The latest tactic is to claim that serving as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan (where 67 soldiers have died as of this writing) is comparable with "Toronto" where there are (roughly) 50 gun-shot deaths per year.
You may accuse me of underestimating the effect of the loss of life among our troops. After all, as I write, 67 have been killed. Every death is a tragedy for family and friends, but we must keep things in perspective: Fifty people are killed in Toronto alone every year, many by gunfire, and many more across the country.
I put "Toronto" in quotations because I'm not exactly sure what these morons are trying to say.
Toronto has a population of 2.48 million. Gun homicides for Toronto in 2000-2002 stood at 0.7 per 100,000 people. Which gives us 17.36 deaths on average. There's been an upsurge in gun violence though, thanks mainly to right-wing social policies and the debasement of the human environment that they cause, as well as by the overall decline in morals caused by the ascendancy of pseudo-human morons who vote for Mike Harris and Stephen Harper. So it appears to have been around 50 in the past couple of years. 50 divided by 2.48 million appears to be .000205 percent or something. So, it's not really all that likely to die from being shot in Toronto.
As I said though, while these morons blather about "Toronto," I'm pretty sure they don't mean to compare Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan with the entire population of Toronto. To accurately do that, they'd have to come up with all firearms deaths in Canada (2.6 per 100,000 in 2002) with all firearms deaths in Afghanistan, which I suspect is much higher, and which therefore doesn't suit their purposes.
My esteemed comrade "No Yards" (.) came up with the idea of calculating all police deaths in Canada for one year against the total number of the RCMP officers in Canada in 2007 (about 24,000) as a way of measuring the dangers of law enforcement. Using 2005 (which was a bad year for Canadian police with 11 officers killed) as the benchmark, the ratio is about 45 per 100,000.
There are about 2,600 Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan. The casualities last year were 36. (So far, 2007 casualties stand at 22, and we're only in June, so it doesn't look like last year's number can be dismissed as an aberration.) This gives us a casuality ratio of 1,385 per 100,000. Which, as you can tell, is significantly higher than Toronto's death rate, or that of Canadian police.
Of course, all this playing around with statistics is beside the point. At its base, this argument is essentially that we ought not to care about our soldiers' deaths, because people die all the time. Imagine, if you will, what would have happened had the Justice Minister and the Commissioner of the RCMP had tried to argue this way in response to the mass-killings of four RCMP officers by Jim Rosko in March, 2005? When people asked how that mission was so mismanaged as to cause four officers' deaths, did Canada's Harper-Lovers sit back and intone; "Well, you know, police work is a dangerous business. Shit happens." ? Of course not. Imagine any other government-run project that shows a rising death toll being defended with such a dumb-ass argument.
What these nincompoops are trying to say is that the deaths are "worth it" because the cause is just. Which gets us talking about "the mission" once again. But let's not let go of the demonstrated indifference of the right-wing to the deaths of "the troops", because they will shamelessly throw that in our faces as we try to talk objectively about "the mission."
"The Mission" of course, is to prop-up an increasingly unpopular government that never got, and never will get the necessary funds for the reconstruction Afghanistan so desperately needs, and this government is dependent upon heroin-trafficking, mass-murdering, rapist warlords who are despised by much of the country. "The Mission" is at best thoughtless, and at worst, cynical imperialism. In either case, it is not worth dying for.
If you claim to give a shit about the people of Afghanistan and the dangers of the Taliban, then you should insist that the West abandon its military approach and finance that country's reconstruction, and stop with the air-strikes, check-point shootings, and torturing of prisoners, that is making the Taliban an increasingly popular resistance force.
Finally, remember, according to the right-wing, we're supposed to be in Afghanistan and we should have joined bush II in the slaughterhouse in Iraq, because Canadians were killed on 9-11 along with 3,000 of our American friends. Because of those deaths, we MUST launch an endless, self-perpetuating war of vengeance. We must torture and kill. We must give-up freedom of the press and access to information. We must give up our civil rights. But if twice as many soldiers die in our "response" to terrorism than did victims of that terrorism, ... if the slaughter looks like it's going to be endless, ... well, just remember, it all pales in comparison to World War II.
