NDP Embrace War in Afghanistan
The NDP has jumped at the chance to step into a pro-war government. And we must be plain about how explicitly it has done so. By all accounts, a de facto embrace of the war was preqruisite for the coalition ("Off the table")--and one Layton and crew didn't blink at. This is more than aquiesence; it is outright embrace of the war for parliamentary gains.
For many rank-and-file NDPers, Canada's illegal war and occupation of Afghanistan is not simply one issue among many, another pragmatic concern. Opposition to the war is based on fundamental commitments. It is ideological in the sense that opposing imperialist wars will always be part of a belief system with deep roots (one which opposes dispossession, slaughter, torture, dedgradation, etc.).
For those (within or supportive of the NDP) who are fundamentally opposed to the war, I can see this pro-war, war-time NDP governing coalition taking two different lights.
In the first, it demonstrates that the NDP's anti-war stance has been shallow and cynical. We know it took the NDP leadership a good while to come around to condeming the war, and we have seen that Layton was almost completely silent on it as an election issue (until some unexpected news turned the issue into campaign capital in the lead-up week). It's worth noting that, during the election, NDP headquarters had been sitting on a press release (fingers crossed?), waiting on the 100th Canadian as Afghan civilian deaths silently mounted. Since the party leadership was never genuinely or credibly anti-war, little is lost in selling out the rank and file, who've never counted for much beyond their raw support and campaign legwork.
In another light, it's not the crass cynicism of the leadership that matters. It's the failure of the PARTY to hold onto *any* core values, and, even more, the failure of the fight WITHIN the party to maintain any such core values. The pro-war coalition, then, marks the culmination of the hollowing out of the NDP. As the chorus of approval mounts, it leaves those opposed to war with nothing but their own marginality for company. For imperial war and occupation is just another issue among many, to be sidelined for little more than some cabinet seats in a status-quo capitalist parliament.
Edit, para 4: 100th Canadian military death
Funny people just joining and/or thread proliferating, just to throw crap around all over the place to try and shake confidence in the coalition.
Please do go join another party if they are more anti-war than the NDP.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Your preference being . . . . a Conservative government?
A coalition with the Marxist-Leninist party?
Oooh! Oooh! I know! Maybe we could form a coalition with all the other anti-war parties in the house of com . . . . wait. That don't work.
You make your deal with them's as there to be dealt with.
So NDP'ers are supposed to hold their collective breath until the party wins a first past the ghost fluke or proportional voting, one or the other? Sounds like Trotskys again. According to them, any and all revolutions are imperfect and therefore no good can come of them - except for that one which will never happen. Everyone's a sellout except them.
Remind, there is somethin fundamentally wrong with the NDP joining in a pro-war coalition with the Liberals. It turns the NDP from an anti-war party, into a pro-war party that endorses war and occupation in Afghanistan. Why can't you recognize this basic fact?
The NDP is an "anti-war party"? Left Turn, where have you been?
In spring 2005, Jack Layton struck a deal with Paul Martin to prop up the Liberal government in exchange for an "NDP budget" - a good move, IMHO.
Did you notice Layton making withdrawal from Afghanistan a condition of support?
When Martin's government fell, Canadian troops were already in Kandahar and Hillier was calling for killing the "scumbags".
Did you hear Layton call for withdrawal from Afghanistan? No, no, no, he called throughout that campaign for a "debate in the House" - and he never said, not for one second, what position he would take in that debate.
And do you recall when Jack Layton and the NDP first called for withdrawal from Afghanistan?
End of August 2006, on the eve of the Québec City Convention - when it became obvious that the rank-and-file delegates were going to issue that call.
And he's been waffling back and forth ever since (cf. Dawn Black and her ilk).
So (and I mean this with no disrespect), whom are you trying to kid? The NDP is what it is. And it is not what you say, not even close.
But now the NDP is feeling the heat from its members and supporters. It sees an opportunity. And for whatever motivations, it has decided to do the right thing - a positive move, which will express the disgust of the Canadian people against the vicious, draconian, anti-human Harper policies and style of governance.
Now that they are actually doing something positive, instead of just inconsistently saying some positive things, you want to put the brakes on them?
No. Stop creating illusions. Warn them, caution them, criticize them for straying from principle, for wavering on the war, and all the rest. But don't tell them they need to leave Harper in power, or worse yet, with a majority.
Here, Here.
Also Fidel. Why does someone have to be a Trotskyist to have principals? The war is not a minor issue it is the NDP a supposedly avowed anti war party (its membership almost unanimously voted on this issue at convention) allowing its parliamentary voice to turncoat on one of the most pressing issues of the day. Shame!
Because it doesn't, why can't you recognize that, left turn?
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
I am speculating however do you think the immediate pullout will happen in 2011? Will the CF be sent on a peacekeeping mission to Africa? Do you think Dawn Black will become the Minister of Defence? What is going to happen with military spending?
Funny people just joining and/or thread proliferating, just to throw crap around all over the place to try and shake confidence in the coalition.
Please do go join another party if they are more anti-war than the NDP.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Quit trying to manufacture consent by shadow moderating. The war in Afghanistan is probably the number II international issue in the world today, slightly behind the war in Iraq, and just slightly ahead of the new cold war with Russia. To try and relegate it to a sub issue of the NDP power grab is absurd.
Its a fact, anti-war activists lobbied hard to get the NDP to oppose the war in Afghanistan, and the NDP droping its pants right now on this issue only reinforces the impression that the the NDP leaderships commitment to this member instituted policy was negligible, as was indicated by the strange equivocations of Dawn Black over the last few months.
The NDP is an "anti-war party"? Left Turn, where have you been?
In spring 2005, Jack Layton struck a deal with Paul Martin to prop up the Liberal government in exchange for an "NDP budget" - a good move, IMHO.
Did you notice Layton making withdrawal from Afghanistan a condition of support?
You can say that again. I dont even think the Liberals made mention of the exact role our troops would be taking on, whether peacekeeping or that "aggressive U.S. combat role" we found out about later.
Manley told the NDP he couldnt divulge details surrounding the handling of prisoners, or whether we'd be handing Afghans over to the Americanos to be tortured. The Liberals mumbled something about national security, or some such. Of course, that was when Libranos were accepting marching orders from Crazy Jorge de la Yayo II in Warshington.
Did you notice Layton making withdrawal from Afghanistan a condition of support?
In spring 2005, Layton was negotiating conditions under which the NDP would support a Liberal budget, not conditions under which the NDP would join a Liberal government. That's an important distinction, which should not be taken lightly. The 2005 budget deal left all NDP MPs free to criticize the government on any issues so desired. Furthermore, the NDP was not expected to continue to support the government beyond the budget, if the goverment subsequently brought forward measures that the NDP opposed.
Under this coalition agreement, the NDP is expected to support the government for 30 months, regardless of what the government might do. It binds the six NDP members that Dion choses to be in cabinet, from criticizing the government due to cabinet solidarity. NDP MPs will be under pressure not to rock the boat and criticize the government. Also, The labour bureaucracy, because it support the coalition, will tell workers not to rock the boat and criticize the government, when it brings forward legislation that is not in the interest of workers.
I am confident that no one will shut YOU up, Left Turn and that there are quite a few people in that position.
Left Turn, you completely missed my point - completely.
I was challenging your assertion that the NDP is an anti-war party.
I said the NDP did not make withdrawal from Afghanistan a condition of propping up the Liberal government in 2005, at a key time of escalation of the war.
In fact, it did not even cite Afghanistan as a reason for voting non-confidence in November 2005.
So, to repeat: What's the big deal now????
You show me where in the "accord" that the NDP (or the Liberals, for that matter) have to support the war.
Well, it should be easy for the NDP and Bloc now to gang up on the Liberals if neccesary to withdraw from Afghanistan. The Liberals are broke and have no leader.
I'm not sure pulling out of Afghanistan would really be a seal-the-deal issue right now. Is it at all possible for Babblers to wait and see what issues might come back on the table IF and WHEN the coalition takes government and STARTS making some gradual policy changes, over time?? Instead of immediately branding all of the coalition signees as war-mongers?
Just a thought !
It is all too easy to pull things apart. This is why we have wars in the first place. Peace takes patience and wisdom. Let's ensure we bear that in mind.
I just call BS, on all the fear driven strawmen some people are creating regarding this in order to apparently manufacture their own disquiet regarding forging ahead into unknown territory. The NDP MP's can stand and vote nay any time they want, whether in partial power or not. Party members do vote against their own government's Bills you know.
Moreover, this coalition is going to get rid of Harper, in the immediate blush of its creation. He cannot constitutionally stay at the helm of the CPC without facing a motion of confidence asap, or resign. This coalition has forced this fact and if that is all it does it is a good thing.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
The issue of the war in Afghanistan, is NOT an issue of the personal conscience of NDP MP's. It is a party policy ratified by the majority of the membership. NDP MP's should not be put in the position of having to vote against their own government, in this situtation, the NDP MP's should universally vote against the war, if and when the issue is brought forward.
Left Turn, you completely missed my point - completely.
I was challenging your assertion that the NDP is an anti-war party.
I said the NDP did not make withdrawal from Afghanistan a condition of propping up the Liberal government in 2005, at a key time of escalation of the war.
In fact, it did not even cite Afghanistan as a reason for voting non-confidence in November 2005.
So, to repeat: What's the big deal now????
You show me where in the "accord" that the NDP (or the Liberals, for that matter) have to support the war.
I probably should have phrased the NDP's position on afghanistan better. I know the NDP isn't really an anti-war party, I just got caught up in my own rhetoric.
However, as I previously stated, the big deal is that the NDP is now joining in a Liberal government that will continue the Afghanistan war through 2011. That's a blatantly pro-war position if ever I saw one. Opposition to the coalition, on the grounds that it supports war and occupation in Afghanistan, should be basic stuff for those of us who are against war and occupation. Apparently it's not.
people are making some assumptions here, that should be clarified by those who are more familiar with the details, but in the summer there was a proposal put forward with both lib and ndp on the cttee that said essentially, no more war-mongering in Afghanistan. whatever Dion said or didn't say to media in the past week needs to be taken into consideration with a) what has actually been signed, b) what ndp and libs have agreed on to date on paper, c) what might be possible to further elaborate upon, and d) what might be pushed from below now or in future.
Again left turn, you are creating strawmen to kick down, you do not know what is going to happen in this respect anymore than I do. I could see the coalition taking a look at the books and saying, we can't afford to stay in Afghanistan, as a reason to leave.
Currently while they are struggling to make the coalition viable they have to keep as many people on board as possible. Once in power things can and will change.
They will NOT change under a Harper dictatorship regime, they will get worse.
But go ahead and support Harper's continuance, and the breaking of constitutional convention, your principles won't mean much, once the out flow from that hits Canadians.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
i should clarify that i was responding to those who think the NDP 'embrace war in Afghanistan'. I do not believe the NDP embrace war in Afghanistan.
remind,you may want to clarify who you are responding to.
Using the same logic as that required to concure with the intial post, the failure to coalesce with the Liberals would signify support for the collapse of the economy.
Maddin, there is simply insufficient appetite to end our participation in Afghanistan at this point. Should that disuade us from acting on any front at all?
It sounds, to me, like you are suggesting we stop fighting to save health care, the homeless, the environment, and the economy, unless and until we end our participation in Afghanistan.
That is an illogical position, and not one befitting those who would lead us.
I'm all for fighting hard on issues like health care, homlessness, the environment, and the economy. I just don't believe that joining a pro-war government is the right way to go about it. An accord, maybe, but not outright joining a pro-war, Liberal government. It's indefensible, as far as I'm concerned. It reeks as bad as it did back in 1914, when all those Second International parties voted for war.
The Liberals would not have been able to say they had a potential stable government without a formal coalition, End of story. The NDP might as well fight these things you mention when they can. Moreover, anything coming from the Liberals after Harper is gone can be voted against.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Jeez if this is the case, then it should be a small jump to the right to suggest the NDP must also be in favour of midnight golfing and gassing up with ginger ale, too. It all makes sense for me now. Thank you for this illuminating thread. I was lost in the foundry until now.
Left turn, please go read the report produced last summer by Liberals. It is explicit about stopping the war mission. as remind says, if there needs to be pushing done, it can be done.
Has anyone heard who will become the Minister of Defence?
Left turn, please go read the report produced last summer by Liberals. It is explicit about stopping the war mission.
Do you know where I can find this report? Is there a link?
No, but it's times like these when I miss Sven Robinson the most.
Funny, I have heard that name mentioned on another forum. He will be promoted into the Senate and then given a seat.
That would be nice, but I highly doubt it. I am sure this is just some off-hand tory attempt at whipping up homophobic sentiment. Svend has been organizationally defrocked by the right wing of the NDP, and they are never going to let him back in. End of story.
The jewelry theft thing did not help his case either.
