Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Fight Fishermen, Not Terrorists

Ol' Smilin' Jack wants Canada's military forces to quit fighting terrorists who want to deprive humans of their human rights. He wants us to concentrate on fighting rogue fishermen who are trying to deprive other fishermen of their fishing rights.

No such thing as a suicide cod, after all. And if everyone wears a life vest, nobody should get hurt, right?

" Layton says Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan should focus on humanitarian aid, reconstruction and peace negotiations instead of combat."

Oh, where to start, Jack? How about: Humanitarian aid is done by the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations. They do just fine at it, too. After all, that's what they're trained for.

Reconstruction is done by engineers and contractors. You want the military to step in and take those jobs away from the people trained to do them? A good union man like yourself? Fie! Jack! Turn in your CAW card at once, sir!

Peace negotiations belong to diplomats, statesmen, and other out-of-work politicians. Hang in just a few weeks, Jack, and you could be doing this job yourself. It doesn't require a union membership, after all -- just the inability to see things as they really are and an insistence that others wear the same brand of rose-colored glasses you yourself wear.

"...instead of combat."

Right. Gods forbid that soldiers actually do the job they're trained to do. Somebody might get hurt. They might even win out over the terrorists.

"Layton says illegal trawlers are hurting coastal communities all over eastern Canada, and the nation's armed forces has a duty to stop them."

I really hate to break the news this way -- over a mere blog and all -- but protecting the coastal fishing communities is the job of the Coast Guard. Remember the Coast Guard, Jack? Those nice unionized workers whose jobs you now want to hand over to the military?

Hal Banks is spinning in his grave. But that's okay by you. He was an American rabble rouser, and you don't like Americans, so why should you care?

"Since the current mission to Afghanistan began more than one year ago, 28 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in gun battles, car bombs and road accidents."

Well, to start with, Defensive Driving lessons for everybody! That should take care of the driving accidents.

But...28 soldier casualties in over one year. Twenty-eight. Less than thirty. In over a year. In an active war zone.

We should have been that good during WWII. Or WWI.

Jack.

Damn. Y'know, it's not as if any of these soldiers were drafted and sent over there kicking and screaming, against their will. They were all volunteers. And they all knew, ahead of time, that there were risks involved.

Sure, there are soldiers over there who wish they weren't there. Most of them, probably, if they've got any sense at all. But they know that they are there for a reason, Jack. They are doing their damnedest to contain a volatile mess in a small corner of the world, to keep it from spreading to the rest of the world. They are fighting not only to give human rights to those without, but also to preserve human rights in this, our world -- a world where everyone is free to speak up for or against anything he chooses, even if, like you, he chooses to speak up against their fighting for anyone's rights at all.

The big difference between your speaking up and almost everyone else's speaking up is that you, Jack, are a public figure, and the media focuses on you and quotes you. Your words reach the soldiers who are fighting, Jack. They hear, and read, that you think they are no better than the terrorists they are fighting...indeed, that you think they have become terrorists, themselves.

That's not exactly a boost for morale, Jack. It's goddamned discouraging to read that crap, as a matter of fact. From the point of view of a Canadian soldier, you have labelled him the enemy. And now you want him to abandon his calling and come home and babysit fish.

Soldiers with low morale get discouraged. They get pessimistic. They start to second-guess themselves and their mission. They get despondent. They get careless. They get inattentive.

They get killed.

To what percentage of Canda's military casualties are you willing to lay claim, Jack?

3 Comments:

Blogger DazzlinDino said...

Actually I love this, it's HUGE ammo for Harper in the House of Commons.

Harper - So Jack, you want us to pull out our troops to protect our northern borders?
Jack - Yup
Harper - But you said before when I was up there it was a dumb idea of mine
Jack - Yup
Harper - So which is it?
Jack - Yup
Harper - You don't know do you?
Jack - Yup
Harper - OK, thanks for that, by the way, are you still mowing my lawn next summer?
Jack - Yup....

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:58:00 PM  
Blogger Chimera said...

LOL! Jack said putting the military in the North was a dumb idea? I musta missed that (or paid no attention -- almost everyone said it was a dumb idea; after all, who'd want to "steal" the Arctic? Besides The Shrub, I mean...).

I'd love it, too, if it weren't for my last point. Soldiers in an active war zone need constant reassurance that they're doing the right thing by firing upon and probably killing other people (even if they are the "enemy"). Criticisms like Jack's can make them hesitate long enought to get killed.

Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:17:00 AM  
Blogger Daz said...

Actually, most of 'em (I've got a few buddies serving over there) don't really give a rat's ass about the political talk back home. They do worry about the public's opinion (as opposed to public opinion)however. Basically they want the man on the street to be happy with what they're doing. Thats one reason the Airborne scandal was so hard on the entire military.

Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:09:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home