An interesting exchange (I thought it was, anyway)

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]I believe that Brian was arguing with Campbell on Campbell's assertation that the liberal Canadian position which was what he was suggesting should be reconsidered. Topp did not suggest that was the NDP position. What you appear to be again asserting was disputed above, by Fidel, and I agree with that assessment. [/b]

Although Campbell is a big shot in a pro-war provincial NDP government herself. Is it possible that she is speaking for some backroom policy of backroom Manitoba NDPers?

Also, I find Campbell's position that we should increase military commitment to Afghanistan in response to what Obama wants to be absolutely insane. Also, she refers to "continuing to assist Haiti". Do I even have to say it?

Also, I find it telling that Campbell considers organized labour to be a "special interest". Last time I checked, organized labour represents the working class, including myself, my friends, my coworkers, my mom, my dad, and my grandpa as a retiree.

To Campbell's credit, the Manitoba NDP did absolutely crush the Manitoba Liberals... by becoming them. The only time the Liberals are ever a force in Manitoba is when the NDP is sitting at 6% in the polls. But if you measure everything in terms of social change, they haven't accomplished a heck of a lot in Manitoba.

In this whole exchange, Campbell represents everything wrong with the Manitoba NDP. It is clear that she can "no longer understand what we're fighting about"

Of course, Topp doesn't seem much better with his support of someone as right-wing as Obama. Really, this is an exchange between two backroom politicos content to gain power without actually effecting change.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b] Topp is saying, essentially, that none of Crazy George nor our yes-men in Ottawa dating back to the Chretien-Martin Liberals have any idea on how to bring about peace in Afghanistan. And the NDP never agreed to this aggressive U.S.-led combat mission in Afghanistan. Therefore, I think Brian Topp is basically leading Les Campbell to realize the only real option is to pull out of Afghanistan. And perhaps Obama will have a similar epiphany when he realizes what a hopeless quagmire is Crazy George's foreign policy for "YeeHaw" Our Liberals and Tories would certainly never come to that conclusion on their own and instead await further orders from Warshington.

[/b]


I don't need to know what you think Topp is "essentially" saying. I can read what he saying. Making the point that there is no hope of victory, without an extended military effort, purely for the edification of Ms. Campbell, in no way requires Topp to muse on the potential victory of the US forces in Vietnam if they has not permitted "an undefeated enemy to operate out of safe havens; incrementally escalating to a new stalemate, at a higher level of violence, without victory." Nor does it require hime to broach the issue of continued Canadian troop commitment should the US seek to avoid the error Topp describes.

If he really meant to say what you are trying to say, he would simply say, "winning the war in Afghanistan would require extending the war to Pakistan". Then he might point out that such is an unthinkable escalation and one that Canadian troops should not participate in.

This he does not say.

What he says is that taking on this kind of commitment is the precondition for Canadian participation.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Then he might point out that such is an unthinkable escalation and one that Canadian troops should not participate in.

This he does not say.[/b]


Sure he does, right here looky-see:

quote:

[b]"Care," "concern"[/b] and [b]"assist"[/b] are not different words to describe [b]"intervene with troops to participate in a shooting war."[/b] They are potential alternatives to doing so.

Potential!

alternatives!

to doing so!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Nope. That is not part of the discussion of the failure in Vietnam or his projected winnable war, as outlined in his thesis about the invasion of Pakistan, the condition under which continued Canadian participation might be predicated. Presumably on the premise that even if he is [i]"not sure"[/i] that Canadians can bring peace to Afghanistan, there might be circumstances where he thinks they "might". Saying one is "not sure" about something, is not an affirmative statement, one way or the other.

And frankly, I too have often made the "shit or get of the pot" arguement in regards to the Afghan conflict, from a purely military/strategic point of view. I have said this many many times, as a means of illustrating the inherent problems in the project. But I have always made this point from the point of view of an "observation" on military affairs, and have always stated point blank that [i]I am opposed to such options because they are immoral, and the war is fundamentally unwinable regardless.[/i]

Topp wants to have it both ways. He wants to be the tough guy on side with the establishement, and not a pacifist shirking the moral duty politician everywhere to have other peoples sons and daughters slaughtered on the altar of our national spirit, while at the same time posing his "realism" as an antiwar position.

