I hope this makes the floor of the convention.
ETA: How can a party member become part of the socialist caucus?
Will NDP support extended Libya attack?
Tue, 2011-06-14 09:46
#52
Tue, 2011-06-14 10:42
#53
So the NDP is poised to support an extension of this ghastly imperialist piracy. And despite taking these reactionary positions, they continue to self-identify as 'socialist', 'progressive' and 'left'. It is this which makes them so abominable.
Meanwhile every single social democratic party in Europe and Australasia was in favour of the limited no-fly zone etc...in Libya back in February. Whether it should be extended now is open to debate. There is one person who has been a major figure in trying to stall any military action in Libya - good old Silvio Berlusconi who is the best of friends with Ghaddafi. I wonder if we can now expect the socialist caucus to start chanting "viva Berlusconi!"
Tue, 2011-06-14 10:50
#54
I am trying to figure out what differentiates the parties when it comes to foreign policy.
There isn't anything. It's been a long time since the NDP was capable of articulating anything remotely resembling a credible foreign policy.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:05
#55
The NDP opposed the war in Iraq, wants to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, opposed the free trade deal with Colombia - just to name a few examples of foreign policy positions that are very different from the Conservative and Liberal positions. Maybe the NDP falls short of advocating a bilateral mutual defence treaty with Venezuela and Cuba and declaring an embargo on Israel but c'est la vie.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:06
#56
Watching Dewar in the House this morning, there should be little doubt it will be Yes.
It's one of those "I didn't leave the party..." days.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:23
#57
The NDP opposed the war in Iraq, wants to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, opposed the free trade deal with Colombia - just to name a few examples of foreign policy positions that are very different from the Conservative and Liberal positions.
That was once upon a time. Things are different now. I have to ask, would the NDP oppose the Iraq war if it was being declared today?
Watching the different reactions to the wars in Iraq then and Libya now, I think the main reason that Iraq was opposed more voiciferously is not due to any actual differences in agenda, but the fact that Iraq was invaded by a dumb cowboy from Texas as opposed to Libya being invaded by a smart man. I think how this plays into how Republicans are portrayed as dumb and why so many working class and working poor Americans back the Republicans, because they perceive the "left-wing elite" to be insulting them. I'd be willing to bet that if Bush was leading the charge against Libya under these exact same circumstances that people would be up in arms opposed.
Remember that as much as Bush may have wanted to attack Iran, he never succeeded in doing that. It's Obama who has started more wars.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:32
#58
There is also another "teeny-weeny" difference. Iraq was about full blown land invasion and occupation of Iraq involving hundreds of thousands of American and other troops. What's happening in Libya is enforcement of a no-fly zone - more comparable to what was done in Iraq in the late 90s when Clinton was in power or to what was done earlier in the 90s in Bosnia and Kosovo. There are no UN or NATO troops on the ground in Libya.
One can oppose both - but there is a big difference between supporting Canadian grounds troops in a land invasion of a country and supporting a relatively minor Canadian role in enforcing a no-fly zone.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:36
#59
There is also another "teeny-weeny" difference. Iraq was about full blown land invasion and occupation of Iraq involving hundreds of thousands of American and other troops. What's happening in Libya is enforcement of a no-fly zone - more comparable to what was done in Iraq in the late 90s when Clinton was in power or to what was done earlier in the 90s in Bosnia and Kosovo. There are no UN or NATO troops on the ground in Libya.
History suggests that the Libyan mission will progress to the point of ground troops being involved.
Besides, my point about the differences was that Obama encountered less resistance to bombing Libya simply because of who he is, not because there is any actual difference in US policy objectives between the 2 campaigns, and that would explain why the UN is more onside now than it was in Iraq.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:45
#60
Blair was seen to be a "smart man" and yet public opinion in the UK was not impressed by his decision to go along with invading Iraq. I think that as long as its "just enforcing a no-fly zone" - most people yawn and don't care. When you cross the line into a land invasion costing trillions of dollars and probably involving thousands of deaths among troops from the invading countries - its a whole other story and that's where support quickly evaporates.
