At issue is not their laudable courage, but the Harper government's use of it to glorify war, to cultivate the notion of war as the great nation-builder.
What's striking in this way of thinking is how little attention is paid to the purpose of any particular war and how much is paid to the idea of waging war.
Consider the current slogan of the Canadian Forces: "Fight with the Canadian Forces." No mention is made of what or whom is being fought, or why. The message instead is just get out there and fight.
How's that for a notion to instil in our young people! Hopefully they'll know not to try it out at home or school, but to confine their aggression to fighting unidentified foreign people in faraway lands.
For that matter, despite the heroism at Vimy, it has never been particularly clear what World War I was all about. Few wars, with the exception of World War II, have a clear and compelling purpose.
Yet, rather than war being seen for what it generally is – the ultimate human failure and the ultimate human agony – war is held up as the stuff of greatness, as the tie that binds us together. Only through the sacrifice of war do we come to see ourselves as a nation.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/202581
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...
Building A Nation With Body Bags
Posted on Friday, April 13 at 12:20 by 4CanadaContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
dead? "They (Taliban) got lucky." I'm sure the families
of those who have died so far find real comfort in that
statement.
Or as our war mongering puppet PM says, the
Canadiab soldiers' families can take comfort in
knowing their loved ones died building a better future
for the Afghan people.
Yeah, even if this lie was true, it is at the expense of
destroying their own families back home.
So long as there are fools willing to kill and die for nothing there will always be a war going on somewhere in the world.
While it is true that these "soldiers" have all been suckered and brainwashed, but everyone has to take at least some responsibility for their actions as each of them made the mistake of signing up, and each of them did nothing to get out after it should have been obvious just how much of a mistake they made.
On the other hand, the predators who prey on these unfortunate fools have to bear a great deal of responsibility for their actions as well.
The whole military system is insidiously corrupt beyond reason and should be shut down permanently through a refusal to support it any further.
---
27 yrs in the military, 10 tours now and I hope another in Feb
“But bringing Canadians together as a coherent unit to fight poverty and homelessness, to build a stronger public health-care or child-care system, or for that matter, to devise a national energy strategy or a real plan for participating in the worldwide battle against global warming – there's little interest in that sort of nation-building.”
It boggles my mind when I read comments about all the ills of Afghani society when here in the town I live in, never mind the rest of Canada, there have b=been closures of women’s centres, homelessness is at ever climbing record levels, poverty is rampant, housing and rental prices continue to escalate along with the prices of gasoline, diesel and other forms of energy needs, needs which have been engineered to create dependency.
Heroin and cocaine addictions alone with the consumption of massive volumes of beer, and now fro micro distilleries, spousal abuse, child sexual predators, ethnic youth gangs, hand guns as status symbols , both inside and outside of gang activities and on and on….
And now come the audacity to bray jack-ass like about bringing “democracy” to a tribal near stone age culture (read the CIA fact book for verification of this assertion) half way around the world.
Are we Nuking Futz?
He short answer is “Well, Duh!”
Wayne Coady bleats on about the “party system” perhaps he should move to Afghanistan ‘cause there ain’t no “parties” there.
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
(c) 2003 anarchie bunker
Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
perhaps he should move to Afghanistan ‘cause there
ain’t no “parties” there."
The way things are going, pretty soon there ain't gonna
be any parties here either.
be any parties here either."
I see nothing to "party" about. LOL
Ok, Ok enough frivolity
You may be right!
The no partu system might better be described as the Dictator system
You may, if you choose, continiue to use your present method of argement
BUT I warn you now
you have already lost!
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
And this is what they call the "glory" of war.
Anybody who finds any glory in any war is a bloody fool, a crook and a nutcase.
Armyguy, how many legs have been amputated while you were holding them for the doctors doing the job ? I claim about a hundred over about 3-4 months, after the war.
The vast majority from frostbites, landmines and even boot sores, infected by lice. I almost lost my right leg to a scratch and licebite infection.
Some glory to get medals for !!!!!
What glory is there for the B52 crews training over our house, here in the middle of BC, to kill thousands and even millions with their mass murder weapons ?
Ed Deak.
be any parties here either."
Dunno, I've got a few gray hairs but I'm still partying, although I tend to fall asleep a lot sooner.
Sounds familiar
---
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan."
* George Bu
Here we see the government promoting hatred and genocide in the most general of terms. I guess there's no possible way for the government to break it's own hate laws if the government won't identify what people they intend to genocide next.
In the case of Afghanistan, we know who they are trying to wipe of the map, but the definition of 'identifiable group' only applies to a very narrow range of traits, such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation (whatever that means), and religion.
Well they are targeting primarily a people of one particular race and ethnicity, and their religion is almost exclusively Muslim, and we know that some of them are oriented sexually as homosexuals ... sooo
Ah HA! But we're not killing them because they are an identifiable group as defined by Canada's hate laws, we're killing them ONLY because we're trying to help them!
OK, so all is well in idiot land, keep on fighting.