"The NDP is putting aside its differences that have existed historically with the Liberals on such issues as Afghanistan," said Thomas Mulcair, the party's only MP in Quebec."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2008/12/03/7623241-cp.html
Left turn, please go read the report produced last summer by Liberals. It is explicit about stopping the war mission.
Does this mean that the Kanadian Koalition government will be bringing home the troops in 2009?
If not, why not? And if so, why wasn't it part of the coalition agreement?
here's the link for that report. the cttee had some libs and ndps on it. you can read the language, and see what you think. i did some rather nasty critique on it when it came out, but maybe the dynamics would be more in our favour now. notably, then the libs had absolutely no backbone, and the ndp were outvoted. notably in this report, the bloc dissented and stuck to the 09 date. maybe with current dynamics, and a cooperative gov't or whatever they want to call it, the shift would, or could be substantial enough to make the difference. at least more favourable.
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/392/faae/reports/rp3598043/faaerp10/faaerp10-e.pdf
So please tell us on which page the report is "explicit about stopping the war mission" (your words)?
M. Spector, I think both you and I agree that we don't want people dropping bombs on civilians, or doing all kinds of other nasty things.
when i made the comment you are quoting in your #37 here, i was as of this date in Dec. trying to remember the sense of that report from over four months ago, with lots of other reports inbetween. I recalled that there was a different emphasis from earlier reports, and 'war' was not being encouraged at all. this emphasis has in the past been called the distinction between a war mission and other kinds of missions. quite different from 'killing Taliban' and other kinds of nonsense that we've heard in the past. And Certainly Much different from the title of the thread, NDP embrace war in Afghanistan. so to write a quick note on the jist, it came out as it did.
i've now gone back in files to find the item. you can read it, critique the heck out of it. do whatever you like with it.
the point remains that if we actually want to stop our troops from participating in violence in Afghanistan, the presence of the bloc and ndp and some liberals (who did respond to our efforts to keep Canada out of Iraq) will make it easier to get access to real information about what exactly we're doing over there, what we're spending and where, and all the other kinds of info that have hitherto been very very difficult to pry out of the Harperites. with info, and with ongoing efforts we have a better chance of really stopping the war. Certainly more so than with Harper in power.
And there's lots of other arguments that people on this board have made already.
i'm done arguing for now. demos are tomorrow. maybe with some hope that we actually have some power, and with better info, mobilizing folks against the war won't be so hard as it's been in the last bit.
i've now gone back in files to find the item. you can read it, critique the heck out of it. do whatever you like with it.
In other words, you're just wasting our time by throwing out a 160-page document for us to read in order to support your ridiculous assertion:
If you were honest, you would simply say, when asked to document your assertion, that you had misspoken, and that in fact the Liberals never produced any report that was "explicit about stopping the war mission." Instead, you throw this piece of crap at us and suggest we read it, when it says nothing to support your lying Liberal propaganda.
Thanks for the info, LeighT. Don't mind Spector.
I am going to agree with M. Spector's assessment on LeighT’'s ridiculous assertion.
At page 116 (p. 2 of Appendix 1) it says:
Whereas,
the House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian
civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the
request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;
the House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond
February 2009;
SNIP
therefore, it is the opinion of the House,
that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011,
SNIP
(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;
Yes, that's from the motion that was adopted by the House of Commons.
What's your point?
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;
That motion says Canada will remain in Kandahar until 2011, and commits only to a withdrawal from Kandahar in 2011, not from Afghanistan. Not good enough.
I remember reading about an Ontario government welcoming war resisters from the former Soviet Union in the late 1980's. There has been plenty of disinformation surrounding Afghanistan and its recent history.
Afghanistan, Another Untold Story
>by Michael Parenti
Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet “invasion” of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as “a good thing.” The actual story is not such a good thing.
Some Real History
Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.
The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. “It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it,” writes John Ryan, a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time. . .
...an interesting place to stop that narrative. Anyhow...
It is simply irresponsible not to vocally denounce the war in Afghanistan, and continue to preassure the NDP to hold to its commitments to its membership, regardless of the state of affairs here, or any partisan loyalties, or desire one might have to mute critcism for partisan reasons.
The lives of Afghans are just as important as our own, and just because they are far away, and do not vote in Canadian elections, is no reason to discount their interests, or Canada's role in imposing war, tyrrany and privation upon them.
I think that not only has Afghanistan become a client state of U.S. empire since not long after the end of the USSR, so has Canada become a nation increasingly defined by U.S. interests. I think there would have to be wholesale changes made in Ottawa before we can begin to say no to Uncle Sam. Empires don't last, and I think it's possible that Canadians may see social democracy and more egalitarian ways for men and women here in our own country some day. In the mean time, war and warfiteering reign merrily. If Canadians want the NDP to stop our participation in U.S.-led phony war on terror, then the NDP will need a phony majority in Ottawa at the very least. And phony majorities arent cheap and generally require a well-funded war chest for propagandizing voters with some version of the truth phony or otherwise.
"... the truth phoney or otherwise."
Nice phrase.
If Canadians want the NDP to stop our participation in U.S.-led phony war on terror, then the NDP will need a phony majority in Ottawa at the very least.
And yet, according to you, joining a coalition with the Liberals will accomplish all sorts of nice things without the NDP needing a phony majority. But bringing the troops home in 2009 isn't one of them.
The only possible explanation is the NDP's political cowardice and opportunism.
So NDP'ers are supposed to hold their collective breath until the party wins a first past the ghost fluke or proportional voting, one or the other?
No, but according to you the people of Afghanistan are supposed to hold their breath until the NDP wins an election outright.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
The NDP´s position on Afghanistan was the #1 reason why I voted for them this time out, they are getting weaker and weaker on everything I once admired about their policies. I would love to see Harper kicked out of power and I recognize that there have to be compromises but if it was impossible to get the Liberals to change their position, then the NDP should have at least managed to get an open vote on their respective positions in Parliament. This looks like they are simply abandoning their position and with Obama calling for an escalation in the conflict this looks very short sighted and unprincipled.
I think some of Stephen Harper's propaganda machine workers are now on site. What was it they said on Star Trek. Aliens are on board. Or something like that.
Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion? If not, kindly fuck off.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
As some one who knows Svend personally and is involved in Burnaby Douglas your comments are as truthful and and insightful as listening to Harper. This BS is unbelievably stupid and ill informed even for you. Why not stop making things up and instead deal with the real world. No one tells our Riding who to nominate and we win despite the central campaign and always have in this Riding. Go blow smoke out your ass about someone else's' riding that you might know something about.
That would be nice, but I highly doubt it. I am sure this is just some off-hand tory attempt at whipping up homophobic sentiment. Svend has been organizationally defrocked by the right wing of the NDP, and they are never going to let him back in. End of story.
The jewelry theft thing did not help his case either.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ A Sight to See: Harpo Hoisted on His Own Petard
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1037307
"How do you tell the parents of a dead soldier that their son or daughter died because politicians made the wrong decisions for reasons of incompetence or, much worse, political expediency?" asks Michael Byers, the international law and politics professor at the University of British Columbia, who is running for a Vancouver seat in the federal election for the NDP, Canada's antiwar party.
"Let's look forward rather than backwards, pull our remaining soldiers out of this futile and failing mission, and start planning and preparing for the next mission - in Afghanistan or elsewhere - with a different, better approach."
As some one who knows Svend personally and is involved in Burnaby Douglas your comments are as truthful and and insightful as listening to Harper. This BS is unbelievably stupid and ill informed even for you. Why not stop making things up and instead deal with the real world. No one tells our Riding who to nominate and we win despite the central campaign and always have in this Riding. Go blow smoke out your ass about someone else's' riding that you might know something about.
That would be nice, but I highly doubt it. I am sure this is just some off-hand tory attempt at whipping up homophobic sentiment. Svend has been organizationally defrocked by the right wing of the NDP, and they are never going to let him back in. End of story.
The jewelry theft thing did not help his case either.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ A Sight to See: Harpo Hoisted on His Own Petard
I am not talking about the NDP allowing Svend to run in his riding. Of course the NDP will exploit Svend Robinson's popularity with the anti-neo-liberal left to win seats in the Lower Mainland. I am saying that as long as the Neo-Liberals, and the closet conservatives like Pat Martin, hold the balance of power in the NDP, Svend is NOT going to be given a high profile critics post, let alone being forwarded as possible cabinet minister in a coalition government, which is the topic here.
Look at the fellow who ran in his stead in the last election, and the statement he just made about future military commitments to Afghanistan, linked above by Webgear.
Svend's upward mobility in the Federal NDP party is over, sadly.
Bill Siksay is the MP that has succeeded Svend. You are a master of disinformation. Svend is not even in the country now and did not seek any nomination for the last election. So any talk about him and this collection is just plain stupid. Lets talk about getting Allan Blakeney a cabinet post also or maybe we can suggest that the coalition is going to make Ed Broadbent PM. You are talking nonsense and you probably know it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ A Sight to See: Harpo Hoisted on His Own Petard
Succeeded Svend in the riding he last won. Not the riding he last ran in. Svend ran in Vancouver Center in the election before last, and was replaced by the neo-Liberal laywer in the the last.
If you read the thread, you will see that someone was wistfully missing Svend Robinson.
Pu-lease. Your personal animosity toward me, is interfering with whatever cognative abilities you inately have.
And yet, according to you, joining a coalition with the Liberals will accomplish all sorts of nice things without the NDP needing a phony majority. But bringing the troops home in 2009 isn't one of them.
The NDP has accomplished nice things while prodding Liberals in the past:
Between 1972 and 1974, the Liberals introduced a national affordable housing program, pension indexing and a national oil company with the NDP holding the balance of power. The NDP pursuaded Tudeau to create the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and which the Baloney man promptly scrapped at the request of marauding multinationals. The Liberal-NDP accord in Ontario led to the first provincial pay equity legislation in 1987.
And you're trying to tell us that the NDP would have no guarantees from the Liberals, even in writing with the accords signed, and with cabinet positions in federal government for the first time in history? Why do you love these Harpers so?
What makes you think Canada will back away from this Crazy George-led quagmire in the Stan with herr Sweater at the helm? What chance do Afghan children have of climbing out of poverty and war with a lap poodle like herr Steve bullying the 62% with his phony minority?
Herr Steveler is proceeding to divide the country along regional and ethnic interests and hiding himself away at the eagle's nest for two months, and you're calling the NDP cowards?
Whether Canadian troops are there or not, the plutocracy of the United semi-Socialist States of America and Pentagon kapitalists are bound and determined to wage phony war in the stani nations to repress women's rights and kill all hope of secular socialism since 1979. Are you saying the NDP could stop this? Like Haiti is for a long time, Afghanistan is a US client state since approximately two and half years post-USSR. Let's focus on abating thirdworld conditions in this Northern Puerto Rico first and foremost before we worry about patching things up around the vicious empire's backyard and other side of the world.
LOL
Great logic. Now I can say that Bill Siksay did not succeed Svend but actually Svend succeeded Bill in a losing run in Vancouver Centre. That is relevant to what? You seem to like to draw negative conclusions about the NDP from bits of irrelevant information. Svend lost his upward mobility in the party with the bullshit over his tabling a petition to take god out of the constitution. But don't let the facts get in the way of your "logic."
The NDP right wingers have not taken over the Burnaby seat that is winnable so your point is nonsense and that was my point. My animosity towards you is that you are determined to undermine the electability of people like Bill Siksay and Libby Davies. Boo birds on the sidelines are annoying to me. If you want to have say in the NDP and its direction then get in the fight and help people like me stop it from going ever further right. Instead you prefer apparently just to be negative and not to engage in the electoral battle. If you don't care about the NDP then why do you post such unrelenting negativity. Get over it it isn't your party because you don't want it to be. You want to be a critic but you don't want to do any work except sit behind your keyboard and pontificate on your own moral superiority compared to those of us who have not abandoned the field of electoral politics to the right wingers.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny
Are you still having a crisis about this? Now you are simply trolling.
Anyone who is interested in what I actually said, can simply read the thread for the details.
Its very simple, Svend Robinson was for a while one of the bright lights of the NDP caucus, and a popular figure with the anti-neo-liberal left. He was summarily defrocked as FP critic for the NDP, after he said, and did some things that were not in line with the neo-liberal agenda. Politically he was defeated within the party. It takes a long time to recover from such defeats within a party, and the scandal with the jewelry did nothing to help a possible recovery.
My opinion actually is that Svend's odd behaviour probably had a lot to do with vicious attack of the Neo-Liberal (qua Zionist block) in the NDP and this betrayal by the party.
Its not about me. Its about Svend, and his political position. Certainly I can see him returning to federal politics, but until such a time as the stars change in the NDP executive and the caucus, Svend is a lame duck in terms of achieving important leadership position.
Cueball I think you should change your online name to Dodgeball because you always cut and run when the logical inconsistencies of your posts are highlighted. Mind you since you seem to live in seiner I guess you know something about trolling.
Are you still having a crisis about this? Now you are simply trolling.
Anyone who is interested in what I actually said, can simply read the thread for the details.
