NDP Embrace War in Afghanistan

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"

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.

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 [b]doing[/b] something positive, instead of just inconsistently [b]saying[/b] 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.

Because it doesn't, why can't you recognize that, left turn?

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

remind wrote:

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. 

Unionist wrote:

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?

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.

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'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 !

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"

Unionist wrote:

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.

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.

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"

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.

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"

LeighT wrote:

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?

Funny, I have heard that name mentioned on another forum. He will be promoted into the Senate and then given a seat.

"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

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

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.

Thanks for the info, LeighT. Don't mind Spector.

At page 116 (p. 2 of Appendix 1) it says:

Quote:

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;

Quote:

(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.

...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.

"... the truth phoney or otherwise."

Nice phrase.

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.