I suspect that what will probably happen is that the NDP will push for some concessions in terms of amendments explicitly barring any Canadian ground troops, adding more humanitarian air and explicitly stating that the action in Libya is NOT about "regime change" etc...and if the Tories go along with that - the NDP will go along with a three month extension and take credit for getting some concessions. We shall see.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:54
#61
Green Party release on Libya;
Credit is due.
The Conservatives sure are smart bastards: [url=http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/tories_give_green_leader_may_t...'ve given May time to debate the extension[/url].
Ms. May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.), who otherwise would not have had a chance to take part in the day-long debate since her party is not officially recognized in the Commons with only one seat, told The Hill Times she will nonetheless use the opportunity to try to convince other MPs they should help her deny Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) the unanimous Commons support he wants to extend the mission.
It was expected the Liberals and NDP were prepared to support an extension for another three months, as long as the government met conditions...
Go ahead, Jack, extend - give May her [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-reflect-on-war-measures-act]War Measures Act moment[/url].
You'ld expect that May would try to move into (at least in rhetoric) the vacuum on the "centre-left" vacated by the Layton NDP as it shamefully struggles to ingratiate itself with the right-wing media.
As the NDP tries to be the new Liberals, May's probable "No" vote is designed to scoop up disaffected NDP voters.
Yet she shows her pathetic grasp of world dynamics by choosing yet another "humanitarian" intervention project from the neocon smorgasbord of slaughter:
Ms. May added: “The mission creep on Libya has actually resulted in less UN resolve to move into Syria to protect civilians there, who desperately need protection from the Syrian regime. As Greens, we were okay with the fact that we were deploying to protect civilian lives, but this is no longer the mission and we will vote against it. Stephen Harper said that he hoped the vote on Libya would be unanimous, well I can say, ‘No, it will not be unanimous.'”
http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/tories_give_green_leader_may_t...
Tue, 2011-06-14 12:36
#62
I thought the SC demand was to oppose the no fly zone but for Canada (and the West) to supply arms to Qaddafi's rebellious opponents to ramp up for a civil war? The SC ought to be very happy with Harper/Baird's latest move:
Canada backs anti-Gadhafi rebels, pledges aid for Libyan rape victims
Canada has recognized the council of Libyan rebels as the “legitimate representative” of the Libyan people, joining an international move to legitimize the nascent organization as a government-in-waiting in Libya.Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said he will try to engage in direct talks with the rebels’ National Transition Council of Libya.
Tue, 2011-06-14 13:01
#63
Northern Shoveler
The NDP opposed the war in Iraq, wanted to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, opposed the free trade deal with Colombia - just to name a few examples of foreign policy positions that were very different from the Conservative and Liberal positions.
The question is not what did they used to propose and push for but what are they proposing now. That is the test they seem to be failing.
Many of us supported them in the past for those kinds of stands. Talk is cheap and old talk is worthless.
Tue, 2011-06-14 13:15
#64
The NDP opposed the war in Iraq, wanted to withdraw immediately from Afghanistan, opposed the free trade deal with Colombia - just to name a few examples of foreign policy positions that were very different from the Conservative and Liberal positions.
The question is not what did they used to propose and push for but what are they proposing now. That is the test they seem to be failing.
Many of us supported them in the past for those kinds of stands. Talk is cheap and old talk is worthless.
And the PCs were the ones who created the CBC and built the railways. Yet with recent Conservative cuts to both, what are their previous accomplishments actually worth?
Tue, 2011-06-14 13:20
#65
Northern Shoveler
And the PCs were the ones who created the CBC and built the railways. Yet with recent Conservative cuts to both, what are their previous accomplishments actually worth?
Have I argued for supporting the Conservatives somewhere? You used a quote of mine to ask this question. I am now confused.
Tue, 2011-06-14 13:59
#66
M. Spector
It looks like a sarcastic suggestion to the effect that just because we don't like the Conservatives today it doesn't mean we shouldn't be grateful to them for building the railways and starting the CBC!
[never mind that very few of the Asian labourers who actually built the railways were members of the Conservative Party.]
