Will the NDP support extending Canada's bombing of Libya ?

The obvious connection is that both are leaders of countries blessed by huge oil weath that the USA hasn't appropriated through an act of war.

Yet.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Keep in mind that Chavez is close to Ghadaffi, so he's not necessarily the best person to be mediating or otherwise involved in the process either.

Yes it's always better when the mediator is solidly on "our side".

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Hey Fidel, are you okay? I just heard the news about the NDP and Libya vote.

I'm going to hold my nose until the end of this extension. After that the party should probably look for donations from Exxon-imperial and BP but not from me. I've sent them a note. 

I understand that worst-past-the-post is dirty politics and that this country needed democratizing decades ago. And this is just one foreign policy among many. But this is ridiculous. International law is what it is since 1945, and nothing can change that in my mind.

[url=http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/14/john-ivison-ndp-saves-the...

Quote:

The NDP was never keen on the idea that partisanship stops at the water’s edge. The party refused to support membership in NATO, and wanted less Canadian involvement in missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

But times change. Jack Layton picks up the keys to his new residence at Stornoway Wednesday and it is some measure of how determined he is not to return to rented accommodation that the new Official Opposition backed a three-and-a-half month extension to Canada’s involvement in the UN-sponsored mission in Libya. This is a party that wants to present itself as a government in waiting, not a loony left protest group.

...

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.

How mature and all grown up.

It's not like there was ever a clear consensus within the NDP about whether or not bombing Libya was a good idea, and I strongly suspect that Layton's clarification that this will be the only extension was about trying to find some sort of political "consensus" within the party. How will this work? Time will tell.

That said, bad move. I thought the NDP campaigned in the last election on being the only real opposition to Harper?

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Good for you, I would write by I know it does not matter.

They are saying this is a one-time support for "mission extension". I can imagine that the blood for oil hounds are planning to be there long term, and I think the NDP knows that. There is nothing they could do numerically to stop the Harpers from their vicious, vicious toadying to US power. They are bound and determined that Ottawa will continue on as a mere colonial outpost for Warshington.

 The NDP has suggested a number of caveats and ammendments to this Tory rubberstamp approval for all things Warshington. I can't imagine our vicious, vicious toadies in the Reform Party retread government receiving any new instructions from their bosses in Warshington by the end of summer. I think the NDP understand that our toadies and lapdogs with dictatorial powers and just 24% of eligible voter support under them will not be creating any made in Canada policy on Libya.

And so it will be an opportunity for the NDP to expose them for doing exactly what Paul Martin did by 2005 when he so timidly accepted orders from Uncle Sam and criminal warfiteering industries demanding that their closed economy continue being propped-up with even more taxpayer handouts. The NDP has to try a different tack this time perhaps, because the two old line parties, once fed instructions from the US Capital, are single-minded in their determination to follow orders and firmly plant their heads so far up his ass for the duration that they typically need air pumping to them. It's a disgusting thing to behold for sure. And they allow the Yanks to draft any and all foreign policies not just what it is for Libya. Their loyal lap-doggery to Uncle Sam knows no bounds.

Perhaps it's time to abandon party politics. Support the grassroots activists in seeking election as MPs based on their personal platforms. The past 5-10 years have been a total failure as far as any progressive is concerned. Our political parties have proven to be spineless and without vision time and again.

I get frustrated visiting the NDP site because they are no longer the party I grew up admiring. Their current foreigh policy position is pathetic and indistinguishable from an Ignatieff-led Liberal Party.

laine lowe wrote:

Perhaps it's time to abandon party politics. Support the grassroots activists in seeking election as MPs based on their personal platforms. The past 5-10 years have been a total failure as far as any progressive is concerned. Our political parties have proven to be spineless and without vision time and again.

I agree completely, I have saying this for many years.

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Hey Fidel, are you okay? I just heard the news about the NDP and Libya vote.

I'm going to hold my nose until the end of this extension.

You'll have to. To avert the stench of rotting human flesh. It's unfortunate that there's no filthy murderous act that could make you mildly critical of your cowardly friends in the NDP.

OTOH, I can smell suspect concern a mile away. I think there are some people who actually dread the possibility that a party promising to democratize our little bastion of right wing conservatism in the world might spoil things for some large and phony majority of voters running roughshod over the true majority in this once proud country. The NDP is the only party in Ottawa promising to reform our dated 19th century electoral system and opening the back door wide open for a united front on the left. Those people know that it would spell the end of decades worth of unapologetic stoogery in Ottawa. That's what they fear most about the NDP. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Are there any parties anywhere in the world opposed to this mission?

The 'Antiwar Party.'

http://antiwar.com/

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Keep in mind that Chavez is close to Ghadaffi, so he's not necessarily the best person to be mediating or otherwise involved in the process either.

Those who have been mediating or making reasonable offerings for a peaceful solution are the A.U., Turkey, Russia and Germany.

