# Is CNN true to the fifth estate..??



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, macdoc, among many little things here and there, I found it rather funny that Heidi Collins (Atlanta), following a report on how protesters in NYC were as upset with the media as they were with Bush, threw to commercial with the tag line "CNN - Your most trusted name in news". 

...Feeling a bit insecure, were they?

There are things that really tick me off on CNN... Connie Chung's comment, I think it was the night before the war began.. she was watching a live shot of Baghdad, heard the Muslim "call to prayer" and said something like "Oh-oh - that sounds ominous!" Talk about cultural obliviousness!

(Can't remember the source for that one - might even have been another thread in here!).

In any event, CNN for up-to-the-minute video, Google for up-to-the-minute everything else, and BBC / CBC for analysis, with a bit of ABC thrown in there, since Peter Jennings seems to do a better job than most, plus they actually did a report on how to critically watch the war news on all stations, their own included. I flick to Fox news once in awhile, just to get my blood boiling.... 

M.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mark - I caught the "protesters" situation too and it's really from that point on that I felt there was a bit of a ground shift in CNNs approach.
No question the various reporters and talking heads have strengths and weaknesses. The embedded reporter with one of the ground divisions just continually sounds like a cheerleader celebrating an end run.
I agree the CBC has been good if a bit on the anti-war side but the Star has been terrific in it's commentary and coverage of the US/Canada spat.
I really admire the Star for it's balanced tackling of many issues and investigative reporting with RESULTS that they've undertaken in the last year.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Don't worry about Connie Chung, she's gone. Apparently she didn't like the fact that she hasn't been getting air time since the war started.


----------



## M. Warren (Jan 4, 2002)

I turned off CNN this week. I found that it was just too sensational at times. I agree that the military analysis is very informative, but I'm not really interested in the firepower and statistics associated with such and such tank. It was beginning to sound like a Superbowl pre-game show.

Now I turn to CBC newsworld for my 24 hour source, the BBC for my online source, and the Star for my local source. Most importantly, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is my "lets-point-out-the-absurdity-of-this-whole-thing" source. 

The rumours and evidence of what CNN wasn't reporting have turned me off.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"The rumours and evidence of what CNN wasn't reporting have turned me off. "
Care to clarify this?.
I'm seriously curious as to what they weren't reporting as they have so much time to fill









I certainly agree there is an element of sensationalism but far less so than the "local news" on US stations.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Did anyone see the Aaron Brown interview with the correspondant from Al-Jazeera network?

Aaron spent a few minutes chastising the Al-Jazeera person for running the U.S. POW clips. The A-Jazeera person quietly took notes. When Aaron finished, the Al-Jazeera person put up front pages of newspapers (now Aaron's personal "schitk") showing U.S. papers with pictures of Iraqi POWs and asked Aaron Brown to justify those pictures shown on CNN as well as the video CNN showed of Iraqi soldiers being captured. Aaron cut off the interview.

That in a nutshell defines CNN coverage.
That and Paula Zahn's contstant repetitions of; "That makes me sick to my stomach", referring to anything that shows U.S. POWs.

CNN has definitely toned downt their "gee whiz" attitude they exemplified in the 1st few days. It is better, but still not worth of the tagline; "CNN: Your most trusted name for news."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I've been following CNN pretty much from the get go and I find their questions and comments pretty pointed and thoughtful.
Tonight they are seriously questioning the "quick war" concept and being very informative about the difficulties the Brits are facing in Basra.
I find their military advisor ret Gen Clark enjoyable and informative. He doesn't make "political" comments just explains the military details in a refreshing straight forward and engaging manner. Reminds me of Powell.
I don't get the impression of anyone being muzzled and I wonder how this is impacting the politicos??
The lack of "liberator welcomes" from Iraqis
The surprisingly strong resistance
The risk to the supply lines
All are being discussed and the details shown.
My assessement is that CNN is serving the fifth estate honourably and speaking to the larger world, not just the US.
Comments??


----------



## AlienRadar (Jan 4, 2003)

"Welcome to the Corporate News Network.I'm Aaron Brownnose and we've got some more great pictures of things blowing up and heroic American youth riding around in tanks.Let's go to Joe Blow on the carrier Armageddon.Can you hear me Joe?"

"10-4,good buddy.I'm talking to General Green.Is it true that American planes have just taken off from this carrier?"

"I can neither confirm or deny ongoing operations, but our cause is just, and the outcome is certain.Planes may have taken off earlier to pick up some fried chicken in Qatar and were sucessful."

"Wow! How is the morale here,General?"

"That's classified,but the men and women enjoyed the chicken very much.Show more nice pictures of planes taking off and landing...that's what you're here for.Our cause is just, and the outcome is certain"

"Wow!What does that thing over there do?"

"That's the military intercept device each American force allegedly here is equipped with to allegedly monitor reports by embedded reporters.I just push this and..."

(dead air)

"Wow! We seem to have lost out feed from the Armaggedon.As you see, I'm looking very concerned here.What does out military analyst make of this? Dr. Strangelove?"

"Since the Pentagon stopped reporting any American casualties,the war seems to be going much better on TV.We're still over-extended, and misjudged the capability of the Iraqi army. The real reason Bush and Blair are meeting today is to discuss the need for another 300 to 500 more tanks and thousands of more troops to properly take Baghdad.Tommy Franks has had a new asshole cut for him by the Pentagon and we are starting to carpet-bomb because we've burned up a ton of Tomahawks and smart bombs.I guess I shoudnt tell you that the Turkish army has 100s of tanks already in Iraq because.."

(long pause,cut to pictures of nothing happening at night in Baghdad ,heroic American youth riding around in tanks )

"This is Aaron Brownnose again.Dr.Strangelove will be filing reports from Guantanamo Bay for us soon as a guest of the CIA.Our cause is just, and the outcome is certain.Here's some more nice pictures of tanks racing across the desert.Are you there,Arnold?"