Last night there was an indoor rally in Vancouver on behalf of the Kanadian Koalition. A couple thousand people turned up to hear former Liberal MP Herb Dhaliwal and NDP MP Peter Julian speak.
Julian listed a number of issues that the NDP would fight for in the Koalition, such as cap-and-trade, job creation spending, improved EI benefits, pension protection, and a national child care program.
Afghanistan wasn't even mentioned.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
You are just stupidly obessessed, why don't you engage what the personality is saying as opposed to obsessively and perniciously trying to prevaricate on point. Your obsession is leading you into doing some stupid things, like attacking me for not precisely articulating every single aspect of the history of Svend Robinson's career, in every single post, and then saying because I have not gone into such a detailed acount, I am evading the truth.
I precisely explained what it was that I meant when I said "Look at the fellow who ran in his stead in the last election..." It is pretty clear. I definetly did not say the person who succeeded him in Burnaby. Read it again, I said: "ran in his stead". When you disengaged your brain, and then attacked me for misrepresenting the facts, I explaing precisely that I was talking about Vancouver Center, by saying: "Svend ran in Vancouver Center in the election before last, and was replaced by the neo-Liberal laywer in the the last."
Your harping on this point, is nothing but an expression of your obsessive behaviour. You have a problem.
Oh and did I mention that you change your posts often and never note that you have rewritten. Svend getting back into federal politics maybe some day but I think he is probably enjoying his new position. Bill Siksay is every bit as progressive a voice in the House as Svend ever was. We elected both of them despite boo birds sniping from the sidelines.
So hows that withering away of the state agenda going for you?
Dear Friends:
It has been some time since I last updated this website, and much has changed since then. After running in the last federal election as the New Democrat candidate in Vancouver Centre, I returned to my work in early 2006 with the BC Government Employees Union in the Advocacy Department. I was also elected to the national executive of the NDP, and a member of the Federal and BC Election Planning Committees. I was also Co-Chair of the Federal NDP LGBT Committee, and Chair of the Constitution Committee. So a very busy time.
In the spring of 2007, I took on a major new challenge, which has meant moving to France. I was appointed by a major international labour federation, Public Services International, as their Public Services Advocacy Officer. PSI headquarters are in Ferney-Voltaire, France, very close to Geneva. In this exciting new post, I have global responsibility for servicing public administration workers, and for coordinating PSI’s work on globalization and trade issues at the OECD, UN, ILO, WTO and other international and regional bodies. I will work closely with global NGO’s on these issues as well. Taking on the growing power of corporate globalization, fighting privatization and deregulation, and working for quality public services and the right of public sector workers to be treated with dignity and respect…that is my work. A great opportunity. I left the BCGEU reluctantly, as that was also work I valued and enjoyed. In addition to this new job, I was also invited to Co-Chair the 2009 International LGBT Outgames Conference in Copenhagen.
So I recently relocated to a small village near Geneva in the French Alps. Max and our two dogs will join me later in the fall, and together we will embark on this new adventure. Of course, BC will always be home, and I look forward to spending summers at our beautiful place on Parker Island.
Yours,
Reading that resume and the positions he took on after the ring incident highlights the fact you know nothing about him or his relationship to the party. So try posting on something you know about.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny
Oh and did I mention that you change your posts often and never note that you have rewritten. Svend getting back into federal politics maybe some day but I think he is probably enjoying his new position. Bill Siksay is every bit as progressive a voice in the House as Svend ever was. We elected both of them despite boo birds sniping from the sidelines.
So hows that withering away of the state agenda going for you?
Dear Friends:
It has been some time since I last updated this website, and much has changed since then. After running in the last federal election as the New Democrat candidate in Vancouver Centre, I returned to my work in early 2006 with the BC Government Employees Union in the Advocacy Department. I was also elected to the national executive of the NDP, and a member of the Federal and BC Election Planning Committees. I was also Co-Chair of the Federal NDP LGBT Committee, and Chair of the Constitution Committee. So a very busy time.
In the spring of 2007, I took on a major new challenge, which has meant moving to France. I was appointed by a major international labour federation, Public Services International, as their Public Services Advocacy Officer. PSI headquarters are in Ferney-Voltaire, France, very close to Geneva. In this exciting new post, I have global responsibility for servicing public administration workers, and for coordinating PSI’s work on globalization and trade issues at the OECD, UN, ILO, WTO and other international and regional bodies. I will work closely with global NGO’s on these issues as well. Taking on the growing power of corporate globalization, fighting privatization and deregulation, and working for quality public services and the right of public sector workers to be treated with dignity and respect…that is my work. A great opportunity. I left the BCGEU reluctantly, as that was also work I valued and enjoyed. In addition to this new job, I was also invited to Co-Chair the 2009 International LGBT Outgames Conference in Copenhagen.
So I recently relocated to a small village near Geneva in the French Alps. Max and our two dogs will join me later in the fall, and together we will embark on this new adventure. Of course, BC will always be home, and I look forward to spending summers at our beautiful place on Parker Island.
Yours,
Reading that resume and the positions he took on after the ring incident highlights the fact you know nothing about him or his relationship to the party. So try posting on something you know about.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny
I did not change anything in my post. Now go take a pill, or the night off or something.
Organizationally defrocked by the right wing of the party was your asinine comment that got a response. You don't know what you are talking about. Yup thrown right out to sit on the federal executive, chair the EPC's etc etc etc.
I post to make sure that people don't accept what you say as fact but instead understand clearly it is just more of your anti-NDP rants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny
Ahh so you have decided to zero in on something specific that I said, as opposed to trying to chip away at my integrity by suggesting I was willfully distorting the truth by attributing false statements to me that I never made. I never said, for example, that Svend was replaced in Burnaby by a neo-liberal. Obviously not because Siskay is not from the neo-liberal wing of the party. Of course I can't depend on you to put two and two together and make 4, and understand that I am talking about Vancouver Center, where he was replaced as the candidate by a neo-liberal lawyer by the name of Beyers, even after I explicitly say: "Look at the fellow who ran in his stead in the last election". That would be too easy, instead though, you want two and two equal five, in order to follow through on your bizzaro internet vendetta.
He was summarily defrocked as FP critic for the NDP, after he said, and did some things that were not in line with the neo-liberal agenda. Politically he was defeated within the party.
Sven was voted out by his constituents because he did something stupid.
And the neoliberal agenda is the explicit domain of our two weak and ineffective old line parties. Liberals and Tories have had their heads so far up Uncle Sam's ideological ass for the last 28 years that they've had to have fresh air pumped to them.
Actually he resigned, did he not? And Siskay took over. Then the NDP tried to reinvigorate him in Vancouver center, since he is a popular figure despite his stupide moment,
Moreover, that is irrelevant to what happened before he did something stupid. In fact, I think it was the vicious attack of the right wing of the party, and the vicious charges of anti-semestism leveled at him for being so naive as to actually believe that he could raise Arab Palestinian issues in the context of the NDP, which is likely to have created the stress that caused him to start doing stupid things. But that is just conjeture.
What I do know is that in Vancouver Center the only NDP MP (in fact the only MP) to raise the issue of Omar Khadr in the house of commons, prior to 2007, was replaced as a candidate by Beyers whose instinct is to have Canadian law changed so that it is line with the US national security aparatus, so that Omar Khadr could be put on trial here, instead of Guantanamo Bay.
Oh, Ottawa was compliant with U.S. political, economic, and military aspirations long before the Liberals gave up Omar Khadr to US gulag law. Canada's Whigs and Tories have had Yanqui chocolat all over their little moustaches for a long, long time. And the US nouveau liberal ideology is still on the Liberal agenda as far as I can tell. Whigs and Tories are el stupidos for several decades running, however much the "pragmatic centrists" try to distance themselves from their bad choices of the 1990's. I'm afraid Whigs and Tories have created and cornered their own free markets in stupidity
No you are wrong again in many of your details.
First of all Bill's name is Siksay not Siskay. Secondly he was Svend's right hand person and the bedrock of his political writing for the decades Svend held office. As for being "replaced" as a candidate maybe you should back above and read Svend's words. He was not interested in running again because he moved to France in 2007. But in your imagination his not running was some sort of replacement by the right wing of the party.
As for your misguided conjecture about his unfortunate problems around the ring incident, please shut up about personal matters of people you know nothing about and have probably never met.
You are trying to vilify the NDP because Svend did not run again and I have shown your assumptions are stupid because they are not based on any facts. Try getting your facts straight so I don't have to do remedial training with you to correct your inaccuracies.
Actually he resigned, did he not? And Siskay took over. Then the NDP tried to reinvigorate him in Vancouver center, since he is a popular figure despite his stupide moment,
Moreover, that is irrelevant to what happened before he did something stupid. In fact, I think it was the vicious attack of the right wing of the party, and the vicious charges of anti-semestism leveled at him for being so naive as to actually believe that he could raise Arab Palestinian issues in the context of the NDP, which is likely to have created the stress that caused him to start doing stupid things. But that is just conjeture.
What I do know is that in Vancouver Center the only NDP MP (in fact the only MP) to raise the issue of Omar Khadr in the house of commons, prior to 2007, was replaced as a candidate by Beyers whose instinct is to have Canadian law changed so that it is line with the US national security aparatus, so that Omar Khadr could be put on trial here, instead of Guantanamo Bay.
Last night there was an indoor rally in Vancouver on behalf of the Kanadian Koalition. A couple thousand people turned up to hear former Liberal MP Herb Dhaliwal and NDP MP Peter Julian speak.
Julian listed a number of issues that the NDP would fight for in the Koalition, such as cap-and-trade, job creation spending, improved EI benefits, pension protection, and a national child care program.
Afghanistan wasn't even mentioned.
Afghanistan is a nearly dead issue now, if the present political situation remains in it's current state, I can see the military remaining in Afghanistan after 2011. The NDP will not speak of the issue again, I believe they have sold their souls..
What snowball's chance do we have of pulling troops from Crazy George's phony war on terror with a lap dog like Harper in phony minority power? There is none. Harper is a vicious toady for the empire and bent on pulling an RB Bennett of things while the worst economic crisis since the '30's picks up steam. You'll have to excuse the NDP for focussing on the crisis at home instead of Crazy Jorge de la Yayo's war on democracy on the other side of the planet.
You'll have to excuse the NDP for focussing on the crisis at home instead of Crazy Jorge de la Yayo's war on democracy on the other side of the planet.
I don't have to, and I won't.
It's our war too. It was started by our beloved Koalition Kohorts the Liberals and continued by Harper's Konservatives. And if the Koalition ever gets to form a government, you can add the NDP to that list.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Hmm, not the best choice of words today.
You'll have to excuse the NDP for focussing on the crisis at home instead of Crazy Jorge de la Yayo's war on democracy on the other side of the planet.
I don't have to, and I won't.
If you're waiting for herr Steveler to unplant his fat lips from Crazy Jorge de la Yayo's quivering brown areshole, then you're in for a wait, mate.
I don't see the phony war agreement between our Whigs and Tories and herr Bushler anywhere in the accord. The NDP was never on that train. This is a temporary accord outlining emergency action on domestic affairs for the next 18 to 30 months. Everybody knows that. You might as well try and fit up the NDP for having signed FTA and NAFTA and GATS and TILMA and SPP while you're at it.
Hmm, not the best choice of words today.
Why not the best choice of words?
Fidel
The NDP have drop the issue. They are in agreement with the Liberals now, they are speaking less and less about Afghanistan as the days pass by.
They have sold out.
Fidel
The NDP have drop the issue. They are in agreement with the Liberals now, they are speaking less and less about Afghanistan as the days pass by. They have sold out.
It's because they've focussed on flushing the Harpers from their eagle's nest retreat for the time being. Canadians are being murdered in the Stan while our fearful leaders run away and chicken out from the 62% majority. So how does it feel having an AWOL Foghorn Leghorn for leader?
The NDP has abandoned its antiwar stance in order to support the Coalition. Simple as that.
I don't see the phony war agreement between our Whigs and Tories and herr Bushler anywhere in the accord. The NDP was never on that train. This is a temporary accord outlining emergency action on domestic affairs for the next 18 to 30 months.
The NDP is running to catch that train. A Kanadian Koalition government will be in charge of the war, and that includes the NDP.
Is the price of a coalition the deaths of thousands of people in the next 2½ years in Afghanistan, and is this a price the NDP should be willing to pay?
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
I understand when Dippers back the coalition based on the idea that maybe once they are in government they can influence the national agenda to end the war sooner. I disagree with it, but I understand it.
What I don't understand is the bizarre situation where folks who are nominally against the war in Afghanistan and who rightfully criticise the imperial ambitions of the USA simutaneously say ending the war now is no longer important, because, you know, it'll be done in a few years anyways, and thus it is no bid deal now that Afghanistan is off the table.
The NDP is running to catch that train. A Kanadian Koalition government will be in charge of the war, and that includes the NDP.
