Saturday, August 25, 2007

They likely are dimwits

A Canadian soldier in Afghanistan had this to say about anti-war protestors at home:

“They look at us like dimwits.”

Yes, those young men think they are there to bring freedom and democracy to the poor people of Afghanistan. Like one of the powerful elites in Canada just took it into their head to liberate the poor country of Afghanistan so that little girls can go to school. (Funny thing though, the elites are not sending them to countries that are at peace right now, but too poor to educate their children or even keep them from starving or dying from contaminated water. This promotion of "better living" is only for those countries they want to use weapons on.) Or maybe they think that they are somehow keeping Canadians safe from the people in Afghanistan - who just want the foreigners out of their country, just like they wanted the Russians out of their country. The fact is – those troops are there for someone, somewhere to make a big pile of money. The fact is – those Canadian soldiers will kill other people, some of them total innocents, and some of them will get killed in return. And none of it will provide stability for Afghanistan or safety for Canadians. And one day, that soldier may think back on what he thought before he went into Afghanistan. And he will likely see himself as someone who needed some real education, or in other words, a dimwit.

And today, we hear that the US forces in Afghanistan bombed three British soldiers and killed them. Now, I don't get too excited about "friendly fire" since it is an accident. And accidents happen in all human activities. I still drive most days, even though I know I could get killed by an accident. But, when you hear of an accident were combatants are killing their fellow combatants in an unlawful occupation of a foreign country, you just have to reflect on the utter waste of it all.

3 comments:

Lynn said...

"Funny thing though, the elites are not sending them to countries that are at peace right now, but too poor to educate their children"
What kind of dimwit would they be to send soldiers in for a non-military need?

So, you think that the women and girls of Afghanistan were better off with the Taliban ruling them? If not, would you expect that they would stop ruling if we asked them "pretty please?"

dancewater said...

"What kind of dimwit would they be to send soldiers in for a non-military need?"

In my opinion, that's exactly what they did in Afghanistan. AND, they tried nothing else to change how the Taliban was acting - nothing at all. Not even "pretty please".

By the way, the Taliban are coming back into power. And the NATO and US forces have killed more civilians this year than the Taliban has, which, as you can imagine, is not making the civilian population, including the women and girls, too happy.

dancewater said...

And just to point out a fact or two - how the Taliban was acting in 2001, when the US and other military showed up, was pretty decent compared to what was going on - AND HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS - in the D.R. Congo. There were millions killed in that conflict, yet the elites saw no reason to intervene.

This line that they are sending in the military to help the native population in any respect, so far this century, is just a lie. That is not to say that some of the military folks are not trying their best to help the locals, it is just that that would be a happy by-product, not the real agenda. And, as a result, the military forces will not (on the total balance) help the local people much at all.