"No, I'm not.But I can tell you that we have taken Umm Qasr and Basra.I've reported that every day so far,and someday it will actually happen.Sorry I made up all that stuff about the 8,000 Iraqis surrendering, and the Basra uprising and the humanitarian aid photo-op ,and the non-existent WMD chemical factory,but it's pretty dull when all your reports are..( line goes dead for 5 seconds )But,I can authoritavely state that the Iraqi Army eats children ! We now have definitive proof!"

"Wow! That really make me sick.In other news,the President woke up this morning and had breakfast.Our senior White House correspondent John King has the details.John?"

"Aaron, details are a little sketchy at this point,but senior administration officials are now saying that the President may NOT, I repeat NOT, had breakfast this morning.We hope to get more on this at the briefing later today.Our cause is just, and the outcome is certain"

"Wow !John, give us a sense of what that means for the War On Iraq"

"Aaron, we have a lot of air time to fill up here.We cant tell you much from Iraq these days because the miltary has shut down many of the in-bed-with correspondents and wont admit to any US casualties anymore.We've almost run out of pictures of things blowing up because many of them have already been destroyed
and the Pentagon is sensitive to pictures of carpet-bombing going out.We can still blame Al Jazeera for showing those terrible pictures the other day,and continue to hack their new English language website.I wish I could tell you about how ballistic the White House is over those things the Russians sold Saddam that jam the GPS signals the bombs use to lock onto their targets,but obviously, I cant.I can tell you that Our Cause Is Just, And The Outcome Is Certain.Aaron?"

"That was John King from the White House.As you know, a large media conglomerate called Clear Channel, which owns thousands of radio stations across America,has been organizing the pro-war demonstrations across the country.Some say it is an attempt to influence the upcoming FTC hearings on the dangers of media concentration of the airwaves.We are glad here at CNN to have wholesome,patriotic Americans to put on the air instead of those pinko UN lovers all the time.Here's Wolf Blitzkreig"

"Aaron, I so sick of fishing sand out of my food all the time and standing here like an idiot in the middle of the night.Truth is, if we didnt have the Al Jazeera feed here, we woudnt know what's going on.I guess we can re-run that bit about the Army hospital for the 500th time and talk to reporters about what's going on in Baghdad who arent even in the country anymore.I asked the Air Force Major about why Shock And Awe hasnt produced the complete surrender of the entire nation of Iraq, and was told that we are not to use that term anymore.We will be hearing a lot about Surgical Devastation in the next little 
while, the new term for carpet-bombing.
However,Our Cause Is Just,The Outcome Is Certain, We.."

"Sorry to cut you off,here's the President speaking in the bathroom mirror a few minutes ago..."

(cut to White House)

"Our cause is just, our resolve is resolvable,and the outcome is outcomable.We did not want this oil..uuhh,war.I resolve to resolvolate the Iraqi people,get the UN to release the billions in the Oil For Food account, and then cut em' right outta the loop over there.Companies that are friends of mine and Mr.Cheney are already being awarded billions in contracts for reconstruction.Our Cause Is Just,Our Resolve Is Resolvable,The Outcome Is Certain."

"Wow!The President,in the White House bathroom mirror, just minutes ago.Remember, folks, it's only propaganda when the other side does it.We've been waiting for this war to start for months,ratings are great, and now we'll go back to exploiting the grief of families who's sons or daughters are captured or MIA.Its a great way to chew up airtime and keep us from reporting on actual war news.And dont forget,America,Our Cause Is Just, And The Outcome Is Certain."


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

ROTFLMAO!!!  

That is so freaking hilarious!!! It totally sums up how I feel about the bullsh!t that CNN is spouting off all over the world. 

Way to go ALienRadar!!!!!!!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... "The rumours and evidence of what CNN wasn't reporting have turned me off. "
Care to clarify this? ..."

I would give CNN a D- for war coverage. They are often very late in reporting what others have (8-24 hours late) and are ignoring some stories generally believed to be true.

3 missles landing in Iranian port city early in the war for Iraqi ports (late and/or ignored) *

Missile (ground or air launched) attack on bus killing 5 civilians in Syria (late)

2 Cruise Missles landing in Turkey (late)

Riots delivering food aid in southern Iraq; civilians swarmed and emptied aid destined for points north (not yet reported as such, more than 24 hours later, although they do present the video footage of Iraqi civilians, not British soldiers, unloading trucks without comment)

No timely reporting of Turkish President's message to his nation Friday evening that Turkey would send "more" troops into Iraq. No admission that some Turkish troops were already in Iraq.

No analysis of the struggle for power between the Pro-US Turkish military and the newly elected civilian government; no mention that the elected President of Turkey was a guest of the military's prisons 5 years ago. This power struggle is directly responsible for the US not being able to open a Northern Front with ground troops.

Late in announcing the nearly simultaneous test launching of new, longer range, nuclear capeable missiles by Packistan and India 2 days ago.

Iranian-trained Shiite Muslims irregulars (there are 15,000 in Iraq) attacking Iraqi militias in port cities (this is still being reported as a civilian uprising on CNN while nearly every news organisation now admits there simply is no civilian uprising).

No Scud launches anytime during the confilict by Iraq

Quick announcement of the takeover of an Iraqi Chemical Plant and no or very brief admission that the plant was inspected and found to contain no traces of chemical weapons or chemical production of any kind, for that matter (reported in most media about 24 hours after the overrunning of the plant)

Virtually no coverage of riots, demonstrations, and Muslim sermons against the war in neighboring countries. The riots and demonstrations are a daily affair in Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Syria, Turkey, Indonesia and Jordan. Riot police fire tear gas and water cannons every day. In Jordan, there are an average of 20 separate incidents a day, generally involving thousands and tens of thousands of demonstrators.

Muslim clerics are extolling their flock to attack the US with any means possible. Thousands of Indonesian muslims have volunteered for duty in Iraq. Much is made of President Bush's "crusade" comment, which means "holy war" or "Jihad" to a Muslim but is only some easily forgotten or misintepreted word to the US audience. It doesn't help (the US) that Bush is an evangelical Christian.

