Monday, July 09, 2007

Fighting for Western Values?

Whooee! A coupla days ago, I seen a newspaper quotin' Jimmy Flaherty. He said that we're there in Afghanistan to fight for western values.


Canadian values? We're fightin' fer a warlord-ruled narco-state that has enshrined Shari'a law into its new constitution and is officially named The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Canadian values? Under NEW Afghan law, anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity is subject to the death penalty.

Canadian values? Since the ouster of the Taliban and the beginning of the NATO campaign, Afghanistan has become the world's top producer of opium. The country we're dyin' fer supplies 90% of the world opium market.

Canadian values? The Afghan Human Rights Commission says it has no ability to monitor the treatment of detainees. Serious, credible allegations of torture exist but our gummint sluffs it off an' passes the buck to the ineffective Afghan human rights group.

We are not there to support Canadian values. We are there to support warlords, opium dealers, the international heroin trade and the double-dealin' Karzai who admits to being involved in secret talks with the Taliban for the same months when 50+ Canajun soldiers was killed. I wonder what they been talkin' about.


P.s. Most o' this here boog story was wrote up as a comment over to the What Do I Know Grit's fine boog.


Rosie said...

succint and bang on!

Dr.Dawg said...

Part of a note to a sparring partner who is playing the dumb-f**k "Taliban Jack" card:

"Whether you approve or not, Jack represents the views of the majority on our Far East adventure. But that won't stop the white-feather crowd from using
him as a lightning rod for their frustration, now that the tide of public opinion is decisively turning against further involvement in a no-win war.

"So the character assassination (for it is no more than that) continues
apace. I'm sorry that you're part of it.

"Moral coward? Opportunist? Ignorant fool? Prove it. The "capitalizing on troop deaths" turns out to be a falsehood There will be more of them.

"Don't parade the Taliban abuses before me. The Northern Alliance used to bake people alive in oil drums. Some of the worst atrocities were committed by players on that side, now safely ensconced in the Karzai shell parliament. You were happy to quote RAWA* about the Taliban, but oddly reticent to quote their outrage against Karzai. Burqas are still the female
apparel of choice. The poppy trade is back. The head of the judiciary,
Karzai-appointed, is a Muslim extremist. Torture is commonplace in Afghan prisons. But because the Karzai side is smarter than the Taliban, and knows how to play the game, aping a US-style governance structure for the credulous, we're committed to be its Swiss guards, for how long...two years? Ten? Twenty?"

There's more, but I wanted to indicate my approval of your post and to let you know that you're far from alone.

Yee-haw, or however you guys sign off.


JimBobby said...

Whooee! Thankee fer chimin' in, RosieGal an' DawgFeller.

FWIW, I figger jack was right in suggestin' negotiations way back when he got the Taliban Jack moniker. Turns out Karzai thought it was the right thing to do, as well. Some reports say he's been negotiatin' fer years. Other reports, confirmed by Karzai himself, say he's been negotiatin' fer several months.

How long before King Steve finally admits that negotiations with the Taliban will be the only thing that ends the conflict? We won't kill all the Talibans and we won't win anymore than the Russkies won when they were there with 10x the troops we have.

WE're throwin' away the lives of good soldiers on a bad cause. Why should we fight and die for the likes of Karzai and his opium-growin' warlord buddyboys?


Karen said...

Why should we fight and die for the likes of Karzai and his opium-growin' warlord buddyboys?

While I don't quite see it that way, I don't think we can win this.

As for the values argument, what a facile phrase, born in the US and adopted by the con's. It's erroneous, but's it's tasty enough for the lap dog's to lick up.

How long before Harp admits that negotiations are necessary? Anyone's guess, but I just wrote on the fact that he know say's he doesn't support extending the current mission beyond 2009.

What is it that con's love about this guy? Oh yeah, conviction, LOL.

Anonymous said...

Rudyard Kipling got it. Russia eventually got it. When are the US and Canada going to get it? We can't change the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Not with bombs, anyway. Um, if I may somewhat shamelessly promote what I've written on the subject in the past...I hope you don't mind.

The women of that country need our help, but not by blowing them up and killing their children. Fund RAWA.