Stockholm

Its a fact that if the US had chosen to execute and unlimited war in Vietnam and and sent in MILLIONS of troops and used nuclear weapons etc... (ie: a D-Day style effort) - they almost certainly would have won the war. That's just a fact. Its doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Similarly, if you say that the current strategy in Afghanistan is doomed to failure you can draw two conclusions - either draw the conclusion that the NDP and Brian Topp draw which is that this is a failed war and that the sooner Canada gets out of Afghanistan - the better OR, I suppose that another view would be that we need to send in way more troops and have a WW2 style effort and be prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives. Obviously the NDP rejects that option.

The NDP policy is for Canada to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Period. There is really nothing more that needs to be discussed. If you want Canada to get out of Afghanistan - then the NDP is 10000% in your corner. No other party in Canada is. There is nothing more that can be said.

If you oppose Canada sending troops to Afghanistan then my advice is that you get on your hands and knees and express gratitude to the NDP and all its leading figure who are so unswervingly against Canada having any combat role in the war.

Now why not discuss something substantive where there is actually a difference of opinion instead of building up a these non-existent straw dogs to then knock down.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Its a fact that if the US had chosen to execute and unlimited war in Vietnam and and sent in MILLIONS of troops and used nuclear weapons etc... (ie: a D-Day style effort) - they almost certainly would have won the war. That's just a fact.[/b]

And Russia and China would have sat idly by, waiting to be next.

The U.S. has never "won" a war in modern history. My conclusion: They can't. Yours: They're too nice. I'll go with mine.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]

Although Campbell is a big shot in a pro-war provincial NDP government herself. Is it possible that she is speaking for some backroom policy of backroom Manitoba NDPers?

Also, I find Campbell's position that we should increase military commitment to Afghanistan in response to what Obama wants to be absolutely insane. Also, she refers to "continuing to assist Haiti". Do I even have to say it?

Also, I find it telling that Campbell considers organized labour to be a "special interest". Last time I checked, organized labour represents the working class, including myself, my friends, my coworkers, my mom, my dad, and my grandpa as a retiree.

To Campbell's credit, the Manitoba NDP did absolutely crush the Manitoba Liberals... by becoming them. The only time the Liberals are ever a force in Manitoba is when the NDP is sitting at 6% in the polls. But if you measure everything in terms of social change, they haven't accomplished a heck of a lot in Manitoba.

In this whole exchange, Campbell represents everything wrong with the Manitoba NDP. It is clear that she can "no longer understand what we're fighting about"

Of course, Topp doesn't seem much better with his support of someone as right-wing as Obama. Really, this is an exchange between two backroom politicos content to gain power without actually effecting change.[/b]


Les Campbell, as previously stated has not been with the provincial NDP since before 1994, and Les is a male. Please scroll up and link to Les Campbell. Thus whatever you are arguing here lacks context as Les is working in the states for this American organization, and HE has done so since 1994.

martin dufresne

quote:


if the US had chosen to execute and unlimited war in Vietnam and and sent in MILLIONS of troops and used nuclear weapons etc.

Don't we all agree that a dickless Stockholm would make more sense?

Fidel

Come on! Stockholmer is not suggesting that that is what the US should have done to "get the job done" in VietNam either.

I thank goodness for the American people at the time who raised hell at home to bring that war to an end and not tricky Dick or the doctor. The U.S. was a divided country even then, and it was said that if Nixon didn't either resign or succumb to impeachment, then civil war in the U.S. was a real possibility.

knocking down!@

non-existent!

straw dogs!

