Canadian troops out of Afghanistan! - statements by MPs and parties
Olivia Chow, November 15, 2010:
The wording approved in Parliament at the time was that "the military mission shall consist of...training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole".
Seventy-two Canadian soldiers have died since the promises to train the Afghan forces and to end the mission in 2011 were made. Wounded soldiers return home to a government that seems indifferent to their suffering and more concerned with saving money than providing real help.
After nine years of fighting, life has not changed much for two out of three Afghans, who are still living in poverty.
It is time to end the war, not extend it. I am calling on the government to keep its promise and bring all our troops home.
[Emphasis added.]
Comments
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
This thread was inspired by NDPP's post here:
I truly hope that pessimism is wrong, and that other MPs and in fact entire parties will clearly state, as only Olivia Chow has done to date, what is demanded by a majority of Canadians and by peace-loving people the world over.
This thread is dedicated to compiling such statements. Not just complaints that Harper has "broken his promise". Not just demands for a debate. Clear-cut calls to bring our troops home - please.
Sadly, none of the four water carrying parties for western imperialism, as currently represented to us in Parliament, are prepared to turn such a statement into official party policy. Personally I'd give serious consideration to setting aside any other concern and vote for the first party to make such an announcement. I suspect many others would as well. How does that Doris Day song go again?
Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.
Good for Olivia and the NDP!
This just in:
New Democrats to Harper: "Support our Troops. Bring them Home."
Excellent!
Even then they were talking out of different corners of their mouth.
Even then they were talking out of different corners of their mouth.
Yeah, I don't think it's clear at all. It's a masterpiece of ambiguity as a matter of fact.
I didn't want this to be a debating thread - but would you mind telling me what was ambiguous about the convention resolution? It's only the BS by Layton and Dawn Black afterwards that introduced ambiguity.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are not supportive of Canada's military effort in Afghanistan. Many Canadians want to see a withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan. In fact, I am one of those Canadians. I oppose a new mission in Afghanistan, but I would also like to see a safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, starting now. I am glad that the member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned that he is now getting many communications from people in his riding. I suspect that many of them support this position.
Many Canadians know that this is not our traditional role of peacekeeping. This is not how Canadians do peacekeeping. We are out there to separate combatants, not to be a combatant, which we are now. We are there to support UN peacekeeping efforts, not to support the American Operation Enduring Freedom. We are there to deliver development aid, but not to deliver it by the military. That is not the Canadian way of doing development work. We are there to do democratic development, but not to do it at the end of the barrel of a gun. That is not the Canadian way.
I wonder if he would be allowed to say that today? He was all alone in the caucus when he made that courageous statement. It helped rally the forces that eventually got the convention resolution adopted, even though the dilution started right after.
I didn't want this to be a debating thread - but would you mind telling me what was ambiguous about the convention resolution? It's only the BS by Layton and Dawn Black afterwards that introduced ambiguity.
"This sends a loud clear message from New Democrats," NDP foreign affairs critic Alexa McDonough said. "Democracy building is what the Afghan people want, not more violence and instability. A comprehensive peace plan is what is critically important to building democracy and peace in the region."
I have trouble distinguishing "Bring the troops home" and "support the continuation of development assistance ... and democratic peace building" from what Harper is saying.
I have trouble distinguishing "Bring the troops home" and "support the continuation of development assistance ... and democratic peace building" from what Harper is saying.
I agree... but Harper is leaving 950 troops there. Don't you think bringing all troops home is worth demanding and achieving, even if we can't immediately get CIDA and NGOs and whoever else out? Wouldn't it represent minimalist progress to get some MPs and parties onside with the demand that no members of the Canadian military should be in Afghanistan - or do we have to wait for worldwide peace and socialism to dawn first?
Anyway, whether you think it's worthwhile or not, I'm encouraging babblers to write to whichever MPs and party leaders they like and urge them to adopt this stand - and reproduce the results here, if they're positive.
I agree... but Harper is leaving 950 troops there. Don't you think bringing all troops home is worth demanding and achieving, even if we can't immediately get CIDA and NGOs and whoever else out? Wouldn't it represent minimalist progress to get some MPs and parties onside with the demand that no members of the Canadian military should be in Afghanistan - or do we have to wait for worldwide peace and socialism to dawn first?
Anyway, whether you think it's worthwhile or not, I'm encouraging babblers to write to whichever MPs and party leaders they like and urge them to adopt this stand - and reproduce the results here, if they're positive.
Is the NDP saying, "Bring ALL the troops home?" (I think even Harper might be saying, "Bring the troops home.") But I understand this isn't a debate thread and I'll drop this now.
Yes, getting Canadian troops out of Afghanistan (all of them) would be "a good thing". It won't do any harm to write the politicians and I'll be interested to see what kind of responses people get.
I have trouble distinguishing "Bring the troops home" and "support the continuation of development assistance ... and democratic peace building" from what Harper is saying.
If you're having trouble with the nuances, I'd suggest you read this article again:
What Afghan society lacks first and foremost is a skilled labour force. They need doctors, teachers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, even competent vehicle drivers.
Harper could have announced the establishment of a vocational school staffed by a corps of well-remunerated recruits from the Afghan-Canadian diaspora. Without a linguistic barrier and no religious or cultural chasms to bridge, these instructors could quickly mentor thousands of students to literacy and competency within a variety of essential trades.
Scott Taylor is an author and editor of Esprit de Corps magazine.
If you're having trouble with the nuances, I'd suggest you read this article again:
????
What I mean is, how does that elucidate the difference, if any, between the NDP and Harperite position? (I am quite clear on the latter.)
Sorry, I presumed everyone had seen said article by now.
How does one distinguish between 'training the troops' in active combat, and taking a peacekeeping and development role (presumably in secured areas)?
