Quite an uproar over the "cannon fodder" video.
It involves a fictional mother of a Canadian soldier lamenting that she might not have had children if she had known that they would be used as cannon fodder.
Lots of anger over that, including one nonfictional mother of a slain soldier who said, “Because they died in combat, [these women] have the nerve to describe them as cannon fodder.”
Nerve?
Yes, I suppose it takes nerve to break the veneer of patriotism that tells people that their children died a great and wonderful cause when in reality they're dying for no particularly good reason.
But if it's true that the war is pointless and wrong, and no one says anything, more children are going to die.
Seriously. If you want to convince the rest of us that you're right. If you want to convince us that the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile and winnable, then show us how you're going to win. Show us how you're already winning. Show us what you could possible hope to accomplish.
I see a lot of nothing. I see the schools we built being used for storing and shipping marijuana. I see our money ending up in villas in Dubai. I see the government we set up mistreating its women as badly as their enemies did.
That's not worth dying for.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Friday, October 08, 2010
Friday, March 05, 2010
Blaming The Troops Again
I guess the Prime Minister is hoping that we've forgotten all of his earlier evasions and excuses.
There he goes again. Second verse, same as the first. Stephen Harper wants to shuffle the blame off his own shoulders on to those of the soldiers who were the unwitting recipients of illegal orders.
Every time we go through this, he and his ministers keep acting as if the question is a matter of the behaviour of the soldiers. It's not. It's about the behaviour of the goverment - Harper's government - in giving orders to the soldiers.
It was the government that told the soldiers that the Afghan authorities were moral.
It was the government that told the soldiers to hand over prisoners to the Afghan authorities.
It is the government that should be punished.
Stop blaming the troops, Mr. Harper.
“He shut it down to avoid legitimate questions about the Afghan detainee scandal,” Mr. Ignatieff charged as he asked that the Prime Minister release non-redacted documents the opposition says are essential to the story.
No. The Prime Minister said thousands of documents have already been released and show the Canadian Forces have conducted themselves honourably.
There he goes again. Second verse, same as the first. Stephen Harper wants to shuffle the blame off his own shoulders on to those of the soldiers who were the unwitting recipients of illegal orders.
Every time we go through this, he and his ministers keep acting as if the question is a matter of the behaviour of the soldiers. It's not. It's about the behaviour of the goverment - Harper's government - in giving orders to the soldiers.
It was the government that told the soldiers that the Afghan authorities were moral.
It was the government that told the soldiers to hand over prisoners to the Afghan authorities.
It is the government that should be punished.
Stop blaming the troops, Mr. Harper.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Yes, I Want Them Humiliated
So what do we do with our alleged war criminals in government?
That's what they are. The evidence from Richard Colvin and quotes from General Hillier himself indicate that officials high in our government were well aware of the treatment of Afghan prisoners. Of course, they’ve taken the black magic marker to the documents and then violated the will of the people in not releasing those documents unredacted. Then, when it got too hot, they shut down Parliament.
At least the Liberals had the courage to face their crimes, face the investigation and take their punishment.
But not the Conservatives. They’re cowards.
And let’s be clear on this. I want the politicians who are responsible to be humiliated. Because, you see, all the Liberals ever did was steal my money and, from the looks of the thing, it was a small subset of the party that did the stealing. But the Conservatives? This came from high up. They were incompetent or malicious in disregard for the treatment of prisoners and the honour of our nation.
They pissed on my flag. They pissed on our honour and our international reputation.
I still believe in the Canada that was the renowned peacekeeper of the world.
And I see these Conservative cowards, out to change Canada in to the United States, to change it in to a war monger, to destroy the honour we had in exchange for military action of dubious glory and morality. I see an Afghan prisoner afraid to tell Canadians what happened to him for fear that they would send him for more torture.
I want these people humiliated. If I could put them in stocks and parade them up and down Sussex Drive on a horse cart, I would. I would see them shamed in front of their spouses and children and grandchildren. I would see them paraded in front of every wannabe politician in the country, as if to say, “We will do this to you, too, if you ever shame us as these have shamed us.”
And, no, I don’t consider that shallow at all.
That's what they are. The evidence from Richard Colvin and quotes from General Hillier himself indicate that officials high in our government were well aware of the treatment of Afghan prisoners. Of course, they’ve taken the black magic marker to the documents and then violated the will of the people in not releasing those documents unredacted. Then, when it got too hot, they shut down Parliament.
At least the Liberals had the courage to face their crimes, face the investigation and take their punishment.
But not the Conservatives. They’re cowards.
And let’s be clear on this. I want the politicians who are responsible to be humiliated. Because, you see, all the Liberals ever did was steal my money and, from the looks of the thing, it was a small subset of the party that did the stealing. But the Conservatives? This came from high up. They were incompetent or malicious in disregard for the treatment of prisoners and the honour of our nation.