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Its a fact that if the US had chosen to execute and unlimited war in Vietnam and and sent in MILLIONS of troops and used nuclear weapons etc... (ie: a D-Day style effort) - they almost certainly would have won the war. That's just a fact. Its doesn't make it the right thing to do.[/b]

Your statement is patently absurd. If the US was capable of defeating the Vietnamese, how come they could not do so in on the very limited terms of the initial engagement? If the firemen could not put the fire out in the living room, what makes you say they could put out the fire in the rest of the house?

In anycase, it is simply factually incorrect to say the US did not extend the war out of the limited sphere of South Vietnam. The blew up North Vietnam, and parts of Laos, and Cambodia at the same time. They ran search and destroy missions over the international border regularly.

This had no impact whatsover.

Forget about the fact that the Vietnamese also had the protection of a nuclear umbrella. Lets just not go there.

Fact: a modern technologically advanced country fought and lost in Vietnam, [i]and at no point in time did the US fight the forces of another major world power in the entire engagement.[/i] The only major power directly involved in the conflict was the US. Your idea simply invites the possibility of direct engagement between the US army and the much larger Chinese army.

The Americans could not even handle the Vietnamese, in a very limited engagement. I don't see how a wider war would have served the purpose of victory. Face it Stockholm, perhaps the US staff at the Pentagon, had a more serious appreciation of the military reality of the situation than you, or Mr. Topp.

Stockholm

Exactly, there were lost of rightwing politicians in the US that favoured "total war" in Vietnam. Thank god they didn't get their way.

ottawaobserver

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]Although Campbell is a big shot in a pro-war provincial NDP government herself. Is it possible that she is speaking for some backroom policy of backroom Manitoba NDPers?[/b]

Good grief, people. You have no idea what you're talking about. Les is not a she, he hasn't been Gary Doer's chief of staff since 1990, and is undoubtedly speaking for himself. In fact, he took the time to agree to participate in a public debate under his own name, unlike most of us.

I appreciate the effort that was made in that discussion to respectfully open up some new lines of dialogue and debate.

{RANT}
But, no, here on babble we allow the same few disrupters to divert everyone from a thoughtful continuation of the discussion, and/or get sidetracked by trying to figure out who else a person is conspiratorially speaking for based on where they work or worked ... RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE FRIGGING IDEAS THEMSELVES. Or we parse them for a few words to misinterpret in order to prove that the NDP has been taken over by neo-cons or something else equally ridiculous.
{END RANT}

Isn't it possible that thoughtful people can disagree, or that there's more than one way to skin a cat? If not, I'm clearly on the wrong board.

OK, as you were ...

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[QB]The NDP policy is for Canada to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Period. There is really nothing more that needs to be discussed. If you want Canada to get out of Afghanistan - then the NDP is 10000% in your corner. No other party in Canada is. There is nothing more that can be said./QB]

I don't think there is nothing more to be discussed. I find the NDP position to be somewhat muddled. For example, I have heard talk of "shifting the mission" or changing the green hats for blue helmets. Also, there are other parties that are opposed to the Afghan war. The Communist Party, the CPC-ML, and the Canadian Action Party are all opposed to the war as well, some of them in more strong terms than the NDP.

Stockholm

Those are not "real" parties - none of them ran more than half a dozen candidates and they got virtually no support - so let's not waste time talking about those silly crackpots.

Fidel

Westmoreland and the Yanks misunderestimated the number of NVA using the Ho Chi Minh trail. I saw it on a documentary, an interview with a surviving Vietnamese general. The interviewers revealed to him how many NVA the U.S. Army believed they were up against, and the NVA leader said they were off by a significant number.

Stockholm

Its fact that the US could have "won" the Vietnam War if they had been willing to pay any price and send in millions of troops and drop nuclear bombs on Hanoi etc... They could have and many rightwing Republicans favoured those tactics. Mercifully they didn't get their way - but there were people who wanted that. Barry Goldwater ran for President of the US pledging to "lob an H-bomb into the men's room at the Kremlin".