The Iranian missile incident is most interesting. I'm sure it caused grave fears amongs US/UK commanders that it could bring Iran into the war. CNN reported nothing at the time. US diplomats scrambled to find a way to speak to the Iranians (no diplomatic recongintion by the US) and finally found Swiss diplomats to calm things down. The next day CNN did mention that "one" missile that had landed in Iran but was attributed to the Iraqis, which was the solution agreed to by Swiss and Iranian diplomats.

Little comment on weekend air attacks in Northern Iraq against forces unfriendly to the Kurds which were almost directly on the Iraq-Iran border (and may well have been partly in Iran).

I am convinced that we will eventually find out (after this confilict is over) that they really were US missiles which were improperly targetted (they landed at the correct latitude, wrong longitude) but both sides were eager to lower the rhetoric and avoid a full-scale response to a military incursion.

At the same time as this missile incident with Iran, Turkey was announcing it was sending troops into Iraq. Can you say disaster? Yikes!

In any case, all the above was available to english language listeners in Canada, although only CBC Radio spoke at any length about the long-standing training of Shiite militia in Iran, and identified the "uprising" as members of that group. BBC simply reports that there was no real uprising.

CNN is in a difficult positon; they see their main competition as the (massively pro-War) Fox News Network, which has been winning the ratings battle in the US.

CNN International (which we don't see in Canada) is generally quite good, but you can only see snippets of it's coverage when viewing other media (shared footage).

The Arabian Al-Jazira news agency is based in Quatar, home of the US/UK command centre. As an Arabic station, they are not considered to be any more radical in the Middle East than CNN is in the US; they have to compete with radical Arabic stations in their home market.

As of Noon CST yesterday, France's RD5 is no longer available on Bell ExpressVu without a separate subscription.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Can you say disaster? Yikes!"
Wow we never see you get your feathers ruffled Gord  
Where ARE those bomb shelter plans.., let's see duct tape, water, expresso beans yep all the staples...Peter what are you doing this week








•••
Now is the delay to check the accuracy or dodging bad news or waiting for the word from the White House as to what "spin" the story needs??









I'm finding the written assessments more enlightening and informative.

The entire experience seems to me to be akin to watching a slow motion earth quake that is shaking the geo-political underpinnings of the entire world.
Some things are going to settle back as they were and others are toppling but it's very hard at this point to know how things will "shake out."
Canada US relations - shaky but likely to settle back to normal with a bit of dust.
The Middle East - definitely one structure toppling and a few others rocking on their foundations.
US Europe - also very shaky with large cracks showing, a new geography likely.

Many cracks showing in a lot of countries as the war polarizes opinion both of the war and of the US>  

Lots and lots of rebuilding to do, physically and in terms of international relations.

"may you live in interesting times.." unfortunately we are.


----------



## AlienRadar (Jan 4, 2003)

More stuff not on CNN...

US/UK suffering serious losses in South Iraq.Iraqi army has started using new Russian weapons with devastating results.

Because of sandstorm, US planes accidently bomb/destroy US tanks.

There are now 40,000 Turkish troops in N.Iraq.The US knows, lied to the Kurds about it. The Kurds are refusing to fight the Iraqis now.

Bush demanded Blair to send 20,000 more Brits to Iraq ASAP.US sending 100-120,000 more.

US/UK to run out of supplies ,ammo and possibly tanks in 5-7 DAYS.

Quote---"This is not the Iraqi army we war-gamed" Source ,US General,BBC World News.

Iraqis now intercept /jam US military signals.Targeting of "smart bombs" serious problem.

Yep, interesting times,indeed.
Vietnam In The Desert


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

Forget CNN they are just selling advertising. It's called survivor Iraq. I love some of the threads on the board were people are presenting viewpoints based on some of the American media misinformation. 

The military guy on CNN is a joke he always maages to get it wrong .However he is good at explaining stuff that goes bang.


I've found that the BBC hourly news manages to sum up the days events clearly and factually. They also cover all of the events happening in Iraq and the rest of the world.

Now if somebody would just blow up that monument in front of the Bagdad hotel shot I'd be a happy man.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A short addendum to the last post:

Gordguide has commented on what could happen to future relationships among several countries, or groups of countries... after this war.

Gord is...in my mind...one of the best and brightest of us here at ehmac. He regularly displays a singularly well-focused perception of pretty much anything he cares to comment upon here. He is an ehmac Guru. No doubt about it.

When he talks...I listen. Pretty much everyone else does, as well.

So, I add my comments to his, on this subject. And with all due respect to gordguide...

The Middle East: Not sure how all of this will work out, but one thing is for sure...everything has changed, and things will never be the same again. 

It remains to be seen if this is a good thing or not. Certainly the status quo was going nowhere, and that a lot of people were dying because of it. 

We can only hope that the imminent removal of Saddam will change the paradigm. His actual dissappearance from the scene will definitely alter the reality.

It will also affect a lot of other "nations" because they are, largely, run by one man or a small group of men.They are "nations" only in one sense of the word. In reality, they are one small man...or a very small group of small men. The actual people who inhabit these countries have no real say in what happens. Just the way it is.

Once Saddam is gone, watch for the rest of them to begin looking for a quick exit. If, for some reason, Saddam stays...then look for a renewed resolve among these tyrants.

Not a good thing.

United States/European relations:

Watch for the USA to emphasize and nuture relationships with the former Soviet satellite states. They will be given preferential status for any sort of trade.The US will begin buying anything that these places choose to produce....and these poor countries will become quite rich in a very short time.

At the very same time, "Old Europe" (as Donald Rumsfeld has characterised them) will be de-emphasised. France, Germany and Russia will find it a more difficult road in the future. Americans will still buy their stuff....but it certainly won't be done with any sort of ease.

And trade will suffer with these countries. They will find out what it means to be part of the "unwilling".

They won't like it much.

