Canada To Stay in Afghanistan Until 2014
Canada May Keep Non-Combat Troops in Afghanistan Until 2014
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-reconsiders-post-201...
"The Harper government is considering a proposal to keep hundreds of Canadian troops in Aghanistan until 2014 in a non-combat, training role, the Canadian Press has learned. The move would extend Canada's military presence in Afghanistan three years past the July 2011 withdrawal deadline set by Parliament.."
The use of 'considering' is perfunctory and merely meant to test and gauge negative reaction to something already decided. NATO, Hilary Clinton, along with all the other filthy warmakers - Rae, Harris etc. from all parties will have their way. Most Canadians won't notice or care. It's a done deal. We're staying.
Let's see. The invaders are killing roughly 2000 Taliban a year. So it'll take the fascist invaders approximately 18 years to murder all of the Taliban fighters, an estimated 36,000 of them in total, at the current rate of murder and assuming the supply of recruits runs out tommorow. And that's not very likely. Apparently it's costing US taxpayers $1 billion dollars for every 20 Taliban murdered.
And there are several hundred thousand anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan. It should take the Taliban until at least tea time on January 1st, the year 3535 to slay the army of the darkness.
So, and theoretically, this phony war and false promises by our politicos for "troop withdrawals" could drag on for eternity. War reigns merrily.
And let this be a lesson to the kids - it's not whether you win or lose, it's how much money the war industry can bilk taxpayers out of over as long as possible. And surrounding their cold war rivals militarily isn't a bad idea either. Great game nonsense. They need dragging to the table by their nose-hairs to engage the phony enemy in peace talks kicking or screaming or both, whichever they prefer. They don't want a peace plan or a resultant exit strategy laid out print and signed on the dotted line legit style. No they don't. That would be too formal an end to the warfiteering and the organized murder for fun and profit.
It's better to pretend to be meeting in secret with Taliban officials and spreading vicious rumors of peace talks. It makes them appear desperate and willing to resolve this thing like rational human beings. It's all for the sake of projecting false appearances though. Secret peace talks? Puh! Charade they are.
Canada's Afghan Mission Might Be Extended
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/07/canada-afghanistan.html
"John Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister said..."I think it's the right thing. It would be unfortunate to take everybody out and say, 'That's done,' said Manley, whose panel paved the way for the parliamentary extension of the combat mission to 2011."
I fail to see the utility in maintaining a continued presence in that region -- especially if all they're going to be are powder-monkeys. It's time to let the puppet regime in Afghanistan stand on its own.
A Canadian soldier is trained to fight within 18 weeks. Afterwards, he receives another year or so of specialized training prior to undertaking his active role within the military. Seriously, we've been in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years now. How fricken long does it take to train an Afghani to look after himself?
It can take an eternity to train a traitor.
I am sure many of the best of the Canadian trained soldiers are amongst the insurgents in this Resistance. And of course you can't train soldiers without field training so these "non combatants" will likely be leading the collaborators into battle.
I dunno. Who's been instructing them in the dark art of car bombing and innovative origami/IEDs and other really stupid tricks since the late 80s and 90s?
I knew our guys were in trouble when watching a CBC report a number of months ago. There was a youngish Afghan man recovering at home from a bomb or something the Canadians had exploded killing the man's wife and kids and injuring him. You could see the fire in his eyes and anger at the Canadians as they translated what he was saying about payback.
Get the hell out of there, you guys. It's not your god damned country.
A fair point -- but if he's fighting to defend his own country from invaders is he, in fact, a traitor? Or are you inferring that, by fighting for the Afghani puppet regime he is the traitor?
Please clarify ...
Zem welcome to babble. Unionist is saying anyone who fights for a foreign regime is a traitor. He believes, as do I, that our forces are engaged in an illegal invasion and occupation and that the inhabitants of Afghanistan have the right to resist. He might add it will be for the people of Afghanistan to decide what to do with collaborators when NATO is defeated and sent packing.
Zem welcome to babble.
Yes - good to have new babblers!
Correct - or, in this case, on the side of foreign invaders. Hard to find a better definition of traitor than that.
Precisely.
Indeed, and I have often said just that - including when some babblers have suggested that we should open our borders and welcome these traitors to Canada as "refugees" once our troops have been humiliated and expelled. Can you imagine - accepting people into this country who will sell their sisters and brothers and neighbours to some future invader of Canada for a chocolate bar or an iPod or whatever else these scummy characters get from NATO? Let them face the Afghan people's justice system, once the invaders are gone.
The majority of Canadians want Canada out of Afghanistan. Look at the poll results, and everytime the majority of Canadians want Canada out of Afghanistan. Maybe I, we?, need to write a lot of letters to a lot of Members of Parliament to get this message across. Mayhaps, Canadian elected officials need to be informed of the fact that the majority of Canadians want Canada out of Afghanistan. Mayhaps, this is not what individual politicians in Canada want, but the majority of Canadians want Canada out of Afghanistan. It is in Canadians best interest to have elected officials follow the will of the people, mayhaps the politicians need to be reminded of this. I don't think that a referendum is necessary, but I am pretty sure that if a referendum were held the result would be that the majority of Canadians want Canada out of Afghanistan.