In the end the price (in lives, money and political capital) of fighting an "unlimited war" in Vietnam was deemed too high. and that's a good thing - but if they US did want to win at all cost in Vietnam - they could have done so - but they weren't willing to spend the political capital and saner heads prevailed.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by ottawaobserver:
[b]

Good grief, people. You have no idea what you're talking about. Les is not a she, he hasn't been Gary Doer's chief of staff since 1990, and is undoubtedly speaking for himself. In fact, he took the time to agree to participate in a public debate under his own name, unlike most of us.

I appreciate the effort that was made in that discussion to respectfully open up some new lines of dialogue and debate.

{RANT}
But, no, here on babble we allow the same few disrupters to divert everyone from a thoughtful continuation of the discussion, and/or get sidetracked by trying to figure out who else a person is conspiratorially speaking for based on where they work or worked ... RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE FRIGGING IDEAS THEMSELVES. Or we parse them for a few words to misinterpret in order to prove that the NDP has been taken over by neo-cons or something else equally ridiculous.
{END RANT}

Isn't it possible that thoughtful people can disagree, or that there's more than one way to skin a cat? If not, I'm clearly on the wrong board.

OK, as you were ...[/b]


Thank you OO, I have 3X showed that Les was not working for the NDP govt. The reason why I checked him out is trying to understand where he is coming from, which is context of now.
I could have written a similar rant but it appears useless.

TCD

quote:


Originally posted by ottawaobserver:
[b]

{RANT}
But, no, here on babble we allow the same few disrupters to divert everyone from a thoughtful continuation of the discussion, and/or get sidetracked by trying to figure out who else a person is conspiratorially speaking for based on where they work or worked ... RATHER THAN ADDRESS THE FRIGGING IDEAS THEMSELVES. Or we parse them for a few words to misinterpret in order to prove that the NDP has been taken over by neo-cons or something else equally ridiculous.
{END RANT}
OK, as you were ...[/b]


On that note, I started a [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008140]new thread[/url]. People who want to debate something other than Brian Topp's imperialist tendencies can do so over there, I hope.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Exactly, there were lost of rightwing politicians in the US that favoured "total war" in Vietnam. Thank god they didn't get their way.[/b]

And it is precisely this line that Mr. Topp is arguing, and the conclusions are the same, no matter how much hemming and hawing intervenes.

Webgear

I have always found it interesting when people compare conflicts, such as the thread tonight. Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan is like comparing War of 1812 to World War Two.

It would be interesting in seeing a detailed debate, with facts and well though arguments than the usually banter.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Those are not "real" parties - none of them ran more than half a dozen candidates and they got virtually no support - so let's not waste time talking about those silly crackpots.[/b]

Of course not, the official parties are all paid by the state to promote the idea that something called democracy is in progress.

Wilf Day

Les and Brian agree on more than they disagree on. The problem is that, while many Liberal voters consider themselves left of centre, some do not, and the leadership is torn. As they have been since 1921. Yet some of them still dream of a single left-of-centre party, which is why the left has united only west of the Lakehead.

I see no solution east of the Lakehead other than proportional representation. Quebec Liberals are, as usual, ahead of the rest: provincially they brought in a proposal for proportional representation which still awaits implementation, but they know they need it: winner-take-all gives a bonus to both the BQ and the PQ.

Toronto Liberals, of course, see no problem: their vote share would give them 10 MPs from Toronto, yet winner-take-all doubled their seats to 20. Yet in Ontario outside the GTA, their vote share would let their voters elect 18 MPs, but winner-take-all gave them only six. How long will progressive Liberals let the Toronto old guard veto any step forward?

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]Les and Brian agree on more than they disagree on.[/b]

Ladies and gentlemen.... weeee have a WINNER!

Exactly, as I pointed out there was next to know discussion of left wing politics in the entire debate. Its a discussion about how best to arrange the chairs around the table, quite literally.

Fidel

Progressive Liberals! That's who we should be talking to.

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Those are not "real" parties - none of them ran more than half a dozen candidates and they got virtually no support - so let's not waste time talking about those silly crackpots.[/b]

Well, they are registered with elections Canada, and they ran 24, 59 and 20 candidates respectively. And I have to say, there are people in some of those parties that I enjoy working with on various issues.