I don't see Dawn Black or anyone other NDPer slotted into that ministerial role, no. That part of the coalition government will be mismanaged by proven idiots on the Whigs' end of things. And they will be no less the idiots than the current batch of Crazy George boot lickers on early vacation/AWOL. The NDP is more interested in what it can achieve within its own limited circle of political control.
Whigs and Tories would have made sure they went to murder Afghans and be murdered on Crazy George's behalf to at least 2011 regardless. The NDP understands this and so do the Bloc. We've been over this a thousand times. Not unless there is a major overhaul of electoral machinery in the Northern Puerto Rico will that particularly despicable bit of Ottawa's kowtowing to the USSA change in a hurry anytime soon.
But the NDP doesn't quit on Canadians when they can't have their way on foreign policy. Quitting is what ReformaTories do when faced with a good fight. In fact, they take two month-long taxpayer funded holidays weeks in advance. Harper is afraid to show up for work, and that's because the Tories are chicken-hearted, lilly-livered, arsehole creeping, Crazy Jorge's ass-kissing, snivelling, grovelling pro-USA, anti-Canadian, AWOL, cowardly scumbags who should be taken to a cement wall at dawn and shot between the eyes with a load of their own shit.
I don't see Dawn Black or anyone other NDPer slotted into that ministerial role, no. That part of the coalition government will be mismanaged by proven idiots on the Whigs' end of things. And they will be no less the idiots than the current batch of Crazy George boot lickers on early vacation/AWOL.
Dawn Black and the NDP has hardly spoken about Afghanistan in weeks, they seem to AWOL on the issue.
Dawn Black has been horribly bad on the Afghanisan question.
Dawn Black has been horribly bad on the Afghanisan question.
I will not disagree, however when she speaks she makes the whole NDP team look bad.
Dawn Black and the NDP has hardly spoken about Afghanistan in weeks,
They would but the Harpers arent anywhere to be found to issue a protest to. And we already know the Liberals' pro-USA stance on the same issue.
So, once again, where do you suppose the Harpers will be vacationing while Canadians are flown home in plastic bags from the stan, webgear? Do you think our Bay Street pawns and Warshington's stooges give two shits about Canadian soldiers, really?
Fidel
No politician from any party cares about the military unless the military is making them look bad.
I doubt Dion, Harper, Layton, or even May gives 2 shits about any soldier.
Fidel
No politician from any party cares about the military unless the military is making them look bad.
I doubt Dion, Harper, Layton, or even May gives 2 shits about any soldier
Ya but the NDP cares so little about Canadian soldiers that they don't even want them over there in Central Asia and doing Crazy George II's dirty work. How's that for a total lack of respect for Crazy Jorge de la Yayo's phony war on terror?
The NDP only care because it suited their cause at the time, and obviously that cause has ended. If soldiers were getting killed on their favorite cause like a mission to the Congo or Sudan, they it would be the same story has Harper, that the soldiers died for a good cause.
There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
And the NDP's cause differs from that of the two big money campaign parties. That;s a good thing as far as democracy is concerned. What would it be like if all parties in Ottawa nodded up and down in rapid agreement to a Crazy George request for troop deployment in the colonies, or all folding their cards in unison when the next war criminal in Warshington bluffs us into joining them in waging phony war for whatever reason they conjure up?
If you don't appreciate that old white boys club, then don't support the enablers. They'll never volunteer to cover your asses in a shootemup with terrorists trying to throw foreign invaders out of their country.
And the NDP's cause differs from that of the two big money campaign parties. That;s a good thing as far as democracy is concerned. What would it be like if all parties in Ottawa nodded up and down in rapid agreement to a Crazy George request for troop deployment in the colonies, or all folding their cards in unison when the next war criminal in Warshington bluffs us into joining them in waging phony war for whatever reason they conjure up?
So getting killed for a NDP cause is better than getting killed for a Liberal or Conservative cuase.
There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
So getting killed for a NDP cause is better than getting killed for a Liberal or Conservative cuase.
How many CrazyAss Jorge de la Yayo phony wars has the NDP pushed you into lately? Use your head.
And you won't be sent to the Congo anytime soon until US proxies Rwanda and Uganda have had enough time to slaughter as many Congolese as possible in paving the way for rich investors from the US and Canada to loot that country of its natural wealth.
I don't see Dawn Black or anyone other NDPer slotted into that ministerial role, no. That part of the coalition government will be mismanaged by proven idiots on the Whigs' end of things. And they will be no less the idiots than the current batch of Crazy George boot lickers on early vacation/AWOL. The NDP is more interested in what it can achieve within its own limited circle of political control.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that federal government ministries operate autonomously, without Cabinet contriol. That somehow the NDP ministers are going to have a free hand to enact "socialism in one ministry" and that the NDP can conversely wash its hands of whatever other ministries do that are headed by Liberal members of the Koalition.
The NDP will not be given a "limited circle of political control". The Liberal-dominated Cabinet will control everything.
And the NDP will be obliged to support and defend the "proven idiots on the Whigs' end of things" who run the departments of finance, defence, etc.
So the economy can be fixed merely by having 6 NDP cabinet ministers in non-finance positions, but the simple matter of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is going to have to await the Great Revolution or 2011, whichever comes first?
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
The NDP will not be given a "limited circle of political control". The Liberal-dominated Cabinet will control everything.
And the NDP will be obliged to support and defend the "proven idiots on the Whigs' end of things" who run the departments of finance, defence, etc.
I realize this is thread drift, but this raises a question which may be obvious to everyone else, but not to me:
Who does run a ministry?
I'm thinking of this in management hierarchy terms. Can the Minister hire and fire the Deputy Minister, who (I believe) is the ultimate authority in the sense of giving orders, insubordination, etc.?
Can the Cabinet overrule the Minister on all issues? On any issue?
Does the Prime Minister have any legal powers at all, or does the Minister serve at the pleasure of the G-G?
If anyone knows, please help me out here. Or in another thread if need be.
These are the kinds of questions we never need to ask, but talk of "coalition" suddenly makes them interesting.
Who does run a ministry?
The minister, who is answerable to the Prime Minister.
Yes.
The "pleasure" of the GG is essentially whatever the PM tells her it is. He picks the ministers, shuffles them, fires them, at will. The GG rubber stamps.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
M. Spector, I appreciate your answers, but I'm wondering: what is your source? Is it written constitution, written statute, or convention?
You seem to be under the misapprehension ...
I said no such thing. I've read the accord. I know what the NDP is bargaining for. I accept that as there was no chance the two old line parties would screw up and flip-flop on this particularly pro-USA issue anytime soon, like they've flip-flopped on FTA, NAFTA or GST, or the other big lies of the past. No chance. They don't reverse on the Uncle Sam boot licking once they've succeeded in pulling the wool over Canadians' eyes. But once the NDP has their signatures to an accord, that can either be made policy by the government or additional ammunition for the NDP for the next election. It really is up to the Liberals as you admit to yourself.
I am under no such illusion that the NDP or the Bloc are able to bring the troops home now or before 2011.
And while you're telling us nothing new here, you still haven't provided one single good reason for not bringing down these divisive idiots wanting to spend half a trillion on war - are whipping up anti-Quebec sentiment at a time when separatism has rarely been less popular - and pulling an RB Bennett on the economy 75 years after that guy threw him self out of Canada.
The NDP have been dishonest all along about their policy on Afghanistan. They keep tossing out the same old line, that they don't support the mission of aggressive war fighting, as is currently the policy. What they have never been clear about in any interview that I've seen, is what they will actually do, change the mission, remove all troops from Afghanistan, send money to the NGOs operating there or anything substantive that can be nailed down as their exact policy.
What they have never been clear about in any interview that I've seen, is what they will actually do, change the mission, remove all troops from Afghanistan, send money to the NGOs operating there or anything substantive that can be nailed down as their exact policy.
And if I didn't have a clue as to current events or what political games are played by our two old line parties bending to every whim in Warshington, then what you wrote above might make sense.
So much misinformation here I'm not sure where to start. Although I'm very ambivalent about this coalition, the NDP and the Liberals listed the issues that they can and will work on together. Issues that they cannot agree on, such as the war, are not part of the list.
To suggest that this makes the NDP a 'pro-war' party is absurd. There is nothing stopping them from continuing to push for withdrawal. Sometimes the fearmongering on the left is just as destructive as it is on the right.
And if I didn't have a clue as to current events or what political games are played by our two old line parties bending to every whim in Warshington, then what you wrote above might make sense.
Well, it might make a little more sense if you considered the political games of the third old line party, yes the NDP, in conjunction with the others. On the most vital matter of immediate life and death for innocent foreign citizens of another country, and of Canadian citizens, they've chosen to "put aside" any differences they might have out of political expediency, because of what they've said is more important...economics. Does that make any more sense?
On the most vital matter of immediate life and death for innocent foreign citizens of another country, and of Canadian citizens, they've chosen to "put aside" any differences they might have out of political expediency, because of what they've said is more important...economics. Does that make any more sense?
1. The Liberals and Conservatives are in tune with following orders from Warshington as far as phony war on terror in the stan goes.
(1.a) which leads all of me and the NDP and Bloc and supporters to realize, the troops arent coming home before 2011, or whenever our two stoogeocratic old line parties receive different marching orders from Warshington
2. Yes the economy is of paramount importance, and especially to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who've lost good paying jobs over the last six years and tens of thousands more losing jobs still - every other G7 country is taking aggressive measures to cushion the blow of what is already proving to be another massive failure of laissez-faire capitalism made new again with neoliberal voodoo lasting almost as long as it did the first time thru the the test lab, from 1900 to 1929.
A little out of context from your post perhaps, but hilarious nonetheless.
A convincing argument against the Coalition
http://www.poleconanalysis.org/2008/12/harper-out-of-ottawa-canada-out-o...No you are wrong again in many of your details.
First of all Bill's name is Siksay not Siskay. Secondly he was Svend's right hand person and the bedrock of his political writing for the decades Svend held office. As for being "replaced" as a candidate maybe you should back above and read Svend's words. He was not interested in running again because he moved to France in 2007. But in your imagination his not running was some sort of replacement by the right wing of the party.
As for your misguided conjecture about his unfortunate problems around the ring incident, please shut up about personal matters of people you know nothing about and have probably never met.
You are trying to vilify the NDP because Svend did not run again and I have shown your assumptions are stupid because they are not based on any facts. Try getting your facts straight so I don't have to do remedial training with you to correct your inaccuracies.
Actually he resigned, did he not? And Siskay took over. Then the NDP tried to reinvigorate him in Vancouver center, since he is a popular figure despite his stupide moment,
Moreover, that is irrelevant to what happened before he did something stupid. In fact, I think it was the vicious attack of the right wing of the party, and the vicious charges of anti-semestism leveled at him for being so naive as to actually believe that he could raise Arab Palestinian issues in the context of the NDP, which is likely to have created the stress that caused him to start doing stupid things. But that is just conjeture.
What I do know is that in Vancouver Center the only NDP MP (in fact the only MP) to raise the issue of Omar Khadr in the house of commons, prior to 2007, was replaced as a candidate by Beyers whose instinct is to have Canadian law changed so that it is line with the US national security aparatus, so that Omar Khadr could be put on trial here, instead of Guantanamo Bay.
Regardless of why Svend decided to leave, the fact is he was replaced by a neo-liberal. That is my point.
Further, I see this whole chain of events, both personal and political as being directly linked to the highly personal attack, loss of status within the NDP, including his brush with the law, his resingation and replacement in Burnaby by his (former right hand man), hid decision to run in Vancouver Center, and his failure there, and his decision not to run and to move to France. Ultimately this series of events also leads to the promotion of a Candidate in Vancouver Center who is the complete ideological opposite of Robinson.
Again, you are attempting to portray me a stupid, and or manipulative, because I did not point out trivial details, such as the fact Siksay was a long time associate of Robinson, and mistyping his name. Your attack is completely personal, prejudiced and stupid.
A convincing argument against the Coalition
http://www.poleconanalysis.org/2008/12/harper-out-of-ottawa-canada-out-o...
Sorry to disagree, LP, but this article is quite stupid for three reasons:
1. It portrays the NDP as the "anti-war party", seemingly forgetting that it didn't even call for withdrawal before September 2006 - and has been ambiguous and inconsistent ever since.
2. It states:
That's just plain stupid. Who voted the NDP as the "independent voice of Canadian labour"!!!??? This is the party that breaks strikes and legislates workers back to work and how long a list would you like every time it is actually elected to power. It's actually just an embarrassingly foolish description.
3. Why single out the war in Afghanistan as the "deal-breaker" here? How about withdrawal from NATO and NORAD? Remember that?
This is the kind of article by the kind of person who wants to sit back and whine while history moves on.
Anyone who can't recognize that something has changed in Canadian politics since two weeks ago - and can't see that the progressive movements need to find a way to profit from this change - is doomed to write boring articles.
So the NDP is a steaming pile of pro-war, anti-labour crap, you say.