Neither will we, here in Canada. This leads me into the last of my observations on gordguide's post:

Canada/USA relations....

We are NOT in very good shape here. We have abandoned our traditional allies in a time of serious need. Australia and the United Kingdom are onside, as always....but we are not there. This is the very first time we have not been among the very best friends of the Americans. 

We will pay for this, no doubt about it.

The United States can choose to buy some of the stuff they need elsewhere. There is some strong evidence that they are already doing this.

If they choose, collectively, or on an individual basis, to remove even ten per cent of their trade from Canada...then we will feel the pain. Big time.

_BIG TIME_!

Do you want to see your lifestyle moved downwards by several percentage points? Do you want to be unable to buy the things that you see advertised in the local paper? Do you want to be able to finance your childrens education? Do you like our current social programs? What would you do if they were shut down, due to lack of money?

If any of the above scenario's give you pause...then you should re-think our position on this current war. Forty-nine countries are now a part of the coalition of "the willing".

Canada is NOT.

We are currently at odds with our BIGGEST trading partner. The one country who can, and will, defend us from all attackers. No matter where they come from.

We certainly can't do it ourselves, after more than a decade of liberal neglect. We are...truly at this particular moment...on our own.

And...if this doesn't give you a moment of real clarity...then I say you should re-think your priorities. 

We are all in big trouble here. How much big trouble remains to be seen. But it is big trouble, no matter how you look at it.

We need to dump the reigning Chretien liberals. As soon as possible. They are the problem...NOT the solution. They have caused us all sorts of damage, in very many ways. They HAVE to go. And soon.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

iI almost never fails, just like "Old Fairthful" geyser, sooner or later macnutt gets around to blaming the Liberals. (note capital "L")

It was the Liberals fault our 4 boys died in Afghanistan, but it was not the U.S. or Britain's fault for their boys dying in friendly fire. Hmmmm. Double standard? Let's get back to that later.

Macnutt's battlecry of; "C'est le faux des federales" is becoming very old and weary.

A majority of this country's people support Jean Chretien which you say is a bad thing but when a majority of Americans support George W. Bush, you say it is a good thing. Told ya I would get back to that double standard thing.

Why do you keep on flogging that dead salmon? Stubborness? Can't admit the majority doesn't agree with you? You hate real democracy? What ? What is it that makes you eventually point your finger at literally every problem in the world as the fault of Jean Chretien and the federal Liberals?

You take great pride in misspelling his name even though he is your prime minister and mine, but you always spell Bush's name correctly and without any ill will, but he is the ruler of a country in which you do not live nor enjoy the fruits of their "system."

What would make you happy macnutt?

Get rid of all those damn immigrants? While we are at it, just get rid of those pesky First Nations people too, eh? Just some nice WASPs and the Union Jack forever?

Be proud of your country macnutt. We may pay a price for our "freedom" to choose, but as you are so fond of reminding us; "freedom does have a price."

Some things are more important than money. Yep, you heard right.

Canada chooses to support the UN in multilateral action. A lot of other countries do as well.

Be as proud and loyal a Canadian as your American counterparts are of being American. Be proud of the maple leaf. Be proud of what it represents. Be proud that you are CANADIAN.

If you can offer respect for the president of the U.S., surely you can offer respect for the duly elected leader of your country.

Unless Canada is not your country and you do not consider Jean Chretien the duly elected leader of the government.

As my Quebec friends each has on their car's licence plate, I too say; "Je me souviens."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think I posted this elsewhere but it affirms your stance Michael. A letter asked this of Don Cherry regarding previous differences in war participation by the Americians.

"Don, were they there in 1914? No. 
Were they there in 1915? No. 
Were they there in 1916? No. It wasn't until April, 1917 that America reluctantly decided, "the world must be made safe for democracy." 

Were they there in 1939, Don? No. 
1940? No, 
not until December, 1941.

What is most important is that they had the absolute right to make these decisions, based on the needs of their own nation and on the will of their democracy. As do we."

••
And in another article

Mar. 27, 2003. 01:00 AM
Iraq is America's war, not Canada's
Both nations make rational choices 


THOMAS WALKOM
When U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci accused Canada of disloyalty for its refusal to back the United States' invasion of Iraq he was telling only half the story.

For the history and reality of Canada-U.S. relations are far more complex than his simple storyline, one in which good friends are always willing to cover one another's back.

"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," Cellucci told a business audience Tuesday. "There would be no debate; there would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family."

Cellucci's words will resonate strongly with the roughly 40 per cent of Canadians who do support joining the war and who do believe that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's position is one of ingratitude to an old and valued friend.

But the truth is that the United States has never gone to war on Canada's behalf without debate or hesitation. Quite the contrary. 

In World War I, the United States waited three years. In World War II, it waited two, joining the battle against Adolf Hitler only after Germany (following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) declared war on it. 

Yet, at the same time, the United States has never been indifferent to Canada's fate. Military historian C.P. Stacey once recalled visiting a New York newsreel cinema in 1939, shortly after Canada declared war on Germany.

"The present writer," he noted, "was astonished when a dull shot of troops mobilizing in Canada drew warm applause from the audience (I had never noticed any other American audience to show the slightest interest in Canada before or since).

"But Americans had no intention of getting into the war themselves. The New Yorker put it succinctly at the moment of the outbreak: `Our people dislike Hitler and want him soundly beaten by a couple of other fellows.'"


Still, as in 1914, Washington was also willing to offer Canada more material support — as long as it could do so without offending the U.S. public's distaste for war.

From 1939 to 1941, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt walked a line so fine it seems almost Chrétienesque — supporting his allies in tangible forms but refusing to commit his country whole-heartedly.

"I was terribly shocked and surprised when I learned that Roosevelt had told the press this morning that the U.S. ought to be able to keep out of the European war," then-prime minister Mackenzie King confided to his diary in September, 1939.

Wisely, King kept this shock and surprise to himself. Over the next two years, Roosevelt — while careful to maintain formal U.S. neutrality — aided the Canadian war effort in numerous back-door ways.