They pissed on my flag. They pissed on our honour and our international reputation.
I still believe in the Canada that was the renowned peacekeeper of the world.
And I see these Conservative cowards, out to change Canada in to the United States, to change it in to a war monger, to destroy the honour we had in exchange for military action of dubious glory and morality. I see an Afghan prisoner afraid to tell Canadians what happened to him for fear that they would send him for more torture.
I want these people humiliated. If I could put them in stocks and parade them up and down Sussex Drive on a horse cart, I would. I would see them shamed in front of their spouses and children and grandchildren. I would see them paraded in front of every wannabe politician in the country, as if to say, “We will do this to you, too, if you ever shame us as these have shamed us.”
And, no, I don’t consider that shallow at all.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Mealy-mouthed Traitor
That's the only phrase I can think of to describe our Prime Minister.
First of all, no one is accusing the soldiers of anything. That apparently can't be said enough times to sink in to the thick skulls of our leading cabinet ministers. The suspicions and accusations are against the cabinet ministers for giving immoral and illegal orders.
Second, what a cowardly way to approach to the issue.
A "problem among Afghans".
Let me tell you, Mr. Harper, how this works. I shove someone at the top of a flight of stairs. As a consequence, he falls down the whole flight and breaks both his legs. Guess what? I'm legally responsible for his broken legs. You know why? Because physical damage is a reasonably predictable consequence of shoving him down those stairs. If I went before a judge and said, "All I did was shove him near the top. The rest of the problem is between him and the stairs", the judge would either laugh at me or declare me psychotic and have me institutionalized.
Of course, the difference between me and you, Mr. Harper, is that I can't violate the law and put black magic marker over all of the evidence. Boy, that must be convenient.
No, Mr. Harper, we don't accept your latest ignorant argument. We've seen the reports from Amnesty, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and from Richard Colvin. We've heard that soldiers had actually photographed it happening. We - the entire nation - are slowly becoming aware that you knew what was going on.
And regardless of the evidence, you kept our nation in the immoral position of handing over more prisoners to be tortured.
If those reports were available to you, and it certainly looks like they were, torture was a reasonably predictable consequence of the actions take by your government. And that would make the bunch of you war criminals.
Best of luck at the trial.
“The allegations are not being made – I hope – against Canadian soldiers,” Mr. Harper said in a year-end interview with the French-language television network TVA. “… Our diplomats reformed the transfer system. We are speaking here of a problem among Afghans. It's not a problem between Canadians and Afghans. We're speaking of problems between the government of Afghanistan and the situation in Afghanistan. We are trying to do what's possible to improve that situation, but it's not in our control.”
First of all, no one is accusing the soldiers of anything. That apparently can't be said enough times to sink in to the thick skulls of our leading cabinet ministers. The suspicions and accusations are against the cabinet ministers for giving immoral and illegal orders.
Second, what a cowardly way to approach to the issue.
A "problem among Afghans".
Let me tell you, Mr. Harper, how this works. I shove someone at the top of a flight of stairs. As a consequence, he falls down the whole flight and breaks both his legs. Guess what? I'm legally responsible for his broken legs. You know why? Because physical damage is a reasonably predictable consequence of shoving him down those stairs. If I went before a judge and said, "All I did was shove him near the top. The rest of the problem is between him and the stairs", the judge would either laugh at me or declare me psychotic and have me institutionalized.
Of course, the difference between me and you, Mr. Harper, is that I can't violate the law and put black magic marker over all of the evidence. Boy, that must be convenient.
No, Mr. Harper, we don't accept your latest ignorant argument. We've seen the reports from Amnesty, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and from Richard Colvin. We've heard that soldiers had actually photographed it happening. We - the entire nation - are slowly becoming aware that you knew what was going on.
And regardless of the evidence, you kept our nation in the immoral position of handing over more prisoners to be tortured.
If those reports were available to you, and it certainly looks like they were, torture was a reasonably predictable consequence of the actions take by your government. And that would make the bunch of you war criminals.
Best of luck at the trial.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What Torture Really Means to Canada
Occasionally, in the middle of all of the politicking and nonsense that goes on, one person makes a simple statement. There aren't often big words in this statement. It's rarely meant to be taken as some grand pronouncement.
But somehow, it sums up exactly what the problem is.
Today, I found that statement. It was in a letter written by Richard Colvin, the much abused diplomat who blew the whistle on the government's mishandling of prisoners detained by Canada.
It's not a Colvin quote, though. It's Colvin quoting someone else.
Remember the good old days? Remember when we thought of ourselves as the world's peacekeepers? Remembered when we were well thought of throughout the world? Remember those days?