Or are they not "real" simply because they are left of the NDP and actually have a leftist platform?

genstrike

Okay, maybe I misread Les' qualifications in the original article. I'm sorry, I focused more on the page with the content than the page with the intro.

But, ottawaobserver (if that is your legal name), I did address a variety of his points in his article. I think his idea that we should support Obama by sending more troops to Afghanistan on his request is no different than, say, Harper supporting Bush by sending more troops to Afghanistan. Because Obama asked nicely is a silly reason to continue this war. I think his comments about Haiti are equally imperialist. His considering labour to be a special interest is also rather silly, as I explained in my post. But I still think that it is weird to have such a pro-war provincial government from a party that claims to be anti-war, and which some people claim is the only anti-war choice.

quote:

Originally posted by ottawaobserver:
[b]
But, no, here on babble we allow the same few disrupters to divert everyone from a thoughtful continuation of the discussion,[/b]

Funny, every time I participate in a thread criticizing the NDP from the left, the same disrupters come in, shit on everyone, call me either a Liberal, a Communist or both, and make wild, off topic remarks about other parties.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]I have always found it interesting when people compare conflicts, such as the thread tonight. Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan is like comparing War of 1812 to World War Two.

It would be interesting in seeing a detailed debate, with facts and well though arguments than the usually banter.[/b]


I wouldn't say the gap is that wide. There is a real sea change in warfare between 1860 and 1945, and another apparent shift after WW II. Generally speaking I would say that Vietnam and Afghanistan are part of the same epoch of warfare, even though their may be some clear differences.

For example the absence of a powerful super-power backing the forces of the government of Afghanistan. Whereas the United States directly intervened in support of the insurgent south against the Viet Min, and set up a counter government, and the legitimate authority of the North was likewise supported by the Soviet Union and China.

In that sense there was an overiding strategic balance that prevented the conflict from spreading, beyond the efforts of the North Vietnamese to supress the insurgency, which quite predictably simply could not survive after the US left the playing field.

There is no super power backing the forces of government of Afghanistan that was deposed in 2001. Ergo, it is very possible that the forces of the government may not be able to contain the spread of the campaign of the foreign fighters only to the area of Afghanistan, and Topps plea for further disruptions and attacks upon the existing social order in Warisistan may very well come to fruition.

That said, the US track record of being able to usurp legitimate authority through the direct insertion of foreign fighter has only ever been really succesful in Latin America.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]
Funny, every time I participate in a thread criticizing the NDP from the left, the same disrupters come in, shit on everyone, call me either a Liberal, a Communist or both, and make wild, off topic remarks about other parties.[/b]

I've never once thought you were a communist.

Cueball Cueball's picture

And I have always thought the same of you.

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]

I've never once thought you were a communist.[/b]


You said I wanted to storm oil rigs and raise the hammer and sickle!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Did he really? That sounds like fun -- with the proper safety gear of course. See, objecting to that is just more evidence the Fidel is not now and has never been a communist, nor is he fun.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]

You said I wanted to storm oil rigs and raise the hammer and sickle![/b]


And I think thay would be a great idea in a country like Bolivia where the time is ripe to confront a minority fascist elite, and where the CIA has worked diligently to destablize for many years with multinationals attempting to neoliberalize even the rain water. There are some aspects of Friedmanite neoliberal ideology which our two stooge parties wouldn't dare try to pull off even in the Northern Puerto Rico, especially now with the ideology doing the '29 swan dive around the western world today.

Leftwing parties have traditionally been open to the democratic process first and foremost. That's where the NDP comes in with pushing for advanced democracy at the federal level and in Canada's largest province at the moment.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Definitely not communist. Raising the hammer and sickle is good for Bolivians, but here its just fine to totter along lapping up the spoils imperialism, being thankful the trains run on time, and letting the power that be know that everything is just fine by putting our stamp of approval on the government every four years, with a great big check mark.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Definitely not communist. Raising the hammer and sickle is good for Bolivians, but here its just fine to totter along lapping up the spoils imperialism and being thankful the trains run on time.[/b]

I think if young people had any idea of the level of U.S.-backed oppression and brutality in Central and South America over the course of the last century, they'd realize that those people would think Canadians have little to complain about.