Gotta go, I've got a lot of letter writing to do.
Further to my previous comment...
Hi,
I am writing you to ask that you write a letter to your local Member of
Parliament to remind them that the majority of Canadians want Canada out of
Afghanistan. There is talk of the so-called mission in Afghanistan being
extended beyond the 2011 pull out date. This is not what the majority of
Canadians want. In fact, the majority of Canadians did not want Canada in
Afghanistan in the first place.
I am going to be writing a lot of letters to Members of Parliament to remind
them that the majority of Canadians want Canada out of Afghanistan because I
don't think that the elected officials are getting the message. If you feel the
same way as the majority of Canadians that want Canada out of Afghanistan, I
ask that you please write to your MP and others to tell them what you want:
Canada out of Afghanistan.
If this is your first time writing to your local MP, it's a good thing to do. I
believe that they are required to read every letter.
Gotta go, I've got a lot of letter writing to do.
Mark
To find addresses of Canadian Members of Parliament:
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
Poll: Should Canada Leave Soldiers in Afghanistan?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/polls/Should-Canada-leave-soldiers-in-A...
Please Vote No
The use of 'considering' is perfunctory and merely meant to test and gauge negative reaction to something already decided. NATO, Hilary Clinton, along with all the other filthy warmakers - Rae, Harris etc. from all parties will have their way. Most Canadians won't notice or care. It's a done deal. We're staying.
Looks like Herr Harper's spine is a wet noodle, so much for being "Dear" - er - "Strong Leader."
That evil clown lacks the guts to take the issue to the Canadian people and have them vote on it because he knows that We the People will soundly defeat such a resolution.
"John Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister said..."I think it's the right thing. It would be unfortunate to take everybody out and say, 'That's done,' said Manley, whose panel paved the way for the parliamentary extension of the combat mission to 2011."
It's no surprise that war banshee John Manley would shriek "War!" in the form of Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan with simply a reworded/rebranded role.
Seriously, we've been in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years now...
... and things have only gotten worse, not better, during this time -
- Empirical evidence why it would be beneficial for Afghan civilians if Canada, the U.S., NATO and ISAF were to leave now rather than 2011, 2014 or two generations from now.
Poll: Should Canada Leave Soldiers in Afghanistan?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/polls/Should-Canada-leave-soldiers-in-A...
Please Vote No
Just voted ("No.")
The "No" vote is way out ahead with 67%.
I voted. It didn't allow me to vote twice though. Bummer. They're allowed to vote several times in Afghanistan. Why not here? I don't understand it.
I voted. It didn't allow me to vote twice though. Bummer. They're allowed to vote several times in Afghanistan. Why not here? I don't understand it.
LOL!
Just voted and the No is still at 67%.
Try using a different browser :-)
Did anyone actually believe Harper when he extended the mission last time or when he said in March 2010 that the mission would end in 2011 and that Canada's role would be limited to reconstruction? How can they reconstruct when they haven't finished destroying what's left of Afghanistan? Maybe Harper's trying to stretch it out until the new F-35s start to arrive?
Has any political party come out against this extension of the mission?
That's a rhetorical question.
The NDP often vote against things they secretly agree with. It's an NDP conspiracy to make the phony opposition Liberals look bad.
It doesn't sound like the NDP is going to get a vote on this anyway. Nor is the public going to be witness to any kind of Parliamentary debate.
If only the Retreaded Reform Party or their Liberal Party backers had a phony majority in Ottawa, they wouldn't have to explain themselves to Canadians at all. Like Nike, they would just do it.
It's a good thing Paul Martin didn't have more Canadian troops to spare for Iraq, or we might also not be talking about pulling out of that US-led quagmire and all.
It's like Michael Ignatief, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada says, we need some executive assassination squads.
It's looking more and more like a bananada republic all the time.
The Gov/media farce of "parliamentary decision making" is continued in Ottawa-- "2011 or 2014,mmmm, which will it be?"
One need only look as far as the commander-in-chief of our integrated Americanadian forces for the answer.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/09/obama-to-downplay-afghanistans-2011-t...
Meanwhile, the the people of Afghanistan, the slaughterhouse pawns in this crusade/jihad have had enough of combatant bloodlust regardless of side:
Little Support for Insurgents, But Most Want the War Over
by Jason Ditz, November 09, 2010
As 2010 comes to a close with its record death toll in Afghanistan, a new survey released by the Asia Foundation shows an overwhelming majority of the Afghan population, 83 percent, back negotiations with the Taliban and other armed insurgents.
...
Enormous civilian death tolls have sapped support from the Taliban, and indeed from the NATO forces, but after over nine years of war there is a growing belief that things are just going to get progressively worse and that whatever deleterious effects the Taliban bring to a power-sharing deal might be, they are vastly preferrable to years of additional fighting.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/09/vast-majority-of-afghans-back-taliban...
I think the US shadow gov and Brits, ISI and Saudis etc must be trying to renew their contract with the Taliban for another 30 years war. Four more wars! And our yes-men in Ottawa will be totally down with whatever those guys decide. Taliban Steve's not saying too much these days.
And of course, the USA also announces that their troops will be staying in Afghanistan longer too.