After 1945, the roles were reversed. The United States developed a new interest in sending its troops into conflicts around the globe. Meanwhile, Canada took on the part of reluctant ally.

In 1950, in large part because Canadian policymakers had bought the U.S. argument about the need to contain international communism, then prime minister Louis St. Laurent agreed to commit Canadian troops to battle in Korea.

But he did so without enthusiasm; Canada's contribution remained small.

Some 15 years later, another prime minister, Lester Pearson, made a different decision when the United States was once again fighting what it saw as international communism, this time in Vietnam.

Then, as now, Washington was furious at Canada's perceived disloyalty. When Pearson had the temerity to suggest that the United States interrupt its bombing of North Vietnam, an angry U.S. President Lyndon Johnson upbraided him furiously, grabbing him by his lapels and castigating him for "pissing on my rug."

Unlike Cellucci's public rebuke of Chrétien, the Johnson-Pearson imbroglio was at least private. And while Johnson may never have forgiven Pearson, the U.S. government was quite aware that Canada quietly supported the U.S. war effort by supplying arms and intelligence.

In particular, Canada used its position on the technically neutral International Control Commission, which monitored the conflict in Vietnam, to spy for the Americans — a fact revealed only later when secret U.S. documents known as the Pentagon Papers were made public. 

Throughout, both countries have made thoroughly rational choices about joining in one another's wars and contributing to one another's defence. Ontario Premier Ernie Eves yesterday publicly praised the United States for defending Canada in the Cold War. Yet he forgets that the United States instituted these so-called joint defence efforts not out of altruism but self-interest. 

For the United States, the point of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) was not to protect Toronto from Soviet nuclear attack. It was to protect New York.

For Canada, the point of NORAD was to have U.S. jets defending New York down any Soviet nuclear bombers over the high Arctic rather than southern Ontario.

Wars are always emotionally wrenching events. The World War I effort was desperately important to Canadians of the era; fully one-quarter of Canada's military-age male population was killed in that terrible conflict against what was perceived as a brutal, dictatorial German regime. 

Yet for three long years, Americans saw — correctly — that a war between the British and German empires had little to do with them.

So too, Iraq. Most Canadians take no joy when U.S. soldiers are killed or captured. But the majority think this is not their war. They think Canada has no business in Iraq. 

A great many think that Canada's American friends have no business there either. 

•••
Canada's economy is in better shape.

Tiny Canada with 1/10th the population created more jobs last quarter than the entire US economy.

Canada's dollar is staying steady while the US dollar is declining. Canada is seen as a secure haven with stable economy and government.

Canada is much higher on the list of preferred places to live.

All under an admittedly corrupt Liberal regime that will swing right and get cleaned up when the fiscally conservative Martin comes to power.

Watch for a huge swing left in Ontario - Eves is about to take it on the chin - the last time the electorate were ticked off they put Bob Rae in power - much to everyone's surprise including Rae's









The Liberals have no lock on mis-management of situations.

What I'd like to see is Toronto start to flex it's muscles. 1/2 the money spent in Canada is spent in Toronto yet it has no power of taxation.
The US has done a lot for its cities by giving them taxation power...long overdue here.
The GTA is the heart of the Ontario economy which drives the entire country.
BC is our link to the Pacific rim - would be nice to see that economy come up to it's full potential.

The "reality" Macnutt is that Canada is doing pretty well.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting stuff! Good comments from all of you...and surprisingly few that were heavily influenced by some sort of established ideology.

Bravo!  

CNN is on one of my TV sets all the time these days. MSNBC is on another. CBC and BBC is on yet another (BTW...I find the CBC coverage to be somewhat biased toward the negative aspect thus far. Anything that shows the American/British military to be fumbling seems to be getting major coverage. This is to be expected, since more than a billion dollars is paid into the CBC's coffers each year by the current government of Canada. That government is not particularly sympathetic to this particular action and...you gets what you _pay for_, after all.)

I also have another two TV sets dedicated to...shall we say...other satellite feeds. (I've got about nine TV sets running at any given time, off of several sat dishes, BTW)

Interesting stuff, especially when they are still setting everything up and not quite ready for primetime. Odd things happen...interesting things are said...and some illumination about the events at hand takes place among anyone who is privy to this data.

And...I'm here to tell ya that it is not going quite as quickly or cleanly as I had expected.

Having said that, I am also ready to tell you that I honestly expect the whole situation to suddenly seem a lot better in the coming days. There is some very clear evidence that we are on the brink of a big push. One that will make quite a difference in how everyone percieves this military action to remove Saddam from power. 

It's early yet. As long as the US doesn't get bogged down in some sort of guerilla war because of their reluctance to cause any sort of excessive civilian casualties, then everything will work out okay.

But it sure could happen...

If the "civilians" turn out to be Republican Guards in disguise...then all bets are off. 

The US/Coalition will shed the kid gloves and start to fight like someone who wants to win, at any cost.

Then, no matter what we all want, there will be quite a few civilian Iraqis killed. Innocent people who didn't _have_ to die....who didn't have to even be there, and didn't want any sort of confrontation with anyone.

And this will not be the fault of George W. Bush.

Far from it. 

And I will be horribly dissapointed if the left takes this opportunity to spin this into some sort of negative aspect. Saddam is the one who has murdered and tortured his own people.He is the one who has built the horror weapons and constructed lavish palaces while starving the children of his country to death. He is the reason that we are at war.

And he is the one who has ordered his radical militia to don civilian clothes, in order to disguise themselves from the US forces that have come to remove him from power.

He may also be the one who kills vast numbers of his own people and blames it on the Americans.

He has, after all, done this before.

So...before you march in protest of the removal of this sub-human tyrant...take a look at what he has done in the past. Then look, very hard, at what the people who are attempting to remove him have done in the past. Have they acted like a conquering power...or a liberating force, in past wars? 