Sounds clear to me.
I'm going to request that folks get back to the topic of this thread, even though I've been guilty of some of the drift - this other discussion can go on elsewhere (like here or here).
How does one distinguish between 'training the troops' in active combat, and taking a peacekeeping and development role (presumably in secured areas)?
Sounds clear to me.
Harper is also talking about peace-keeping and development in secured areas. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. Or perhaps take it to the other thread, if we want to pursue it.
Sorry: cross-posted with Unionist.
Well, what I believe we can agree on is this: There is no reason in the world to leave troops there awaiting the arrival of a development corps and/or NGO activity. Bring them home now, and they can return when an appropriate role is constructed.
This just in:
Where the ambiguity comes in is who will continue the development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building.
It can only be assumed that it will not be the troops because it is preceeded by, "... the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan..."
But even here, "all the troops" is not stated. At best, it can only by inferred.
If Canada pulls out all its troops and only has civilians engaging in aid, reconstruction and redevelopment, then they will have to rely on protection from other countries' troops.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are not supportive of Canada's military effort in Afghanistan. Many Canadians want to see a withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan. In fact, I am one of those Canadians. I oppose a new mission in Afghanistan, but I would also like to see a safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, starting now. I am glad that the member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned that he is now getting many communications from people in his riding. I suspect that many of them support this position.
Many Canadians know that this is not our traditional role of peacekeeping. This is not how Canadians do peacekeeping. We are out there to separate combatants, not to be a combatant, which we are now. We are there to support UN peacekeeping efforts, not to support the American Operation Enduring Freedom. We are there to deliver development aid, but not to deliver it by the military. That is not the Canadian way of doing development work. We are there to do democratic development, but not to do it at the end of the barrel of a gun. That is not the Canadian way.
I wonder if he would be allowed to say that today? He was all alone in the caucus when he made that courageous statement. It helped rally the forces that eventually got the convention resolution adopted, even though the dilution started right after.
When was that speech made?
Since the begining in 2002 when the first contingent of Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan it was under the NATO/ISAF flag supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Canadian troops were NEVER sent to Afghanistan under the U.N. to engage in peacekeeping.
From 2002 - 2005, they were stationed in Kabul to act as "police" and "security guards" to protect the Karzai sock puppet government, government buildings and commercial property and assets, foreign embassies and consulates and civilian aid, reconstruction and development workers.
This changed at the end of 2005 begining of 2006 when Canadian troops were sent south to Kandahar to engage in a more combat role.
We can thank Prime Minister Paul Martin and former General Rick Hillier (for convincing Martin with his lies) for that. And for Herr Harper's continued support.
And Canadian soldiers dying in Afghanistan increased markedly by 2006. Causes of death were no longer "friendly fire" or by random IED explosions. 2006 is when Canadian troops were handed the task of search and destroy operations and US-style combat roles. They were given license to murder Afghans.
This war is illegal, and there should be legitimate peace talks introduced as a way of legitimizing some aspect of this war. Any angle for peace will do so long as there is a cease fire and phony combatants ordered to stop murdering Afghans and to end the senseless sacrifice of Canadian lives in Afghanistan.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are not supportive of Canada's military effort in Afghanistan. Many Canadians want to see a withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan. In fact, I am one of those Canadians. I oppose a new mission in Afghanistan, but I would also like to see a safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, starting now. I am glad that the member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned that he is now getting many communications from people in his riding. I suspect that many of them support this position.
Many Canadians know that this is not our traditional role of peacekeeping. This is not how Canadians do peacekeeping. We are out there to separate combatants, not to be a combatant, which we are now. We are there to support UN peacekeeping efforts, not to support the American Operation Enduring Freedom. We are there to deliver development aid, but not to deliver it by the military. That is not the Canadian way of doing development work. We are there to do democratic development, but not to do it at the end of the barrel of a gun. That is not the Canadian way.
I wonder if he would be allowed to say that today? He was all alone in the caucus when he made that courageous statement. It helped rally the forces that eventually got the convention resolution adopted, even though the dilution started right after.
When was that speech made?
In May 2006. I didn't quote it for its political correctness or its historical accuracy. Siksay was the only MP who stood up and said, "troops out now", long before the convention, Layton, and the party briefly adopted that call. He deserves great credit for that. But he has been burned more than once for speaking his conscience (remember the omnibus crime bill), and he appears to have been brought into line in recent years.
Kudos to Olivia. Hope to hear more calls like it.
The fact remains that a number of countries fully believed in the USA's false pretext for bombing and invading Afghanistan in 2001. The US Military Government did not march into Afghanistan under the authority of the UN. Many international leaders were sympathetic to the US after the 9/11 terror attacks. No one knew any better and assumed that America was in imminent danger of repeated attacks. And they were false assumptions.
The Taliban demanded evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt in perpetrating 9/11. And then they offered to handover bin Laden to the US Military dictatorship, three times in fact. The third offer was unconditional once the US bombing of their country was underway. The US Military dictatorship continued refusing to talk to the Taliban or so much as acknowledge their offers to give up the 'king of terror' to US Military justice.
The US Military dictatorship continues to occupy Afghanistan without having provided any solid proof to any country's leaders showing that Afghanistan or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This is an illegal war that needs to be dealt with by UN authorities and UN mediated peace talks started with leaders included from all countries involved.
The fact remains that a number of countries fully believed in the USA's false pretext for bombing and invading Afghanistan in 2001. The US Military Government did not march into Afghanistan under the authority of the UN. Many international leaders were sympathetic to the US after the 9/11 terror attacks. No one knew any better and assumed that America was in imminent danger of repeated attacks. And they were false assumptions.
That was their excuse then.
What is their excuse now?