Both Harper and Obama are fudging it up with, and I qoute, "a more vague definition of transition". Uh huh, not until the objectives of pipelines and mineral wealth extraction are met. And then maintaining a permanent presence will be necessary to protect the investments therein.
They will never leave, not until they run out of willing soldiers to go there, and that might happen if would-be soldiers realise the war there has nothing to do with helping Afghans and everything to do with commerce.
Truthout article on US "transitioning" in Afghanistan > http://www.truth-out.org/obama-officials-moving-away-2011-afghan-date649...
"Canadians do not want to see the sacrifices that have been made be for naught." Jack Harris NDP
"NDP MPs have been too soft spoken during the current campaign by the business media and the Liberal party to extend the imperialist war mission beyond the 2011 Canadian troop removal deadline. One New Democrat MP, Jack Harris, who was part of the infamous Bob Rae-led junket to Kandahar has mused about the need for Canadian forces to remain in a training capacity..."
http://204.225.123.146/
New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus
lest we forget..
"To sell an extension of our Afghanistan deployment to the Canadian public as a mentoring and training mission would be a lie."
Di Manno: Our Soldiers Won't Hang Back
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/94617
Walkom: Why Harper is Changing his Mind on Afghanistan (and Why it's a Bad Idea)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/888188--walkom-why-harper-is-...
"The problem with the Afghan army and police is not that they don't know how to fight. It is that a good many don't want to fight for a corrupt government propped up by foreigners. Condemning more of our own soldiers to death won't solve that.."
Number of Afghan Air Strikes Highest Ever
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21859
"the number of airstrikes rose to 1,000 last month. That's the highest single month's total ever in the air war in Afghanistan..."
So, how do you think the parties will vote on extending "the mission" in Afghanistan? I'll bet the farm that Taliban Jack and the NDP vote n-o as in no. And so is Ian MacDonald thinking the same.
We can always count on the NDP to be the effective opposition in Parliament no matter which wing of the Bay Street alliance is propping-up the other in federal power.
hardly 'effective' by any stretch of the imagination - and on this file especially they've been all over the map. Some of us don't forget and if we do there's a public record of their greasy and slippery bob and weaving
http://www.canadaeast.com/rss/article/500862
Jack has been leading on Afghanistan ever since the Liberals lied to Parliament and the NDP about Canada's new and aggressive, US-style combat role in Kandahar by 2005 and relieving US troops so they could go commit atrocities in Iraq. Being the effective oppo in Canadian Parliament is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Go Jack!
Finally, we're all talking about talking to the Taliban
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government once thought it clever to ridicule Mr. Layton's call for talks. He didn't understand the real world, they said; next he'd be wanting tea with Osama Bin Laden.
Uh Ernie? That's not the whole storyline surrounding Osama bin Laden. Because it was the Taliban who actually tried to handover Osama bin Laden to the US Military. THREE TIMES!
Blood for oil and pipeline politics not 9/11 terror or even "al-Qaeda." Afghans need legit peace talks to end this phony war, and to end the longer war on democracy in Afghanistan now going on 31 years.
Of the federal parties in Ottawa, the NDP has the best policy on Afghanistan imo. The best way to end US Military occupation of a desperately poor country in the heart of Asia is troop withdrawal and to force ALL of the phony combatants to the peace table, just like the peace talks with the VietNamese NVA which was the start of US Military withdrawal from VietNam.
Jack Layton has his couterpart in U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich:
Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced plans Wednesday to kick off the new year with yet another House of Representatives floor vote on withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
... Kucinich said his new measure will call for withdrawing U.S. troop[s] from Afghanistan by the end of 2012. He says he's crafting it in response to published reports that the White House won't remove troops until 2014, when Afghan President Hamid Karzai has indicated the country will be able to handle its own security.
http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/11/rep_dennis_kucinich_...
Will Harper Get Away With Misleading Canadians? by Norman Spector
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-visi...
"On Afghanistan, Mr. Harper's political base is tickled pink. Canadians oppose leaving our troops in Afghanistan, but unlike the HST - few of us are directly affected by the decision. The media has so far been quite supportive of his reversal; there has been very little analysis of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and whether Canadian troops can make much of a difference.
The Liberals appear to be internally divided or hedging their bets or listening to the blandishments of our allies particularly the United States. And Jack Layton gives no sign of mobilizing the anti-war movement.
Right now, therefore, it looks as though Mr. Harper will get away with it...though this might change if the Canadian role expands to one 'outside the wire', if the opposition parties find their voice and if the dissenters in the media give these voices some space..."
See/Take Poll: Should Canadians remain in Afghanistan post 2011...
Here is what Layton had to say today about our mission in Afghanistan:
So let’s salute the fallen by standing up for the living. Let’s continue their fight against injustice by working to build a more just world.
Actually, I don't know what he was talking about. But he certainly missed an opportunity to call for Canadian troops to get out of Afghanistan. So did Duceppe. And Ignatieff.
There is no opposition in Parliament.
Lest we forget.
The NDP should be the official opposition since they've opposed the Harper minority government alled and partnered-up with the Liberals more times than any other party when it counts for something, and that would be Parliamentary votes on bills and motions etc.
