With the unveiling of a replica of the super jet Avro Arrow many Canadians still hold to the claim that President Eisenhower bullied us into dumping the Avro Arrow. While the C.B.C. and others have propagated the image of a helpless Diefenbaker in a canoe taking orders from the Eisenhower. Nothing could be further from the truth. To know the truth one must look past the Docu-Drama produced by the C.B.C (some events were dramatized for the story). While it is true Canada can produce amazing things like the Avro Arrow, Satellites, Doctors, Actors, Comedians etc. we often lack the resources or vision to sustain such things. In 1959 Canada was a young democracy with 18 million people with an average income of $11,000 (2003 dollars). The American F-16’s current cost is 25 million per plane. Can you imagine 18 million people building 30 planes at 12million ($1958) a piece in 1958? To build this plane and sustain its existence our G.D.P and population would have had to be triple what it was at the time. I doubt Canadians would have wanted to increase our Military budget in today’s climate let alone the 1950s. We had just finished fighting World War II and our citizens were on our way to a great baby boom. Canadians were eager to adopt social programs and not military apparatus and this is evident as we are still spending $40 billion a year in interest payments and incurred a massive increase in national debt from the Pearson era on. You can’t build super planes and have lavish social programs on the backs of 18million people earning $11,000 a year. You choose one or the other. During the 1950’s John Diefenbaker realized that a nation could have as many planes as they’d like but if one nation chose to launch a nuclear missile the planes were useless as a defence. He chose instead to allow Americans to place Beaumark missiles to defend Canada against such a nuclear attack. This resulted in Arrow technology being destroyed to prevent it from falling into enemy hands our engineers heading south, Canada saving a fortune in building planes and building our peaceable image by not building a fighter jet. We can be proud that many of the people and things American’s consider great have a little maple leaf attached to them. Instead of lamenting the fact that so much of our greatness heads south, we must examine why, not revise history.

CANADA'S LEFT WING WACKJOB!

So Canada’s left wing leader Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party wants to negotiate with the Taliban. The word negotiate as Webster’s defines it is to (discuss in order to reach an agreement). If we are to reach consensuses with the Taliban one must know where each party stands. The Taliban shot women in football (soccer) stadiums for engaging in premarital sex, hanged women from goalposts for not having enough covering on their bodies, beat men for improper beard length, bar women from learning and working and decapitate any teachers who dare teach them as well as execute anybody who preaches another religion. Oh and there’s the little issue of running terrorist camps not to mention their description of the west as the great Satan. The N.D.P. says they’re for religious tolerance, freedom of education, women’s rights and any other group they can leech a vote from. My questions for Mr. Layton are as follows. Does he really feel he can come to consensus with the Taliban? If so, who and or what are you willing to sacrifice in your negotiations with the Taliban. If sacrifices are made will Canada be blamed in the years to come? Do you really believe you posses such powers of persuasion and charm in order to have the Taliban embrace western values admit defeat and become partners for peace? You can’t even get a sizable minority of Canadians to vote for you. Mr. Layton’s position doesn’t surprise me all that much as it isn’t far off than the N.D.P’s original position during WWII. If he had it his way North America would have been divided up between Germany, Italy and Japan. Isolationism should never be considered a virtuous position when it comes to foreign policy. I suggest the N.D.P stick to issues like second hand smoke, supposed global warming and concocting new ideas to wrestle tax dollars out our hands. Don’t worry Mr. Layton we’ll still let you M.C. the gay parades in Toronto. Just leave the big issues for Canadian and American Conservatives; people with the intestinal fortitude to see them through.

Matthew R. Ford

HIJACKERS OR TRUE TO ISLAM?

As an outsider and cheerleader for America’s war on terror I stand baffled at America’s treatment of detainees at GITMO. The President and pun dints alike have claimed that these terrorists have hijacked Islam. There are only two classifications to place the detainees under; either they are true practitioners of Islam or Hijackers of Islam. Whatever your opinion of classification is we must reach consensus on which they are. If theses terrorists have hijacked Islam one can only conclude that their current practice of Islam is a fraud thus negating any responsibility for prayer rugs, culturally sensitive food and any other religious sensitivity provided by the U.S. government. I can only surmise if this is a hijacked version of Islam then the U.S. government is aiding and abetting terrorists by allowing them to continue their false religious practice that caused them to act out violently in the first place. Also any Muslim outsider shouldn’t be concerned with the detainees as they are only hijackers and not true practitioners of Islam and anyone decrying foul should be dismissed as a fellow hijacker of Islam and not to be dealt with. If the terrorists are true practitioners of Islam then this is a bigger issue. We would still have to conclude that any aid in practicing their religion would aid them in reaffirming the faith that led them to terrorism. You can’t have it both ways. They’re either Hijackers or true practitioners of Islam and neither would be deserving of our continued support. It’s time to take the gloves off and let the world know that; any religion that allows you to behead, blow up or terrorize your fellow humans is no religion at all. The American government cannot continue to take the middle ground because the middle ground means providing and promoting the religion that detainees claim fueled their obsession to act in violence.

God Bless America

Matthew R. Ford