Now the majority of people in all countries engaged in Afghanistan are opposed to the war. All their economies (and the global economy is) are being ruined by the war. Continuing engagement in Afghanistan is destroying the fortunes of the current governments.
Yet it appears every government will continue to engage their militaries in Afghanistan.
The question of whether to escalate military engagement or disengage from Afghanistan brought down the previous Dutch government. The government that followed voted to disengage from Afghanistan. Now the Dutch government has decided to re-engage in Afghanistan.
Herr Harper first said all Canadian troops were going to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
Now he says 950 Canadian troops under a rebranded role will be engaged in Afghanistan until 2014 (the new 2011)
Why?
Are these countries addicted to the Afghan heroin war, are they war addicts/junkies?
Does Uncle Sam have some strange hold over them that they can't break loose?
Or is there something going on below the surface? Do they know something we don't?
I'm going to politely request that those babblers interested in the topic of this thread please post in this thread.
ha ha Good one, FrmrSldr. Yes I think they must be addicted to something. I think Afghanistan Inc. is one big money laundering front for crooks in government, embedded bureaucrats etc . They have to keep the drug money and arms sales cash flowing into banks to be laundered, war industry pals made happy etc. Phony war is recession-proof?
Taliban peace talks with Hamid Karzai are 'mostly hype' Observers say encounters exaggerated to reinforce impression that Nato and Afghan forces are making strategic gains
The US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, even said his forces had facilitated the talks by allowing Taliban officials to fly to the meetings in safety.
Well they couldn't have it look as if this was a senseless war and a deniable war. Someone has to be making progress in some way, right?
And just in case anyone was to suggest peace talks, like the NDP and other left wing groups, well, they have that covered, too. They are and have been talking with the Taliban for many months in secret. Perhaps not legitimate peace talks but talks nonetheless.
I'm going to politely request that those babblers interested in the topic of this thread please post in this thread.
I think many more are interested than will post because they may not have anything new to say-- most has been said before. I imagine many are reading however.
If it a poll you are looking for-- yes we should get out-- yesterday.
I agree that Canada can play a role there: send money to assist them. Most developing countries just need that. And to allowed to choose their direction. Problem is we have installed a government there so there is little to send money to -- perhaps there are some local NGOs? But beyond that, we get out.
Timetable Abandoned: [Canada] US and NATO to Wage War in Afghanistan - by Rick Rozoff
http://www.voltairenet.org/article167505.html
"No one who has an ear to the ground will be surprised to learn that [Prime Minister Stephen Harper and] President Obama's announced 2011 Afghan drawdown was nothing but a mirage. The Pentagon and NATO are in Afghanistan for the long haul.
Through a network of partnerships across the globe and military installations including nuclear weapons, they have forced themselves into the heart of Eurasia, controlling resources and reaping benefits the strategic value of which calls into question any prospect for de-escalation...
On October 25 Edmund Whiteside, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council Secretary spoke at Concordia University, and according to the local press said, 'Expect the war in Afghanistan - the longest military engagement in both Canadian and American hisotry to continue for 'a very long time'. In his exact words, 'Afghanistan will be a very long military venture."
I agree that Canada can play a role there: send money to assist them. Most developing countries just need that. And to allowed to choose their direction. Problem is we have installed a government there so there is little to send money to -- perhaps there are some local NGOs? But beyond that, we get out.
At the begining of 2002, then U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair went to Afghanistan where he made a speech that began with: "For too long Afghanistan has been ignored. Afghanistan must not be allowed to once again become a breeding ground for terrorists..."
At that point I thought he would describe a plan for social-political and economic reconstruction and rehabilitation for Afghanistan along the lines you have described.
However, the rest of the speech indicated that he was only a cheerleading propaganda mouthpiece for Bush as he ended up advocating for NATO and other countries to send NATO/ISAF troops to Afghanistan to further fan the flames of (at that time) an unnecessary war.
N.B. The war is still unnecessary. It always was an (aggressive) war of choice.
It's just at that time the choice to further escalate the war was particularly tragic because it was the second time the world community had the opportunity to clearly choose peace over war.
An opportunity that was sadly and tragically spurned.
I'm going to politely request that those babblers interested in the topic of this thread please post in this thread.
Sorry Unionist.
But ideas are like spring colts.
They tend to have a mind and life of their own.
I'm still chuckling at the irony of Unionist complaining about others derailing his thread.
Meanwhile, this column by Michael Harris from the Ottawa Sun is really worth a read (and I think won't upset Unionist too much, either):
If Michael Ignatieff has led the Liberal party to its sick bed, Bob Rae has administered the lethal injection.
Like John Manley before him, Rae has displayed that many of the big name Liberals would be a good fit on Stephen Harper’s front bench. Having poisoned the NDP well in Ontario for a generation, as foreign affairs critic Rae has done the same thing to Liberal fortunes on the federal scene.
How fitting that it was U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson who performed the shuttle diplomacy between the promise-breaking Conservatives and their Liberal enablers. Although the Canadian people surely didn’t want a new mission in Afghanistan, (not a single poll to suggest otherwise) the American governing class certainly did.
This whole mess is a made-in-Washington proposition. Rae has simply joined Harper in selling us down the river. When did the Harper government perform its dishonest flip-flop on the much touted “strictly civilian” mission after 2011? When the “narrative” changed in the U.S.
Up until very recently, President Barack Obama had committed to drawing down U.S. troops there in 2011. Funny, so did we. But then the White House, Pentagon and Congress suddenly moved the goalposts to 2014. Funny, so did we.
How nice that Jacobson facilitated this alliance of the willing on Canadian soil. Too bad we didn’t have a debate in the House of Commons. The ambassador might have made a cameo appearance to explain why the policy really had to change.
I'm still chuckling at the irony of Unionist complaining about others derailing his thread.