What is it about a Liberal-NDP coalition that is so attractive? Does teaming up with the Liberals (another steaming pile) produce a coalition that is anything other than a steaming pile of crap?
And we're supposed to go to rallies and cheer for them?
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
And the NDP can't solve world hunger and establish world peace, so we might as well stick with herr Harper. He's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch!!
So the NDP is a steaming pile of pro-war, anti-labour crap, you say.
Not at all. I just find it repugnant/hilarious when someone creates overblown illusions about the NDP as a pretext to stop the NDP from doing anything to move the situation forward. Canadians have an actual opportunity to defeat Harper through an extra-parliamentary mass movement using a temporary coalition as one of its tools. Millions of people are actually enthusiastic about this prospect. We can assist this movement without creating illusions about its nature and how much it can accomplish. Or, we can find excuses to sit back and do nothing, like the kindly Professor Kellogg who wrote this article and uses "definitions" to scupper the movement.
Nothing - except its extra-electoral nature, its anti-Harper content, its nonpartisan combining of the interests of three parties that never cooperate on anything concrete, and its potential for capturing some popular imagination. This is about defeating Harper and making people feel good about it, letting them flex their muscles. Any attempt to infuse it with more profound content than that is as delusional as portraying the NDP as the salvation of humanity and paragon of socialist thought.
Absolutely. And while doing that, you're supposed to push them to go further - Afghanistan, NATO, Aboriginal rights, workers' rights, etc. Or, stay at home with your books and proclaim "a pox on both your houses".
Obamania has spilled over the border.
(Just as the US "progressive left intellectuals" are starting to realize what a steaming pile of crap they've been sold.)
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
It's a significant concession for a party that has been the standard-bearer for the peace movement in Canada.
"The NDP is putting aside its differences that have existed historically with the Liberals on such issues as Afghanistan," said Thomas Mulcair, the party's only MP in Quebec.
"Because we understand, in the interest of the Canadian population, the overarching principle is that we act on the economy and in the interest of Canadian families."
In order to seal its coalition with the Liberals on Monday, NDP Leader Jack Layton gave up the party's demand for a reversal of planned corporate tax cuts, but made no mention of the war.
Asked this week whether their position on Afghanistan had changed, several New Democrat MPs laughed nervously and ducked the question.
Political observers have said the fourth-place party, long-known as the conscience of Parliament, has to make key compromises to keep the coalition together.
Mulcair declined to respond when asked whether the party's election campaign promise to impose a moratorium on further oil sands development in Alberta was also being shelved.
Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said the gravity of the economic crisis and the unravelling political situation has had a sobering effect on both coalition partners, as well as the Bloc Quebecois.
"All three parties recognize the seriousness and as such we are putting aside our differences to focus on common ground," he said Wednesday.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Obamania has spilled over the border.
(Just as the US "progressive left intellectuals" are starting to realize what a steaming pile of crap they've been sold.)
That's an imperfect analogy. People are now supporting the Canadian coalition who would never have agreed to support the Liberal party as the lesser of evils, or "strategically", etc.
This is about defeating Harper after he has been elected, and after he has arrogantly declared a series of previously-unannounced draconian measures attacking the other parties, workers, women, etc.
This is about empowering the people at a moment of potential change rather than telling them to wait for the NDP to (1) earn the title of "party of the working class"; and (2) win a majority of seats.
If McCain had been elected, and a mass movement presented opportunities for such governmental change, it would be folly not to consider it.
The issue is to march at the head of the movement, and seize the moment, without ever failing to proclaim one's principles.
If the coalition-bound NDP says we should be quiet about Afghanistan for the next few years, they ought to be condemned for that, as they have been in the past for their vacillation. But that can't be the deciding factor in whether or not we support a coalition to stop Harper. If it is, only Harper and the warmongers themselves will benefit - including the warmongers of the Liberal party and those in the NDP and BQ ranks.
This above all else has to be a "deal breaker." The NDP has been the one major party that has been committed to ending the war in Afghanistan. As this is being written, news came across the wires that three Canadian soldiers have been killed, taking the military death toll past 100. We don't know how many Afghanis have been killed in the war - there is no official attempt to keep track.
No compromise is possible on war. You are either for it or against it. The Liberals began this war. The Liberals voted to extend it to 2011. We all know that it is an unwinnable war, fought for corporate profits and geopolitical power, not for democracy and human rights.
An anti-war party cannot stay anti-war and enter a cabinet with a pro-war party. Layton and the NDP leadership have to face up to the fact, that were the coalition to take office, the war in Afghanistan would become their war, and the deaths and injuries suffered in that conflict would be their responsibility.
Some will say that were the NDP to insist on this point, then the coalition would not be possible. That is probably true. But a coalition that includes "compromise" on Canada's military adventure in Afghanistan is not a coalition worth having.
Canada is engaged in an imperialist adventure in Central Asia - part of the long slow re-militarization of Canada begun by the Liberals and continuing under the Tories. Opposition to this war is a matter of principle, not one of political expediency. Were Layton and the NDP leadership to compromise on this issue, it would do immeasurable damage to the anti-war movement in Canada - and ultimately to the NDP itself.
There is fear among millions in the face of an unfolding economic crisis. There is anger at the arrogance of a Tory minority that is pushing full steam ahead with neoliberalism at home and militarism abroad.
But it is no solution to replace Harper with a coalition government led by the other party of corporate power and of militarism - the Liberal Party of Canada. All that would be accomplished would be the burying of the independent voice of Canadian labour - the voice of the NDP - behind the pro-corporate voices of Michael Ignatieff and his colleagues.
If the coalition does not take office, we know the way forward. We need to build social movements against war in Afghanistan, against the militarization of Canadian society, against sending off working class men and women to die for corporate profits.
We need to build inside the workers' movements, unions with the muscle to challenge the agenda of the corporations. Don't bail out the auto companies - nationalize them and convert the jobs to green jobs, building public transit, building the infrastructure of a sustainable green economy. If the coalition does take office - the way forward is exactly the same.
We will be told that raising Afghanistan is divisive. So be it. We will demand that the coalition withdraw the troops immediately, even if that means the Liberals abandoning the coalition and the government falling. The only lasting basis for gains for working people and the poor is in building social movements that do not rely on manoeuvres at the top of the system.
The Liberals will say "but we are a party of peace, we didn't go to war in Iraq." We will remind them that they were going full speed ahead to war in Iraq in 2003, until 400,000 people took to the streets - including two massive, beautiful demonstrations in Montreal - demanding that Canada stay out of that conflict. The Liberals reluctantly stayed out of the Iraq war because it would have been political suicide for them to join the Coalition of the Killing.
That is the way we will win progress whether it be a Harper government, or a Liberal/NDP government - by mobilizing on the streets and in the workplaces, whether the Prime Minister is Stephen Harper, or Stéphane Dion, or Bob Rae, or Michael Ignatieff.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
M. Spector, is there a reason why this article has to be referenced a second time in the same thread?
There certainly are four very good reasons:
1. It is an excellent article.
2. Most babblers are too lazy to click on a link and read it.
3. Now that rabble has received permission to reproduce it, I wanted to make it available in full for the click-challenged.
4. Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Okay, only three good reasons.
I think Obama is not a bad analogy in that both the coalition and Obama will probably be better on domestic matters and for the citizens of their respective countries while continuing the aggressive foreign policies of the Republicans and the Conservatives.
Of course it would be great to see Harper replaced and our parliament actually reflect how people voted but the way the NDP seems to be sliding away from their position on Afghanistan is worrying and I think will hurt their credibility a lot in the long run. I don´t see why they aren´t taking this more seriously, it was a key reason why people voted for them. They should be providing a clear explanation of how the coalition will affect their position on Afghanistan.
Of course it would be great to see Harper replaced and our parliament actually reflect how people voted but the way the NDP seems to be sliding away from their position on Afghanistan is worrying and I think will hurt their credibility a lot in the long run. I don´t see why they aren´t taking this more seriously, it was a key reason why people voted for them. They should be providing a clear explanation of how the coalition will affect their position on Afghanistan.
I agree 100%. The NDP joining this coalition doesn't make me feel one bit warmer and fuzzier about their policies than I was before. Nor does it diminish in the slightest the need for popular movements to push for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and to push for all four parties in the House to move in that direction.
But is that a reason not to support a coalition to overthrow Harper?
Is that a reason to say that the NDP should not be part of such a coalition?
Would it be better if the NDP stayed out of the coalition, but signed an agreement similar to the Bloc not to vote down the Liberal government?
I have to agree that this Coalition movement and Obama and unionist's comment that those who oppose from the left "sit back and whine while history moves on" sounds quite similar to comments made by "lefties for Obama" who said this was a mass movement for change that could push US politics to the left and how opposing the Obama movement was missing out on an important historical development, etc. I haven't actually taken a stance on the Coalition at all and even attended the Toronto rally for the Coalition (where there were chants of "Yes We Can" BTW), mainly to express my disgust with Harper. Opposing by fostering illusions about the NDP's radicalism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend that the NDP isn't selling out on Afghanistan (however tepid its opposition may be) and as I've said before this I don't think much of this idea that "the NDP is just another capitalist party so who cares" line.
I personally think an accord is a better idea than a coalition.
Would it be better if the NDP stayed out of the coalition, but signed an agreement similar to the Bloc not to vote down the Liberal government?
I for one think so. Only without the 18-month commitment not to move or support non-confidence motions.
I'd love to see the Liberals have to come cap-in-hand to Jack Layton every time they wanted to introduce a new bill in the House.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Opposing by fostering illusions about the NDP's radicalism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend that the NDP isn't selling out on Afghanistan (however tepid its opposition may be) and as I've said before this I don't think much of this idea that "the NDP is just another capitalist party so who cares" line.
I personally think an accord is a better idea than a coalition.
Well said, M'lud!
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Opposing by fostering illusions about the NDP's radicalism is wrong, but we shouldn't pretend that the NDP isn't selling out on Afghanistan (however tepid its opposition may be)
Then why not oppose the NDP's sellout on Afghanistan? I've been doing that vociferously from the day I started posting here - I hailed the NDP's policy shift in September 2006 - and I've been condemning the Dawn Black line ever since. I have no plan to stop now. So, the emphasis has to be on that, not on opposing the coalition. Because if we oppose the coalition, it will not drive the NDP to the left, nor assist the anti-war movement, nor make Harper unhappy.
No one said that. What I found bizarre was Kellogg's crowning the NDP as the "independent voice of Canadian labour" (I still cringe when typing those words) and describing the NDP as an "anti-war party". That doesn't mean we should stop pushing the NDP to oppose the war. We should do the same with the Liberals and the Bloc, both of which have caved rather spectacularly on this point.
That means you think a Liberal government is better than a Liberal-NDP government. You may have a point, but I'd need a lot more convincing. The only argument I've heard in favour of that is to maintain the "purity" of the NDP, which (as I've stated) I find it hard to detect.
I think we can't ignore the fact that the most vociferous opposition to coalition is coming from Harper and Manley - both of whom teamed up to terrify Dion and company into supporting extending Canadian involvement until 2011 last year. How do you explain that even on the issue of Afghanistan, it is the prime warmongers who fear a coalition?
Harper doesn't like the coalition, so therefore it must be good for the NDP? Great logic.
I think a Liberal-NDP government, where NDP support on some issues, and criminal silence on others, is guaranteed, is far worse than a Liberal government where NDP independence and freedom of speech and voting is assured - especially at a time when the Liberals are deathly afraid of having another election, for financial and political reasons.
I also think that perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
From the Coalition activism thread:
"What is the point of opposing this coalition from the left? If the NDP were a serious leftist anti-capitalist party I can understand the sentiment of "no cooperation with the capitalists", but it isn't."
"We already have this problem, except it is with the labour bureaucracy's tendency to hop in bed with the NDP rather than mobilize the members to... what you said.
I don't see how a coalition changes this reality for better or worse."
The Sweater PM will sweeten the budget enough that the Liberals will choose to support it. At that point I would be demanding and expecting that the NDP /Liberal deal would die as well.
Is the NDP anti-war enough? Absolutely not!! The pacifists like Woodsworth were a minority then and still are. Most people from all political stripes believe in the concept of justifiable war. My personal believe is that all wars are equally as evil because it is the act of war itself that is the evil. So as someone who believes that we should never go to war my choice is to either abandon the field of electoral politics (because I will never convince a majority of people that all war is always wrong) or help elect an MP who will speak his conscience.
I think that this thread is premature. It is true that if the coalition were to become government the only thing the agreement talks about is economic affairs. I hope that this is good sign because traditionally it is only economic affairs that are the subject of confidence votes and my preference would be a coalition that will be able to bring their own party motions to the House where the NDP's policy on Afghanistan will unfortunately be defeated by the Libs and Cons. That is ideally how I would hope this coalition would act.