Which only goes to show the truly appalling intellectual level of the Canadian right-wing.
Not only do they not have originality to come up with their own arguments, but when they rip-off talking points from their US brethren, they're so brainless as to adopt thoroughly discredited, disgusting arguments.
Take a look at the criminal bush II regime, and the gross inequalities, racism, police-state, militaristic nightmare that the US right-wing has turned their country into. That is exactly what the morons at smalldeadanimals, free dominion, and the blogging tories want to turn Canada into.
True, they cannot yet successfully foist a Stockwell Day on us in the same way that the Repugs got drooling idiot bush II installed, but it's only because they don't have the power to do so. They can't have their dunces forced upon us as the party that ran the actual winner curls up in a ball and plays dead.
5 comments:
Thank you for that very cogent response, thwap. It summed up exactly what I've been thinking.
Indeed, what callousness! One thing those people will never admit to is that whereas deaths due to socio-economic & cultural conditions in a given society may still at this point in time be inevitable, the death of our troops is not. Those men and women have been DELIBERATELY been put in harm's way by our no less callous politicians. AND FOR WHAT?
I love being called a "those people".
So I will call you "you people".
Thwap has a very "cogent response", that is thwap, heart in the right place.
In Toronto, guns don't kill people, black people kill black people, the odd time it being a random white or other that gets in the way. Is that Racist or a fact? It sure looks that way in the media view, TV, Papers etc..
I guess dealing drugs is cultural and economic.
The men and women that have been "deliberately" put in harms's way volunteered for a legal, UN/NATO war, it is not Iraq.
For WHAT???? To stop Al-Qaeda from having a base of operation, that they had before September 11, and to free the Afgan people from the Taliban.
Thwap has a point about the corrupt government in Afganistan, but .... what government would not be corrupt????
ALL governments have corruption to lesser or greater degrees.
Oh, "you people".
PS
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=9048d9d2-5e83-484e-ba9f-801981caa281
Wayne,
I'm going to leave your completely irrelevant, and unresearched claims about "black people kill[ing] black people" and drug-dealing up; as evidence of your sloppy generalizations.
I always buy my weed from white people. That's just the way it works out. No, strike that, for a while, an (East) Indian friend supplied us.
Anyhow, it's once again, totally irrelevant to my post, as to who is shooting whom in Toronto, or why.
The point is that it is a completely shit-headed thing to compare "Toronto" with being a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan.
Okay????
But remember this, wayne, your pals are the ones who say that people like me, diane, and furgaia, are borderline treasonous, and that we ALL HATE "the troops" because we want them to come home, ... but your pals are ON FUCKING RECORD as writing that they're totally prepared to accept "the troops"' deaths, and to continue "the mission."
In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Well, fuck that.
It's irrelevant that the mission was UN-sanctioned. That's not the goddamned point, is it? Those 4 mounties were on a legal mission to that Alberta farm when they got killed. What was at issue was that the assignment was so mismanaged and those lives were needlessly lost.
Re: Al-Qaeda, ... well, Al-Qaeda no longer has a base of operations there, does it? bush II doesn't think about bin Laden much anymore, so why should Canadian soldiers continue to die?
Re: The Taliban, ... don't look now Wayne, but reality is starting to smack you upside the head: Our airstrikes and Karzai's unpopularity are HELPING the Taliban!!! So, "the troops" are dying for less than nothing. The very thing they're sent there to defeat is the very same thing their presence is aiding.
I don't really have a problem with the corruption of Karzai's government. Personally, I would rather that we fund him adequately and that they steal from us, rather than Pashtun farmers, which is my point, and which is what is contributing to their return to the Taliban.
If Canada listened to the NDP and spent more on development and reconstruction, instead of on blasting Afghan farmers to pieces with air-strikes, we'd be much better off.
Once again wayne, you are wrong, COMPLETELY WRONG, about every last little fucking thing. And once again, people are dying because of it.
Post a Comment