Those days are gone. Now people who are being tortured are afraid to run to us for fear that they will be tortured even more.
But somehow, it sums up exactly what the problem is.
Today, I found that statement. It was in a letter written by Richard Colvin, the much abused diplomat who blew the whistle on the government's mishandling of prisoners detained by Canada.
It's not a Colvin quote, though. It's Colvin quoting someone else.
One detainee told Canadian monitors that at first, he did not want to tell them about having been tortured because Canadians had been responsible for his detention and therefore he did not trust them.
Remember the good old days? Remember when we thought of ourselves as the world's peacekeepers? Remembered when we were well thought of throughout the world? Remember those days?
Those days are gone. Now people who are being tortured are afraid to run to us for fear that they will be tortured even more.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wait Just a Minute, Mr. Hillier
General, I'm having a hard time understanding your statements about what you knew about torture in Afghanistan.
On the one hand, we have these quotes from General Hillier:
So the General is telling us that there was never anything in those reports that amounted to torture. As far as he knew, there was no torture taking place. Nada. No need for anyone to take action.
Then what's this stuff doing in his book:
So if we put that all together, there was nothing that made General Hillier worry about torture happening, and of course he kept the politicians in Ottawa informed of the torture.
In other words, if I may paraphrase: "I was unaware that a buck needed passing, but I passed the buck right quick."
On the one hand, we have these quotes from General Hillier:
The former general, who was Canada's top soldier during Colvin's posting in Afghanistan in 2006-07, said he has reread all of the diplomat's widely circulated reports to ensure that Colvin's alleged concerns did not escape his notice the first time around.
"There was simply nothing there," Hillier told a House of Commons committee on Afghanistan. "There was nothing there to warrant the intervention of the chief of defence staff."
So the General is telling us that there was never anything in those reports that amounted to torture. As far as he knew, there was no torture taking place. Nada. No need for anyone to take action.
Then what's this stuff doing in his book:
Rick Hillier, when he was Chief of the Defence Staff, says he kept his political masters fully informed about the harsh conditions of detainees in Afghan prisons, even though Prime Minister Stephen Harper and cabinet ministers claim they were told nothing.
In Spring 2007, The Globe and Mail reported on allegations of abuse of detainees in Afghan prisons. Mr. Hillier acknowledged that was to be expected.
"Their judicial and prison systems were still somewhat nascent, and there was always some risk that abuse could occur," he wrote.
... "we lost confidence that basic, responsible measures were in place to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners."
Throughout the process, Mr. Hillier writes, the federal government was kept fully informed of the military's handling of prisoners, which contradicts statements from the Prime Minister's Office.
So if we put that all together, there was nothing that made General Hillier worry about torture happening, and of course he kept the politicians in Ottawa informed of the torture.
In other words, if I may paraphrase: "I was unaware that a buck needed passing, but I passed the buck right quick."
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Shorter Hillier: The Dead Didn't Tell Me
From CP and Globe and Mail:
"Hillier told a special Commons committee Wednesday that the reports by Richard Colvin in 2006 wouldn't have been passed to him because they contained only second-hand information"
Second-hand?
I suppose that, if a guy were killed through torture, Hillier would demand that the dead guy come forward and say so himself. These things are second hand by nature. The question is whether or not all of the second hand reports are corroborating.
He also finds it unrealistic that all detainees are tortured in Afghanistan. He says he would disregard any report that made that claim and that Colvin's report made that claim. "How ludicrous a claim is that?"
I guess it is ludicrous unless you listen to those bleeding hearts at Amnesty International.
"Reports of torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest are so widespread in detention centres ... that Amnesty International wants NATO troops in Afghanistan to stop handing prisoners over to authorities there."
Frankly, I can't give a fig over Hillier. I don't care to go after people in the military. They were put in a terrible position and given few options. I'm after the bastards, Liberal and Conservative, who put them there in the first place and have kept them there since. I'm after the ministers who knew - or should have know if they were reading their memos - that torture was taking place. I'm after the people who gave the orders to let our nation continue to be an accessory to that torture.
"Hillier told a special Commons committee Wednesday that the reports by Richard Colvin in 2006 wouldn't have been passed to him because they contained only second-hand information"
Second-hand?
I suppose that, if a guy were killed through torture, Hillier would demand that the dead guy come forward and say so himself. These things are second hand by nature. The question is whether or not all of the second hand reports are corroborating.
He also finds it unrealistic that all detainees are tortured in Afghanistan. He says he would disregard any report that made that claim and that Colvin's report made that claim. "How ludicrous a claim is that?"
I guess it is ludicrous unless you listen to those bleeding hearts at Amnesty International.
"Reports of torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary arrest are so widespread in detention centres ... that Amnesty International wants NATO troops in Afghanistan to stop handing prisoners over to authorities there."