Look at the record. Then decide for yourself. You owe yourself that. Don't be led by others. Make your own decision.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Brave one, that Sascha.

For some reason I seem to remember that he recently wrote an article from Iraq.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow Chris Dickey of Newsweek sure laid into the US administration live on CNN.
He's the Newsweek Bureau chief for the Middle East. Talk about a blunt condemnation. Ouch - even I winced and I agree  
CNN called him "Sir" - nod of respect for another journalist telling it how he sees it playing out on the Arab Street.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

David,
I missed that interview.
Care to jot down some notes?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Has anyone heard from Sacha Trudeau?? I would be very interested in his report as an offset to the big news agencies.

Speaking of missing voices - has anyone heard from CubaMark lately??


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The whole concept of bringing democracy to the Middle East is, in my opinion, bizzare. Should the US succeed in Iraq, it will be almost the first (I'm giving points to Turkey and Israel; reluctantly).

There is no doubt that America's former allies are more than a little taken aback by this new interest in the rights of the people. Either the US is not in the least serious, or every nation in the region is due for a complete overthrowing of established order. The former is preferrable, for the sake of peace, even though it is likely to increase cynicism and mistrust of the US.

Thus my wonderment. Why would they deliberately set themselves up as targets; as untrustworthy infidels, as Crusaders? Surely these accusations and more will be made, they aren't any different from what's been said for the last 25 years. But bring democracy to Iraq? I just don't get it. Who would believe such a thing? Arabs make Missouri * look like the "sure, whatever" state. And, even worse, what if it's true? I don't see a "win" here.

The whole way this conflict started has many in the world wondering if the US knows lesson one about diplomacy. They certainly used to know the whole book, inside out.

Two years ago, they had more diplomatic IOU's in their back pocket than almost anytime in history, and in a very short time since 9/11 they've squandered it all. What are they smoking?

It wouldn't be so bad if it were just me and a few other peons who thought these things, but we have leaders and professional diplomats worldwide scratching their heads today. Tony Blair's job is to tell Europe that it's OK, the US hasn't been taken over by aliens from Mars Attacks! It's a tough sell.

* Missouri is often referred to as the "show-me state".


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc....

Still around. Lurking, more than anything else. There really isn't anything more to put into words than what has gone before, and the rest of you seem to be doing a good job vs. MacNutt's ramblings (Gerry, I see you've also been rebuked in the forums south of the border!  )

On Friday night I found out that the new husband (American) of a friend has a son in Iraq, somewhere outside of Baghdad with a U.S. Marine logistical support unit. He is, as one would expect, out of his mind with concern. The son, 21 years old, joined up 9 months ago for an education / training... now look where he is. 

I've also recently discovered the reporting of Robert Fisk, with the Independent in the UK. He's filing some "on the scene" material from Baghdad, giving first-person accounts of what's going on. Very disturbing.

CNN, which lately has been going over the top with it's "your most trusted name in news" mantra, is not winning me over. The BBC coverage is probably, in my opinion, the best of televised news to which most people have access.

I doubt that I'll be overly active in the days ahead... some long-overdue work to take care of, which also provides a bit of refuge from the war. 

Some final general comments / fears:

- It is unbelievable that the U.S. was, apparently, completely unprepared for the fact that Iraqis are not welcoming them with open arms. The fact that they now have to occupy and control the territory they take is going to be problematic. An Iraqi, living in Kuwait who heads up a refugee agency (forget his name, sorry), said it is the responsibility of the invading force to control the areas they seize... which apparently hasn't been happening. Once the US/UK forces leave territory they conquer, the pro-Saddam forces have been killing those who expressed any welcome to the invaders. Nasty, if it's true.

- we are SO f******d. As expected, anti-western sentiment is exploding in neighbouring states, with hundreds (thousands?) of muslims in the region hopping on buses, trucks, etc. and rushing into Iraq to help repel the invaders. A new suicide bombing was carried out in Israel "in support of Iraq." This "war" is going to be leaving Iraq's territory in a big way, I fear.

- Very nice column by Canadian writer and columnist Silver Donald Cameron in Sunday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald (at the bottom-left column, click on Sunday, and then click on Opinion. It's in there.). SDC takes on Cellucci, expressing very well my own opinions. 

- Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes also published an excellent column ripping apart Rumsfeld and the war plan. Worth checking out.

Anyways - I'll be poking in from time to time. Finding it hard to be enthusiastic about debating things while people are dying. 

Last thought: 9/11 saw around 3200 people die in total in the US. In Afghanistan, the direct casualities of war were between 3700 and 5000, according to the best estimates I have been able to dig up (documented in previous threads). On top of that there are the tens of thousands of deaths from lack of infrastructure, safe water, disease, repercussions of reinstated warlord-control, etc. Now the Iraqi body count http://www.iraqbodycount.net is around 400, with again a higher figure in spinoff effects from lack of water, medical care, etc.

Just how much "payback" is the U.S. willing to inflict upon the muslim world? And why have they chosen to take out Afghanis and Iraqis, when the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? (NOTE that I am NOT advocating a military action against Saudi Arabia).

What a messed up world...

M.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Mark...good to have you back!  

Now...on to the rest....

Mark. I wonder if Afghanistan was "payback" as you expressed it, or was it a takedown of some radical types who had siezed control of a whole country? A country that they were using as a base of operations to plan and carry out attacks on western society?

And what, pray tell, would have been the "body count" had they NOT been removed from power? How many innocents would have been murdered had they stayed right where they were, and continued what they were doing?

For that matter, what is Saddam's current "body count"? Would we be better off if he were to be removed or if he remained? Would the total number of dead be more...or less, overall?

And I don't think it has anything at all to do with "payback". Sorry.

If the USA simply wanted payback...then they could have done so from the safety of Cheyenne Mountain, with a few well-placed nukes.

Quick and easy. And no need to spend six months getting the glacial UN to come onside and authorise anything that would even approach real action on an obvious problem.