I do know that when one is trying to negotiate and settle agreements between disparate parties the only way to settlement is by looking to items of agreement and putting aside items of contention. I don't think the coaliton will ever form government but if they do I hope the NDP will bring its own agenda outside of the box of agreed items to the House and they would not be confidence motions but they would allow for a full debate in the House.
It's not premature, because whether or not the Kanadian Koalition ever forms a government, we have seen how far the NDP is willing to sacrifice principle in return for a little bit of power. This teaches us important things about the party.
It reminds me of the old joke that ends in the punchline, "We've already established what you are; now we're just negotiating the price." So now we know the NDP's price.
ETA: And BTW your namesake was no pacifist himself.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
It's not premature, because whether or not the Kanadian Koalition ever forms a government, we have seen how far the NDP is willing to sacrifice principle in return for a little bit of power. This teaches us important things about the party.
It reminds me of the old joke that ends in the punchline, "We've already established what you are; now we're just negotiating the price." So now we know the NDP's price.
ETA: And BTW your namesake was no pacifist himself.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Its interesting your comment about Kropotkin. You see some of us are not prone to absolute believe in any one persons political views. However I think that his concepts on mutual aid are ones of great incite. I also think that state control of economies is as bad as capitalist control. So I ideally would like to see a syndicalist economy developed where the ownership was in the hands of the workers themselves. I don't expect the NDP to demand that the government not bail out the corporations and immediately fund syndicate based businesses. Although I think that issue to be every bit as pressing as putting an end to war.
But then who is under the illusion that the NDP is some sort of revolutionary party, certainly not me.
___________________________________________________________________________________________From North of Manifest Destiny
From the Coalition activism thread:
"What is the point of opposing this coalition from the left? If the NDP were a serious leftist anti-capitalist party I can understand the sentiment of "no cooperation with the capitalists", but it isn't."
"We already have this problem, except it is with the labour bureaucracy's tendency to hop in bed with the NDP rather than mobilize the members to... what you said.
I don't see how a coalition changes this reality for better or worse."
You're right. I don't believe that saying "the NDP is a pro-capitalist party" covers all sins and justifies everything.
However, I'm still interested in hearing your answer to my question: Would you prefer a Liberal government with NDP-BQ guaranteed support for (say) 18 months, based on an agreed minimal platform and freedom of speech on all other issues?
I believe that's what M. Spector said above that he would prefer.
I'm prepared to be convinced. I guess the real question is, what does the coalition do for the movement besides besides 6 NDP cabinet seats? If the answer is "nothing", then maybe an accord is better - if that's still achievable.
Perhaps we need a new thread for a proper "Accord or Coalition?" discussion. I also want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting M. Spector's position here.
"What is the point of opposing this coalition from the left? If the NDP were a serious leftist anti-capitalist party I can understand the sentiment of "no cooperation with the capitalists", but it isn't." '
The NDP is not a Marxist party calling for the end of capitalism and dawning of socialism in one fell swoop. Of course they are "a capitalist" party in the sense that a futuristic system based on communism exists only in the minds of intellectuals and scientists and ordinary people around the world. An economist posited a theory of dominant revenue, and what we have today is marauding capital undermining the sovereign powers of democratically elected governments around the world. Capitalism isn't what it once was in the 1960's or even 70's. Capitalists don't profit by pouring foundations for factories any more - they "put money to work" for them and live off compound interest. The NDP and a few visionary parties on the left are the only ones calling for Keynes' financial disarmament and are very anti-capitalist ni this regard. Meanwhile organized labour could only stood by and watch as the productive labour economy was reorganized and sent chasing lower and lower wages around the world over the last 28 years as capitalists sought higher profit margins with the new financial capitalism.
Opposition to labour isnt Bethlehem steel or the Bronfmans or Fords so much anymore as it is the newer financial oligarchs around the world taking possession of the physical economy from old world industrial capitalists. JK Galbraith said that New Deal socialism was a solution to prop up capitalism in a bygone era. What workers need today is a global agreement for workers' rights, a kind of NAFTA for workers negotiated at the highest levels of international government. This is where the good fight is, imo.
Oh my god the NDP is not left wing enough. I am so surprised by that view. I am astounded that a person like yourself would claim to have only recently come to that conclusion.
I am astounded that a person like yourself would claim that I have claimed to have only recently come to that conclusion, whereas I'm pretty sure I came to it long before you did.
I'm also astounded that you would so misread my posts as to think that the main thrust of them was to complain that the NDP is "not left wing enough". To paraphrase: We already know that the NDP is prepared to sell out to the right-wing capitalist parties; now we are getting an idea of their price (6 cabinet seats).
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
Yes it's obvious by now that the NDP is on the receiving end of money and backing from Bay Street, Canadian Clubbers, Emil Kirdorf and Prescott Bushler types, and an undisclosed list of wealthy donors. And I'm sure you'll finger that list for us some day soon. But is this your only reason why we are better off with the blue sweaters we know? I'm not convinced by your proxy support for the Harpers that goes without saying, or that the NDP is there to support anything more than extract a list of concessions from Liberals on social supports for laid off workers and poor, important investments in energy conservation and efficiency, and corporate welfare handouts which with at least a few strings attached.
Is there away to find out donor lists for political parties?
I think that's a great idea.
Is there away to find out donor lists for political parties?
Yes, follow the money. And read the "Liberal" news media to find out which two parties are favoured by big business and banksters in this country and that one draining Canada of natural wealth for a song and maybe a crate of whiskey or two. And I think people would be surprised with how little it actually takes to bribe our hirelings and colonial administrators in Ottawa. In Warshington, I think Hillary was bought off for a few hundred thou by big insurance companies and HMO's. Canada has Washington style lobbying since Brian Baloney's glorious time in the sun.
Yes it's obvious by now that the NDP is on the receiving end of money and backing from Bay Street, Canadian Clubbers, Emil Kirdorf and Prescott Bushler types, and an undisclosed list of wealthy donors. And I'm sure you'll finger that list for us some day soon.
Ironically, your sarcasm has hit upon the crux of why it is wrong to characterize the NDP as a "capitalist party" - because the capitalists don't support it, either politically or financially. That's why it's worth stopping the NDP from carrying out a suicide pact with the Liberals.
I've already indicated that the NDP's selling-out price doesn't involve funding from Bay Street, but merely six measly minor cabinet seats out of 24. They are selling out real cheap.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
I've already indicated that the NDP's selling-out price doesn't involve funding from Bay Street, but merely six measly minor cabinet seats out of 24. They are selling out real cheap.
I think I know what what your underlying message is: let it fall apart this time and pave the way for real change. Like it was with communist and socialist parties in 1920's-30's Germany mulling over whether or not to save it or scrap kapitalism altogether. But in a way, the NDP realizes they wont be in a position to re-regulate money markets and nationalise industries and energy. What they are looking for is an introduction to Canadians as part of the government. Inch by inch it's a cinch. The Liberals already have no idea what they might encounter with the global economy becoming increasingly unstable. Let them accept full responsibility for mismanaging that end of things. The accord, the accord. It's there in writing for laid off workers and a population which will no doubt suffer increasing desperation as time goes on. And it would be unnecessary and meaningless suffering, imo. The time will come for an imperfect revolution.
Solidarnosc! And look how well that turned out for Lech and workers.
Well Fidel, it looks like the revolution will not happen under the watch of the NDP.
Well Fidel, it looks like the revolution will not happen under the watch of the NDP.
In the last 140 years in a row, the NDP has never been in government or played a minor role inside of government. That could change in the next several weeks. That would be revolutionary for Canada.
Fidel, when the NDP fails to accomplishes nothing more than building their own ego for a short amount of time will you still speak proudly of them?
This is not a revolution, it is a power grab to fill the needs of the senior leadership of NDP.
It is the selling out of principals in order to gain some terms objectives, that will be lost in less than 4 years.
Fidel, when the NDP fails to accomplishes nothing more than building their own ego for a short amount of time will you still speak proudly of them?
Until we can win advanced democracy in Canada, it's always going to be about ego and politicking. You can't fault the NDP for playing dirty. They've learned from the best over the years. In fact, the NDP are playing by the rules. If you dont appreciate our obsolete system, then click your ruby slippers together like the rest of us and wish hard for the wind of change to blow over Ottawa. Scorpions did a nice high energy rendition of wind of change and was played over and over at the end of the cold war.
It is the selling out of principals in order to gain some terms objectives, that will be lost in less than 4 years.
I'm not sure school principals have anything to do with it, but I get your drift. Think wind of change. It's blowing gently over my greying coif now. Don't go wind, don't leave us. Pick it up some, old woman.
Perhaps a way the NDP could move on the Afghan war would be to push to remove Canadians troops from their search and destroy mission and re-deploy them to peace keeping assignments. There can be no issue with using the Canadian forces to stop people from killing people but we should never have become the killers.
The Conservative position that killing people makes good foreign policy is completely insane.
There is no search and destroy missions in Canadian Army Doctrine.
Is that right? Our troops are their to hunt down and engage the Taliban, not?
That is correct, there are no mission verbs or tasks that imply search and destroy missions in Canadian Army doctrine.
You are using terms from old US Army manuals, dating back to the Vietnam era.
There is no search and destroy missions in Canadian Army Doctrine.
I thought someone said Canadians were at top of the list for deaths by IED's and odd stray bullets? Are the IED's going off between mess tent and latrines, or are our boys out sight seeing when such things occur?
Fidel, what does your last post have to do with the topic at hand.
Fidel, what does your last post have to do with the topic at hand? What do you think they are doing?
You can say that again.
In answer to your questions, webgear:
1. I dont know, you brought it up
2. U.S. style aggressive combat ie. seek and destroy in someone else's country. Fascists tend to be physically and geographically situated in sovereign countries other than their own when seeking out "the enemy" in order to murder them.
Now, back to my game of MS chess in another window. I'm losing damnit! It seems that team black doesnt appreciate it when I move my pieces to its side of the board. Everyone leave the room except Day, Mackay, and Baird, I can feel an episode coming on.
peskyfly1 made the initial comment about search and destroy missions, I was make a response to his comment.
I hope you do well in your game.
There is no search and destroy missions in Canadian Army Doctrine.
I thought someone said Canadians were at top of the list for deaths by IED's and odd stray bullets? Are the IED's going off between mess tent and latrines, or are our boys out sight seeing when such things occur?
What about transfering supplies between base's.
Mentoring the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police (The last 3 soldiers who died were a part of the mentoring team were they not?)
Providing humanitarian aid.
Providing presence patrols to the area.
He idea that calling someone a peacekeeper makes things better is silly.
Peacekeepers are intended to keep the peace. You're trying to say there is peace in Afghanistan??
If you think the Canadians in their armored vehicles are on top of the list ou should see the Afghan army that's riding in pickup trucks.
Don't forget helping little girls with their homework.
What's the NATO stock number for elmer's glue and glitter?
Hey...Unless you been there and have seen the good that is being done keep your mouth shut!
Wonder how you would feel if your Mothers, Daughters & Sisters were dragged from thier homes raped and beaten just for being female or going to school.
Get a Grip!
Sniper
One Shot One Kill!
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=142a4a92-9423-4116-b970-cd447ad2a98a
That investigation was prompted by a complaint in the spring from NDP defence critic Dawn Black, who had been approached by a soldier upset by the sexual abuse of boys at the hands of Afghan officers. The soldier told Black he and his fellow troops were under strict orders not to intervene.
"What I was told was this was a Thursday night ritual and they weren't to do anything about it," Black said Friday.
"I outlined what I was told and asked (the Defence Department) for an investigation."
Black said she was disappointed it had taken months before the Defence Department acted on her complaint.
In July, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the United Nations special representative for children and armed conflict, said Afghanistan had to do more to end the practice of young boys being sexually abused by warlords, government officials and military personnel. The practice is called "bacha bazi," which means "boy play."
I can't find the button to posty links. It used to be quick and simple.
I would be tempted to pick up arms and try to drive the invaders and their syncophants from my country. I would hope that I could resist that violent urge and try to work on peace through non-vioolent means.
Hey...Unless you been there and have seen the good that is being done keep your mouth shut!
Wonder how you would feel if your Mothers, Daughters & Sisters were dragged from thier homes raped and beaten just for being female or going to school.
Get a Grip!
Sniper
One Shot One Kill!
Hey...Unless you been there and have seen the good that is being done keep your mouth shut!
Wonder how you would feel if your Mothers, Daughters & Sisters were dragged from thier homes raped and beaten just for being female or going to school.
Get a Grip!
Sniper
One Shot One Kill!
Umm... and standing around propping up a corrupt Afghan narco - government, who's countries poppie production has increased x fold since the occupation, and forced to NOT intervene while the so called Afghan "army" and "police" go around raping little boys is more acceptable?
Go back to playing on yer Xbox bud. I'm sure you're pretty good at Halo by now.
"one shot one kill".
Sheesh.
Hey...Unless you been there and have seen the good that is being done keep your mouth shut!
Wonder how you would feel if your Mothers, Daughters & Sisters were dragged from thier homes raped and beaten just for being female or going to school.
