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.
- 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
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
"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,
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
The Clinton administration
The United Nations
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
"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!