Send your feedback
Use our contact page

31 August 2004

Dear Editor Ron,

Pavo certainly is best, as the motto says. In some articles/feedbacks you say some narrow-minded things about Canadians. They are not left wing, socialist, carpet bagging Canadians. If you were just saying that about that reporter (Peter Jennings) then fine. You have a right to your opinion and I have the right to mine. From others such as yourself I know you are much more highly critical of Canadians because of an impression from others, children's shows you watched when a child or still watch, and/or shows not using FACT that Canadians are a French speaking people with French customs, but they are not.

All of Canada was a British colony before it became an independent country. Queen Elizabeth II is queen of Canada. Sixty-seven percent of Canadians speak only English, less than eighteen percent speak only French, and a little over thirteen percent speak both. I know you don't like France's choice to not help America with the war on Iraq/War on Terrorism but they are doing what they believe is best for their country. You may think this is unfair after Vietnam and other things we have helped them with, but they helped this country become free. Without the superior American knowledge of the land, having the supplies ready there for them, and having the France's help (one of but not the most powerful countries of the time) to help us. And who knows, they may help us another time when we need it more since some of our important allies are thinking of leaving us because of this war and George Bush. I know many people also disfavour France criticizing us on the war but as our country believes, they should have the right to criticize us as it is a freedom of speech, but we also have the right to criticize them. I don't approve of every thing they have done. They (unlike Great Britain who gave a lot more of their colonies back freely) fought to keep most of them, like Vietnam.

Now about (President) Bush. Let me ask you why did he not use the nations money more wisely and eliminate the nuclear threat in North Korea. Oh yes, I forgot, because he wanted to make up for what his dad did in Iraq. Bush shall not win the war because even the United States can't stop all the terrorism. Also because Bush has gotten rid of many of our allies so there isn't as much help coming from other countries that there could be. Bush should have waited and tried to get more help from other countries instead of trying to do this war with hardly any help and America paying most of the money for the war and rebuilding. To get Sadam Hussein wasn't even the reason he said we were going to Iraq. We went to supposedly get the weapons of mass destruction. May I add they weren't there. Bush should have waited until the CIA at least confirmed that they thought the weapons existed instead of starting the war before it. He also should have waited until he had a better plan and more confirmation from other sources. Bush should have also listened to the sources that denied the weapons. I don't feel safer with Sudam Hussein caught. How does that help us? He wasn't torturing us he was torturing the Iraqis. I know since we are the most powerful nation we should help the oppressed nations, but North Korea should have been at the top of the list. Where was the CIA when Libya had nuclear weapons? There were greater threats than Iraq. Bush should be catching Osama Bin Laden instead of Sadam. The terror threat I believe or at least fell is still there because of Bush starting a war in an area where we are already highly disliked. There aren't many good decisions for president, but any one is better than George Bush.

Sincerely yours,

Dylan (future-Democrat)
age 13
- Pavo est Optimus

Mr. Future Democrat, you sure have a lot to say! I am glad you agree with our motto, 'pavo est optimus'. Its meanings lay much deeper than just the dictum of my little newsletter. 'Pavo Est Optimus' ranges from very personal right on through to culinary enjoyment. (I was once acquainted with an old Pompeian cook, Grumio, and he could whip up some darn good pavo. FYI: You might want to keep that information from all your PETA friends.)

OK, how do I begin? Let's set the record straight. The Pavo News never portrayed our Canadian brothers in the manner you stated, nor did we charge Peter Jennings of the same. In fact, we were defending the integrity of The Pavo News from a vicious and visceral attack from one of our more "progressive" readers. The point being: to illustrate how ludicrous such accusations can be (see feedback nov / dec 2002). We thank you for the brief lesson in Canadian history; we only hope your school can instill a sense of US history equal to your ardent interest in all things Canadian. We can also inform you, our impression of Canada is born out of experience, not the opinion of others or "children's shows" (though we do sneak a peek at 'Sponge Bob' now and again). The Pavo News has had the pleasure of frequent visits to four of the Canadian Provinces, a decade living on our shared border with Canada and participating in such diverse Canadian cultural endeavors as 'The Canadian Ballet', Casino gambling and knocking back a few Labatt's with some friendly 'hosers', eh! Finally, the strongest argument in favor of The Pavo News: our preferred style of bacon? You guessed it - CANADIAN!

France? I say, "Viva Lafayette!" but it ends there. Thank you for your help 200 years ago, but what have you done for us lately? Better yet, what have you not done to us lately?

On to your foreign affairs questions:

"Let me ask you why did he (President Bush) not use the nations money more wisely and eliminate the nuclear threat in North Korea." - Whoa, I have to think about that one. Thinking ... thinking ... thinking .. I guess you are right. Mr. Bush should have offered to fund and build two light water nuclear reactors, send 500,000 metric tons of oil and millions of tons of food annually, to the communist state. He should have paid inspectors and the IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) to monitor the repressive regimes activities and if Kim Jong Il started lobbing Taepo Dong 1 test missiles over neighboring countries or refused entry of the inspectors, Bush should have bribed him with $200 millions of additional food aid. To show good faith, Mr. Bush should have appointed a non-compromising, strong and time proven official as one of the principle negotiators. Say, someone like Jimmy Carter for example. He could have given the treaty a charming little name like, 'The Agreed Framework'. Yep, that would have done it. I I wait a minute! That is exactly what President Clinton had done and the very reason we are in this mess.