And that's just northern alliance types and foreign friends of Karzai's thugs in government who are above the law. It's too bad those sonsobitches don't catch a stray one.
Don't forget helping little girls with their homework.
What's the NATO stock number for elmer's glue and glitter?
cblpw-00019a
most of the school children supplies are donted from schools in Canada (and US etc.) and by church groups, kinsmen centers, families and so on.
And when they reach voting age, some percentage of privileged young Afghans will be able to read the disappearing ink stamped back of their hands on election day. It's been over 30 years since Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter created the Nationalities Working Group and pledging to use militant Islam to destroy secular socialism and orchestrate chaos in Central Asia. Neocons have the blood of millions of children dripping from their fangs, Realigned.
I just want to interject with some points on Unionists prior rants without mudding it up with a bunch of quotes.
1. the NDP is for better or worst the independent political expression of English canadian labour (quebec trade unions have traditionally either remained apolitical (meaning they pick between platforms not parties) or choose to affilliate to more prominent provincial bourgois parties (PQ I heard has some affiliiated unions but I am not a scholar so I wont act tooo authoritative on this one).
2. nor does anyone else state anywhere at anytime (except Fidel who is in favour of everything the NDP ever did including and not withstanding the action of anti-labour legislation) state the NDP has pro-Labour policies.
3. It qualifies as a Labour party the same way as the UK Labour Party does, a concrete established connection/merger with the mass organizations of the working class (or labour beuracracy if you like.. i dont, i think the leadership on both party and union level is by and large beuracratic). This doesnt mean every worker votes for it. It doesnt mean it always enacts a Socialist society when elected. it is the labour movement that exists and those on the left must adapt and work with it.
4. the left in english Canada must make their task the oustre the reformist and careerist oppurtunistic leadership of both the unions and the NDP in english canada. In quebec I would say a party of labour must be established or built out of existing ones (NDP or Quebec Solidaire come to mind but get creative no need to use my polemic).
6. also on the point of mass support. doesnt exist. the majority of people one will talk to outside the unions will say they are against the coalition and polls suggest this whole fiasco has actually strengthened the NEOCON movement in this country with roughly 51% of polled people saying they would vote tory today. this has failed. speculate why if you want but those of us on the left just wanted to spare the labour movement this embarassment and spare them a Tory Majority where more attacks as visious as we have already seen and worst.
Now to Fidel
1. shakes head sadly
2. Nobody is advocating the NDP abandon class callavorationism with the liberals and exchange it with class callaboration with the conservatives. both ar vicious beasts and cannot be trusted. I think Spector would agree that the NDP must reject harper in the nearest confidence vote but not form a coalition with the little c conservatives in the LPC as some sort of lesser evil.
2.if both parties in the quote unquote "old line" are equally party to evil George II then why should the NDP support them and spare them their most certain defeat and possible collapse when they next face the electorate. Instead you davocate that Jack and the NDP wear Dion like a necktie of mediocrity and further submitt the NDP to thrid party tactics all so Jack can get the culture ministers post
3. You totally fail to address the most fundemental problems of today and instead tote the line of tired social democracy which has failed and never ended the suffering of the working people of this or any other country I cite the fact that it hasnt prevented 1 recession hasnt eliminated poverty in any place where enacted and has always subordinated to the dictates of capital at the most crucial moments in history.
all and all the war will prove to be the disgrace of this Party. The Leadership never cared for the dead and those families that will meet their loved ones in flag drapped caskets. it was the rank and file who push these positions, the rank and file are to be credited for the progressive policies the NDP has championed. It is rare that the NDP reformist leadership take it upon themeselves to promote social justice. Libby davies comes to mind, but alas Kennedy unseated her. The NDP leadership Mr.Layton included used this and other issues it seems to further is own aspirations. I say this with great regrett and in hopes that history proves me wrong and the Layton-Mulcair leadership grow backbones on this issue.
Now to Fidel
1. shakes head sadly
3. You totally fail to address the most fundemental problems of today and instead tote the line of tired social democracy which has failed and never ended the suffering of the working people of this or any other country I cite the fact that it hasnt prevented 1 recession hasnt eliminated poverty in any place where enacted and has always subordinated to the dictates of capital at the most crucial moments in history.
Well you're completely wrong on just about every numbered point you listed. But this is a particularly annoying one. We havent had a 1930's level economic depression since mixed market economies were implemented ie. public sector. We've just never have to endure the kind of grinding poverty of the 1930's since large public sector economies have worked to balance out cyclical downturns and the "business cycle" which is still with us despite neoliberal theorists' predictions that it would vanish with unregulated capitalism. And as governments have deregulated public sector economy little by little and tried to run vital social programs according to efficient business models, Canadians have become poorer for it. The ideology was never something that could be called into question by the NDP and taken seriously, until now perhaps. Not until now that the ideology is producing similar results as occurred in post-1929 America or 1985 Chile. Ideologues believed that smaller doses of laissez-faire would not cripple a robust mixed market economy. Our mixed market economies are sick now with neoliberal influenza. The NDP is on record as having opposed the new liberal capitalism for many years.
There are the Nordic countries to point to as wonderful examples of social democracy. Not only have those countries made measurable progress toward eliminating poverty, they are more economically competitive than all of the English speaking western countries on average. The OECD to Harvard economists through to Canadian labour have all admitted in recent years that there is a valid alternative to U.S.-style flexible labour markets.
And the reason I don't think you're ready to digest your own baloney is that you won't be handing in your provincial health card at the border and moving to a US right-to-work state anytime soon and testing your assumption about the CCF-NDP. It's very nice weather in the sun belt USA. It almost makes living in the southern states worthwhile. It's much nicer that putting up with Canadian winters according to some Canadians who've made the move. But remember, very many of them return to Canada for various reasons.
Sorry, but I think you're full of baloney. In all lilelihood the NDP and Bloc combined could never have pulled the troops out of Afghanistan. What the NDP and Bloc will continue to do is express their democratic voices in opposition to phony war in Afghanistan. The Green Party is a small but significant democratic voice and is silenced today by our obsolete 19th century electoral system. You blame far too much on the NDP for not achieving more than they have, and I don't think that's fair considering all that the CCF-NDP have achieved when combining forces with grass roots and civil society groups, and yes, even when the CCF-NDP have been able to influence minority Liberal governments of the past.
I never said they caused the war Fidel I said they now are silently callaborating in government where a full cabinet is responsible for all the policies and functions it overseas. Spector already debunked your delusional conception that the NDP is only responsible for the small sphear of its politcal activity in cabinet in tis six ministries. cabinet votes and is held to the decisions of the majority and must defend these decisions regardless of personal and party line. this is a sell out and Jack didnt say know. like the German Social Democracy and the rest of the Second International in 1914-5 they capitulated to the ruling class and are now agreeing to support the war. If this were to happen with jack and the NDP in cabinet blood is on their hands. Jack is fine with this it seems, and if he's not I challenge him to challenge Ignatieff on this position and demand that the "off the table" clause be removed. Ignatieff wont care and as he has no illusions whats so ever in a coalition and will form the more traditional Liberal-Conservative Accord.
this is a sell out and Jack didnt say know.
Point us to a line of text in the accord or public statement by the NDP approving of and supporting phony war in Afghanistan.
In the Great War, whenever either side found a sniper, they never taken prisoner. They were shot on the spot. Snipers were reviled for their cowardice.
In more recent times, snipers hone their skills shooting civilians who are forced to present themselves as targets simply to carry out their daily existence. Sarajevo became famous for the toll taken on non-combatants by these loathsome pieces of shit.
In Fallujah, snipers shoot ambulances, animals, the elderly, and pretty much anything that moves or breaths.
In Afghanistan, Canadian snipers target farmers from two kilometers away, and consider themselves, and are feted by our corporate press, as "heroes".
In Palestine, Israelis use school kids as target practice.
I consider snipers to fall somewhere between Paul Bernardo and Charles Ing on the scale of scumbag.
One Shot
One Kill
Too chickenshit to face the fight.
Webgear, I hope that thing wasn't one of yours. You excepted, it's getting to be a common theme that self-identified representatives of the Canadian Forces turn out to be racist thugs whom have little respect for or understanding of those people they desire to kill, and accept wholly the narrative of "Us good: They bad" fed to them by our American-trained officer corps and right wing media.
Please excuse my rant.
He was not one of mine, I highly doubt he was a sniper or even a professional soldier. One shot, one kill was likely some kid aspiring to act like an adult.
His communications skill was of a low quality for a message board of this level, he would have been more at home on other sites.
I rather enjoy your point of view; your rant was ok with me.
If i had my way we go back to the good old day of killing people in melee combat. Not even bows. To see your enemy before they die would go a long ways toward deterring the "I got a drone with cluster bombs that I can fly from my living room" mentality of the halo generation. It's harder to kill someone when you know you could have not killed them. I wa talking to my mom about Dresden during WW2(germany not ontario) she didn't know we targeted civilians just a couple months before the war ended, then claimed it wasn't a war crime during the nurmeburg tials. Funny that eh, using phosporous isn't so bad as long as we do it.
______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
In Afghanistan, Canadian snipers target farmers from two kilometers away, and consider themselves, and are feted by our corporate press, as "heroes".
Do yo uhave any news articles referencing Canadian snipers killing farmers from 2KMs away?
I wouldn't say snipers were reviled for their cowardice. More often than not "no prisoner" rules we're suposed to be a form of deterant. I've heard stories of Canadian soldiers being told to "aim for the balls" of snipers and shooters taking pop shots at their convoys and such (In these cases it was largely an ineffective tactice).
In WW2 Germans took no prisoners in cases on the eastern front because they found that when Russian soldiers surrendered and gave up the germans moved past and the russians would pick up and start shooting again. Wasn't just against snipers.
Snipers are just a tool in a commanders toolchest but this is probably the wrong place for a sniper=murderer debate.
In anycase I don't think out little friend was even in the military let alone a sniper.
Even when someonein the CF turns out to be a hot head or mouth off their very young/new and think it's expected of them or their posturing
Do yo uhave any news articles referencing Canadian snipers killing farmers from 2KMs away?
If the "farmers" have been fingered as Taliban or al-Qaeda by the USA, then, yes, Canadian forces have carried out assassinations by sniping.
JTF2 commandos have joined counterparts from the United States and some Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, in fighting that has claimed more than 1,200 lives in six months, the Canadian defence sources say....
Some engagements are long-range; others are close-in. Some involve a degree of infiltration into enemy compounds and "behind enemy lines" -- although no lines really exist in the mountainous and desert terrain where they operate.
The commandos, some of whom speak a smattering of area dialects, often work in collaboration with local citizens who know the lay of the land. Using specialized weapons, Canadian snipers have played their deadly cat-and-mouse games at night and in the 50-degree heat of Afghan summer days.
Many of their victims -- whom the chief of defence staff recently called "murderers and scumbags" -- never knew what hit them, one source told The Canadian Press.
Beyond acknowledging that JTF2 is in Afghanistan, defence officials and the federal government have maintained their usual strict silence about the unit's exploits.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
They are representative of Canadian society, who just happen to enrol into the military, as they are. In far too many instances though, they do find a receptive and fostering atmoshpere for their views.
I think they are young people who find higher education to be too expensive in Canada. They want job training and access to subsidized education. So they choose socialism in a bastardized form over low wage philanthropy in the private sector.
I think they are well educated Canadians in their late 30's to 40's who never found decent jobs in the "information economy" that never was and is now going away.
I think they are Canadians who find the new McService sector economy paying too low a wages and few benefits, or are tired of part-time lowly paid and lowly skilled work in this country exporting massive amounts of energy and raw materials to the USSA on the cheap, so that economy can prosper and grow at Canada's expense.
So they choose socialism in a bastardized form over low wage philanthropy in the private sector.
The soup's not bad either.
I refference the line that says "Afghanistant is off the table" that not one single person on this forum has contested has been stated, the t.v. footage shows Jack Layton not even objecting. Unless Jack actually joined the Liberals (not suggesting he would leave the NDP) he is still the Leader of the NDP. stop arguing on an ignorant level and have some substance to your argument. Fact: the NDP rank and file by overwhelming majority decided to demand the end of the war via a strongly worded resolution. Fact: The NDP leadership and parliamentary caucus have been vage and have watered down this resolution to the point where it had no meaning (Canada in an Imperialist adventure but in a "non-Combative" role) and now The NDP is trying to join a coalition with a party that not only started this war but seek to propogate it to at least Harpers 2011 date if not beyond and Jack agrees that this issue is off the table and cabinet will there by not be re examining this issue. Fact: The oppurtunist leadership doesnt care about those who come home dead in flag draped coffins but shallowly used the issue to obtain a few progressive voters from the outraged small-l Liberal catagory. If I am wrong then Jack should come out swinging on this point and make it one of the conditions of support for the NDP's assistance in reviving the Liberal party of Capital from the electoral drudgery it is in. or better yet why not defeat the Conservatives, not join an alliance with Michael Ignatieff (more right wing than Harper) and actually stand as the alternative to the conservative agenda.