Tue, 2011-06-14 18:54
#67
And the PCs were the ones who created the CBC and built the railways. Yet with recent Conservative cuts to both, what are their previous accomplishments actually worth?Have I argued for supporting the Conservatives somewhere? You used a quote of mine to ask this question. I am now confused.
No, I'm just supporting your contention that just because a party did something in the past, doesn't necessarily mean that what it proposes now is a good thing.
Tue, 2011-06-14 21:44
#68
I think that as long as its "just enforcing a no-fly zone" - most people yawn and don't care.
You really should read some of the [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parliament-extends-libya-mi... comments and counting[/url] to the Globe story about the extension. Jack's triangulating isn't exactly winning converts.
"I will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER vote for the NDP again."
"Can't tell the difference between the warmongers Obomber, Harper, Cameron, Sarkosy & the NDP. The NDP has permanently lost my vote."
"If the NDP voted for this fiasco, then they betrayed those who voted for them. And this time that betrayal will be remembered by their past supporters."
"Shame on the NDP for going along on this. Almost makes me wish I voted Green."
And so on.
Wed, 2011-06-15 02:15
#69
Jack better wise up and fast. He didn't get elected official opposition leader because was "nicer" than the others, or more accurately to be 'nice' to that dictatorial ideologue Harper. He/they didn't surpass the Liberals, at long last, to bring "civility back" to Parliament either; that's just post-election media spin for bowing to their latest neo-con favourite.
He and his party won progressives over *precisely* because the left-of-centre voter ran out of patience waiting for the effing Liberals to actually *oppose* the neo-con agenda (not personalities) and offer some actual alternatives to it. That is why 15% of the voting public risked a Harper majority and turned *left*. If Layton can offer that opposition and the possibility of *genuine* change then it might still be worth it down the road. If he isn't careful who he listens to though, he could be become the biggest political flash in the pan in Canadian history, as the Liberals, Greens and Bloc aren't dead yet. (and the neo-Cons won't be making it any easier for anyone with a remotely progressive agenda) Bigger even than Paul Martin.
Wed, 2011-06-15 07:23
#70
Blairist sell-out bastards. I wonder how Quebecers like the voting record so far of their newly minted NDP MPs?
Wed, 2011-06-15 09:41
#71
NDP Saves The Fighting For Soldiers - by John Ivison
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/saves+fighting+soldiers/4947372...
"...That the NDP is prepared to go along with the charade that regime change is not the goal suggests they weren't kidding when they promised to change Ottawa."
It's official - ndp = no difference party
Wed, 2011-06-15 09:51
#72
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:27
#73
Blairist sell-out bastards. I wonder how Quebecers like the voting record so far of their newly minted NDP MPs?
So far they seem to love it. NDP support has gone even higher in Quebec since election day to 46%. Remember that the NDP supported the action in Libya BEFORE the election campaign - so every single solitary person who voted NDP in this election knew full well what stance the party had taken in parliament and voted accordingly.
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:34
#74
Blairist sell-out bastards. I wonder how Quebecers like the voting record so far of their newly minted NDP MPs?So far they seem to love it. NDP support has gone even higher in Quebec since election day to 46%. Remember that the NDP supported the action in Libya BEFORE the election campaign - so every single solitary person who voted NDP in this election knew full well what stance the party had taken in parliament and voted accordingly.
You didn't go to any of the public news websites and read any of the comments by disappointed NDP voters, did you?
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:35
#75
Is there a reason you need to support every right-wing decision the NDP makes, Stockholm?
Has there been an overnight poll in Quebec to see what the support level was for this decision?
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:41
#76
We don't need an overnight poll we had an ELECTION. The NDP supported the action in Libya back in March BEFORE the election campaign - and Quebecers responded by electing 59 NDP MPs - obviously they didn't mind the NDP position on Libya on May 2 - so why would they mind it now when its essentially the same position? (btw: the BQ also voted for the extension in Libya).
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:48
#77
Because it is naked aggression and imperialism and involves them in serious warcrimes.