Fidel wrote:

They are saying this is a one-time support for "mission extension". I can imagine that the blood for oil hounds are planning to be there long term, and I think the NDP knows that. There is nothing they could do numerically to stop the Harpers from their vicious, vicious toadying to US power. They are bound and determined that Ottawa will continue on as a mere colonial outpost for Warshington.

 The NDP has suggested a number of caveats and ammendments to this Tory rubberstamp approval for all things Warshington.

And so it will be an opportunity for the NDP to expose them for doing exactly what Paul Martin did by 2005 when he so timidly accepted orders from Uncle Sam and criminal warfiteering industries demanding that their closed economy continue being propped-up with even more taxpayer handouts. The NDP has to try a different tack this time perhaps, because the two old line parties, once fed instructions from the US Capital, are single-minded in their determination to follow orders and firmly plant their heads so far up his ass for the duration that they typically need air pumping to them. It's a disgusting thing to behold for sure. And they allow the Yanks to draft any and all foreign policies not just what it is for Libya. Their loyal lap-doggery to Uncle Sam knows no bounds.

Dear Fidel,

It greatly pains me to suggest that the NDP has fallen for the myth of 'humanitarian war.' It seems that the NDP believes that humanitarian aid/assistance comes in the form of dropping bombs on people that the majority of the cruise missile left worldwide has fallen for.

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Russia is offering a peaceful solution only to gain access to oil and to sell arms to Libya.

Turkey is trying to become a regional powerhouse.

Only god knows what the Germans want out of the deal, like oil, arms and power.

Russia has lots of oil and natural gas of its own that the U.S.A. is trying to gain access to through the Afghan war TAP(I) pipeline = Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan (possibly) India pipeline, meddling in Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) Russia War and "colored revolutions", 1999 Kosovo War, recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation-state, second largest U.S. overseas military base Bondsteel in Kosovo near oil-rich Caspian Sea basin, surrounding Russia with Poland and Czech Republic in NATO and with U.S. missiles and missile radars deployed there.

Turkey is trying to become a regional powerhouse in exactly the opposite way the American Empire has: Through peace, diplomacy and treating its neighbors as equals.

Germany is currently a member of the U.N. Security Council that abstained with Russia and China (China does have oil interests in Libya, but gains its oil and resource contracts with other countries through 'dollar and development diplomacy', unlike the American Empire) from voting on UNSCR 1973 the "No-Fly Zone" Resolution. Germany has not participated (unlike the U.S.A., the U.K., France, Canada, Italy, etc.,) in the war on Libya. Most Germans and their government are very uneasy about getting involved in the war on Libya as most Germans are very uneasy/opposed to their government's war on Afghanistan.

Prior to when Gadhafi suddenly became the "bad guy" in March of this year, yes Germany like the U.S.A., the U.K., France, Italy, Russia and other (mostly European and Western countries) sold arms to the Libyan government.

Fidel wrote:

We have to get up close and personal with the right in order to steal a phony majority from them. This is what they fear most - losing the country to democracy and a united front on the left.

Worst past the post politicking is no more dirty today that before. The difference is that the NDP is coming up the middle with reforms toward democratizing the country. That's the real game.

That's the great dilemma.

How much of our soul do we sell before we've sold ourselves out entirely?

If we take a strong stance now in clear opposition to the ruling party, might we not win all the votes we need later by showing that Jack's an even "Strong-er Leader" than Herr Harper?

Well, the vote was 294 yea, 1 nay (May). Canada has gone from being opposed to military imposed regime change (Iraq aka Persian Gulf War 2) to being for it in the case of Libya. The reason? Is oil and the "spice must flow". If there is no oil reserves we do not get involved while people suffer (generally). Examples of this would be North Korea, Syria and Egypt. 

Frmrsldr wrote:

Fidel wrote:

We have to get up close and personal with the right in order to steal a phony majority from them. This is what they fear most - losing the country to democracy and a united front on the left.

Worst past the post politicking is no more dirty today that before. The difference is that the NDP is coming up the middle with reforms toward democratizing the country. That's the real game.

That's the great dilemma.

How much of our soul do we sell before we've sold ourselves out entirely?

If we take a strong stance now in clear opposition to the ruling party, might we not win all the votes we need later by showing that Jack's an even "Strong-er Leader" than Herr Harper?

The NDP is doing exactly what the masters of worst-past-the-post electoral politics feared most. The NDP has no alternative but to forage into the heart of worst-past-the-post electorate, a large minority of Canadians mind, and steal as many votes away from them as we can by four year's time. It's definitely dirty and in the worst worst-past-the-postian fashion. But the NDP has no choice. They were a solid leftwing party for decades, and their voter support base never increased enough to beat the phony majority machine. So these people suggesting that the NDP revert to ALL of their 1990s positions on everything are really suggesting that the party not seek power.

Meanwhile it would take decades worth of fabulous makeovers and wobbling on policies for the NDP to come close to resembling either of the two old line parties far more alike than different.

