Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Saskatchewan has a Useful Idiot

He opens his mouth to reveal it quite often. One such case occurred in the comments thread to this posting by John Murney. His name is Sean and he's an old style socialist trooper defending every bankrupt cause currently known to man. Here's what he had to say in a testy exchange we me about American involvement in Iraq and Harper's much welcomed decision to beef up our military:

Sean: "30 billion? on military expenditures...without the government even committing their plans to paper and solely basing them from speeches?

How exactly are we supposed to pull our weight? getting involved in illegal wars? choosing sides in civil wars? propping up a military industrial complex of our own so we can increase exports of WMDs?

There are far better uses for 30 billion a year in this country.

If someone wants to invade Canada 30 billion dollars a year is not going to defend us from a country that brazen, so put away those tinfoil hats."


Me: "Tell that to my brother-in-law who is second in command at the Iraqi embassy in Washington, Sean. Illegal war. pfttt!"

Sean: "ya, international rules and conventions be damned, there's oil in them hills...oh wait it was because of WMDs, nope that's not it, it was because Saddam was bad, nope that's not it, it was because of freedom and democracy, oh wait...no that isn't it either....

Our PM yesterday:

“If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It’s that simple. Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You’re the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to.”

yes, only countries with lots of big bad weapons are taken seriously, might is right!"
Not only has Sean obviously not come to a mature appreciation of the dynamics of international relations. Everything is white or black, good or bad, saintly or demonic and of course endorsement of the socialist world view is only way to achieve world peace. But he also hasn't got a clue about what is happening in Iraq now or what led up to the invasion. But then, he's and NDPer, so what can one expect.

I was also very disappointed with the comment from Foudroyaume on the same thread. From him I did expect something more than just a repetition of tired old memes from the Main Stream Media mixed with a good deal of mind numbing ignorance of what life was like under Saddam Hussein.
Foudroyaume: "On Iraq: I'm inclined to disapprove of this one. That is not to approve of Hussein, but I see the American presence in Iraq as destabilising rather than stabilising. SH had his victims, (some, like the Kurds, haven't been treated any better in supposedly free countries, like Turkey), but it's not like the country was subject to constant feuding between thugs and fanatics.

Also, unlke Afghanistan, where the mass of hardship was caused by the ruling regime and their opponent factions, Iraq's biggest problems were due to American sanctions. I think the people of Iraq on average would have benefitted more from lifting sanctions (which would have helped foster a friendlier attitude to the west--SH, unlike Taliban leaders, cared about public opinion and mayb have been willing to enter into mutually beneficial negotions if he sensed a pro-western attitude growing in Iraq--he was an opportunist, not an ideologue.

The Taliban, on the other hand, are whackos with guns who maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most. As a result of their religious-centerd governance, Afghanistan is decades behind in infrastructure and services (Iraq, by contrast, is quite modern).

And of course, there's body count. Iraq has turned into a human disaster. This is another case of Americans failing to grasp that they cannot beat a guerilla foe through brute force. This is another case where American clumsiness and moral immaturity (which is the most neutral phrase I can find for the atrocities that are committed by many soliers on every side of every war ever fought) are creating a state of terror, rather than eliminating one."

I'm going to take them both apart over the next few blog installments. Foud, I believe, is redeemable, but to Sean, I owe not one iota of respect. Useful fools forfeit that courtesy.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home