Your forgiving mood didn't last long. Look, I acknowledge you're much more knowledgeable and gracious than I am as well as full of hands-on experience with Ottawa, the press gallery, lots of very high-placed contacts, and a source of valuable political insider information. Would it be possible to stop making fun of me and little sarcastic digs every single time you post? Please? I'd like you to understand that when I say (for example) that Pat Martin is a piece of shit, or that Tim Naumetz's article was thin gruel, it's not the same as insulting you. I don't ever intend to insult you, and it would be peachy if you could try to do likewise.
Normally, this would go via PM or to a mod, or whatever, but the mods here seem more interested in closing threads these days than making them function. I fully expect some condescending lecture from them any moment now, but believe me, decades in the union movement endow one with a thick skin.
I was really hoping that this thread could be a repository of statements about Canada's role in Afghanistan. I've written to the mods, by email, and asked them to help keep it on track. That was yesterday. They haven't responded. So please carry on and do whatever you like. Just try to be more civil - to babblers. Public personalities are fair game. At least, that's the way I understand the rules here.
OO did not say or imply that you insulted her.
She is referring, perhaps obliquely, to the fact that you derailed the thread in question.
You found the very idea of the thread offensive, so you derailed it. Once you 'participated' in it- and you wer first with post1- the discussion was effectively over.
So since you dont want to take OO's gentle but imprecise poke, I'll make it more precise for you.
The humour lies in the fact that you have no problem de-railing discussions. But when someone is taking a discussion you started somewhere you didnt want it to be- which happens so often on babble that it is the accepted norm.... you are right in there admonishing people. The same guy who derails discussions with impugnity!
So I thought you were pretty funny too.
And you are very good about observing the rules of ciivility. While they cloak the iron fist.
I fully expect some condescending lecture from the [mods] any moment now.
Dont worry. I'll get the heat, because I didnt observe the rules of civility.
as I noted elsewhere unionist, the majority here I would bet, all know, as I am sure you do too, that there will not be any other party, other than the NDP making any "out of Afghanistan" comments, as such I found this thread to be more than a bit disengenuous at its worst, or unrealistic to try and keep it going, unless there is thread drift, at its best.
As once you have expended the NDP's out of Afghanistan comments just what else is there to post about?
About your dragging another thread into this one, I will respond with; closing the toxic thread should have been done sooner.
Is it possible to post without personal attacks?
The mods will likely close this thread, because it's so much easier than enforcing our policy. I find that to be a shame and am hoping they will expend the extra effort needed to just scroll up, read the thread, and see where the very first personal attack took place.
HINT: It was post #34.
That was a very gentle dig that OO made in post#34. Not a personal attack.
And I think the policy of not making personal attacks is enforced.
If we both stop, what reason would there be to close the thread?
Is it possible to post without personal attacks?
When you are capable of it let us know.
You remind me of the school yard bully who as soon as someone stands up to them goes running for the teacher.
And no that is not a personal attack it is an observation.
I didn't personally attack you.
Asked respectfully; have you asked yourself that question?
Given the fact that your post over here at # 16 is way more of a personal attack than you have ever been subjected to, one would think you should.
From Hansard, Nov. 18:
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the week, two Conservative ministers were doing everything they could to convince me to be part of the Canadian delegation to NATO to ensure that one of them would be paired up. What a strange coincidence: as soon as they sealed the deal on the Afghan mission with the Liberals, they pulled the plug so that no one who disagrees with prolonging the mission would be heard in Lisbon.
Will the Conservative government admit that, by doing so, it is trying to silence the voice of Quebec, which opposes this extension?
That's the closest I've heard anyone from the Bloc come to saying that the mission should not be extended. I think he was talking somewhat out of turn, because the BQ hasn't stated that clearly yet. Let's hope it spreads.
NDP Press Releases
Harper and Ignatieff break promise on Afghan mission
Government proposes 3 year extension military mission, refuses to bring back to Parliament for vote
MONTREAL – Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, with help from the Michael Ignatieff Liberals, are turning their backs on a previous commitment to end the military mission in Afghanistan in 2011 and bring our troops home from Afghanistan.
“Stephen Harper made a solemn commitment to bring the troops home next year, but he has again failed to live up to his words. And the Michael Ignatieff Liberals seem happy to join in and ignore their own promises,” lamented Layton. “New Democrats disagree, and we are demanding the Prime Minister bring this new extension to the House of Commons for public debate and a vote.”
Liberals and Conservatives had previously committed to bringing any future military mission extensions to the House of Commons for a vote. Instead, Harper announced from Korea that this time there would be no public debate and no vote.
“Harper waited until MPs left Ottawa and then engaged in a backroom deal with the Ignatieff Liberals to extend the military mission in Afghanistan. This is wrong,” said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton. “A majority of Canadians say they are against extending the military mission – Conservatives and Liberals must start listening to Canadians, not just to each other.”
“What New Democrats are saying is we need an increased focus on diplomacy, development and governance in Afghanistan, in order to build a lasting peace to this region,” said Layton. “Canada’s military has served with honour and done its fair share, now it’s time for Canada’s contribution to be through aid and diplomacy.”
http://www.ndp.ca/press/harper-ignatieff-break-promise-on-afghan-mission
I'd like you to understand that when I say (for example) that Pat Martin is a piece of shit, or that Tim Naumetz's article was thin gruel, it's not the same as insulting you.
I think you've just asked me to accept that if you insult others, you're not insulting me and I shouldn't feel insulted.
But in fact I feel insulted whenever I see others insulted. That's no way to build solidarity or conduct politics. It's why I'm a social democrat. It gets my back up, and makes me want to defend the insultee.
So, I understand that you'd like me to think that way, but I'm sorry, I can't.