Frankly, I can't give a fig over Hillier. I don't care to go after people in the military. They were put in a terrible position and given few options. I'm after the bastards, Liberal and Conservative, who put them there in the first place and have kept them there since. I'm after the ministers who knew - or should have know if they were reading their memos - that torture was taking place. I'm after the people who gave the orders to let our nation continue to be an accessory to that torture.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Got You Now, You Evil Lying Bastards
Got you good.
The only question is if the public will care.
Will we care about the fact that our government is made up of evil, lying, self-serving bastards who were a party to torture and crimes? Will we care as much about morals as we did about the petty dollars and cents involved in the sponsorship scandal?
I hope so.
Evil. Lying. Bastards.
I mince no words. Not now. Not in this.
The "Harper government" told every enemy of Canada that it's okay to treat our soldiers as we treated our enemy's soldiers. That's what they're doing. They're taking away our moral high ground and endangering our soldiers. And they're responsible for torturing human beings.
Condoleezza much, Peter? I know you hung around with her a bit, so this might seem nostalgic for you:
"I believe the memo was entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S.'."
Nothing to worry about there, obviously.
We're done with you people. We're done with your lying, your discrimination, your war-mongering, your America-envy, your lethal deregulation. We're done with you.
I only hope that my estimation of my fellow citizens' morals is accurate and they've seen enough to be done with you, too.
The only question is if the public will care.
Will we care about the fact that our government is made up of evil, lying, self-serving bastards who were a party to torture and crimes? Will we care as much about morals as we did about the petty dollars and cents involved in the sponsorship scandal?
I hope so.
Rick Hillier, when he was Chief of the Defence Staff, says he kept his political masters fully informed about the harsh conditions of detainees in Afghan prisons, even though Prime Minister Stephen Harper and cabinet ministers claim they were told nothing.
Evil. Lying. Bastards.
I mince no words. Not now. Not in this.
The "Harper government" told every enemy of Canada that it's okay to treat our soldiers as we treated our enemy's soldiers. That's what they're doing. They're taking away our moral high ground and endangering our soldiers. And they're responsible for torturing human beings.
"There are hundreds if not thousands of documents, reporters, memos, advice that come through all departments," Mr. MacKay told reporters outside the House of Commons.
"The fact that one report or a series of reports weren't read by a minister or a deputy minister shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone."
Condoleezza much, Peter? I know you hung around with her a bit, so this might seem nostalgic for you:
"I believe the memo was entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S.'."
Nothing to worry about there, obviously.
We're done with you people. We're done with your lying, your discrimination, your war-mongering, your America-envy, your lethal deregulation. We're done with you.
I only hope that my estimation of my fellow citizens' morals is accurate and they've seen enough to be done with you, too.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Sigh. The "Domino" Effect?
Retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie has some advice on Afghanistan. "Don't leave, because the commies ... er, the Taliban will spread."
They'll take over Pakistan, apparently, and seize the nuclear arsenal. This would cause the whole word to explode, starting with India and spreading to Russia and China.
You'll have to pardon me if don't jump at this. This was the same crap they peddled in Vietnam and all that did was get a lot of people killed. The Taliban were - globally speaking - harmless religious idiots who mostly tortured their own people (especially their women). Much to everyone's surprise, bombing the country did not improve this situation. The Taliban are not Al-qaeda and, as MacKenzie admits, would not welcome Al-qaeda back.
MacKenzie's major argument is that the Taliban would be frighteningly unstable at the helm of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. While I'm sure that it is frightening, it might do us well to remember this quote from guy who was in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal for eight years running:
Yeah, that was Bush.
So even the craziest religious fanatics, in charge of the world's largest supply of nukes, don't use them. Even assuming the Taliban could get hold of Pakistan's nukes, which is a lot of assuming, there's no reason to assume they'd be stupider or more fanatical than George Bush was.
Sorry, General, I'm not buying it.
We went in to Afghanistan to secure a natural gas and oil pipeline, despite the lies told to the soldiers and the citizens of Canada. We're staying there to continue to secure that pipeline, despite the new, deceptive rationale you're peddling.
Bring our soldiers home, now, and stop trying to deceive us.
They'll take over Pakistan, apparently, and seize the nuclear arsenal. This would cause the whole word to explode, starting with India and spreading to Russia and China.
You'll have to pardon me if don't jump at this. This was the same crap they peddled in Vietnam and all that did was get a lot of people killed. The Taliban were - globally speaking - harmless religious idiots who mostly tortured their own people (especially their women). Much to everyone's surprise, bombing the country did not improve this situation. The Taliban are not Al-qaeda and, as MacKenzie admits, would not welcome Al-qaeda back.