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:49
#78
Well, FWIW, I didn't mind it myself in March, before the NATO campaign began and quickly marched to regime change and assassination attempts. Now, I mind it a whole lot. And I'm sickened the NDP did not take the opportunity to say We didn't sign on for this. Because their actions now say that they did.
Don't kid yourself, they are going to pay for it.
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:52
#79
M. Spector
...every single solitary person who voted NDP in this election knew full well what stance the party had taken in parliament and voted accordingly.
And I've still got the clothespin marks on my nose to prove it.
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:56
#80
We don't need an overnight poll we had an ELECTION. The NDP supported the action in Libya back in March BEFORE the election campaign - and Quebecers responded by electing 59 NDP MPs - obviously they didn't mind the NDP position on Libya on May 2 - so why would they mind it now when its essentially the same position? (btw: the BQ also voted for the extension in Libya).
That's funny, because I remember the NDP highlighting its position on Afghanistan and the Liberal flip-flop on bringing the soldiers home. Where did they actually emphasize their position on Libya?
As for the BQ supporting the mission? Reminds me of the old uestion, if everybody else jumped off a cliff, would you do likewise? Just because there's a trans-partisan consensus on an issue doesn't make that consensus right. And what's with your irrational hatred of Elizabeth May? Personally, I think she sets back the Green Party with her egotistical antics, and that the party would have been better off long-term if she had lost. But I will give her credit for speaking for the millions of Canadians who oppose military action in Libya, and I can guarantee that the proportion of such Canadians is much larger than 1/294th of the population.
Wed, 2011-06-15 12:08
#81
Northern Shoveler
The defence of the NDP is that the voters don't seem to mind or pay attention to the fact that Canada has been at war for a decade and we are in the beginning stages of a second front. They only seem to care about Viagra rumours and our politicians should be guided by polls to determine issues that are electorally meaningless.
Jack and his boasters seem to think politics should not be about a vision of a different society but a game to see who wins the most prizes in the same old society we have.
Wed, 2011-06-15 14:44
#82
I think people are misssing the point about the NDPs' position on Libya. It is not about whether this is an imperialist war (which it clearly is, make no mistake), or whether those who voted for the NDP are in fact supportive of the caucus position. It is about the very nature of the NDP as a so-called progressive party.
The NDP has a policy on its books opposing Canadian membership in NATO. This policy was reaffirmed just before the NATO bombings in Kosovo in 1999. It has never been revoked by a formal party process. As a standing policy, it should guide the parliamentary party whenever Canada's participation in a NATO action comes up. This was not done for Kosovo, it has never been mentioned in regards to Afghanistan and the caucus in Ottawa has again suffered collective amnesia when it comes to Libya.
It is quite simple - if you have a policy that opposes military alliances in principle and Canada's participation in NATO specifically, then you cannot support any military action by that alliance. If you don't like it or you think that it would impede your chances of forming the government down the road, then go through the democratic process of changing it or revoking it. Then you can have one of those battles that make the NDP different from the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Supposedly it is that process and the policies and principles of the party that have many people almost orgasmic in their quest for that hallowed centre-left ground that has purportedly been abandoned by the Liberals. If all goes well, according to these folks, the NDP will form the government in 2015, and we can, at long last, implement all those very policies and principles.
Oh, wait a minute. Don't those policies include the one on NATO that the federal caucus has ignored for more than a decade? And what about the one referring to the right of the people of Quebec to "self determination" that was ignored by the federal caucus in 2000 when it supported the Clarity Act, against the wishes of the party membership. How can a party that claims the moral high ground over the Liberals for that coveted political centre left contine to have any credibility when its leader and federal MPs betray its principles on a disturbingly regular basis? Actions like the one yesterday on Libya will eventually drive the truly progressive elements out of the NDP and it will become what James Laxer calls the new Liberal party. As The Who put it in their song "Won't Get Fooled Again", "meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss."
Wed, 2011-06-15 15:29
#83
Layton Changes Course On NDP's NATO Policy
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529
"since Layton became leader of the NDP, the party has steered a more pragmatic course..."