And when it comes to voting in Parliament to decide whether or not to continue kissing American ass in Afghanistan, the NDP can be counted on to vote N-O and as in no way. That's what opposition parties do.
Of course you're right U - and not a great deal out of it either alas. No difference parties all
Harper and Iggy should have mustaches. That way they could save the Yanqui shit smeared on their upper lips for snack time later.
Race Deadlocked as CPC STINKS and NDP Rises More and more Canadians realizing who the effective opposition is in Ottawa
Jack and the NDP must be doing something right in addition to consistently voting against the right wing tag team of Harper-Liberals and Liberal-Harpers.
Fidel, I think you're missing the point. The whole country is talking about the extension of the mission beyond 2011. Layton and Duceppe are silent. Ignatieff isn't worth the breath. We are dealing with abject cowards here. They should be ashamed of themselves. They don't need whitewashing. This is about real wars and real lives, not about filthy electoral calculations.
Canadians know all about the lies surrounding Afghanistan and which parties have consistently opposed mission extensions by way of Parliamentary votes. On the left-no side we have the NDP and Bloc, and on the right there is the Harper government and their supporting cast, the Liberal Party of Canada.
And Canadians will be weighing all of the pros and cons of voting for the four federal parties in Ottawa. I think they will even consider the phony war in Afghanistan when weighing those pros and cons in either hand. Hopefully they will find the NDP to their liking, and according to the polls, things are looking good for the NDP and not so good for the two war parties in government and phony opposition.
Open Letter from IEA Spokesperson Qari Mohammed Yousaf Ahmadi, to Members of the American Congress
http://212.7.195.26/~alemarah/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=...
"...the war of Afghanistan is a losing war, being fought by the indigenous people, not just by a given faction,[or] by a tribe, but by an entire nation which has over 5,000 years of history; a nation that considers both victory and martyrdom in the war against your forces, as a cherished wish of success - not only in this world but in the world to come as well...
Your modern and advanced military hardware and arms of state-of-the-art technology have failed against Mujahideen. Your tanks, military hardware and soldiers that you have been spending billions of dollars on, are simply and inexpensively wiped out by ordinary Afghans.
For example, 69 year old Saleh Jan Aka along with his 18 year old son, destroyed 32 tanks of the Coalition and 9 Ranger vehicles in Helmand, by spending just $2500 - the only amount paid to him for the purpose..
I would like to bring one last point to your notice. What was your goal in coming to Afghanistan? What have you achieved, so far and what will you achieve in future? You are representatives of people and are authorized to make decisions about the Afghan issue - therefore I present you with a true picture of the ground realities of Afghanistan - another side of the coin, different from the one which is submitted to you by your generals.."
Please forward to your own 'representatives' along with your instructions that they immediately oppose any and all further participation in this dirty, US led warcriminal endeavour and bring the troops home now!
No I don't think the NDP wants to do anything differently on the Afghanistan file other than to consistently vote against the Harpers and Liberals on the issue. That's just the nature of our obsolete electoral system.
And the most progressive of the four parties in Ottawa wants to modernize how we vote in this country at the same time. But in the mean time, it will continue to be FPTP style politicking based on four-year pseudo planning and whichever way the wind happens to blow for some narrow voter base in Canada.
I'm sorry but the NDP has no choice but to try to appeal to those Canadians who are actually bothering to vote nowadays. It's not the fourth party's fault that so many people no longer vote old line party - because that would be down to the two oldest federal parties and their records in power of the last 25 years. No one on the left ever said that FPTP is an ideal democratic selection process and especially not the NDP.
Jack was hired to do a job, and he's doing it. It might be a dirty job, but some of us are tired of the two old line parties pretending to be two old line parties when they are really one and the same Bay Street power party and now renting out Canada's Military to Uncle Sam. That is what's disgraceful, and more and more Canadians are realizing that something's not right here WRT Ottawa's vicious toadying to a warrior country who themselves have grown weary of waging a global war on democracy all by themselves.
Where's Layton and the NDP on Afghanistan?
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4459-wheres-layton-and-the-ndp-on...
the question then the question now
No I don't think the NDP wants to do anything differently on the Afghanistan file other than to consistently vote against the Harpers and Liberals on the issue.
Agreed. They have certainly abandoned the courageous Québec Convention decision of 2006, when they called for immediate withdrawal of the troops. Shortly after, Layton started calling for troops to be withdrawn from the "combat mission" in "the south of Afghanistan". This is four years and countless deaths later. With Harper's new 1000-troop rumoured commitment being billed as the "end of the combat mission", Layton can declare victory. Why doesn't he do so? Why doesn't he say something? Anything?
Here we go.
How many times do we need to go through this.
Silly season is upon us again.
Where's Layton and the NDP on Afghanistan?
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4459-wheres-layton-and-the-ndp-on...
the question then the question now
NorthReport, no one is blaming Jack. We understand just how hard it is to say: "The troops must all be brought home, now." Give him time.
I think it can safely be concluded that the ndp has not and will not mount any major or serious challenges to imperial planning or the pursuit of 'full spectrum dominance' at home or abroad. Their derelictions are grotesque, obscene and obvious and will become more so. The thing is poxy to the core and needs to be extracted like a rotten tooth. Any hope of a genuinely effective left progressive people's movement will necessitate its removal and replacement. They are standing precisely in the way forward. They can not and will not carry the cans that must be carried if there's to be any future worthy of the name around here. It's dead. Or worse. Undead.