MacKenzie's major argument is that the Taliban would be frighteningly unstable at the helm of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. While I'm sure that it is frightening, it might do us well to remember this quote from guy who was in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal for eight years running:
“Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
Yeah, that was Bush.
So even the craziest religious fanatics, in charge of the world's largest supply of nukes, don't use them. Even assuming the Taliban could get hold of Pakistan's nukes, which is a lot of assuming, there's no reason to assume they'd be stupider or more fanatical than George Bush was.
Sorry, General, I'm not buying it.
We went in to Afghanistan to secure a natural gas and oil pipeline, despite the lies told to the soldiers and the citizens of Canada. We're staying there to continue to secure that pipeline, despite the new, deceptive rationale you're peddling.
Bring our soldiers home, now, and stop trying to deceive us.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Women in Afghanistan
There are certain occasions on which a coincidence of events would almost lead me to believe that some type of higher power is orchestrating the universe. This higher power is not benevolent, but rather some type of darkly humourous manipulator, content to make our lives in to some overwritten, overdramatized story line fit for a soap opera.
For witness, I give you a young lady, Karine Blais, recently killed in combat by a roadside bomb. We are to believe that she died for the freedom of an oppressed people and the new government that will set them free. We are to believe that we are fighting against religious tyranny in favour of moderation.
And so, we are to understand, this young Canadian woman gave her life for people yearning to breathe free.
And then we have this ridiculous law that the free, supposedly-less-religious, government of Afghanistan wants to pass. You know the one, where women - who often don't have a choice in getting married in the first place - can be required to have sex with their husbands with a specific frequency. 300 women came out to protest the law. Over a thousand people, men and women, came out to pelt those 300 with stones.
The articles says "small" stones, but this is relative term and we're talking about an area of the world where throwing stones at people is a form of execution. I can't help but wonder if this constitutes a threat of death in such places much like hanging someone in effigy would be here.
What of this? A young woman from Canada dies for the freedom of people who come out to pelt independent young women with stones for not wanting to be raped?
Irony so thick you can smell it.
No, wait, that's not how irony smells ...
For witness, I give you a young lady, Karine Blais, recently killed in combat by a roadside bomb. We are to believe that she died for the freedom of an oppressed people and the new government that will set them free. We are to believe that we are fighting against religious tyranny in favour of moderation.
And so, we are to understand, this young Canadian woman gave her life for people yearning to breathe free.
And then we have this ridiculous law that the free, supposedly-less-religious, government of Afghanistan wants to pass. You know the one, where women - who often don't have a choice in getting married in the first place - can be required to have sex with their husbands with a specific frequency. 300 women came out to protest the law. Over a thousand people, men and women, came out to pelt those 300 with stones.
The articles says "small" stones, but this is relative term and we're talking about an area of the world where throwing stones at people is a form of execution. I can't help but wonder if this constitutes a threat of death in such places much like hanging someone in effigy would be here.
What of this? A young woman from Canada dies for the freedom of people who come out to pelt independent young women with stones for not wanting to be raped?
Irony so thick you can smell it.
No, wait, that's not how irony smells ...
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Our Soldiers are Dying For This?
We were told that the war in Afghanistan was being fought to end religious tyranny. We're fighting the Taliban. It's a worthwhile endeavour, all that bloodshed, because we're removing crazy religious dogmatists from power and supporting a moderate government that will protect innocent people from the Taliban.
So we put up with Karzai. So we sent our boys and girls. So we dropped bombs and shot people. So over a hundred of our people have died in this endeavour. So we spent money we can ill afford to spend.
And now?
And now the sham of democracy that is the "loya jirga" in Afghanistan is passing laws that enforce the same religious tyranny that we were supposedly there to prevent.
The whole facade is crumbling. We've never been fighting for democracy or freedom. We've spent decades supporting right wing dictators in foreign countries, calling it democracy and lying to the people.
This is only the latest lie: that we are in Afghanistan for anything other than self interest.
It's time to bring our soldiers home. Not one more person should have to spend one more minute in theatre, never mind be wounded or die, for this sham.
So we put up with Karzai. So we sent our boys and girls. So we dropped bombs and shot people. So over a hundred of our people have died in this endeavour. So we spent money we can ill afford to spend.
And now?
And now the sham of democracy that is the "loya jirga" in Afghanistan is passing laws that enforce the same religious tyranny that we were supposedly there to prevent.
The whole facade is crumbling. We've never been fighting for democracy or freedom. We've spent decades supporting right wing dictators in foreign countries, calling it democracy and lying to the people.
This is only the latest lie: that we are in Afghanistan for anything other than self interest.