NDP to power on a Socialist Program!
Canada out of Afghanistan!
You said the NDP are silent collaborators to the fascist invasion of Afghanistan, as if they are Vichies or some such. You have no money trail from Bay Street to point us to nor a list of Emil Kirdorf type kapitalists propping up the NDP in silence from the sidelines. To summarize, you have nothing. I'm sorry, but your rabid anti-NDP rhetoric has failed you again.
Meanwhile herr Harper has dumped a truckload of perogies on parliament and is holed up at the Eagle's nest somewhere in the Alps.
"NDP to power on a Socialist Program!
Canada out of Afghanistan!"
Sounds like I am verry Anti-NDP...Fidel you my friend are an ass. when you can no longer hold your own you hurl an insult at the tories and libs which is all fine and good but those of us seriously committed to the advancement of this party dont want to see it callaborating with this war-promoting party in governing. we fundementally agree that the capitalists in the Liberal party must be rooted along with harper but I start at home, I want capitalist leadership of the party of labour held to account. failure to work toward this is a failure and the party is better off with out those who blindly follow the NDP. Should Marxists occupy the leadership of this party some day (could happen) then I wouldnt venture to say people like fidel would follow like a sheep. Until you break the party line when it is undoubtbly wrong I will not take you seriously and I doubt the other comrades in the NDP will either.
"NDP to power on a Socialist Program!
Canada out of Afghanistan!"
Sounds like I am verry Anti-NDP...Fidel you my friend are an ass.
You can relax now. Canada's elite class have probably nixed any chance for democracy with the installation of Iggy as Whig head. In all likelihood the Liberals will now side with their old friends the Tories when the chips are down next non-confidence vote. Canada's plutocracy is made democracy-proof, once again. Bay Street has struck back against democracy in the Northern Puerto Rico.
This my friend we can agree on (shakes hands with Fidel).
Iggy was there all along within the decision making echelon of the party. People either didn't notice, or decided to ignore his presence, or just simply fooled themselves into believing that an alternative outcome to being the shafted partner in such an alliance was possible with the liberals and their usual double talk. It's sad really, to consider the many rank and file NDPers who have proven themselves to be so opportunistic in their quest toward power for its own sake. Salivating in fact, at the prospect of being thrown a few scraps from the Liberal table. Clearly, some internal soul-searching is in order, and when it’s finished, the NDP will need to be cleansed of its regressive elements, starting at the top.
Iggy's just a placeholder for the next Liberal plutocrat with a chance of leading their disgraced party to its former glory.
This talk of changing leaders is typical of the two old line parties and their support base whenever their parties fail to win phony majorities.
Layton will stay on and fight the plutocracy. He is worth more than all of the handpicked stooges our two old line parties can throw at him. NDP'ers don't quit on Canadians. They stand and fight the good fight.
Who said anything about quitting. Accountability and renewal means throwing da bums out, the ones who led and supported this coalition of the willing fiasco.
Here, here slumberjack. I hope you hold an organge card and will put those strong words into practice as I will. Fidel is nothing but a Lapdog for the leadership he will parrot what they say no matter what. he'd make an excellent Parliamentary assisstant (pitch yourself to the reactionaries like Pat Martin they will just love you).
Well, it's either that, or the NDP can no longer lay claim to being a party of the left. This dalliance with the right has really been too much. As it stands now, the NDP has forsaken its mission and vision.
Who said anything about quitting.
Dion is a quitter. John Tory is a quitter. Mike Harris got out while the gettin was good, like Brian Baloney before him.
Old line party politicians quit all the time when big money tells them it's time to go. Big money and Bay Street will back either phony majority winners or placeholders for phony majority winners. It'sl a personality contest for Canada's two old line parties. Or at least, they have to make it a personality contest because they couldnt possibly win elections based on their political platforms and colossal flip-flops prior with FTA, NAFTA, and volleying GST back and forth.
For all their big business and big banking support, our two high powered big money parties barely won a third of registered voter support combined total. They're desperate for a phony majority between them. If anyone's not getting their money's worth, I'd have to think it's Bay Street and the banksters.
You said the NDP are silent collaborators to the fascist invasion of Afghanistan, as if they are Vichies or some such. You have no money trail from Bay Street to point us to nor a list of Emil Kirdorf type kapitalists propping up the NDP in silence from the sidelines. To summarize, you have nothing. I'm sorry, but your rabid anti-NDP rhetoric has failed you again.
Meanwhile herr Harper has dumped a truckload of perogies on parliament and is holed up at the Eagle's nest somewhere in the Alps.
If the "farmers" have been fingered as Taliban or al-Qaeda by the USA, then, yes, Canadian forces have carried out assassinations by sniping.
Ah yes in that case then you're right. The post I responded to implied that Canadian snipers were blasting away random joe achmed farmers in fields.
You are right though the Taliban often either pretend to be farmers for a cover or arctually farmers. Tend their crops by day, kill infidels at night.
We see a decrease in hostile activity here in the winter months because the Taliban burry their AKs and RPS and go tend to their crops.
WHen we 'pull out' of Afghanistan do you think it means a total withdraw of all soldiers and equipment, or that we will leave soldiers behind in a mentoring/rebuilding format. We just won't perform 'combat' missions.
The PDSS stations and such sprinkled across the area have been very effective at bringing security and saftey- albeit to a very small area around the stations. More stations would increase the security bubble.
Follow the money, webgear. Follow the money. The people buying our governments have never carried lunch pails or brown paper bags to work on a morning, and neither have most Whig and Tory politicians. They laugh like hell when the little people vote for their causes. They laugh a good laugh all the way to the bank in disbelief that not all Canadians have figured out their con. Just enough to make money and a sham democracy work to enrich them and their causes.
And the NDP leadership seems to envy the Ignatieffs of this world at that Fidel. The NDP's oppurtunist beurocratic leadership seem to be using the NDP becaus frankly The old line parties have enough leaders. Social Democracy is the opium of the misinformed. I only hope we shed ourselves of this dead weight before its to late for the labour movement in this country.
Social democracy could be an opiate for Canadian masses. They say if you've never been to Sweden, now is the time to go. They have social democracy down to a tee.
Fidel, I am sure that NDP has it share of big business financing its daily operations.
I also believe the Sweden has military forces is in Afghanistan.
Sweden strengthens its presence in Afghanistan
Yup. Recently increased too.
Those evil Swedes, you can't trust those former Viking types.
Those evil Swedes, you can't trust those former Viking types.
Did you ever once stop to think that maybe, just maybe, they are farmers? Did you ever wonder what you would do if your home was invaded, your family murdered, and a foreign thug destroys your livelyhood for their domestic propaganda about "drug interdiction"?
If the farmers are doing what you say, and I hope they are, then doesn't that make you question the whole "they want us here" bullshit you've been fed and happily regurgitate?
So much for the evil terrorists. Turns out that all along they were just regular farmers trying to survive and defend their homes.
If my town was facing the same situation, I hope I'd have half the courage those folks display.
While you're sipping your Double Double inside a nice armoured vehicle cozy in your body armour safe in the knowledge that if anything did happen you'd have immediate first class medical care while overhead American AC-130's blast away wedding parties and your gunner watches over the area with his night vision scopes, there is a farmer in his sandals and wool coat carrying an ancient rifle probably taken from a dead Russian, just waiting for his chance to fuck you up.
Have a good night, "hero".
Fidel, I am sure that NDP has it share of big business financing its daily operations.
You'll be the first to let us know, I'm sure.
So are 500 or so wikings soon to be walking the roads and hills and fighting vicious firefights alongside their Can-Am counterparts?
Canada has a particularly despicable role in all of this, imo. Canada is one of the only countries to have volunteered its troops unconditionally to an aggressive U.S.-style combat role in Central Asia. It's not our country, and we have no business being there. It's a phony war on terror. In the dozens of countries bombed and invaded by the U.S. military, none of them is better off or more democratic for it today. There is no positive precedent for helping uncle sam murder people in countries where Uncle Sam does not be long.
Fidel
I was hoping you would tell me who is financing the NDP because I can not find that information.
I believe the Swedes are conducting combat operations, I know they are training ANSF.
Fidel
I was hoping you would tell me who is financing the NDP because I can not find that information.
You made the accusation. It's up to you to back it up not me. You may or may not discover that lunch pail types, 9-5'ers and brown baggers are at cross purposes with those whom they elect to phony majority colonial rule and now an exaggerated minority.
I believe the Swedes are conducting combat operations, I know they are training ANSF.
Are they peacekeeping or seeking out and blowing up IED's and Afghans offbase?
Sweden also has well funded socialized medicine - nearly eliminated child poverty - national daycare - freely accessible post-secondary - and global economic rating more competitive than Canada's. I think that was what I was originally trying to get across to enemy of kapital.
Actually you stated the NDP was not financed by Bay Street, I asked to you the proof of who donates to the party as far as I am aware these donators are not public knowledge.
Can you explain the difference between peacekeeping and combat operations? Can you explain the differences between defensive and offensive operations?
Your Nordic countries also have strong militaries
Actually you stated the NDP was not financed by Bay Street, I asked to you the proof of who donates to the party as far as I am aware these donators are not public knowledge.
You said the NDP is on the receiving end of cash donations from big business and banksters. And I say you have no proof.
Peacekeeping for Canada has typically meant keeping two opposing armies from tearing a country apart. In Afghanistan, Canadians are now the principals in a conflict whereby Afghans are being murdered by foreign soldiers ie. Canadians.
What's the diff between hired mercenaries marauding into sovereign countries on Uncle Sam's instruction and a defensive army that stays home to defend its own sovereign borders?
Where was Canada when Afghanistan was turned upside down after the Soviets pulled out in 1989? Two and half-three years later when CIA-Saudi-Pakistani backed mercenaries and mujahiden tore the same country apart from stern to stem? Where tha fuck was NATO then from 1992-96? This is bullshit. We're not over there to help those people - we're there as a snivelling, grovelling mercenary army for an Uncle Sam real estate grab and military incursion into a region of the world which no surrounding country really desires us even being there.
They also make our colonial administrators in Ottawa look like scrooges when it comes to donating money to poorest countries in the world. Canada used be world reknowned for our peacekeeping and helping to end wars not kowtowing to the U.S. military-industrial complex and Crazy George.
Did you ever once stop to think that maybe, just maybe, they are farmers? Did you ever wonder what you would do if your home was invaded, your family murdered, and a foreign thug destroys your livelyhood for their domestic propaganda about "drug interdiction"?
If the farmers are doing what you say, and I hope they are, then doesn't that make you question the whole "they want us here" bullshit you've been fed and happily regurgitate?
So much for the evil terrorists. Turns out that all along they were just regular farmers trying to survive and defend their homes.
If my town was facing the same situation, I hope I'd have half the courage those folks display.
While you're sipping your Double Double inside a nice armoured vehicle cozy in your body armour safe in the knowledge that if anything did happen you'd have immediate first class medical care while overhead American AC-130's blast away wedding parties and your gunner watches over the area with his night vision scopes, there is a farmer in his sandals and wool coat carrying an ancient rifle probably taken from a dead Russian, just waiting for his chance to fuck you up.
Have a good night, "hero".
Jingles I have a feeling my recruiting efforts won't work on you.
I have no doubt that some of the Taliban are farmers who are are pissed off at NATO. Some are foreign fighters from Pakastan. Some are forced by the Taliban to oppose NATO on threat to their family.
The locals are stuck between making ISAF happy and the Taliban happy.
Some of them are quite honest about it. I hate ISAF. I Hate the Taliban. What would it take for you to leave us alone. Others hate the Taliban and are very happy we are here and support us. Others say when the Taliban were in power they felt secure and had electricity etc.. Depends what part of the country you're in and city or countryside.
It's not all that safe inside those armored vehicles. A friend of mine just did a few days ago when him and 2 others were killed from an IED.
THe immediate first class medical care is great. What's even better is that locals who are hurt through incidents with ISAF, The Taliban or ven completely unrelated can and do get treatd bu ISAF medics and doctors. We see a lot of locals being treated at the hospital here.
Whats even more Ironic is that when those big AC130s (or whoever) engage insurgents and do their thing, a hour later "farmers" with bullet holes,gun powder residue and traces of home made explosives or TNT on their hands show up at the front gates to the fobs looking for medical attention. The local translators and police recognize them "They Taliban they bad"but we patch them up and send them on their way regardless.
Never claimed to be a hero. Just doing the job the elected government in Canada is telling me to do trying to help who I can along the way.
Arthur: It was I! I bred you! I led you!
Zed: And I have looked into the face of the force which put the idea in your head. You are bred and led yourself.
Don't look for it, webgear. You may not like what you find.
Holy moley. 197 posts?? Guess I didn't notice this one yesterday. Sorry, folks. Anyhow, closing it now.
Advertising
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