Wed, 2011-06-15 16:08
#84
Yeah, that ship has long sailed. Jack's stated position is to stay in NATO and "change it from within" (perhaps with a cautious, but proud, suggestion to update its letterhead logo--that is, if the US and the press doesn't mind awfully much and doesn't think he is being too forward and Bolshi).
Wed, 2011-06-15 16:23
#85
Northern Shoveler
Yeah, that ship has long sailed. Jack's stated position is to stay in NATO and "change it from within" (perhaps with a cautious, but proud, suggestion to update its letterhead logo--that is, if the US and the press doesn't mind awfully much and doesn't think he is being too forward and Bolshi).
Wed, 2011-06-15 16:35
#86
Well, FWIW, I didn't mind it myself in March, before the NATO campaign began and quickly marched to regime change and assassination attempts. Now, I mind it a whole lot. And I'm sickened the NDP did not take the opportunity to say We didn't sign on for this. Because their actions now say that they did.
Don't kid yourself, they are going to pay for it.
Yes, the NDP is going to pay for it. Congratulations to Elizabeth May for winning her seat in parliament and for voting against the war in Libya — at least one person in parliament is listening to what the majority of Canadians want: Canada out of Libya.
Wed, 2011-06-15 17:45
#87
Well, FWIW, I didn't mind it myself in March, before the NATO campaign began and quickly marched to regime change and assassination attempts. Now, I mind it a whole lot. And I'm sickened the NDP did not take the opportunity to say We didn't sign on for this. Because their actions now say that they did.Yes, the NDP is going to pay for it. Congratulations to Elizabeth May for winning her seat in parliament and for voting against the war in Libya — at least one person in parliament is listening to what the majority of Canadians want: Canada out of Libya.Don't kid yourself, they are going to pay for it.
How is the Green vote going to affect close NDP races in places like Esquimalt, Surrey, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Regina, Sault Ste. Marie, Kenora, Dartmouth, and Mount Pearl?
Wed, 2011-06-15 18:51
#88
I don't know. YOu've given a nice list of ridings that have pretty large military presences and where there is probably higher support than average support for military action. In the end it won't matter. No one (outside of half a dozen people on babble) actually care about Libya since our involvement is so minor and involves no ground troops. Either Ghadaffi will fly off into exile (probably with his very close personal friend Silvio Berlusconi) or he will hang on and the NDP has said that they will support no further extension in September - either way if Libya is a non-issue now - imagine how much more a non-issue it will be four years from now.
Wed, 2011-06-15 20:17
#89
No one (outside of half a dozen people on babble) actually care about Libya since our involvement is so minor and involves no ground troops.
It is a fact that Canadian jets are dropping bombs on a regular basis. That's not minor imho. And there are rumours that Cdn special forces are already on the ground in Libya. In any case, the speculation that people won't remember it in four years is besides the point. For all we know, there will be a draft four years from now.
And then there are the unintended consequences.
Wed, 2011-06-15 20:22
#90
Northern Shoveler
There is no room in the real world of politics for ridiculous morality like the idea that we should not wage war.
Wed, 2011-06-15 21:04
#91
I don't know. YOu've given a nice list of ridings that have pretty large military presences and where there is probably higher support than average support for military action.
It is a fallacy to automatically assume that members of the Canadian Forces would automatically support the foreign missions Canada is involved in. In several of those constituencies, the NDP vote went up as the NDP used the Afghanistan wedge issue against the Conservatives. No doubt some of these votes came from NDP-Green swing voters, who wanted a voice for peace. What if they decide that there is no significant difference between the NDP and Conservatives on military issues and their votes go back to the Greens?
No one (outside of half a dozen people on babble) actually care about Libya since our involvement is so minor and involves no ground troops.
It's pretty arrogant of you to say nobody cares about a particular issue. Have you seen some of the comments on the public news sites? Not exactly hotbeds of lefty support. And several news webpolls show strong disapproval for the current extension.
the NDP has said that they will support no further extension in September - either way if Libya is a non-issue now - imagine how much more a non-issue it will be four years from now.
We can only hope that the NDP will correct this mistake. But putting Libya aside, there will be further conflicts as the world is entering into an unstable time. Will the NDP have the guts to oppose any future invasions that are blatant power-plays for the invading country?