That's great, OO, carry on feeling insulted when I call Pat Martin names.
And peterjcassidy, that press release has been posted here before. I'd love to see, among all those words, a simple statement saying that we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised. It just never quite gets there, as you will no doubt notice if you re-read it. I assume there's a reason for that very careful omission from the release and from every single statement Layton has made since last week, I just don't know exactly what the reason is.
Here's an example of Jack, as opposed to what we heard clearly from Olivia and somewhat from Claude Bachand - it's also from yesterday's Hansard:
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the future of our troops in Afghanistan is a serious matter. To see our Minister of National Defence parading around in a Fly Emirates hat is clearly an insult to our soldiers. The Prime Minister must ensure that they have the support they need. If he is serious, he must present to Parliament the plan for extending the military mission in Afghanistan. When will he allow the House to vote on extending our military mission in Afghanistan?
Just to be clear - Jack has not once said in his speeches this week that "I and may party will vote no to any troops staying in Afghanistan".
How are we to understand his statement above - in particular, the part I've bolded? Does he really want Harper to do that, or is it merely a rhetorical challenge?
Anyway, so far I've found two MPs who have spoken out fairly clearly on this matter. That's double what we had before. Let's keep up this rate of growth.
The Harper government must stop stone-walling Canadians and conclusively spell out Canada’s role in Afghanistan post-2011, Liberal MPs said today.
“Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon says he has made it ‘perfectly clear’ to the Americans what their plans are, but refuses to share his position with Canadians,” said Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae. “The government may feel there’s no need for further debate on this, but we respectfully disagree. They have not been honest about behind-closed-door discussions about our future role, having refused to answer direct questions about it.”
Last week, Liberals asked the government in Question Period about this issue after media reports surfaced that government officials were discussing post-2011 plans with the Americans, while American officials were asking Canada to stay in Afghanistan.
“We need more than repetition of talking points that reiterate ‘the combat mission is ending,’” said Liberal Defence Critic Ujjal Dosanjh. “We all know that. That’s what all political parties support. The questions now are about what we will be doing, if anything, after the end of the combat mission. What will Canada’s role be, who will be carrying it out, and what will the post-2011 mission look like?”
“We are asking for a Parliamentary debate to clear the air,” concluded Mr. Rae. “The government needs to tell Canadians what their plans are for after the 2011 withdrawal of Canadian troops from Kandahar.”
http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/harper-government-must-come-...
Posted on March 30, 2010
hello... if the NDP were going to vote to extend the mission, why in hell would they be calling for a vote?
a rhetorical vote my ass...this is getting pretty well out there....
Great find, peterjcassidy. So let's put it together:
[Dosanjh:] "What will Canada’s role be, who will be carrying it out, and what will the post-2011 mission look like?”
“We are asking for a Parliamentary debate to clear the air,” concluded Mr. Rae. “The government needs to tell Canadians what their plans are for after the 2011 withdrawal of Canadian troops from Kandahar.”
Mr. Speaker, the future of our troops in Afghanistan is a serious matter. [...] The Prime Minister must ensure that they have the support they need. If he is serious, he must present to Parliament the plan for extending the military mission in Afghanistan. When will he allow the House to vote on extending our military mission in Afghanistan?
Why were Dosanjh and Rae asking all this in March? Because they planned on opposing any extended military mission? Clearly not - and just as clearly, they never said they would oppose an extension. They just wanted to hear what it was and to debate it. Now they've realized they can just lick Harper's boots without the need for a "debate".
I'm starting to believe it's because they enjoy listening to themselves endlessly, in what can accurately be described as a largely successful attempt to blunt their own senses to the fact that they appear incapable of being able to formulate a strategy and communication plan that bears any resemblance to what the fed up majority is asking for. It saves them from actually having to represent anything that displeases the corporatists in charge, like public anger.
Can we not drag other disputes into this thread? There is plenty of conflict in the other Pat Martin/Afghanistan/NDP/Naumetz threads. Let's try to respect the OP's hope that this thread works as more of an archive than a discussion.
A political opinion was expressed in response to a thoughtful question that deserved an answer. I don't know where you're getting dispute.
Um, I was referring to the reams of vitriol above your post, SJ. At any rate, let's get back to the OP.
And peterjcassidy, that press release has been posted here before. I'd love to see, among all those words, a simple statement saying that we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised. It just never quite gets there, as you will no doubt notice if you re-read it.
emphasis added
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, with help from the Michael Ignatieff Liberals, are turning their backs on a
previous commitment to end the military mission in Afghanistan in 2011 and bring our troops home from Afghanistan.
Jack is saying : There was a commitment to end the military mission in 2011 and bring our troops home.from Afghanistan. we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised
next paragraph
“Stephen Harper made a solemn commitment to bring the troops home next year, but he has again failed to live up to his words."
There was a commitment to bring the troops home next year and we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised
“Harper waited until MPs left Ottawa and then engaged in a backroom deal with the Ignatieff Liberals to extend the military mission in Afghanistan. This is wrong,” said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton. “A majority of Canadians say they are against extending the military mission"
a little more complicated but well worth discussing- Jack says the proposed "training" role for our troops post 2011 is an attempt to extend the military mission and they oppose any extension of our military mission. The NDP is not just against ending our "combat" role or getting our troops out of khandhar, we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised.
clear?
I mentioned in an earlier thread that I've been hearing just those words on the radio from Dewar and Layton- and that would be referring to 2-3 days ago. The clips were usually even shorter than what is here, so even more to the point as what peter highlighted from the press release.
Except the first highlighted comment below, which are characteristic of what I heard in clips from the very beginning this became public.
Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, with help from the Michael Ignatieff Liberals, are turning their backs on a
previous commitment to end the military mission in Afghanistan in 2011 and bring our troops home from Afghanistan.