It's time to bring our soldiers home. Not one more person should have to spend one more minute in theatre, never mind be wounded or die, for this sham.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Sigh and Grimace: 111
You can make a milestone out of anything, I suppose. It's only an accident of our numbering system that makes the year 2000 significant, the Unix time 1234567890 what it is, or the milestones of thousands or hundreds of deaths in war.
Warrant Officer Dennis Brown, Corporal Chad O'Quinn, and Corporal Dany-Olivier Fortin have the undeserved mark of bringing Canada's toll of blood to one hundred eleven. 111. If we were speaking in binary, it would only be seven.
War is a sad and stupid thing. If we can spend so much blood and money to bring people half way around the world to kill each other, why can't we spend a fraction of that to be at peace?
Even Stephen Harper, our intrepid Prime Minister, has admitted that we can't beat the Taliban by killing them. Not only are they entrenched and invisible amongst the populace, they also get recruits every time anyone from NATO kills the wrong guy. The level of precision required to kill more Taliban than are created is simply impossible.
But, in her grief, in her ardent desire to believe that the fighting, killing and dying - especially the dying - has not been in vain, the widow of one of the deceased wants us to go on. Even acknowledging that we can't beat the Taliban, she would have us go on anyway rather than give up.
I don't want to criticize a woman who has so recently been handed the news of a loved one's death. There's no need. It's what she says further on that gets to me.
I know they're working hard. I've never been to war, never held a gun against someone come to kill me. But I know enough to know it isn't easy.
And no, as nasty as it sounds, I can't support what they're doing. They're following orders and I can hardly hold that against them. They've been told, and believe on reasonable grounds, that they're on a moral mission.
They've been misled, which I do not hold against them, but rather against two dishonest governments who have put them there, misleading both us and them.
Do I support the troops? Of course I do. I support them by demanding their withdrawal from a mission which is worth neither their noble service nor their blood. I support them by demanding that they be brought home.
Warrant Officer Dennis Brown, Corporal Chad O'Quinn, and Corporal Dany-Olivier Fortin have the undeserved mark of bringing Canada's toll of blood to one hundred eleven. 111. If we were speaking in binary, it would only be seven.
War is a sad and stupid thing. If we can spend so much blood and money to bring people half way around the world to kill each other, why can't we spend a fraction of that to be at peace?
Even Stephen Harper, our intrepid Prime Minister, has admitted that we can't beat the Taliban by killing them. Not only are they entrenched and invisible amongst the populace, they also get recruits every time anyone from NATO kills the wrong guy. The level of precision required to kill more Taliban than are created is simply impossible.
But, in her grief, in her ardent desire to believe that the fighting, killing and dying - especially the dying - has not been in vain, the widow of one of the deceased wants us to go on. Even acknowledging that we can't beat the Taliban, she would have us go on anyway rather than give up.
I don't want to criticize a woman who has so recently been handed the news of a loved one's death. There's no need. It's what she says further on that gets to me.
Ms. Brown said she understands there are those who don't support the mission. “But you can support what they're doing. They're trying and they're working hard,” she told reporters in St. Catharines, Ont.
I know they're working hard. I've never been to war, never held a gun against someone come to kill me. But I know enough to know it isn't easy.
And no, as nasty as it sounds, I can't support what they're doing. They're following orders and I can hardly hold that against them. They've been told, and believe on reasonable grounds, that they're on a moral mission.
They've been misled, which I do not hold against them, but rather against two dishonest governments who have put them there, misleading both us and them.
Do I support the troops? Of course I do. I support them by demanding their withdrawal from a mission which is worth neither their noble service nor their blood. I support them by demanding that they be brought home.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Taliban Stephen
Can we start calling him Taliban Harper?
I was disappointed that I didn't see any mention of Listeriosis in last night's debate. Why aren't we beating up the government over the 19 people they killed with the deregulation of the meat inspections?
But this comes from the Globe and Mail's translation of Stephen Harper:
So the Conservatives couldn't stop calling Layton "Taliban Jack" for saying that a peaceful solution should be found.
I presume, since they aren't hypocrites, they'll start calling our current Prime Minister "Surrendering Steve" or "Osama bin Harper".
Of course they will.
Update: Apparently there was mention of the Listeriosis outbreak. I must have run my find incorrectly. Thanks, Scott.
I was disappointed that I didn't see any mention of Listeriosis in last night's debate. Why aren't we beating up the government over the 19 people they killed with the deregulation of the meat inspections?
But this comes from the Globe and Mail's translation of Stephen Harper:
"Mr. Harper, on negotiations with the Taliban?" asked moderator Stéphan Bureau.
"This is not entirely new," said Mr. Harper. "The government of Afghanistan has made local efforts from time to time with the Taliban. President Karzai is looking for a political solution and a democratic debate instead of a debate with arms. It's an essential part of his program and I support it."