Wouldn't want to do _that_ now would we? Might just upset some of the less democratic countries in that august body, after all. Might make them think that their time is coming to an end, very soon. Scary Scary. 


Macdoc....very interesting stuff, as always. Good observations. I mostly agree...mostly.

But there is still a leftist spin in there.

And I should point out that Canada was at war anytime that Britain was, until well after the 1950's. That was because we were called...back then...the "Dominion of Canada" (the unspoken part of this was the word "British" at the front of this designation.)

My first Canadian passport was issued in 1972. It said, quite clearly as I remember, that "the bearer of this passport is a British subject".

And I am sure that you are old enough to remember when July 1st was called "Dominion Day".

We were then a part of the sphere of influence of a fading World Power. When they went to war, we did too.

The US, at that point, had not yet realised their full potential. They weren't considered a "World Power" till after the second World War. No one was even using the term "Superpower" until the Cold war was in full swing.

American voters...like most people in a free democracy...do not want war with anyone, if it is avoidable. They were largely against both World Wars (until Pearl Harbour) and were only lukewarm on the Korean conflict. They mostly hated the Vietnam War. 

Many of them don't particularly like this one either.

This is a good thing. If it is an unjust or unnecessary conflict, then you can expect the American people to raise all sorts of hell about it.

And they will uncerimoniously dump the guy who got them into this mess in the next Presidential elections.

So far, they are backing him, in almost unprecedented numbers.

We...here in Canada...do not have the luxury of knowing exactly _when_ we can dump our particular band of morons and try out a new set.

And, back in the early parts of the twentieth century, it wouldn't have mattered one way or the other. Because we were still considered a part of the British Empire, and when they fought a big fight, we fought too. Simple as that.


Gordguide...I admit that suggesting a possible future democracy in Iraq or in any of the Gulf States is a long shot right now. A very long shot, really. Especially when there are virtually NO Arab countries with any sort of self-determination, even in the early twenty-first century. None, really.

But we can hope, can't we?

I mean...hey...back in the early eighties, when I speculated on an imminent breakout of democracy in the Soviet Union, it was dismissed by pretty much everyone. It would never happen.

Not a chance.

Nobody ever thought that most of the South American countries could ever shake off the dictators and get free voting rights, either. Certainly no one thought that when I lived there. Pure nonsense.

China becoming a capitalist Nation? Rich Chinese citizens travelling around in chauffeur-driven Mercedes limos while making big money deals on cellphones? Individual Chinese citizen who own their own factories, and maintain several large houses? Who can travel freely and accumulate large personal fortunes? While their pampered wives spend hours in the beauty salon, and servants clean the house for them? Pure crap. It'll never happen. Not in a million years. 

Sorry gord...I hate to disagree with you...but I think that all people everywhere are cut from the same basic cloth. They all want to be really in charge of their own lives. Able to sink or swim on their own.

Arabs are no different. Neither are the Iranians (who are not Arab). Both have vast oil wealth, are very well educated (for the most part) and are completely capable of running their own countries without the benefit of some sort of dictator who tells them what to do and what to think. And who do what they do in fear of this dictator.

Remove the tyrants...once and for all... and watch what happens.

It might just surprise all of us. 

(Not me...I'm already cheering for the home team. Go Iraqis Go! Make you're own way in the world!)

Finally, macspectrum....

I have no idea what you are talking about when you accuse me of wishing that all immigrants leave the country. And what is that stuff about First Nations people? When have I EVER even mentioned this sort of radical thought in ANY of my posts? It is wrong in every sense of the word, and I've said this many times here at ehmac.


Are you mixing your allergy meds again? You gotta be careful with that stuff. It'll make you see pink elephants, if you're not careful.

It might also cause you to see radical thoughts, where none truly exist.

Hope you get better soon.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc...and whoever else is listening...

Again I have to agree with much of what you have written. Well thought out and well considered, and obviously the thoughts of one of our best minds here at ehmac.

My compliments, sir.  

I do tend to take issue with a few points you have raised though. (you knew it was coming, didn't you?)

Okay...here it is...

You claim that Iraq is a "soverign country". Perhaps...but Saddam is NOT it's legal ruler. He took power by force, and maintains this power by terror. Not elections.

BIG difference.

And you said something about the "world judiciary" with regards to the UN.

I just _wish_ that the UN was seen in this light...and could actually operate as a real world judiciary with some sort of validity.

It is not possible, as long as so many of the countries in the UN are actually being run by ONE MAN. Or one small group of self-interested men, with no real elections in sight.

When they vote on any sort of UN resolution, they do so with their OWN interests in mind. The will and feelings of their own people are not even considered. Frequently, these UN "representatives" from some countries are guilty of voting AGAINST the will of the people of that Nation.

But we, in the west, take it as a valid choice...voiced by a whole nation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Too bad.  

That's why the United Nations has not exactly been seen to be a...shall we say...pivotal force...in today's complicated world. Unable, or unwilling, to make the hard decisions and then back them up with real action to enforce these decisions.

Cops without guns who are not even allowed to raise their voices when they see a crime. And who cannot possibly enforce their own laws....because the bad guys are a big part of the council who tasks them.

Syria on the UN Human Rights Committee? Libya as the chair of that committee?  

When did we step into this particularly bizzarre alternate universe?

What a load of _crap_!!!

I just hope that whatever worldwide body replaces the United Nations...just as it replaced the League of Nations...will only include countries where the people of those same countries actually ELECT their leaders. By a popular vote. A REAL vote.

(not like the sort that go on in Iraq, Libya, or Cuba. Any "leader" who gets 100% per cent of the vote, 100% of the time, should have to answer some very pertinent questions before joining something as important as the UN. If he wants to be taken seriously, at least)

The United Nations is, largely, a spent force. With no real validity.

I would really like to see it replaced by a large group of Nations who are all totally free. Self-determining and able to actually vote their own will on every major issue of the day.

Want to get into this new group? Want to be able to freely trade goods and services with a much larger group of like-minded Countries? Want to have real protection from outside agression, and know that this agression will be dealt with in a timely fashion?

