Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Stephen Harper takes a steaming dump on Canada's military.

"Support the troops!", they've been constantly screaming at us. Month after tedious month, Canada's dumbshit, keyboard commando wankers (you know -- the ones whose military experience consists of upgrading to every new version of World of Warcraft the moment it hits the store shelves) have been howling incessantly, "It's your job to support the troops! If you don't support the mission," they screech ignorantly, "then you don't support the troops!"

Hmmmmmm, you think, support the troops? And how exactly does one do that, anyway? Well, there are a number of ways. You give them good leaders. And a well-defined mission. With a fairly unambiguous goal and exit strategy. And top-notch tools and equipment. And you wear a red T-shirt.

Hang on. What was that last part? Red T-shirt? Why, yes ... apparently, it's critically important to wear a red T-shirt on a Friday. Um ... OK. And the point of that is?

Oh, I get it. You see, having a bunch of goobers wear red back here will, of course, in no way make our troops safer over there. Or protect them from sniper fire. Or shield them from the devastating effect of improvised explosive devices. No, the rationale for wearing red is not something material or tangible.

It's emotional. It's to let our military know that we're thinking about them. Because along with all of the tools and equipment and leadership we can give them, it is apparently just as important to let them know constantly that we're worrying about them, and praying for them and, above all, that we have confidence in them and that we know they're up to the task and that, by God, we know that, no matter the danger, they can get the job done.

Which is precisely why our very own Prime Minister Stephen Harper, when he publicly admitted that we can't win in Afghanistan, took the world's biggest dump all over them.

After all the howling, and the pissing, and the whining, and the insults about patriotism, and the demand that we put partisan politics aside and show emotional support for our military and let them know how much we believe in them, Stephen Harper casually just called our fighting men and women the world's biggest losers.

"Yeah," Stephen says, "we'll send you to Afghanistan to get shot, and blown up, and spend a year or two in sweltering heat, and in the end, you know, it won't make a difference. Because you're going to lose."

Thanks, Stephen. Because when our soldiers need some moral support and encouragement as they're being picked off one by one, what's really going to lift their spirits is their own Prime Minister telling them that they're fucked and, when it's all over, they'll have died for nothing. Good job, Steve. Way to perk up the warriors overseas.

But what really gripes my wagger are the worthless wanks who, having screamed for the heads of anyone classless enough to have said the same thing months ago, are suddenly all about the historical revisionism. "Of course we can't defeat the insurgency," they're now saying, "everyone knows that." Really? We do? And wouldn't it be nice if some of those wanks could now point to their own sites and show us a single example of when they were saying that very thing? Yes, I'd like Canada's dumbshit wankers to now pony up and start posting examples where, in the midst of all their shrieking, jingoistic, patriotic bluster, they were also saying, "Oh, and by the way, we're not going to win, anyway. Just so you know."

Sure, I'd love to see some of that history, kids. Stop by and leave a URL in the comments section. Because (and correct me if I'm wrong) I'm pretty sure that, when any of us in the real world made that kind of suggestion, we were immediately vilified as troop-hating terrorist lovers.

So let's go, wanks. I want to see those links. And if you can't produce, then I'll be expecting that heartfelt apology as soon as you can get around to it. And that apology? You better fucking mean it. Seriously.

LET'S WELCOME OUR FIRST CONTESTANT: It seems only fitting that our first weasel is that rancid bigot that goes by the nom de blog of "Raphael Alexander":

Stephen Harper has been in the media indirectly undermining the mission in Afghanistan by doing something that few politicians dare to do: tell the truth.

Um ... yes, Raph. That would be the same "truth" that had Canada's shrieking, fuckwit wankers howling for peoples' unpatriotic heads not that long ago when other people said it. I guess it's different when your hero Fat Steve is saying it. It always is. And Raphael inspires you to lunge for the nearest barf bag with:

While I’m a little irritated that the same group of Conservatives who were impugning the patriotism of Canadians for suggesting the exact same things years ago, we can finally all arrive on the same page.

That "page" being where we on the Left have been all along, being pilloried for it, but now that the ignorant Right have finally arrived here, they should be given credit for telling the "truth."

It must be nice to never, ever, ever be wrong about anything. Where can I get a gig like that?


sooey said...

I always thought they protested a bit too much for people who appeared for all the world to be on the side of the Taliban.

Red Tory said...

Good grief, what a sanctimonious pile of shit that post is.

The Seer said...

1. There is a simple answer to the question "where can I get a gig like that?" (BT's)

2. The fact that "we" cannot "win" in Afghanistan does not dispose of the question of whether it is in Canada' interest to fight, and risk the lives of its troops, in Afghanistan.

The issue is easier to see in the case of Australia. It had become clear in the earliest days of World War II that The British Empire was not going to defend Australia from its neighbors.

There is only one power on earth capable of defending Australia from Japan. Or Indonesia. Or China. Or Whatever. That power is not and never will be Australia itself because the place doesn't have enough water to build a population large enough to support a world class military machine.

So what does Australia do whenever Uncle Sam wants people to think the US has wide support? Australia did send troops to Vietnam, and to Iraq as well. Building a record of standing beside Uncle Sam, even if it's only cosmetic, whenever Uncle Same wants to prove his actions have wide support, is essential to Australia's security.

Canada is more fortunately situated than Australia. The US has to defend Canada to defend itself. (Which, by the way, is the real reason the US ended up opposing Germany during World War I, as well as World War II.) Even so, there comes a time every once in a while at which Canada has to bite some bullets. Living on this continent was somewhat easier when Canada softened the blow over Iraq with entering the fight in Afghanistan.

And by the way, the American people may not understand that Canadian and British troops are the only ones that have gone beyond cosmetics in Afghanistan, but American policy leaders do. This has led to a substantial increase in respect for the Canadian Forces among American military personnel.

3. The reason everyone went to Afghanistan in the first place is that Afghanistan's former government hosted a terrorist group that attacked the US on September 11, 2001. The point of the live fire exercise in Afghanistan was was to send a message that attacking the United States is not worth the grief. Whether "we," at this point, "win" or "lose," Iraqi-style, in Afghanistan, I believe the action is a success because I believe that both Afghanistan and ll others contemplating attacks on the US understand the grief that this produces.

But, as far as winning and losing, Iraqi-style, in Afghanistan, I would like to point out that some seven weeks after September 11, George W. Bush literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by permitting the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to escape from the trap at Tora Bora.

I believe we actually could replicate our early success in Afghanistan, though it would be more difficult today than it was in October of 2001. We would have to make the same choices the run-away CIA agents made in Afghanistan in September, 2001, assuming, of course, we can get the Iranians to go along at this point in time, and assuming, as well, that we can finesse the Pakistanis at this point in time.

4. All that said, I am amazed that Steverino would announce that his troops are being sacrificed in an unwinnable conflict in Afghanistan. Even W never announced that American troops were wasting their lives in Iraq.

5. FWIW, Steverino does speak in complete sentences. To someone accustomed to listening to W, he sound intelligent.

the rev. paperboy said...

you know, I'd go back and check for the posts in which Raph criticizes his fellow conservatives for impugning the patriotism of anti-war folks for "not supporting the troops" by being insufficiently rah-rah about the Afghanistan war, but I'm busy looking for something I might actually find -- Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster.

Besides if I spent the amount of time needed to properly search his blog, I'd need to use a wire brush to scrub my brain with tomato juice for about a week to get the stink out.

KEvron said...

you used the "...and your grief" line too soon, cc: wasn't it wanda who introduced you to "ralphie"?