quote from Ancient Greece
"There are all kinds of devices invented for the protection and
preservation of countries; defensive barriers, forts,trenches and the
like... But prudent minds have as a natural  gift onesafeguard  which
is the common posession of all, and this applies especially to the
dealing of democracies. What is this safeguard?
Skepticism.
This you must preserve, this you must retain. If you can keep this,
you need fear no harm."
--Demosthenes
(384 B.C-322 B.C.)
--------------------------------
   Not for nothing do THEY seek to undermine trust, all over the world.
   Maybe that will be a help, Joe?
                                                  Rene Moreau (416-489-8347)

===================================
From: "Daria I.A. Mercer, B.A."

wow  nearly 64 per cent   YES   ... just over 7  per cent.........under 30 per cent  SET UP

===================================
From: "Serge Crespy"

Hi, Joe:
 
SCARY!:   Existing, nuclear-armed satellites in strategic orbits, programmed to re-enter earth at a moment's notice; a very, very real possibility ...... A few minutes to impact ....  Faster delivery than any I.C.B.M. and without chance to intercept.
 
Serge Crespy
Collingwood, ON

===================================
From: "Rick Hubbert"

Joe,
 
Having lived & seen the consequences of two wars first hand, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. And losing a parent in WW2, I haven't the slightest interest in seeing Canada get involved in fighting another one. However I am also aware of the history and background of several wars and skirmishes. Unlike Mr.Chamberlain, I am not naive enough to believe that if you don't confront evil it will leave you alone. Iran has supported and continues to support terrorism around the world for decades. Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Lebanon are four current ongoing conflicts were Iranian "Advisors" and weapons continue to stoke the fires of Islamic extremism.
The current Iranian leadership to be most charitable are Insane. No rational person would begin to predict what they will do next.
 
In the United States you have a naive dreamer for President who has had to backtrack on just about every major foreign policy initiative that he campaigned on when he actually had to confront the actual realities of a hostile world at war.

He has imitated actions every bit as brain dead as George W Bush at his worst. He has gone beyond George Bush by ordering the death of American citizens involved overseas in terrorist activities. He is waging a covert war by drone against Pakistan that is already a nuclear power. and right now he is desperate to get re-elected.
 
Based on past actions during the cold war period, the leaders of China and Russia are cold calculating pragmatic realists.
I do not believe that they are prepared to lose their own countries to support an extremist Muslim ideology that they themselves are already having to deal with in their own countries.
 
So while I pray to God war doesn't happen, I don't think what Canada does or doesn't do will matter one way or the other.
What I believe Harper is doing is putting Canada in a position to control & contain the domestic disruption in the event of another global war. If war happens we will be ready, if a major war doesn't happen we will have a great resource to deal with our internal floods, ice storms and hurricanes that will absolutely happen for sure.
 
Rick Hubbert

===================================
From: "Richard Konopada"

Good Evening Joe,
 
Ever since the hostages were released by Iran in January 1981  Washington has been looking for ways to topple the Iranian government by any means possible.   And as for the Iranian power elite, there is nothing like the Great Satan and the Zionist enemy to justify the ever growing power of the Revolutionary Guard which keeps the hardliners in power and an iron grip on the Iranian economy, society and government.    Unfortunately after 30 years of hostilities both sides are now believing their own propaganda and neither side is willing to compromise for fear of losing face.   The Gulf of Tonkin incident was used by Washington to escalate the war with North Viet Nam and the question now is will history repeat itself in the Strait of Hormuz (perhaps we should also take heed of the lessons that were provided from the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Viet Nam/Iraq wars). 
 
The days of Canada being a neutral middle power are over and with PM Harper we are assured that where Washington goes we are sure to follow.
 
Regards,
 
Richard Konopada
Brampton, On

===================================
From: John Kruithof
Subject: Iran: Poll of the Day

Joe,
I voted. Harper is fear-mongering, a dangerous tactic.  In the long run, a self-assured, vibrant, nuclear-powered Iran is preferable to a persecuted, vengeful, theocratic one.
John Kruithof
Ottawa South

===================================
From: Dave Hurren

Joe:
 
It appears that we will never learn the lesson about what, in truth, drives US foreign policy in the Middle East. Powers greater than Obama dictate instability in the Gulf and an artificially high price for it's crude. Couple that with the unwillingness to broker a just peace in Palestine and the results are predictable. Harper appeals to certain interests at home by squawking like a parrot on the shoulder of the American pirate. As long as our foreign policy is manufactured in Jerusalem and Washington DC there will be a devil in the Middle East who needs a slapping around. This week it's Iran's turn. "Weapons of mass destruction" redux.
 
From the Contrarian's Notebook 2012.