This should be seriously discussed and even more seriously, taking down and wrapping up the ndp, planned for sooner rather than later.
Afghan mission vote could upset command lines Effect could disarmed opposition, reduce government accountability, expert says
When O'Neill says it could 'disarm the opposition', she means the Liberal Party in case people think she's referring to the real and effective opposition New Democratic Party. Because I, too, thought that she must be referring to the effective opposition NDP and such is not the case.
Count on the NDP to vote "NO" next week (or whenever) on this monumental Harper-Liberal government flip-flop WRT mission extension to 2014 in Afghanistan.
2014? WTH?
Afghanistan War: Bulldozing Through Kandahar
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/afghanistan/101109/afghanistan-war-us...
"The US military [and Canada] has destroyed hundreds of civilian homes, farmhouses, walls, trees, and plowed through fields and buildings, using explosives and bulldozers in war-torn Zhari district, a practice that has begun to anger Afghan villagers...
Afghanistan War: As Transition Nears, Afghan Training Stepped Up
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/afghanistan/101110/afghanistan-war-tr...
"The new Afghan army works very hard at creating an ethnic balance between Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras and the rest of the old Northern Alliance together with the Pashtuns. But Caldwell admitted that very few Pashtuns in the new army came from the south - Taliban country, - and the Pashtuns of the south used to make up the backbone of the officer corps.."
nice little 'behind the wire' training mission eh? Get out while you still can Canada...
Lying Politicians / Revolting Votes
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-visi...
"Since its inception, the Afghanistan mission has been a joint Liberal-Canadian effort. And neither party has had much interest in levelling with Canadians, which helps explain why the objectives of the mission have never been clearer...Now, after misleading Canadians for the better part of a year, Mr Harper too says that a parliamentary vote is not necessary, as the mission will not involve combat.."
I'll take that bet. Hope it's a nice farm. There will be no vote. That's N-O vote. Repeat. Democracy has prevailed yet again and parliament will not get to vote on extending the military occupation for another 3 years. King Stephen has decreed that no vote is needed, that no vote will take place and that "Cabinet", i.e. Harper will do all the deciding.
While I'm assuming the NDP still (sort of) supports getting the troops out of Afghanistan, it would be helpful if they said something on their website. In any case, it's only another three years and then I'm sure, dead positive, that Canada's troops will be withdrawn as per public opinion for at least the last 5 years.
John Ivison: Michael Ignatieff does his self-destruct trick again
I see the farce of blaming everything bad in the world on the 4th party in parliament continues. It would be pathetic if it wasn't so bleedin' obvious.
Anyway, here is what the NDP says on their, like website, which took all of 20 seconds to find
http://www.ndp.ca/press/harper-ignatieff-break-promise-on-afghan-mission
If you want to blame anyone for this travisty blame Rae, Iggy and Harper. Rae for calling for such an extension months ago, Iggy for agreeing and Harper for being King Steve.
Anyway, here is what the NDP says on their, like website, which took all of 20 seconds to find
Didn't take long to read, either. It's the same line, exactly, as during the 2005-6 election campaign - "we need a debate and vote in Parliament".
That was before convention called for immediate withdrawal. This is now five (5) years and countless deaths later.
Show me where Layton says we should pull out now. Or in 2011. Or ever. Now, instead of talking about the "combat mission", the release talks about the "military mission" - and how a majority of Canadians are opposed - but it still doesn't say "troops home".
If word games didn't kill real people, it might be amusing. They do. And it's not.
As for the other three parties (Con, Lib, BQ), they have never called for immediate troop withdrawal, so it's hardly surprising that they would continue on their warmongering course.
It's actually quite bisarre that the NDP can't seem to look beyond the right wing agenda on an issue where they would clearly be on the side of the majority of the Canadian population. Appearing "reasonable" by not taking a clear stand on issues, is almost pathological with this crew.
Let's bring down the fourth party and effective opposition NDP because the flip-flopping Reforma-Liberal Government in Ottawa is refusing a House vote on kissing fat American ass in Afghanistan.
Makes sense to me. Those darned NDP!!
Pucker-up, Canada, because we're going in and planting a big wet one on Uncle Sam's hiney. Again!
Keep paying your taxes and God Save the Queen!
Damned NDP anyway!! We vote them in as fourth party opposition, and STILL the colonial administrativeship is run from Warshington! Weak and spineless puppets that they are!
Telling and Sad. He "laments". Whiney. It seems that even their staffers are so bemused by right wing news agitprop that they write about themselves the way the National Post or the Sun would. There are no strong writers at NDP HQ?
The release was not on the website when I posted my comment. My comment is a far cry from "the farce of blaming everything bad in the world on the 4th party in parliament" but it's a typical response to anything that questions the NDP. No need to address specifics - just shoot the messengers.
"Now it's time"?
p.s. - Where's the deed to the farm?
Vicious toadies that they are!
Mr Harper too says that a parliamentary vote is not necessary, as the mission will not involve combat.."