Fine. Join up.

All you have to do is call _free elections_. And abide by them.

It's not that difficult, really. But that is the cost of membership. Simple as that.

Then we would all know that we are on the same page. Working towards the same thing.Voicing the opinions and thoughts of a whole Nation....not just a few self-interested individuals.

THEN...and only then, would we really have a "World Judiciary" that is worthy of the name.

We sure don't have it now.


And I'm betting that the countries who are left out of this new worldwide aliance of free nations would be scrambling to join up. Fast.

And they would have to start having free elections to do it. They would have to take the unprecedented step of actually consulting their own people on all major decisions.

What a shame.

What a CHANGE!

And entirely do-able. Right here and now.

Let's get on with it. 

Eveyone... _EVERYWHERE_ should have a real and valid voice in what their country does. On everything.

No execptions.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I like salmon very much. I have eaten much Pacific salmon and Atlantic salmon. Both wild and farmed.

For cooking and flavour, I would have to give the nod to Atlantic Coast salmon. They are a fattier (fish fat is good for you) and since I grill all my meats/fish/poultry, the Atlantic salmon fare much better. All of the chefs that I talk to also agree. It is not an huge sampling by any means. I prefer the simple style of cooking with the best ingredients and little seasoning, except of course, garlic, olive oil and vinegar. Perhaps it is a west vs. east thing. I don't know. I just know what makes my tastebuds happy.

I have eaten several times at the Salmon House on the Hill (a world famous salmon restaurant in Vancouver), where they do cook excellent salmon. Perhaps it is the experience in cooking the different types of salmon that is the key. Being in the east, I have much more experience and access to Atlantic salmon rather then Pacific.

Grilled salmon filet with lemon butter and capers is a real favourite. mmmmmm
Salmon is also one of the few fish that actually goes nicely with a nice uninhibited red wine. Beajoulais (not that nouveau nonsense) or a Merlot. Merlots currently provide excellent value at your local liquor outlet.

Ahhh, summer just around the corner. Sailing, golfing, salmon......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mark ...I echo Macnutt in welcoming you back. I understand the time issue - just nice to know you are lurking at the least 

MacNutt - I agree on Afghan - I thought the response and action was appropriate under the 9/11 circumstances - the area needs more help but that's the world's role and an ideal role for Canada. 
Iraq is NOT the same situation in my eyes., and in those of many others around world, 

re Britain and the past wars.....A Dominion is independent and the debate about the war in Quebec almost caused a civil war in Canada so it was not following the Brits blindly altho certainly that was a factor.
It matters naught that the US was not a Superpower - we aren;t now







so how does that play.
Bottom line, at times the US didn't think it was "it's war" - so opted out for a time. 
Many nation states including Canada are exercising the same right now.
****
You said
"American voters...like most people in a free democracy...do not want war with anyone,"
umm the general view of scholars and history refutes that - do a google search on "warlike people America" - you'll find lots of well thought out and historically based evidence..
"Michael A. Ledeen, author of "The War against the Terror Masters" and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, argued at a forum on Iraq earlier the week:

"I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties but losing. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40017-2003Mar27.html 

Bush and Co have taken this to a far more dangerous level by projecting their power as and when they see fit..
•••
It's not up to the US to take any other soveriegn nation to task - they don't like it in reverse.
The issue is NOT Saddam.
The issue is unilateral and bullying action by the US and this is now a "stated written policy of this administration"
 
NGO's, Foreign aid programs and the Unitied Nations are tasked with helping nations make progress in all areas including political and sometimes some nations are not benefitted by a democracy.
The US is the cop, the muscle for the world and generally a well respected and well intentioned one..but they ARE NOT THE WORLD JUDICIARY and refuse to participate in the world judicial system - What would you do with a cop in your community that took that approach??!
In this case, other members of the world community including the cop's closest friends are not happy about the US acting on it's own, neither are many of it's own citizens.
There are always tyrants and the US has set up a few, including Saddam, in it's time.
A benevolent government can result from a variety of political systems and nations evolve theirs over time - the US history is a bloody record of that evolution as it France's and Britain's.
Sovereignty is a critical concept.
The US has abrogated it's responsibility in relation to that concept.
It is being censured by world opinion as a result.
This is not a good situation.
That Saddam will go is good, but the cost may not be.
You gotta KNOW..when Gord gets concerned - the situation is DIRE   
***
Macspectrum - Macnutt is correct in being ticked off. Reading too far into his right wing approach does nothing to further useful dialogue.
He has come a long way to appreciating our view and he doesn't swallow ideology for it's own sake.
He's said time and again his views are based on his experience and he has certainly travelled widely.
The West coast has a great supply of smelly salmon to launch  caution advised.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

If it smells like a salmon and looks like a salmon......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But is it a 
Sockeye	Pink	Coho	Chum	Chinook, Rubyfish Red Perch Rock Salmon Masu 
Masou Salmon Salmon Trout Sima Yamame Rill Salmon Amago Biwa Salmon Formosan Trout or Tee Salmon 
Winter Salmon Quinnat Salmon King Salmon Spring Salmo..well you get my drift
or even some interbred combination brought up by friendly Spotted trout.
Every person is unique = pigeon holing them, or in this case salmon holing them - leads to misunderstanding and resentment.
I'm sure there is a Chinook looking in on this a seriously resenting being lumped in with a Sockeye


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An alternate view seems a bit hard to swallow for the US fifth estate.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.arnett/index.html 

Free but not quite free enough to speak your mind and stay working.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

In that articled Arnett is quoted:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Arnett, 68, was quoted in the tabloid as saying, "I report the truth of what is happening here in Baghdad and *will not apologize for it.* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then later on:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer on "The Today Show," Arnett apologized for comments he made. 

*"I want to apologize* to the American people for clearly making a misjudgment over the weekend by giving an interview to Iraqi Television," Arnett said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I'm confused.


----------

