Monday, March 02, 2009

Those dead soldiers, Stephen? Yeah, they're yours. Own them.


Once upon a time, Canada's commitment in Afghanistan was scheduled to be completed, well, right around now, wasn't it? February/March 2009? I'm too lazy to look it up but it sure seemed to be about now.

Then Il Douche pushed to have that mission extended until 2011. Yeah, that was Stephen Harper's doing. Hell, that was even one of his official accomplishments according to official fluffer and poster girl for leakproof, adult diapers Sandy Crux. And now ... oh, dear.

So let me put this as diplomcatically as I can, Stephen. From here on out, any dead Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are yours. You own them. You pushed to have this mission extended, and now you're admitting that, well, it doesn't look like anything there is ever going to change so, in effect, you're getting your kicks out of two more years of dead Canadian troops because you wanted to play boy soldier and since you were too much of a pants-pissing little turd to go over and get shot at personally, you decided to do the next best thing and send over others to die for you so you could feel macho.

(And it's not like dead Canadian troops are even a bad thing, right, Steve? Apparently, getting the occasional Canadian soldier offed has its upside. But I digress. Onward.)

In any event, Steve, starting now, dead Canadian soldiers belong to you and you alone. And when (if?) we finally pull out of Afghanistan in 2011 and nothing will have changed, we can look back on two years worth of additional dead Canadians and we'll know -- yes, we will -- that they're dead because that's just one of the ways you got your jollies.

Two years worth of dead soldiers, Stephen. I'm sure you'll be very happy together. Well, you'll be. They won't. They'll be dead, remember?

Would someone like to start a list?

OOPSIE
: Now that Fat Steve has openly admitted that we're not going to win over there, someone might want to wake up Papa Junker and clue him in.

CLASS PROJECT: It's interesting that Harper is only now figuring out that the "war" in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Wouldn't it be fun to go back and see who might have been trying to explain this to him over the last several months? Wouldn't it be just hilarious if it was, say, "Taliban Jack" Layton?

I have no idea, I just think digging up something like that would have tremendous entertainment value.

8 comments:

Michael Harkov said...

I have no idea, I just think digging up something like that would have tremendous entertainment value.

So why not keep digging then? Who was it that sent our troops there in the first place? Who is among the other parties that also supported that involvement until 2011, that enables you now to continue to blame the Tories as if it were they're fault alone? Yeah, thats right.

Are we done here? Yes, I think we're done here.

psa said...

first off harkov, there's no such thing as tories in federal politics. second, the liberals are guilty of going along to get along but the initiative to extend the mission belongs to fat steve and the cons. just as the cons are guilty of enthusiastic cheerleading in support of the initial liberal decision to fulfill our nato treaty obligations by sending troops in the first place. note also that fat steve took the initiative to volunteer our troops to the more difficult and dangerous kandahar mission they are stuck with.

now... are we done here? yuppers.

CC said...

What's that, Michael? The extension of Canada's presence in Afghanistan isn't a Harper government accomplishment?

In that case, I'd take that up with Sandy Crux, who seems pretty sure that it is. Suddenly, you folks don't seem quite so proud of that "accomplishment."

Quelle surprise.

Noni Mausa said...

"Winning" in Afghanistan depends on your goals, I suppose.

If your goal is to convert the politics and social structure to the sort of thing we would remotely recognize as equitable and civil (that is, not involving guns and female subjugation) then winning is simply off the map. I can't imagine how such a goal could be achieved. Certainly not by force of arms. This has been the case for centuries.

If your goal is to stop the Afghans doing something or other in the wider world, the chances are better.

Their strengths are qualities which, anywhere else, would be weaknesses -- poverty, impossible terrain, not much of a government, and a culture where violence is a common tool, not a last resort or a crime. Yes, this is simplistic, but not much. Look at the country in Google Earth. What isn't wall-to-wall mountains seems to be desert. There are traces of greenery, apparently just for contrast.

Plus they have experience. Invaders have been back and forth across that part of the world ever since Homo sapiens left northern Africa. Anybody living there has a cultural and probably family history of "what to do when you're invaded."

I am only surprised by hearing Harper admit this in such plain terms. But he should have known this years ago. He could have asked the Russians.

Noni

Alison said...

And when (if?) we finally pull out of Afghanistan in 2011 ...

NATO can't defeat Afghan insurgency, PM says :

"The United States must come up with a viable Afghan exit strategy before asking Canada to rethink its plan to pull out of the country in 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay told a conference last week that while the combat mission will end in 2011, "that does not mean an end to Canada's role in Afghanistan, by any means. We will reconfigure the mission in a way that allows us to contribute in other ways," he said.

Success in the country is crucial both for Afghans and for Canada's national security, which Canadians must be reminded of constantly, MacKay added."


I'm not seeing anyone pull out of anything here. We're talking retooling.

Dr.Dawg said...

I see Raphael is calling us all "morally bankrupt" in the pages of the National Post. My, the boy can project.

Frank Frink said...

My, the boy can project.

He ought to be projected straight into Kandahar town centre.

Michael Harkov said...

What's that, CC? The extension of Canada's presence in Afghanistan wasn't a Harper government decision exclusively?

In that case, I'd take that up with the rest of your drooling sycophants, who seems pretty sure that it is. Suddenly, you folks don't seem quite so credible with saddling this government with that sort of "ownership."

Quelle surprise.