This question is to any babbler who is knowledgeable of Canadian government and politics:
On what grounds - Constitutional(?), political precedence(?) - does Herr Harper base this claim?
Canada's military engagement has been escalated once again, only this time it may not involve combat. Does that make any difference?
Sounds like both an arbitrary and artificial distinction.
of course it will involve combat - as long as this monstrous occupation continues so will their killing and egregious warcrimes. Canadians must loudly and forcefully demand their troops come home and out of this dirty imperialist war of terror.
Timetable Abandoned: US and NATO To Wage Endless War in Afghanistan by Rick Rozoff
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21883
"From Cornwall to Mongolia, Kazakhstan to Illinois, Sweden to Wales, Poland to Georgia, Lithuania to India and beyond, NATO and the Pentagon are strengthening military partnerships and networks around the Afghan war. Neither Washington nor Brussels is in a hurry to abandon a conflict that has allowed both to globalize their military roles..."
Canada to Extend Participation in Afghan War through 2014 - by Keith Jones
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/cana-n13.shtml
"The trade union-supported New Democratic Party (NDP) is opposing the new CAF mission, but has repeatedly made clear its support for Ottawa providing other forms of assistance to the US imposed govenrment of Hamid Karzai. Canada's social democrats whole-heartedly, supported Canada's participation in the Afghan war, including the CAF's assumption of a leading role in the counter-insurgency campaign in southern Afghanistan, fo rthe war's first five years...
Subsquently, they came out in favour of an orderly Canadian withdrawal - ie. one that didn't disrupt NATO operations. But in the 2008 elections, they joned the other parties in effectively excluding the war as an election issue and less than two months later announced their readiness to join a Liberal-led coalition government committed to waging the Afghan war.."
Mr Harper too says that a parliamentary vote is not necessary, as the mission will not involve combat.."
This question is to any babbler who is knowledgeable of Canadian government and politics:
On what grounds - Constitutional(?), political precedence(?) - does Herr Harper base this claim?
Canada's military engagement has been escalated once again, only this time it may not involve combat. Does that make any difference?
Sounds like both an arbitrary and artificial distinction.
While I agree it is all arbitrary, deep integration is a fact of life in our military.
Canadian officers served in Iraq in integrated command structures with the US. That was not debated in parliament. We deploy personnel to the empire's various foreign excursions as part of our military structure. We have to buy the "home" teams jets and other arms as well.
Why does Fidel write: "the fascist invaders of Afghanistan"
Afghanistan is a "left-wing" human rights (particularly women's rights) war, supported by the United Nations. It was saintly Paul Martin who put us in Kandahar and there isn't a lot of opposition out there to Canada's role.
I only just clued in now about the timing of this announcement with Remembrance Day. I guess all the yellow-ribboners will be cheering now. Four more years of "heroism" to cheer on. Four more years of "fallen soldier" ritual and emotion.
It seems on some level, many people simply like the drama of war involvement. They couldn't care less that it has nothing to do with anything it pretends to, let alone Canadian involvement.
So what can be done?
From Wikipedia: 'The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).'
If you actually believe the insulting propaganda about our presence there having ANYTHING to do with the role of women, you might address yourself to the expressed position of the leading Afghan women's association RAWA, or the statements of the remarkable Afghan MP Malalai Joya.
In terms of 'opposition out there' to Canada's role, are we talking, like, Parallel Earth or something? Because every poll I've seen consistently indicates the balance of Canadians are AGAINST this Neanderthal crime.
Stop making assumptions based upon your own short sightedness, or lack or real knowlege as to what Legion members think/feel, jas, would be the first thing that could be done.
Agree with you Life, Universe etc, in your post at #52.
Well, I may indeed be mistaken but, around here, Legion members are the ones wearing poppies, not the ones tying yellow "Support Our Troops" ribbons around trees.
Me thinks Harpers “cut and run” foot in the mouth speech has got the best of him. He basically turned Canada into a coward nation that couldn’t leave with any dignity, the solution, extend the conflict by trainer participation thereby saving face as a pile of cut and run cowards.
I don’t think for a minute that the newly created enemy’s of Canada are going to say.”Oh look these Canadians are trainers so lets not blow them up”…. Those dead will strictly be on Harper. Of course this could also be a Canadian ruse buying time for when the Repubs come back to power in 2014 so they can drag Canada into there conflict even further.
By then the cut and run speech will be history ,people would of forgot and Harper can come out smelling like a rose ,albeit a very foul and stinky one.
Pardon me, I did not realize you meant the yellow ribbon around treers, as the Legion does have a yellow ribbon campaign with car decal magnets. And I have never observed a war veteran putting yellow ribbons around trees around here, or down on the coast, since the invasion started.
From Wikipedia: 'The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).'
If you actually believe the insulting propaganda about our presence there having ANYTHING to do with the role of women, you might address yourself to the expressed position of the leading Afghan women's association RAWA, or the statements of the remarkable Afghan MP Malalai Joya.
In terms of 'opposition out there' to Canada's role, are we talking, like, Parallel Earth or something? Because every poll I've seen consistently indicates the balance of Canadians are AGAINST this Neanderthal crime.