So the Conservatives couldn't stop calling Layton "Taliban Jack" for saying that a peaceful solution should be found.
I presume, since they aren't hypocrites, they'll start calling our current Prime Minister "Surrendering Steve" or "Osama bin Harper".
Of course they will.
Update: Apparently there was mention of the Listeriosis outbreak. I must have run my find incorrectly. Thanks, Scott.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Politicians Say the Darndest Things
In response to the threats of retaliation from the Taliban, we have some very exciting comments from our politicians.
Peter McKay was disgusted:
That's true, but entirely beside the point. The Taliban are going to kill Canadian civilians in response to our killing of them and the civilians near them. Of course it's disgusting. You're fighting evil, theocratic despots. What precisely were you expecting?
Well, that's simply false. Hamid Karzai and his bunch were put in place by a loya jirga acting under the expressed wishes of the American government. There was no general election, just a sort of "council of warlords". Democracy it is not.
Harper's communication direction tells us that this is "Taliban propaganda" which is also untrue. "Propaganda" is taken to mean "lies told for a political goal". The Taliban aren't lying, they're just promising to kill our civilians if we keep fighting in Afghanistan. "Taliban threats" would be more accurate. But maybe the intricacies of English aren't their strong suit.
The NDP chimed in with this from Dawn Black:
Of course there are justifications for killing innocent people. We justify it all the time with all sorts of excuses (collateral damage, caught in the crossfire, human shields, bomb the village to save it, better dead than red). I can even imagine some really, really strange circumstances where killing an innocent person might be warranted in very specific situations (say, a virulent disease outbreak).
Everyone here is missing the point: are we willing to die to bring freedom to the oppressed people of Afghanistan? Are we willing to make sure that that's what we're doing in Afghanistan?
Peter McKay was disgusted:
This letter is a disgusting attempt to justify the deliberate killings of innocent civilians. There is no justification for these killings by the Taliban
That's true, but entirely beside the point. The Taliban are going to kill Canadian civilians in response to our killing of them and the civilians near them. Of course it's disgusting. You're fighting evil, theocratic despots. What precisely were you expecting?
Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of that country.
Well, that's simply false. Hamid Karzai and his bunch were put in place by a loya jirga acting under the expressed wishes of the American government. There was no general election, just a sort of "council of warlords". Democracy it is not.
Harper's communication direction tells us that this is "Taliban propaganda" which is also untrue. "Propaganda" is taken to mean "lies told for a political goal". The Taliban aren't lying, they're just promising to kill our civilians if we keep fighting in Afghanistan. "Taliban threats" would be more accurate. But maybe the intricacies of English aren't their strong suit.
The NDP chimed in with this from Dawn Black:
Of course, it's a very chilling situation and a rather dramatic example of the deteriorating security situation. There can be no justification, ever, for killing innocent aid workers.
Of course there are justifications for killing innocent people. We justify it all the time with all sorts of excuses (collateral damage, caught in the crossfire, human shields, bomb the village to save it, better dead than red). I can even imagine some really, really strange circumstances where killing an innocent person might be warranted in very specific situations (say, a virulent disease outbreak).
Everyone here is missing the point: are we willing to die to bring freedom to the oppressed people of Afghanistan? Are we willing to make sure that that's what we're doing in Afghanistan?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
What's Worth Dying for in Afghanistan?
I'm sure we've all seen this nastiness from the Taliban:
I don't think I even have to look at what any of teh blogging tories are writing to know the sentiment the right wing will be expressing. It's guaranteed to be of the "never surrender, go get 'em" direction.
What's being said, parsed simply word for word, is perfectly reasonable. Stop killing them and they'll stop killing us. Our forces have been demonstrably killing their civilians and so they've begun killing ours. It's evil, but so are the Taliban. I'm only surprised it took this long. Spain got hit a long time ago.
But there's a price in walking away. We know what the Taliban are doing to their own people - especially their women. We knew about this long before September 11, naturally, but the media only directed the general public's attention to it then, so effectively no one cared beforehand.
So what? Should we be fighting for the freedom of the women of Afghanistan?
A long time ago, when the patriotic nonsense reached a fever pitch in late 2001, a reader of my column warned me that my "tune would change when bombs started falling on Ottawa". I pointed out to him, responding to his Rumsfeldian flourishes, that the Taliban had no reason to bomb Canada. We'd never done anything to them. If they were truly in league with Al Qaeda (which wasn't all that clear at the time, given that the Taliban had offered to turn over Bin Laden) the people they had attacked were the military, political and economic leaders of the United States. This had little to do with the purported religious motivations of Al Qaeda or with any issue in regard to those guys up in Canada.