Together with trade unions, social and civil society groups, the CCF-NDP have fought tooth and nail for social supports that make living in this Northern Puerto Rico somewhat worthwhile for millions of Canadians. If you two want to drop your provincial health cards off at the border and go live in a U.S. right-to-work state, or even down to a real thirdworld capitalist shithole like Guatemala or the formerly British Honduras and talk revolution where those countries are actually pregnant with it, then be my guest. I was down in those tiny shitholes in the 1980s briefly and still didn't realize what was happening. But you two kids can fuck right off with the bullshit about the NDP here in Canada. You guys stink. Comprende?

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]

I think if young people had any idea of the level of U.S.-backed oppression and brutality in Central and South America over the course of the last century, they'd realize that those people would think Canadians have little to complain about. [/b]


Absolutely right. They also might get the impression that the system here is predicated on the disenfranchisement of the people there. They might think it odd that while you applaud their willingnes to face the bullets of outright revolution in the name of "the cause" you don't even show the slightest interest in demanding the party you vote for defend their interests.

I just posted a nice photo of your friend Masoud chatting with a bunch of PDPA generals. I think young people would be more impressed with your arguements if it were not so clear that you cherry pick your facts to fit your case, as opposed to making your case fit your facts.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Together with trade unions, social and civil society groups, the CCF-NDP have fought tooth and nail for social supports that make living in this Northern Puerto Rico somewhat worthwhile for millions of Canadians. If you two want to drop your provincial health cards off at the border and go live in a U.S. right-to-work state, or even down to a real thirdworld capitalist shithole like Guatemala or the formerly British Honduras and talk revolution where those countries are actually pregnant with it, then be my guest. I was down in those tiny shitholes in the 1980s briefly and still didn't realize what was happening. But you two kids can fuck right off with the bullshit about the NDP here in Canada. You guys stink. Comprende?[/b]

All right, so if I remember correctly, so far you've told me to move to Scandinavia, the US and Guatemala. Just keeping the list up to date.

I guess only other countries can have socialism, while here in Canada have to be content with an increasingly third wayist NDP.

Fuck it, it's too late and too off topic for this shit. I'm going to bed.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Absolutely right. They also might get the impression that the system here is predicated on the disenfranchisement of the people there. They might think it odd that while you applaud their willingnes to face the bullets of outright revolution in the name of "the cause" you don't even show the slightest interest in demanding the parties you vote for defend their interests.[/b]


The NDP is fighting for democracy here in Canada because it's the democratic way. No one is tossing us in jail or putting out bounties on us as per some countries in this hemisphere which you've no idea about.

But you kids should take some time off from video games and stepping over homeless people, and go for a ride south, deep-deep south along the Pan-Am Hwy. Be careful not to lip off too much at the machine gun-toting soldier at that lonely border crossing Belize-Guatemala border like you do as bravely posting on babble. And if the locals suggest you stop giving food and change to street kids because the shop keepers and wealthy rancheros don't like it, then I suggest you accept their advice. Tough-talking revolutionaries want some excitement? Then let me tell you where you are needed big time. No more talk, because those people really can't afford your bullshit bravado. Your asses in a sling and calling home to mama for a plane ticket in a big hurry, that's what I think would happen for you both unfortunately. It's good to talk big, but sometimes you come to the realization that it's not worth too much.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]

The NDP is fighting for democracy here in Canada because it's the democratic way. No one is tossing us in jail or putting out bounties on us as per some countries in this hemisphere which you've no idea about.[/b]


For example. You continously preach about proportional representation, and democracy. In fact you say that they system is not "democratic" because of it. Yet, not a single NDP provincial government has introduced it. Yet you never demand that your party live up to the ideals you profess to hold, and attack anyone who does.