THANK YOU Merowe! And here is the rest of it from Wikipedia under the heading:
LEGAL BASIS FOR WAR
They are in violation of international laws established since WW II at Nuremberg. John Pilger wrote: "There was no UN authority." Pakistan's military regime reported then that the Taliban tried to handover Osama bin Laden to the Americans several times. In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible.
I'm listening to Cross Country Checkup on CBC. Listen to Terry Glavin, a well-known BC leftist, criticize Canada for not doing enough (for democracy asnd women's rights). Its however encouraging to hear so many voices opposed. Scott Taylor now (not a leftist). As usual, a practical realist who doesn't want to see Canadians killed for nothing.
Terry Glavin is not a leftist he is a liberal.
Looks like the Harper administration is planning for permanent diplomatic presences in Afghanistan and Pakistan:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Foreign+Affairs+spent+millions+Afghan+r...
From your link, FrmrSldr:
Paul Dewar, NDP foreign affairs critic, said money would be better spent on programs than real estate at the moment.
“Everyone knows the costs in Kabul. The price of land is similar to Manhattan right now in terms of buying real estate there.”
So this is where Canada's spending on the "economic action plan" has been frittered away. I knew it had to be going somewhere. No fear though. because the official opposition party must be watching every dime they spend like hawks to roadkill. I'll bet the Tories can't sneeze without the Liberal MPs there to wipe their noses for them.
Travers: Afghan Reversal Sucker-Punches Accountability
http://www.thestar.com/article/891132--travers-afghan-reversal-sucker-pu...
"Five years later, Harper is making an eerily similar mistake. He's publicly underestimating the dangers of what's been presented as a safe behind-the-wire effort to reinforce a frail Afghan army...Opposition politicians need to winkle out of the government answers to at least these questions;
What exactly does Canada expect to accomplish during the three years it has plans to stay? Was the military blindsided by the decision? Which cross-border levers did Washington apply in convincing Ottwa to abruptly reverse its position to leave? How much more or less than $100 million a year will the new mission cost and how will these unbudgeted expenses affect...?"
Walkom: Canada's New Afghan Exit Date Jibes With Obama's. Coincidence?
http://www.thestar.com/article/891715--walkom-canada-s-new-afghan-exit-d...
"On Nov 10, McClatchey Newspapers first reported what has now become widely known, for cosmetic purposes, Washington may withdraw a few soldiers next summer, but to all intents and purposes its new deadline is 2014. That came just 3 days after the Star reported Harper's change of mind. The timing is not coincidental."
of course it isn't - the Imperium decides, the compradors obey
Non-Combat Role? Worthington
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/11/1...
"Believe what you want, but assurances from the PM and Defence minister that Canadian soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 withdrawal deadline will be 'inside the wire' is a lot of hooey..Maybe the Harper government feels it has to sugar the pill to condition the public on what ending our combat role in Afghanistan really means.."
NATO May Lead Afghan Missions Beyond 2014
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/17/nato-forces-afghanistan.html
"NATO forces may still lead some combat operations in Afghanistan beyond 2014, the target date for shifting authority to Afghan troops, the alliance's top civilian in the country said Wednesday...The comment was the latest indication that the US led military operation in Afghanistan may well continue to be sizeable well into the next decade.."
else why build those big expensive embassies right? Yes Virginia, your politicians tell lies to you..
Non-Combat Role? Worthington
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/11/1...
"Believe what you want, but assurances from the PM and Defence minister that Canadian soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 withdrawal deadline will be 'inside the wire' is a lot of hooey..Maybe the Harper government feels it has to sugar the pill to condition the public on what ending our combat role in Afghanistan really means.."
This is based on the false premise/lie that Kabul is stable/relatively stable. It's not. Hamid Karzai and National Afghan government ministers and officials can only move around Kabul by day and only under heavy protective guard. The Taliban (or insurgents) own Kabul by night.
Kabul is as unsafe and wracked by war and violence as wartorn Saigon, Vietnam.
When the first U.S. troops arrived in Vietnam, they adopted this same policy of staying strictly on their bases. This policy was abandoned for the "search and destroy" tactic within weeks because the NVA and Vietcong were growing stronger in the countryside and were attacking American soldiers like sitting ducks.
The same thing is going to happen to Canadian troops. When the first Canadian casualties occur in 2012, the Left will say "Out Now!", and the war banshees of the military and Right will shriek that we are "fighting the war with one hand tied behind our backs. We need to escalate the number of Canadian troops. We need to escalate Canadian military engagement in Afghanistan beyond 2014 (untill we've "won" the war.) We need to send Canadian soldiers "outside the wire" to meet the enemy "toe to toe" because, as you know, they've never defeated us in battle (yeah right.) Of course they will blame the Left for "losing" the war for being "defeatists", etc. Y'know, the usual bullshit. Funny how things seem to change so little. Now we have a new generation (who seemed to have failed to learn from previous generations) engaging in these same arguments and debates.
NATO May Lead Afghan Missions Beyond 2014
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/17/nato-forces-afghanistan.html
"NATO forces may still lead some combat operations in Afghanistan beyond 2014, the target date for shifting authority to Afghan troops, the alliance's top civilian in the country said Wednesday...The comment was the latest indication that the US led military operation in Afghanistan may well continue to be sizeable well into the next decade.."
else why build those big expensive embassies right? Yes Virginia, your politicians tell lies to you..