===================================
From: Subir Guin

Hi Jo:
 
Today's G&M quotes Harper's comments on the Iranian threat.  I would challenge our PM to come up with some solid evidence to substantiate his claim that Iran plans to develop and use a nuclear bomb. Several other sources including Mossad's former chief, do not believe Iran has the capability nor any intention of deploying a nuclear bomb.  Listen to Charlie Rose's recent interview with Mohammed Javed Lajrani - a prominent Iranian, who serves as an advisor to Ayatollah Khameini. 
 
I don't doubt that both Russia and China are opposed to any attack on Iran -  for multiple reasons. My hunch is that many other nations will, upon reflection, opt to keep out of this mess.
 
And by the way, Iran signed the NPT, whereas neither India nor Israel were willing to endorse this agreement.

So I find Harper is once again beating the war drums to the delight of some ideologues, but saner minds would vigorously oppose any plans to get our forces involved in this explosive contest of wills.  If some foolish over-reaction on the part of either side leads to a confrontation, there will be no winners.
 
It's high time Canadians spoke up to stop Ottawa from warmongering.  Let's not forget, Harper wanted us to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in their ludicrous reasons to attack Iraq.  Do we need another quagmire?
 
Many Thanks Jo for keeping us informed through your diligent work, and may the New Year bring you and yours every wish that you desire!

= Subir  
 
===================================
From: Bob Taubman

Hi Joe,
 
I'm with you on this one, entirely.  Stephen Harper is rattling his penknife with nothing to back it up.  I'm all for a strong military in defence of Canada, but not to attack every would-be threat to the sanctity of the United States.  North Korea,  Pakistan(currently on the outs with the U.S.) , have nuclear weapons.  Are we going to attack them as well?   We have already "been there, done that" with Iraq.  How many more lives will be lost in what would be a stupid, unnecessary, military venture by attacking Iran?
 
If we think things are bad now, just think what would happen in one of those idiots running for the Republican presidential candidacy got elected President?  To me, that's a bigger threat to world peace than Iran.  Someone asked the questions in a letter to the editor, Ottawa Citizen, just how many countries has Iran invaded compared to those invaded by the United States?
 
Enough of this scare-mongering, sabre-rattling, Harper rhetoric.
 
Bob Taubman
Ottawa, ON

===================================
From: Mahmood Elahi
Subject: Iranian regime trying to provoke U.S./Iareal to attack it

The Editor
Ottawa Citizen
 
Copy to: Hon. Joe Hueglin former Progressive Conservative MP from Niagra Falls.
 
Iranian regime trying to provoke U.S./Israel to strike Iran
 
Re "Iran is greatest threat to peace: PM," (Jan 6).
 
It should be clear from Iran's acts and rhetoric that its Shia leaders are trying to provoke Israel/U.S. to attack it. These leaders want a war or a threat of war to bolster their foundering public support in the wake of the earlier rigged election. A vast majority of Iranian people must be watching the popular revolt against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, whose collapse might spill over to Iran, threatening the Shiite regime. So a war or a threat of war with either Israel or U.S. --- preferably Israel --- will come handy to rally support for the regime. 
 
Seen in this light, an Isreali pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations will go a long way to galvanize the Iranian people. An attack by the United States will also be interpreted as a Jewish conspiracy and Iran will strike back at Israel. The regime is also aware that without any common borders, Israel cannot invade Iran, while Iran can unleash its Hezbollah surrogates sitting right across Israeli borders. The regime also knows that in an election year, U.S. President Barack Obama is not in a position to wage another war. An Isreali pre-emptive air strike with tacit American approval will allow Iran to rally public support while unleashing Hezbollah. Instead of destroying Iran's nuclear installations, Israel might find itself at war on its doorstep. This is why, despite clear evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapon, Israel has not carried out any pre-emptive strike.
 
In this context, it may be pointed out that earlier many thought that if North Korea were allowed to go nuclear, it will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan will also go nuclear, raising China's historical concerns. Nothing has happened since North Korea exploded its nuclear device. Instead of going nuclear, Japan has abandoned nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima. North Korea is now a pariah nation, totally dependent on China for its survival. Similarly, a nuclear-armed Iran is likely to become an international pariah. As such, we should not fall for Iranian provocation. All brutal regimes need conflicts to survive.
 
MAHMOOD ELAHI

===================================
From: "Robert G. Gauthier/The National Capital News Canada"

January 7, 2012
 
Hello, Joe,
 
Re:  "Iran has no nuclear weapons?  How about by this time next year?"
  As to nuclear weapons, as you say, Joe: "They would be no more attackable than those that already have them are, if they did have them. If they didn't they would still be threatened with attack."
 
  Eleanor Roosevelt said it as succinctly as it can be said in Eleanor, The Years Alone, Joseph P. Lash, The New American Library of Canada Limited, George J. McLeod Limited, Toronto, (1973).
 