Put your money where you mouth is.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b] Yet you never demand that your party live up to the ideals you profess to hold, and attack anyone who does.[/b]

[url=http://new.ndplondonfanshawe.ca/?p=508]May 2007[/url] [b](See shit-show Liberals)[/b]

quote:

[b]Put your money where you mouth is.[/b]

I'd call you a Liberal shill, but that would be an insult to those who can pull it off. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]

Funny, every time I participate in a thread criticizing the NDP from the left, the same disrupters come in, shit on everyone, call me either a Liberal, a Communist or both, and make wild, off topic remarks about other parties.[/b]


Fidel

Again, I've never called either of you communists or so much as socialists. You guys just don't go that fast. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Thankfully! Its good of you to not label people as supporting to ideologies that you know nothing about, that would just be too much ignorance, even for you.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

David Young

I wonder if all the federal Liberal supporters who want a 'Unite The Left' movement against the Conservatives would agree that the Liberals should leave the provincial political scene in favour of the New Democrats in exchange for the NDP leaving the Federal scene?

KenS

I'm just coming to both the original Globe discussion, and this thread.

As soon as I saw that Les had inserted his policy hobby horse on Afghanistan, I thought "there goes the discussion."

I've had discussions with Les on this. He's on his own in the NDP. Even the minority within the NDP who substantively agree with him on Afghanistan [such as Stoffer, Black, Martin, Doer] would not join him in seeing this as part of a core approach to how the the NDP should look at its policy.

I'm glad someone already started a different thread. It was my thought by the time I got a third of the way through- and knew it was unlikely the usual suspects would give up on dominating the thread.

I hope the larger discussion picked up in the other thread.

TCD- your link to that thread takes you to the forum list, not the thread. You might want to edit the link.

Tommy_Paine

Actually, the deal the Liberals want is for us to give them money and votes in exchange for empty promises and lip service, so they can maintain their forever mission of funneling money and favour to their friends. And, we are not their freinds. The few token NDPer's in any deal with the Liberals would be asked to use the servant's entrance.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan is like comparing War of 1812 to World War Two.

It would be interesting in seeing a detailed debate, with facts and well though arguments than the usually banter.[/b]


Ok, here is a photo of Kabul, 2011:

[img]http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/29/wbEDITORIAL_wideweb__430x25...

Tommy_Paine

quote:


Also, I find it telling that Campbell considers organized labour to be a "special interest". Last time I checked, organized labour represents the working class, including myself, my friends, my coworkers, my mom, my dad, and my grandpa as a retiree.

That forced an eyebrow up when I read that in the exchange, too. It would be informative for Campbell to expand on that idea. On the surface, it seems like the same dismissive rhetoric that we might find in a David Frum column, or one by Claire Hoy.

However, I think it's more than valid, in fact it's imperative for the NDP to examine whether it wants working class people to vote, donate and participate in the NDP, or whether they are just embarassed by them, and want to cut them loose to be bamboozeled by the Liberals and Conservatives. Which seems like the default NDP position at the moment.

That examination has to come to some conclusion about if organized labour is a workable vector for delivering rank and file votes and support to the NDP, and beyond that, support from non unionized working people.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]That examination has to come to some conclusion about if organized labour is a workable vector for delivering rank and file votes and support to the NDP, and beyond that, support from non unionized working people.[/b]

I agree.

That examination could be conducted in parallel with an equally important one:

Whether the NDP is a workable vector for delivering support to and meeting the needs of organized labour, and beyond that, of non-unionized working people.

Tommy_Paine

Actually, I went back to look at the exact quote from Campbell's e-mail.

quote:

No undue regard to special interests, including organized labour;


I have to ask, what makes organized labour stand out that it merited mention before other "special interests".

We are left to wonder what those other "special interests" are that Campbell chose not to mention. Special interests inside the party? Special interests outside the party?

KenS

This thread is at 100, and with this discussion on organized labour just starting, I'm going to respond to Tommy in the new thread.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008140]Di... of Topp/Campbell email NOT related to Afghanistan or foreign policy [/url]

Pages

Topic locked