Of course.
The 2014 Disengagement Date is just a recommendation. Future actions are to be determined by conditions on the ground. It is not a policy set in stone.
I am certain the resistance would not consider targeting a training centre so the troops will be safe. But lets face it the Commander in Chief sent the word out to the vassals and they are all falling in line.
Non-Combat Role? Worthington
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/11/1...
"Believe what you want, but assurances from the PM and Defence minister that Canadian soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 withdrawal deadline will be 'inside the wire' is a lot of hooey..Maybe the Harper government feels it has to sugar the pill to condition the public on what ending our combat role in Afghanistan really means.."
This is based on the false premise/lie that Kabul is stable/relatively stable. It's not. Hamid Karzai and National Afghan government ministers and officials can only move around Kabul by day and only under heavy protective guard. The Taliban (or insurgents) own Kabul by night.
Kabul is as unsafe and wracked by war and violence as wartorn Saigon, Vietnam.
When the first U.S. troops arrived in Vietnam, they adopted this same policy of staying strictly on their bases. This policy was abandoned for the "search and destroy" tactic within weeks because the NVA and Vietcong were growing stronger in the countryside and were attacking American soldiers like sitting ducks.
The same thing is going to happen to Canadian troops. When the first Canadian casualties occur in 2012, the Left will say "Out Now!", and the war banshees of the military and Right will shriek that we are "fighting the war with one hand tied behind our backs. We need to escalate the number of Canadian troops. We need to escalate Canadian military engagement in Afghanistan beyond 2014 (untill we've "won" the war.) We need to send Canadian soldiers "outside the wire" to meet the enemy "toe to toe" because, as you know, they've never defeated us in battle (yeah right.) Of course they will blame the Left for "losing" the war for being "defeatists", etc. Y'know, the usual bullshit. Funny how things seem to change so little. Now we have a new generation (who seemed to have failed to learn from previous generations) engaging in these same arguments and debates.
NATO May Lead Afghan Missions Beyond 2014
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/17/nato-forces-afghanistan.html
"NATO forces may still lead some combat operations in Afghanistan beyond 2014, the target date for shifting authority to Afghan troops, the alliance's top civilian in the country said Wednesday...The comment was the latest indication that the US led military operation in Afghanistan may well continue to be sizeable well into the next decade.."
else why build those big expensive embassies right? Yes Virginia, your politicians tell lies to you..
Of course.
The 2014 Disengagement Date is just a recommendation. Future actions are to be determined by conditions on the ground. It is not a policy set in stone.
ETA
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/16/obama-poised-to-announce-2014-target-...
President Obama will be vowing an "enduring presence" in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 date.
NATO officials are said to be facing only a single option in their "debate" regarding Afghan policy, and that is to rubber stamp the continuation of the war in its current composition. The Obama Administration has also denied having anything resembling an "exit strategy" in place for the war, current in its 10th year.
President Obama announced his intentions to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011 during his December 2009 speech announcing his most recent escalation of the war. Though officials were disavowing this date within hours of the speech some officials continued to reference it through the summer, though it is now clear that the administration has no intention of ending the war.
Think the U.S./NATO/ISAF are going to disengage from Afghanistan in 2014?
Think again.
Most NATO officials are now openly talking about the end of 2014 as a "transition" date, which is expected to be formally cemented in this weekend's Lisbon Summit. The usually unspoken part of this is that 2014 is a best case scenario, and even that doesn't necessarily involve any real withdrawal of forces or anything close to an exit strategy.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/17/nato-in-afghanistan-2015-and-beyond/
How long will we stay in Afghanistan?
Here's a hint:
... British Defense Chief Gen. Sir David Richards,..., has stated that "Nato now needs to plan for a 30 or 40 year role to help the Afghan armed forces hold their country against the militants," according to the Daily Mail, though he "stuck to the government's plans to withdraw combat troops by 2014 but made clear that thousands of troops will be needed long after that date."
In an interview on November 14, Richards said, "Everyone is clear that we will have to remains [sic] a lot longer than" four to five years. "The plans." he added, "are now in place to do that" and will be made "rather clearer" at the upcoming NATO summit in Lisbon.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmen...
from above:
"US and British forces must remain in Afghanistan for 'generations', albeit under the rubric of assistance rather than combat. Richards, writing in The Mail said there would need to be more support for the military from political, diplomatic and international aid efforts if the effort is to succeed."
"...now it's time for Canada's contribution to be through aid and diplomacy" NDP
The no difference party will pretend to wage a purely nominal token struggle then take a dive on the military extension issue, peddle the 'aid and diplomacy' component, and everyone will walk away happy with this 'acceptable compromise', looks like. Predator wins again and by default/desertion, too.
Clearly if there was any real attention to fight hard on this we'd see indications - similiar statements to Olivia Chow, as well as digging up the dirty linen of Detainee abuse, JTF2, Civilian deaths and targeted killings, DU, heroin trafficking, Karzai mafia, and all the other obvious and egregious aspects of the US/NATO Afghan dirty war. As it is we get a couple of token statements just to keep their cred as 'anti-war' then back to complicity, collaboration and business as usual.