Well, now they have a reason to attack us, don't they? We've sent our soldiers over to their country and our orders have led to the blowing up of a few weddings. Plenty of people here say that they deserve it. After all, they're sheltering the Taliban, aren't they? Well, no, they're living in a ridiculously crude, theocratic dictatorship and so have no choice in the matter.
We, however, are living in a democracy. That comes with a greater responsibility. We, not our soldiers or our military leaders, are responsible for what our nation does. That means that every one of us had better be deciding, right now, what price we are willing to pay to set free the women of Afghanistan.
And if we do decide that we are willing to take that risk, the risk of retaliation, then we had better whip our politicians and military brass in to line and make sure they are delivering - ONLY delivering - freedom to those oppressed people.
We had better make sure that they aren't just there to deliver natural gas and oil to India and Pakistan.
Because none of us are willing to die for that.
... if your government continues a reversed policy, the Afghans will be obliged to kill your nationals, in revenge for their brothers, their sisters, and their children ... Afghanistan looks at all actors that are established in the interest of America with an eye of hostility ... Therefore, you have to convince your government to put an end to the occupation of Afghanistan, so that the Afghans are not killed with your hands and so that you are not killed with the hands of the Afghans.
I don't think I even have to look at what any of teh blogging tories are writing to know the sentiment the right wing will be expressing. It's guaranteed to be of the "never surrender, go get 'em" direction.
What's being said, parsed simply word for word, is perfectly reasonable. Stop killing them and they'll stop killing us. Our forces have been demonstrably killing their civilians and so they've begun killing ours. It's evil, but so are the Taliban. I'm only surprised it took this long. Spain got hit a long time ago.
But there's a price in walking away. We know what the Taliban are doing to their own people - especially their women. We knew about this long before September 11, naturally, but the media only directed the general public's attention to it then, so effectively no one cared beforehand.
So what? Should we be fighting for the freedom of the women of Afghanistan?
A long time ago, when the patriotic nonsense reached a fever pitch in late 2001, a reader of my column warned me that my "tune would change when bombs started falling on Ottawa". I pointed out to him, responding to his Rumsfeldian flourishes, that the Taliban had no reason to bomb Canada. We'd never done anything to them. If they were truly in league with Al Qaeda (which wasn't all that clear at the time, given that the Taliban had offered to turn over Bin Laden) the people they had attacked were the military, political and economic leaders of the United States. This had little to do with the purported religious motivations of Al Qaeda or with any issue in regard to those guys up in Canada.
Well, now they have a reason to attack us, don't they? We've sent our soldiers over to their country and our orders have led to the blowing up of a few weddings. Plenty of people here say that they deserve it. After all, they're sheltering the Taliban, aren't they? Well, no, they're living in a ridiculously crude, theocratic dictatorship and so have no choice in the matter.
We, however, are living in a democracy. That comes with a greater responsibility. We, not our soldiers or our military leaders, are responsible for what our nation does. That means that every one of us had better be deciding, right now, what price we are willing to pay to set free the women of Afghanistan.
And if we do decide that we are willing to take that risk, the risk of retaliation, then we had better whip our politicians and military brass in to line and make sure they are delivering - ONLY delivering - freedom to those oppressed people.
We had better make sure that they aren't just there to deliver natural gas and oil to India and Pakistan.
Because none of us are willing to die for that.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
War is Stupid. Everybody knows that.
Oh, if only this were true.
Unfortunately there's a huge crowd of people on the right wing of politics everywhere who believe that war is the inevitable state of humankind. There has always been war, they will tell us, and therefore there will always be war.
Well, there are a lot of things that "always were", and yet we've put a stop to so many. You don't see a whole lot of land wars in Europe or human sacrifice anymore, do you? And there a lot more "always were"s that we're slowly stamping out: genital mutilation; asbestos; honour killing.
The most telling comment, though, regarding the father of the man who died so recently in Afghanistan, is this one from the mother of another deceased soldier:
It sounds sadly desperate, doesn't it? You gotta believe. You just gotta. They can't be dying and killing for no reason. No. No way.
Unfortunately there's a huge crowd of people on the right wing of politics everywhere who believe that war is the inevitable state of humankind. There has always been war, they will tell us, and therefore there will always be war.
Well, there are a lot of things that "always were", and yet we've put a stop to so many. You don't see a whole lot of land wars in Europe or human sacrifice anymore, do you? And there a lot more "always were"s that we're slowly stamping out: genital mutilation; asbestos; honour killing.
The most telling comment, though, regarding the father of the man who died so recently in Afghanistan, is this one from the mother of another deceased soldier:
"You've gotta believe that what they did, they did for a reason," she said, adding: "I honestly believe they're there for a good reason."
It sounds sadly desperate, doesn't it? You gotta believe. You just gotta. They can't be dying and killing for no reason. No. No way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)