I’m getting a little long in the tooth so I can well remember the formation of the North America Treaty Association (NATO) in 1949. We studied it in High School and learned that this organization was for defence against the USSR. This appeared to be a very necessary thing for a number of reasons two of which were critical.
The famous “Long Telegram” from US envoy in the USSR George Keenan, in 1946, which spelled out the Soviet Union’s policy of expansion. This memo formed the basis of the US to “contain” the spread of communism which spawned the US sending troops to South Korea with the resultant war and to Viet Nam to fight for South Korea, which had the trappings of Democracy against the Communist North.
The second factor was defection of the USSR cipher clerk, Igor Gouzenko from the Soviet embassy whose evidence disclosed who were Soviet spies in North America such that there was no doubt that the USSR was on the brink of having the Atom Bomb (which they in fact had by August of that year).
An outgrowth of NATO was the Distant Early Warning (DEW Line) which placed detection devices in Northern Canada to advise of a Soviet attack, and the Warsaw Pact, a defensive alliance of Eastern European states behind the Iron Curtain.
In 1989, interestingly 200 years exactly from the start of the French Revolution, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down making NATO and the Warsaw Pact, functus – they had lost their reason for being,
Canada is a Charter Member of NATO and the defensive theme of the organization encouraged Canada to take on the international role of “peace keeper” as distinguished from “peace maker”.
When NATO was formed, it was quite a stretch to include the US as being in the North Atlantic but look now at what that ocean apparently includes – Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia – all communist before 1989 most of which were in the Warsaw Pact!
This reminds me of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s March of Dimes set up in 1938 to fight polio (which had struck Roosevelt himself). When Jonas Salk found the cure for polio in 1955, The March of Dimes was out of business, so to speak, but with scarcely a pause it re-invented itself as concerned, says its folksy mission statement (to) “help moms have full-term pregnancies and research the problems that threaten the health of babies”.
The “scourge” of Soviet and other versions of communism giving been cleansed by the people, NATO ceased to have a role and seamlessly became an aggressive organization essentially the “hit man” for “western” nations in Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is now a peripheral but hugely important issue in Canada which is purchasing 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. The original cost was $9 Billion but estimates are now nudging $25 Billion. Canada is a small country of 35 million which has no natural enemies, except the USA, against whom we would be powerless, so why the hell are we doing this?
Because of our international obligations?
What international obligations? Those claimed to be obligations such as Afghanistan? We refused to join George Bush II’s adventure in Iraq to protect it’s oil interests so why were we in Afghanistan?
If I were to answer because of the “industrial military complex” I would probably be called a “neo-con” or, fatally naïve yet this is precisely what President Dwight D. Eisenhower (scarcely a left winger) warned against in his January 17, 1961, in his farewell address.
How right he was! Every State of the Union has a defence industry meaning all 535 Congressmen and 100 senators are under heavy political pressure to support and maintain and expand them. This brings powerful pressure from the White House to pressure countries like Canada to take up some of the burden even though they have no enemies to defend against.
———————————————————————————
Those who want laws “protecting” society from Muslim women in veils are bigots in my view. The laws in place in France and under debate elsewhere are, plainly, racist.
My same opinion applies to Veterans’ organizations in Canada which would refuse access, even on Remembrance Day – hell, especially on Remembrance Day – of men wearing turbans. In this latter regard I well remember the hubbub, a few years ago, of local “Legions” protesting against turbans which was put into perspective when Wendy and I were in London for their ceremony with one regiment being led by a large Sikh with turban but without his right arm.
I might add that white Christian soldiers were damned happy to have men like the Ghurkhas on side in battle.
What is the Legion’s argument?
That wearing “headgear is an insult to the Queen”. It is the same sort of tendentiousness that has Northern Irishmen on the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne, marching, singing and waving signs in Catholic neighbourhoods saying they’re simply lawfully marching on the Queen’s highway.
I have spent most of the past hour on the internet seeking some persuasive argument that a Muslim woman wearing a veil poses any security risk whatsoever to anyone. Some claim that it portrays the fanaticism of fundamental Islam which imperils peaceful societies. Others claim that they like to see the faces of people they’re talking to. Some claim that they’re trying to save Muslim women from the clear bias of Muslim all male Clergy.
If we are to enhance our safety by banning veils on women to we extend the prohibition to males wearing ski masks in winter? After all, bank robbers wear ski masks, don’t they?
What about people wearing masks at fancy dress parties? Couldn’t they permit each sex to disguise from others their amorous intentions?
What about men with beards, especially those with dark skins? Couldn’t they be terrorists in disguise? Might it be an offence for a once bearded man to have photo ID in his former beardless state? And what about the other way around – could a man who used to shave be penalized if he grows a beard? I’ve had a beard for over 30 years and I say it’s that those who shave who are “unnatural” and should be dealt with immediately.
What about the rights of women? Does the non Muslim society have the right to interfere, uninvited by anyone including women, with religions and their notions of respectable dress codes? If we’re to do this I say we should start with both Jews and Muslims who mutilate little boys by cutting off their foreskins for no other reason than they have always done it.
How strange is a society where women can go topless wherever they wish while others in the sisterhood must have their veils ripped off. Surely, then, such a society must be consistent and stop women from maliciously, and no doubt seditiously, hiding their boobs.
