[SOC] Letter to Paul Cellucci from prize winning Canadian author

[JMcAulay]

At 05:30 AM 04/08/2003 -0700, Lloyd Lachow wrote:

>To: Ambassador Paul Cellucci, embassy of the united
>states of america,
>490 sussex dr., ottawa, ont., canada

<snip -- read the earler post if you need it>
=20
>Sincerely,
>=20
>Silver Donald Cameron
>=20
>award-winning author silver donald cameron lives in
>d'escousse, cape breton, nova scotia
>=20
>copyright =A9 2003 the halifax herald limited


I am unaware of the field in which Mr. Cameron is an award-winning author,
but it is evidently not history, current affairs, logic, or prescience.

For one thing, his recollection of North American history is a bit shaky. =
=20

For another, that "A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain,
judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against
terrorism" seems rather specious, in that 79% of US residents polled
support the war (no, not just the US military, the *war*), and about 80% of
UK residents polled also do.  Perhaps one might presume that yes, about 20%
of the total resdents of the two countries do form a "huge body" (although
nowhere close to a preponderance).  But to identify those three factors as
reasons why those people oppose the war is absolute blue sky, a conclusion
without supporting evidence.  One Canadian MP the other day identified the
war as "illegal and immoral."  I still can't quite understand why some
think it's "illegal," as the earlier conflict with Iraq ended not with a
treaty of peace and amity, but rather with a cease fire which was based on
certain conditions that would have to be met by Iraq.  To me, it is
patently obvious that many those conditions have not been met.  Also to me,
this means the war has not ended.  In fact, I have been wondering for
several years why that earlier conflict remained unfinished.  Am I seeing
things that densely?  After all, I am not a lawyer, but rather an official
Law-School dropout. =20

And as for the US coming to the aid of Canada, that should go without
question.  Please note that the US decision not to enter WWI or WWII
earlier had nothing at all to do with Canada's participation.  Canada had
not, in either instance, been directly attacked.  Canada was going to the
aid of the UK, not quite the same situation.  And as for the US having been
depicted as the only country ever to invade Canada, well, that's true.  Of
course, that was 180 years ago, and you might recall that we were getting
some of the same by the Brits through Canada about then.  We generally
don't consider such old things any more, but I suppose some need them to
justify their positions.  For that matter, historical accuracy would be
served by noting that most Canadian and US residents were friendly during
that war; our governments were at odds.

Immediately following World War II, the Canadian Armed Forces were among
the largest on Earth.  Yet today, with no outside assistance, Canada might
have trouble saving itself from an assault by even a mediocre world power.
There is no question that the US appreciates the ongoing Canadian
contribution to our common defense.  But it does appear evident that Canada
has for some time assumed that its enemies are also enemies of the US; and
even if some one-sided conflict arises, well, the US will enter the fray
anyway, in order to protect the reliability of its northern neighbor, if
nothing else.  Thus Canada seems to have taken a position to allow its
military to dwindle, in the belief that the US will always come to its aid.
 Of course, it is most likely an extremely safe assumption that we would,
even if it is only to protect our own self-interests.  Anyone who would
believe otherwise has his head in the clouds.

It's true that many US citizens and residents don't give Canada a second
thought, unlike the reverse view.  But many of us think a lot about Canada,
enjoy visiting those beautiful lands and waters, appreciate the people,
understand how fortunate we are that Canada is there, and continually wish
Canada well.  If Canada really needed it, the US likely would do just about
anything for Canada.

And the current war "will breed more martyrs, and more terrorists"?  An
interesting projection.  Unfortunately, it is axiomatic that the best
defense against terrorism is terror.  Response to any attacks must be in
kind; one cannot depend on even a very large knife at a gunfight.  And why
are we doing this in Iraq, warring against a sovereign government that
hasn't done anything to us?  hahahahah!  I will not debate the cause or
reasons for the Iraq conflict, but please understand that I do *not*
believe this war "will breed more martyrs, and more terrorists."  Is it
that difficult to recall that the Iraqi government has been offering -- and
paying -- cash rewards for terrorist acts?  I have been wrong before, and
surely it will happen again, but perhaps not this time.=20

Lloyd, thanks for your posting.  I do appreciate exposure to multiple
points of view, especially those in opposition to my own.

By the way, I definitely do not appreciate it if my government even hints
that negative economic consequences might result from any other
geovernment's failure to do anything, unless it is totally an economic
issue, *not* third-party political.

Regards,
John  WA6QPL  SOC 263
award-winning RTTY operator