"We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together and if we are to live together we have to talk," and, "The day I'm afraid to sit down with people I do not know ... that will be a bad day," and, "The freedom that primarily interested the peoples of Asia and Africa was the freedom to eat," and, "... since we always have to sit down together when war comes to an end, I think before we have a third World War, we should sit down together."
 
  It being almost pointless to have a productive dialogue even on a simple topic from a distance, Canada's Prime Minister might consider inviting Iranian Officials to visit him in Ottawa on the premise, "if we, all of us, are to live together on Spaceship Earth, we have to talk."
 
Robert G. Gauthier,
Ottawa.

===================================
From: Ian Berg

An attack on Iran would be a disaster for Obama, whether direct by USA or by proxy from Israel, turning himinto his predecessor. I presume he along with Clinton & Panetta would do everything in the power to prevent it, including giving up on ever getting that drone back that veshed in Iran.

I would like to hear Iran rescind its stated policy that Israel does not have the right to exist. In return, Obama vould simply look the other way as Russia, China & France sell Iran nuclear technology to Iran.

Ian Berg
Calgary, Alberta

===================================
From: John Kruithof

Joe,
At the moment, it does seem like support for Harper's position has slid below 50%.  Perhaps it was a case of yahoos voting yes without thinking the issue over, with cooler heads weighing in later. I find it disconcerting that our Prime Minister is so willing to inflame the situation.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
John

===================================
From: Shane Mussche

Can't agree with you more Joe. Iran has always been the intended target in tis chess match the USA is playing. Iraq which is to the left of Iran provides the ability to Launch a land based attack into Iran. Control of Afghanistan which is to Irans right eliminated influence, supply and support from neighboring countries and removed tactical options for Iran. Iran is well within it's international rights to pursue 9 of the 11 steps of Nuclear developement as it states it is doing. The IAEA historically has agreed with that assessment. That Iran is not pursing a nuclear weapons program and even if it was why not? The risk for the USA is not Iran's ability to attack it's neighbor's it worreid more about it's ability to defend itself from US imperialism. Stephen Harper is nothing more than a lap dog. The purchase of the terrible and useless F-35 is a perfect example of Harper doing what the american's want. In the case of the F-35 it was all about bailing out a failed airframe program and forcing a link to USA armamnet and foreign policy. The F-35 has not lived up to design performace specifications and mechanically is still not working properly. The Russians have 2 aircraft alone that are both available for foreign sale that outperform the aircraft. We're buying an aircraft that everyone of our potential enemies (?) will be able to blow out of the air but at least we made Lockheed Martin and the USA happy. I'm curious when Mr Harpers lips will seperate from Obama's genital area.

===================================
From: Henry Atkinson

I voted, Joe, but then couldn't get the results.
Henry

POLL OF THE DAY @ http://www.630ched.com/

Do you agree with PM Harper that Iran's nuclear desires are the biggest threat to world peace?
        Yes - we've got to stop them from building a nuclear bomb.                   
44.5% 
        No - there are other more volatile areas and issues.                 
6.9% 
        I wonder if we're being set up to approve an Iranian invasion.               
48.7% 

UPDATED:  1/7/2012 10:47:19 PM

DISCLAIMER:  This poll is informal, not scientific. It only reflects the opinions of site visitors who have voluntarily participated. The results may not represent the opinions of the public as a whole. This site is not responsible for the statistical accuracy of opinions here expressed.

===================================
From: "Glenn Harewood"

How about Harper's focusing on issues like poverty in Canada (eg.Canadians living in poverty: living conditions in Attawapiskat).
Is it not paradoxical that those countries who already have nuclear arms are complaining about a country which does NOT have nuclear arms? At present, the likelihood that those countries which already have nuclear arms could use them, is more possible than a country which does not have them now but may have them in the future.  From the time Harperites took office they realized that they could play upon peoples' fears by  promoting the Canadian military. Are the Afghan peoples any better off in their way of life, than they were 10 years ago?
If the Harper-,  and other Western governments promote and go to war with Iran, then we'll have another World War that will wipe all of us.
Glenn Harewood.

===================================
From: John Halonen

Joe:

I did take a few moments to respond, however my response was not in agreement with our Prime Minister. I am of an opinion that our PM is using this topic to deflect the inadequacy of his own direction. It has been quite apparent recently that it is he who has negatively influenced the world towards a peace initiative. When one publicly tells the world that he cares less about about climate initiatives when most scientists consider this to be a major concern, then it is he who could be considered the greatest concern to world peace or even of it's future. I, not being a scientist, am more concerned with his actions rather than that of Iran. Hopefully,
he has more insight on this subject matter than I, but when the nations of the world are against his direction then we must voice some concern on his direction.
This topic requires some honest opinions with probabilities of what could occur, rather than a Politician looking towards his own re-election.

===================================