Jack is saying : There was a commitment to end the military mission in 2011 and bring our troops home.from Afghanistan. we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised
next paragraph
“Stephen Harper made a solemn commitment to bring the troops home next year, but he has again failed to live up to his words."
There was a commitment to bring the troops home next year and we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised
The NDP is not just against ending our "combat" role or getting our troops out of khandhar, we want all our troops out in 2011, as promised.
Consistently opposing the Reformatories is really just an NDP conspiracy to make the two very, very similar old line parties look bad in the eyes of anywhere from 59 to 64 percent of Canadians of voting age and who occasionally participate in federal elections.
Its not breaking news. Yesterday @12:30:
The "breach of trust" line only makes sense if Layton follows it up by saying: "... and Harper must now keep that promise..." Tell me again why Layton and Dewar have not made that simple statement??
They have. I have CBC Radio going all the time I'm working, into the early evening. And I've heard that more than once.
post#84 here
Not this week but I did hear Jack on CFRB last week and he said that given the chance, the NDP caucus would vote against extending the mission as proposed by Harper & Iggy.
Yes, I remember that being noted in some thread.
The NDP leader enjoyed himself hugely during Question Period, mustache bristling magnificently:
Now Fidel, thats not really on topic.
Sorry, I return us now to statements made by babblers regarding the latest double flip-flop and spectacular splash into the Rideau Canal recently. Somebody better fish Harper and Iggy out and hand them double-doubles with cream before they end up in Hopital General with double-double pneumonia.
Canada is a member of NATO and, to me, it is simplistic to entertain the notion that Canada can unilaterally remove itself from Afghanistan until NATO as a body decides to withdraw.
Afghanistan is a waste of time and resources but so is most of the global to-ing and fro-ing like the G20 or 'summits' on various global ills. Nations are better served by attending to their own needs than attending useless blatherfests or partaking in unwanted adventurism but this truism is lost on governments who prefer lofty ambitions to mundane husbanding of their nation's wellbeing.
It's not quite by an MP or a party, but it flows directly from a misleading statement by John Baird yesterday in response to a question by Jack Layton (which I quoted earlier).
Lewenza issued an angry press release:CAW's Lewenza Demands Baird Set the Record Straight on the Union's Stance on Afghanistan
Here is the complete text of the letter Lewenza sent today:
Dear Minister Baird,
I am writing you about your comments in the House of Commons on November 18, 2010, in answer to a question by NDP Leader, Jack Layton.
Layton's question to you was concerning the government's decision to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan.
You responded and I quote:
"Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to stand up and do what is right for Canada. It was not just the government that came to this conclusion on this position. Others are stepping forward to support this as well. Why does the leader of the NDP not listen to Ken Lewenza, the national president of the Canadian Auto Workers? Why does he not listen to Paul Moist, the national president of CUPE, who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister saying, "We support your position on this matter".
The letter that your comments refer to concerns the government's decision not to expand landing rights in Canada to UAE airlines beyond the current landing rights that exist today.
Our position in this letter to the Prime Minister was crystal clear. You misled the House of Commons into believing that our support was, instead, for the mission in Afghanistan. This could not be further from the truth. Our position is that the mission should end and our troops should come home. I have attached our original letter signed by Paul Moist, National President of CUPE and Dave Ritchie, General Vice-President of IAMAW and myself.
A public apology is in order and we ask that you correct the record as quickly as possible.
CUPE President Paul Moist, IAMAW Vice-President Dave Ritchie and Lewenza sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on November 2 supporting the government's decision opposing an increase in air service between the UAE and Canada.
To read the entire November 2 letter, please go to: http://www.caw.ca/en/9644.htm
My emphasis (in boldface) - and bravo, Ken Lewenza!
Unionist, for your information, MPs are given exactly 35 seconds in which to make their preamble and ask their question in QP. Why would Layton waste a second of that repeating what everyone else in the country besides you understands to be true?
Honestly, you make up these arbitrary standards out of thin air, knowing nothing about the situation, and then judge the NDP (as usual) harshly because they don't live up to your brand new gold standard of the moment.
OO, this thread is about statements made by public figures on an important issue facing Canadians. There are other threads where you can debate my view that Jack Layton should take 3 out of his 35 very precious seconds to say, "bring our troops home". If you have relevant statements to cite - such as the ones I've provided above - please, let's hear them.
Canada is a member of NATO and, to me, it is simplistic to entertain the notion that Canada can unilaterally remove itself from Afghanistan until NATO as a body decides to withdraw.
"It's not your word that counts, but who you give it to."
Holland first decided to militarily disengage from Afghanistan, but has now chickened out and is going to re-engage.
However, France has announced that it will disengage.
Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen publicly stated that in the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal the future of NATO is going to be discussed where NATO expansion into Southeast Asia and the Pacific will be contemplated.
NATO is at a crossroads. The Afghan war will either kill it or (and keep in mind it is a tool for the American Empire's hegemony) it will go viral and turn into a horrid "SuperNato" mutant freak.
Harper Rae Coalition Goes Back to Afghanistan's Future - by Gerald Caplan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-capla...
"As Mr. Woodward shows, in private few of Mr. Obama's senior advisers really believe that the Karzai government will ever shape up or that a properly trained security force will ever be developed. But politically they can't admit that...
It would be better if all Afghans had a more secure life. But its time to admit the obvious. Afghanistan will be what Afghans make it, whether we like it or not. We can do nothing about it.
Foreigners have no constructive role to play. Its time they all got out."
The implication in this rhetorical question is that nobody would call for a vote unless they intended to vote against the extension. To see the error of this implication, we need look no further than the Liberal Party. Bob Rae wants to have a vote, but that doesn't mean he plans to vote no.
