Thursday, January 17, 2008

Uh oh ... someone's getting a mite touchy about dead soldiers.

On the one hand, it's critically important that Canadian soldiers continue getting killed overseas:

Wake up Canada. Bring the troops home or reduce the mission significantly and that means the enemy has won.

On the other hand, can we just not keep hearing about it?

Why does the MSM feel the need to tell us that 7 soldiers were hurt in Afghanistan yesterday? Is the point of the report simply to inform? To update Canadians? Okay, then why do they find it necessary to end the story with the number of casualties in Afghanistan to date?

Here's a thought -- if you're so keen on Canadians being over there, maybe you should be a bit more curious about when they die from it.

I'm just sayin'.


The Seer said...

Good news: According to CNN, Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense, personally phoned Gordon MacKay to assure Pete/Gordy that he, Bob, wasn't being "bloody outrageous" when he, Bob, remarked that "NATO" is sending military advisers who "are not properly trained, and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations[,]" and that specifically, he, Bob, didn't mean that Canadians should just "go home" CNN says that Pete/Gordy told the CBC that, during their conversation Wednesday, Gates said, "'I specifically made no reference to any country, and Canada is the last country that I would make those comments about.'" So I hope things are cool up there in Canada today.

Red Tory said...

Maybe it’s just me, but didn’t you find it more than a little funny that in covering his ass, Gates and his minions essentially said that nobody in NATO has a clue what they’re doing in Afghanistan when it comes to quelling the "insurgency"?

The Seer said...

I really hate to say this because of my loyalty to the US Army, but "counterinsurgency" is probably the one area where the British Army is superior to the US Army. The US Army is essentially an "anti-army Army." It is at its best when facing a rival army that intends to stand and fight. The British Army, on the other hand, is organized and trained to retain colonies, without destroying the economic value of the colony or the colonists in the process. What is ironic about this is that Americans taught the British their first lessons in counterinsurgency, during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ti-Guy said...

I see ol' Surecure's still around, making the exact same comments he's been making for years now.

There is something in the rightwing mind that believes reality can be created as long as facts about reality never intrude in that process.

It's scary-crazy, but then so are rightwingers.

Red Tory said...

Seer — I don't know if failed strategies from Malaysia and other bothersome regions of the old British Empire can really be held up as a model of any kind with respect to the suppression of nationalist uprisings given their dismal performance in the real world. I really don't understand why it is that for some damn blasted reason, there are those who still haven't quite learned that so called "insurgencies" must be allowed to run their natural course and that they cannot simply be repressively quelled by outside forces. I know that runs counter to the ideas of some, but history will bear me out on this point, time and again...