As I said, if the Iraq war was starting today, I have a hard time believing the NDP would oppose it with the same vigour they did in 2003, and I've defended the NDP against people you would call "crackpots" for years on these boards. What does that tell you?
Wed, 2011-06-15 21:21
#92
Something has to be done to break up the Ghaddafi/Berlusconi power grab. Unless Ghadaffi goes, Silvio Berlsuconi will extend Italian imperialism to Libya!
Wed, 2011-06-15 21:26
#93
It is a fallacy to automatically assume that members of the Canadian Forces would automatically support the foreign missions Canada is involved in. In several of those constituencies, the NDP vote went up as the NDP used the Afghanistan wedge issue against the Conservatives.
I don't automatically assume anything about members of the Canadian Forces. That being said, I'm not sure that the NDP really did use Afghanistan as a "wedge issue" against the Tories. Thinking back to the election campaign, it seems to me that there wasn't much talk about Afghanistan at all and when it did come up it was typically only in Quebec. There was one NDP ad that ran in Quebec that talked about peace. Nothing in English. If you can show many any NDP flyers or ads that were used in the ridings you mention in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan that tried to go after the Consrvatives on Afghanistan - I'd like to see it.
Wed, 2011-06-15 21:35
#94
Something has to be done to break up the Ghaddafi/Berlusconi power grab. Unless Ghadaffi goes, Silvio Berlsuconi will extend Italian imperialism to Libya!
Maybe if there was a more globally co-ordinated effort to reduce military spending and arms sales, then dictators like Ghadaffi wouldn't have been able to gain an iron grip on power in the first place?
Berlusconi, I wouldn't worry about, he appears to be on his way out of office in the next election.
Wed, 2011-06-15 21:38
#95
If you can show many any NDP flyers or ads that were used in the ridings you mention in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan that tried to go after the Consrvatives on Afghanistan - I'd like to see it.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUhyGqElgjk]This video was distributied nationally, and no doubt people in those constituencies would have seen it.[/url] Note specifically the parts about "leaders saying one thing and then doing another" and "breaking promises to bring our brave soldiers home." Also, remember the Ignatieff flip-flop ad criticized Ignatieff for the Liberals voting with the Conservatives on extending the mission in Afghanistan.
Wed, 2011-06-15 21:40
#96
laine lowe
And notice that it was in Quebec that Layton got his victory. No campaigning on peace for English Canada translated into no big gains.
So how will Quebec vote next time around when they see that Layton is far from the peace advocate he painted himself to be?
Wed, 2011-06-15 22:01
#97
Quebec saw the NDP vote for the Libya mission just two weeks before the election campaign began and they obviously either liked what they saw or they didn't care one way or the other since the NDP went from 1 seat to 59.
Wed, 2011-06-15 22:15
#98
Quebec saw the NDP vote for the Libya mission just two weeks before the election campaign began and they obviously either liked what they saw or they didn't care one way or the other since the NDP went from 1 seat to 59.
You don't think Quebec could easily send the NDP in the other direction?
Wed, 2011-06-15 23:01
#99
Quebec saw the NDP vote for the Libya mission just two weeks before the election campaign began and they obviously either liked what they saw or they didn't care one way or the other since the NDP went from 1 seat to 59.You don't think Quebec could easily send the NDP in the other direction?
You're debating with Stockholm about Québec? Seriously?
Wed, 2011-06-15 23:03
#100
Northern Shoveler
Something has to be done to break up the Ghaddafi/Berlusconi power grab. Unless Ghadaffi goes, Silvio Berlsuconi will extend Italian imperialism to Libya!
A new low for you
FOOD
Wed, 2011-06-15 23:13
#101
I emailed Jack L. today informing them I am giving up my membership in the NDP because of their stand on Libya and Palestine. My dues don't matter much to them, I told them, but I let them know I've circulated the letter to a number of people plus a listserve.
In it I couldn't resist referring to Paul Dewar as a "mealy-mouthed militarist"
Just sharing.