The NDP, if given a chance, will vote against extending the "mission", but they know that the vote will be in favour of an extension, just as it was the last time when the NDP demanded a debate and a vote in Parliament. The outcome is a foregone conclusion, so the NDP's main concern seems to be that proper procedures must be followed. And until Harper allows a debate and vote in Parliament, the NDP is putting substantive arguments against extending the mission on the back burner. That's why the message is "we must have a debate" rather than "we must get the fuck out of Afghanistan."
Once again, it's a matter of making the primary strategy one of attacking the process, rather than the substance of the proposed course, just as they did with the F-35 fighter jets. In that case, they atttacked the process of awarding the contract, instead of attacking the substantive issue of whether buying new jets was necessary.
Perhaps Jack wants to have a debate and a vote in Parliament (despite the predetermined outcome) because, as he says, "the future of our troops in Afghanistan is a serious matter. [...] The Prime Minister must ensure that they have the support they need." And Jack is all about supporting the troops, as we know.
Yeah but maybe some Canadians need more than a let's get the fuck out of the Stan message. Maybe they need to hear and read even more as to why we need to get the fuck out. What are the two dirty old line parties afraid of anyway, losing even more voter support and sight of the much coveted phony majority after the next election?
Maybe it's the two mirror image pro-war parties who would rather not talk about how they are just following orders from Warshington. And maybe their support base shouldn't read the truth about their vicious toadying in newspapers.
The NDP hasn't dropped the ball on Afghanistan. The issue is that the two parties whose leaders have their heads shoved so far Uncle Sam's ass that they need air pumping to them are circumventing democracy in Ottawa in order to kiss some more American ass!
We need a debate and for the NDP to amplify their democratic voices concerning all of the things certain babblers suggest the NDP should be saying aloud in Parliament and for the democratic record.
The truth of the matter, as M. Spector mentions above, is that neither the Harpers nor the Liberals are very democratic at all. This could be Brian Mulroney ramming a bill through parliament without any debate in 1991 that made sweeping changes to the Bank of Canada Act and the way money is created in this Northern Puerto Rico. But Harper doesn't even have the same phony majority voter support that Mulroney enjoyed then. The truth about this and every other rightwing Harper agenda is that they've been enjoying full support from the Liberal Party of Canada.
The NDP needs to tar both birds of a feather in the Liberals and Tories alike with the same brush. And the issue really is the democracy gap in Ottawa which has become a gaping divide. The problem in Ottawa, and as is the case in Kabul today, is one of electoral fraud and always has been. We have one party dictatorship. We have a single Bay Street party pretending to be two, and millions of Canadians believe there is a difference between them. There aren't any significant diffs as is obvious from the Liberal Party of Canada's five year pledge of obedience and loyalty to the Harpers.
Liberal, Tory, it's the same old story. We need to fix the democratic deficit in this Northern Puerto Rico and get rid of that abomination of democracy in Ottawa often referred to with more respect than it deserves, the senate.
Bob Rae wants to have a vote, but that doesn't mean he plans to vote no.
The NDP, if given a chance, will vote against extending the "mission", but they know that the vote will be in favour of an extension, just as it was the last time when the NDP demanded a debate and a vote in Parliament. The outcome is a foregone conclusion, so the NDP's main concern seems to be that proper procedures must be followed. And until Harper allows a debate and vote in Parliament, the NDP is putting substantive arguments against extending the mission on the back burner. That's why the message is "we must have a debate" rather than "we must get the fuck out of Afghanistan."
Thats one take on it. Despite even the opener of the thread engaging in the editorializing he asked to be kept elsewhere, I'll referr to where that has been taken up, not the first time [post 54-60]
Points of information: I'm pretty sure that Rae is saying we do not 'need' a vote. And that the Liberals and the NDP have both said we dont need the F-35s, not as you say just [or mostly] criticising the process.
You have to hear Lawrence Canon on CBC Radio The House this morning, starting 9:10 with choice clips of prvios [and very recent] promises.
[Except, I forget, no one cares about that. Or is supposed to. Or something like that.]
Jack Layton should take 3 out of his 35 very precious seconds to say, "bring our troops home". If you have relevant statements to cite - such as the ones I've provided above - please, let's hear them.
They were cited, in post55 above, and following that with rminders where some of us have heard it before.
Is your problem now that he has not said it in the House? I dont follow the House circus, so I dont whether he has or has not. But even if he hasnt. thats an increasinly narrow complaint you are making.... the overall message is what you asked for, and that is increasingly becoming all the message. As noted in the link to the other thread, there is vefy good reason, for the purposes of advancing the cause of withdrawl to also put a lot of focus on the debate and trust question for now, while it lasts.
They were cited, in post55 above, and following that with rminders where some of us have heard it before.
No, there's nothing in #55 except an incoherent mixture of Layton not saying "troops out" and peterjcassidy's comments "interpreting" Layton's ambiguity - without quote marks to separate the two. It's pretty bad, actually.
No - of course not - find a quote from anywhere at all - but it has to be a quote, not someone's half-remembered recollection. Peterjcassidy's offering is proof that memory is largely wishful thinking. Find me a quote from Layton - in the street, the pub, the radio. And if you can't, write to him (as I have done again) and ask him to tell Canadians that the NDP wants our troops to come home.
I'm hoping and confident he will take this position, but I can guarantee you he won't if activists spend more time whitewashing than painting placards.
Canada is a member of NATO and, to me, it is simplistic to entertain the notion that Canada can unilaterally remove itself from Afghanistan until NATO as a body decides to withdraw.
"It's not your word that counts, but who you give it to."
Holland first decided to militarily disengage from Afghanistan, but has now chickened out and is going to re-engage.
However, France has announced that it will disengage.
Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen publicly stated that in the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal the future of NATO is going to be discussed where NATO expansion into Southeast Asia and the Pacific will be contemplated.
NATO is at a crossroads. The Afghan war will either kill it or (and keep in mind it is a tool for the American Empire's hegemony) it will go viral and turn into a horrid "SuperNato" mutant freak.
France announces many initiatives and, like this one are mostly bs targeting a specific audience. Like the French say: "Nato is 98% boredom and 2% hysteria" but in true NATO fashion, they attempt to walk on both sides of the street at the same time.
The Dutch, as well as the Canadians and any other NATO member exhibiting any common sense at all face unrelenting pressure to conform. The implied threat, I presume is loss of influence and loss of future opportunity in other global endevours.
All this hysteria over troops in Afghanistan misses the real target which is the insidious transformation of NATO from a mutual defense pact into a vehicle to challenge the national or cultural will of resisters to the world order dictated by .... the main member of NATO.
Jack shouldn't be droning on to an empty house about troops out of Afghanistan, he should be droning on about troops out of NATO
Posters are free to parse Jack Layton's statements until the cows come home, but the facts remain:
I don't know why the NDP caucus chooses the words they do - but 99.99999% of Canadians know the NDP position on the war. When they hear the NDP talking about the lack of a vote in Parliament - they know it's about the war itself, as much as it is about democracy and how Parliament works.
It amazes me that so much time has been spent on this issue (parsing Layton's comments, not the war itself) on babble.
2014 is ALSO the projected date of completion for the TAPI pipeline.
(surprise, surpise)
(Thanks to John Foster's letter in today's Toronto Star...print version only)
Foster writes:
"Presidents of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) expect to sign the formal [pipeline] agreeements in December. The US has pushed hard for the project. The G8 endorsed it this year. The Asian Development Bank is the project sponsor; Canada (and numerous NATO countries) are members of this bank.....
....who will protect the route during construction?"
Guess who: you and me the Canadian taxpayers will help pay for protecting the route during construction.
So that the natural gas can flow ....to make who wealthy?
Guess.
...99.99999% of Canadians know the NDP position on the war.
Aside from the ridiculous hyperbole (probably half of Canadians couldn't even name the leader of the NDP), does this mean that the NDP should never mention the one plank in its policy that the majority of Canadians actually agree with?
And here I thought you knew something about winning political strategies!
Yes, that's true - but the leader and caucus must follow that policy as set at convention.
Olivia was elected on her own merit and does not speak for her "husband". Her contribution is laudable, and it's important to hear it also from the leader and the rest of the caucus - and I'd love to hear it from the BQ and even some maverick Liberals. "Many MPs" have not said it from time to time - they have more often aped the distortions introduced by Dawn Black. That's one reason I opened this thread - to hold elected representatives to account.
Wrong. That's why I highlighted Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh above - where in March 2010 they were demanding the same things from Harper (debate, precise plans) as Layton is today - and yet, they never said "troops out". Had they done so, they could have been held to account. I hope I'm making myself clear.
Posters are free to parse Jack Layton's statements until the cows come home, but the facts remain:
I don't know why the NDP caucus chooses the words they do - but 99.99999% of Canadians know the NDP position on the war. When they hear the NDP talking about the lack of a vote in Parliament - they know it's about the war itself, as much as it is about democracy and how Parliament works.
It amazes me that so much time has been spent on this issue (parsing Layton's comments, not the war itself) on babble.
N-no, Lou, the NDP should be taking every opportunity of their every turn in question period to say, simply and succinctly and without mincing words:
BAN THE MINI-VAN NOT THE TALIBAN!
or even, BRING THEM HOME! And every Canadian should understand everything there is to know from that anti-war slogan. EVERY thing!
And then the NDP should march out of the House of Commons, light some spliffs, and form a line of protest on the Hill while the two pro-war parties get down to other colonial administrative business side-by-side and without any interference from the effective opposition party, because they'll really be on the outside looking in at that point.
Because that's what effective opposition parties should be doing in Ottawa. It's either that or do as the very collaborationist Liberals do and vote with Stephen Harper's "minority" government on all of the big issues, like whether to continue sniveling and groveling to US power and rubber stamp even more corporate tax cuts for big business.
Nothing like the filthy rain in London. They say whatever you're looking for, you will find here. They say you come to Canada and you understand a lot in a few minutes, but the rest has got to be lived. -- Thomas Fowler, The Quiet Canadian
Catchfire made a polite request and plea upthread (post #52) to respect the integrity of this thread. I and others don't troll and disrupt the endless polling threads. Would it be possible to show the same respect here? Thanks.
Just so long as the NDP loses their democratic right to a voice in Parliament on this issue, that's all that matters.
The Liber-Tories have spoken. It's even more obvious now that they are ruling by decree and by instructions handed down from from Washington.
There is no government in Ottawa.
Hear, hear!
If folk aren't interested in respecting the OP, then don't post in this thread, please. It's hard to see how this thread can be serviceable after 86 posts, but I'll leave it open for a few mre posts. I don't even know what it's about anymore. I don't think it's about the NDP though.
Who are you talking to, and what in hell do you mean that we aren't interested in this thread?
Do you mean that we don't seem to be chiming in merrily with the stupid god damned anti-NDP rhetoric as usual? Go fuck yourselves!
If it's such a good thread, then stuff it up your asses sideways. A good thing can't hurt.
And since the NDP has been silenced and democratic voices on the matter cancelled in Ottawa...
Fidel, I'm suspending your account for one day. You can't talk to the mods like that.
To answer your question, I'm talking to everyone who turned this thread into another for/against the NDP argument. From this:
to this:
And it was a request, not an imperative. It didn't work. Seeing as how I can't see this thread getting back on "track," I'm closing it.