Jesus freakin' Christ:
On Afghanistan, the dominant defence and foreign policy file, Harper again looks ahead to tough choices. Rather than talking up the military mission in Kandahar as an inspiring undertaking, he used the year-end sit-down to vent frustration at slow progress in building a self-sufficient Afghan government. “You know, the United Nations and our allies will have been in Afghanistan 10 years in 2011. For God’s sakes, Germany was basically fully restored within four years; Germany joined NATO ten years after it was conquered.”
Somebody please tell me that Captain Charisma didn't just compare World War II Germany to present-day Afghanistan. Please don't tell me that he honestly can't tell the difference between an actual war between sovereign nations, and a police action against nebulous and ill-defined global "terror."
Please tell me that my home and native land is not being governed by someone that fucking imbecilic.
Please.
12 comments:
Hmmm. Is that the sound of crickets chirping?
It was an astounding comparison to make, that's for sure. Either Harper is sadly uninformed (historically speaking), or he thinks that the Canadian public is pretty dim and clueless. Possibly a combination of both...
These frat boys are all like that. Harper and his gang grew up hearing tales of glorious heroism during WW2 and that's all they know of war (unlike, for example, those who actually fight them or civilians who live through them). War is just a movie they sell to other credulous rubes (hi, Wayne!), and what better one is there than WW2 with a clearly-defined belligerent enemy and clear violations of international law and human morality?
Vietnam is probably a better analogy (although each war is special and precious in its own right), but he can't very well use that one to inspire us, can he?
At least Harper's consistently stupid. I'd be worried/confused if, all of a sudden, he started talking sense about teh wah on terra.
Can't do it, my dear - I try never to lie to my friends.
Yeah, but you have to admit he was right - the Dalai Lama is NOT a hooker.
Let’s also not forget that this is the same guy who thought that our engagement in Afghanistan was actually a good thing in terms of “hardening” the military — trial by fire, tempering the metal, and all that good stuff.
By the way, does anyone have a Wayne-to-English translation program so we can figure out what this nitwit is attempting to communicate?
I think it's something along the lines of Harper is good, the UN is bad and we here at CC Central are all potty-mouthed, left wing crazies.
But not necessarily in that order ...
Wayne, Wayne, Wayne ...
You can't really go around talking smack like this, then expect to stop by and have free commenting privileges, can you?
So howzabout you fuck right off, and come back when you grow up? That's a good little wingnut.
He's not the only one. I had a recent encounter with one of my former subordinates who also tried on the WW2 analogy. It is, in fact, the crotch piece argument used by those who have no idea what is actually transpiring in Afghanistan to defend against criticism of Canada's involvement.
The process involves attempting to "guilt" a questioner by invoking things like the Dieppe Raid as an example of taking a beating and not allowing ourselves as a nation to be driven away from a commitment.
Perhaps the sickest argument Harper (and others) uses is this one: We can't allow the sacrifices of those who have been killed to become meaningless. Therefore we must continue for their sake.
We can't allow the sacrifices of those who have been killed to become meaningless. Therefore we must continue for their sake.
I find that argument so dishonest and immoral. The very idea that you can guilt, we the living, into supporting something we don't like/don't approve of and have to live with because of people who are now dead.
Their sacrifices are in vain when we keep having unnecessary wars.
Everytime that blowhole gets in front of a camera he shows the world how delusional he is.
Is anybody keeping track of his brain farts? I've tried, but after a few minutes I have to come up for air.
my brother told me smart or stupid is irrelevant with someone like Harper - he's sociopathic, probably malignant narcissist, and that dysfunction has more to do with his actions than intelligence or lack of does. I tend to agree. He can't see things differently than he does no matter what evidence he is given, no matter how many polls he runs. He is absolutely convinced he is right, and brilliant. It's pointless trying to understand why he does with he does, except in a pathological context.
Post a Comment