About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

2 Replies to “Canadian Army needs break from Afghanistan”

  1. As a fan of Red Eye, I found this extremely unfunny and ignorant.

    It’s very interesting to see the United States of Allahu Akbar being led by a One-World-Government New-World-Order megalomaniac utopian gliberal pie-in-the-sky full-of-shit “Yes We Can!” madman, and Canada being led by a straight-talking pragmatic down-to-earth meat-and-two-veg fiscal social and political Conservative.

    Canadians have fought with Americans in Afghanistan as part of NATO since Day One. Canadian troops have been fully-engaged around the clock and have lost 108 soldiers, the highest per capita rate for allied forces.

    Canada sent its military to Afghanistan both on principal and in accordance with Article Five of the NATO Charter [“an armed attack against one or more NATO member in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”]. The Liberal government of Jean Chretien sent the troops, and the Conservative government of Stephen Harper obtained an all-party concensus to bring them home in 2011.

    The Liberals sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan, but as soon as they were out of power they did nothing but condemn the Conservative government for every Canadian death there and every hint of “scandal” regarding torture or corruption.

    President Obama will then have to rely on his loyal and Islamicized European supporters (who are increasingly avoiding combat zones) to back up his Neoconservative Socialist agenda of enforcing a mythical, mystical “Moderate Islam” on Afghan barbarians while neighbouring Pakistan falls to al-Qaeda.

    Asked what his response would be if Obama begged Canada to extend its mission in Afghanistan or increase its current troop level (keep in mind that the current deployment is very unpopular and has already strained Canada’s military capability), Harper responded:


    If President Obama were to ask me that question, I would have a question back for him. And that question would be: What is your plan to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans, so they can govern it?

    Because there are enormous risks there for us and enormous challenges. And I’m not saying we cannot improve things. But if we think – our experience has taught us, if we think that we are going to govern Afghanistan for the Afghans, or over the long term be responsible for day-to-day security in Afghanistan, and see that country improve, we are mistaken.

    And so, if – I welcome President Obama’s renewed commitment to Afghanistan, the fact that they’re sending a lot more American troops. We’re delighted to have them, especially in Kandahar, where we need the partner.

    But over the long haul, if President Obama wants anybody to do more, I would ask very hard questions about what is the strategy for success and for an eventual departure?

    The issue in Canada…I don’t think is whether we stay or whether we go. The issue that Canadians ask is, are we being successful? And…

    Right now, we have made gains. Those gains are not irreversible, so the success has been modest.

    We’re not going to win this war just by staying. We’re not going to — in fact, my own judgment…is, quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had — my reading of Afghanistan history, it’s probably had an insurgency forever, of some kind.

    What has to happen in Afghanistan is, we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency and improving its own governance.

    A part of the calculation there is the fact that, ultimately, the source of authority in Afghanistan has to be perceived as being indigenous. If it’s perceived as being foreign — and I still think we’re welcome there — but if it’s perceived as being foreign, it will always have a significant degree of opposition.

    There is no doubt that governance in Afghanistan has to improve, and has to improve much more quickly than what we’ve seen in the first – how many years is it now — almost eight years?


  2. I followed the links from the youtube posting to this blog and truthfully the only thing that offends me about this is the idiotic “offended” responses that people are posting. This is bad satire quite simply put, and it’s nothing to get upset about. Being angry at these people achieves only a few things :

    1. It confirms that they are right in a twisted sort of way. People only get upset when in some way they believe these statements to have the possibility of truth. Therefore they have “to set those ignorant fools straight” Who could possibly believe this to be true? Other than true idiots who arent worth anyone’s time and effort.

    2. It cheapens any legitimate reason for the wrongness of their statements. Its alright to be upset about the deaths of soldiers and all that, but to allow some bad comedian to dictate your emotions to you is the height of illegitemacy. Be upset about a death because it is an end to a persons life not because someone ripped on your country.

    3. Americans have a rep as being stupidly patriotic. They are insulting us as a country by those terms. Stop re-inforcing that mentality by negatively agreeing with it ( ie allowing it legitemacy by getting upset with it).

    In the end people may agree or disagree with me. But truthfully i couldn’t give a flying fuck about that. The only thing i would like to see is people being in control of their actions rather than allowing some dipshit FOX employee upset them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.