Now it is my turn to give a small history lesson. President Clinton's handling of the North Korean crisis is a classic example of the failure inherent in any form of appeasement. In recent history, we have seen this outcome in pre-WWII Europe and various policy decisions during the Vietnam and Cold War. You must never deal from a position of equality or weakness in the face of a dangerous and desperate foe. If negotiations are in order, you must send envoys that possess a great understanding of the enemy and his/her tactics and culture. If you do not, your emissaries may become pliant dupes and the tools by which your opponent will achieve triumph on the field of battle. Clinton chose to send Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter, two weak negotiators and both completely unversed in the ways of the East. They arrived bearing the gifts of appeasement. They were overcome with the Korean's courtesy, goodwill, smiles, the bowing, the pleasantries and the promises. They rejoiced and were pleased when the negotiations completed and Kim signed the agreement. Here is the rub. Albright and Carter never got past the basic elementary steps of Far Eastern diplomacy. They were played like a cheap French accordion! One of the 5 variations of Sun Tzu's 'nine variables' states, "A road, although it may be the shortest, is not to be followed if one knows it is dangerous and there is the contingency of ambush." a point regrettably disregarded by the Clinton cabinet. So, Mr. Dylan, the current President has been put in an extremely compromised position. Where once (under Clinton), we could have dealt from a position of power with a weaker enemy, we are now faced with a stronger enemy and our position has been substantially weakened. Don't ask me for the answer, I am no longer privy to confidential intelligence concerning matters on the peninsula, but I trust China will be the key. I do know this; I have stood along the DMZ, gazed across that strip of desolation, felt the eerily cold winds rip at my body and stared into the face of pure evil. I possess no delusion when it comes to the intent or future actions of Pyongyang. North Korea is swiftly becoming the world's leading threat (thank you Clinton and Co.), closely followed by Iran (another IAEA debacle).

Man, this is getting long. I am going to answer some of your other issues very briefly. Please excuse this, but you are welcome to write back any time. I get the impression you are a very intelligent 13 year old, and even if we now disagree on some subjects, I have all the confidence that you will do the necessary research and maybe, there will come a time when our positions draw closer.

"Bush has gotten rid of many of our allies so there isn't as much help coming from other countries that there could be." - Bush did not rid us of any allies. Allies are just that - allies. Our former "allies" chose to desert us in our hour of need.

"Bush should have waited and tried to get more help from other countries instead of trying to do this war with hardly any help " - See above and consider the meaning of waited. Are 12 years too short a wait?

"We went to supposedly get the weapons of mass destruction." - Not the sole reason the President cited in his State of the Union address. Speaking of WMD, I located a few outside the Presidential rally in Cuyahoga Falls, OH - They were identified as:   Whining - Malcontented - Democrats.

"May I add that (WMD) weren't there. Bush should have waited until the CIA at least confirmed that they thought the weapons existed instead of starting the war before it." - The existence of WMD was first confirmed by the stench of 5,000 gassed and rotting corpses in Halabja, Iraq.

They were also confirmed by the United Nations:

25,000 liters of Anthrax
38,000 liters of Botulinum Toxin
Materials to produce 500 tons of Sarin, Mustard and VX nerve agent.

The true question is, where did it all go? And why did the UN fail to act on its own intelligence. As far as the nuclear threat, here is a list of a few sources that believed Iraq was pursuing development of nuclear capability:

The Clinton administration
British Intelligence
French Intelligence
Russian Intelligence
Israeli Intelligence
The United Nations
John Kerry
and more

Whether the intelligence was accurate or not, has no bearing. President Bush reacted responsibly, considering the information at hand. Hind sight is 20/20 and what is done, is done. But, keep in mind that the WMD issue is far from over. The Pavo News has, on good authority, reason to believe more damning evidence against Iraq will be forth coming. This is unlikely to take place before the November election, since it would be decidedly advantageous to the Bush administration. If Kerry is elected, this intel may be held back for a time. Conversely, with the reality of another Bush term, the involved parties may find cooperation more to their benefit. We can say no more, we don't want to commit a "Dan Rather ".

"Where was the CIA when Libya had nuclear weapons?" - Wrong question! Where was the IAEA, The UN and the world community? Are these not the groups that Senator Kerry will rely upon to frame the "global test" the US must pass before we are allowed to defend our nation? Under the Bush administration, Libya is disarming, tensions between nuclear antagonists India and Pakistan have eased and a once hostile Pakistan has joined the US in the war on terror.

"any one is better than George Bush." - Cool! Then vote for me and in a flash, I will demonstrate our ability to turn 3 billion hectares of sand into glass. Got a nice lyrical ring to it, but we only jest.

I hope that helps out, Mr. Dylan. Keep up the good work, kid!

The Editor

Home | Archive | Feedback | Mental Floss | Contact Us | Forum | The Shoppe |

© Copyright 1999-2004 Pavo News and RSS Technologies. All rights reserved.
Legal notices and trademark copyrights