They would rather the NDP remain on the political fringe and allowing all of this same vicious toadying to continue by our corrupt stooges in power and in more countries than just Libya. It will not take much for the NDP to still be a better and more digestible choice than the Tories who will be a somewhat neutered conservative party over the next four years  and merely due to who the political opposition is and vying to unseat them next election. Believe you me these Tories will in many ways be more careful and less right wing simply because the NDP are the effective opposition and promising to throw a wrench in the phony majority skunkworks. Once that machine is broken, the right knows there will be no going back to the 19th century Westminster bs and ignoring 76% of Canadians who didn't vote for them. They have their powerful and united front on the right today. There is only one real way to counter it, and that is by democratizing the system to resemble a modern democracy in Canada.

I suppose it's a matter of being in for a penny, in for a pound. Having supported intervention in the first place it would look hypocritical not to anymore now.

Here's the text of a letter I just sent to Paul Dewar and a few other key MPs:

Quote:

Dear Mr Dewar:

I would like to register my disappointment that the NDP has voted in favour of extending the bombing mission in Libya. Spare me the crap about protecting civilians or removing a rogue government. This operation is simply a US/NATO ploy to take advantage of the turmoil in Libya for geo-political advantage, and no amounts of amendments to the actual mission will change that reality. Even if the amendments had merit, the fact is that Harper has his majority, he can do with the Libyan mission what he wants without consulting the Opposition, and he will continue to march in lock-step with the US beyond the three month extension anyways.

But let's set aside the actual merits of the mission and focus on the politics. Despite what pundits and the banging of the bomb-Libya we are subjected to in the press, foreign military engagements are not popular with the Canadian public. If the comment sections of major newspapers are any indication, the war is vastly unpopular. There are no votes to be gained by switching, but many more votes will be lost. Especially after voting [i]with[/i] Harper [i]after[/i] campaigning as the opposition to him and that a vote for the NDP was a break from the status quo. People will look at this as a cynical move by the NDP, that it proves that all politicians are the same, and whether these votes to other parties or they simply sit out the elections, these are votes that went NDP this time that they will not have in 2015. Some supporters and NDP members who put a great deal of effort into this last campaign that paid off will also be among this disillusioned group. Can you blame them? If I'm asked why the NDP sided with Harper on this question, how can I defend the party with a straight face? Recently, Layton cited the courage of Tommy Douglas in standing up against the War Measures Act. Why was this courage absent from the entire NDP Caucus? It's bad enough that the NDP as a whole voted with Harper, but the fact that not one NDP MP voted against him is even harder to take.

I remember fondly when the NDP spoke forcefully against Canadian involvement in Iraq. The party was ridiculed at the time, but it held on. Not because a political strategist said it would be a good idea, but because the Iraq war was wrong and it gave voice to the many Canadians who opposed that campaign. Who now speaks for those opposed to the campaign in Libya? I'm beginning to doubt that if the Iraq invasion were happening in today's context that the NDP would take the strong stance now that it did then. Was this a tactical decision to deflect criticism of the NDP? The press and the NDP's right-wing adversaries will just find something else to criticize the NDP about that will "prove" that the NDP is "loony." Yet during the last campaign, the consensus among the media and the punditry was that the NDP would lose seats. The voting public, when they had a chance to see the NDP put forth a campaign that distinguished itself from all its opponents, ignored the media and punditry and voted according to their inspiration, propelling the NDP from fourth party to Official Opposition status. That inspiration is still needed, and as a first step, I urge the NDP to reverse its position and speak unequivocally against this military aggression and with the millions of Canadians who oppose Canada's participation in this military campaign.

Sincerely,

*personal contact information excluded*

What the NDP did here is entirely within character for the upper echelon, and increasingly as the evidence reveals, its rank and file. The real difficulty we should be contending with here is in coming to terms with the disappointment and anger being expressed over this latest NDP hand holding session with the cons and liberals, as if there were expectations of this party that are systematically being left unfulfilled. The disappointment reveals what is scarcely understood, that there was never a basis in reality to expect anything of them other than as a new partner in crime with the usual suspects. This is precisely where more energy needs to be focused, on helping to deliver more bonafide leftists with a conscience out from the clutches of this dead end street of a party.

Doug wrote:

I suppose it's a matter of being in for a penny, in for a pound. Having supported intervention in the first place it would look hypocritical not to anymore now.

That is far too generous an interpretation.

Non-hypocritical consistency would dictate that the NDP would hold with its original position for supporting a "humanitarian" "no-fly zone". With the unfolding bombing of civilians, and atrocities against civilians from all sides in this civil war (with the background of foreign designs on regime-change-for-oil)l it would be consistency for the NDP to say :"This is clearly not what we agreed to, we are going to be steadfast and vote, No"

It was crystal clear on the 13th in the extension "debate" which way Layton's NDP would jump:

Quote:

Hon. Jack Layton:
   First, is the objective of the mission in Libya still to protect civilians, as requested by the UN resolution?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
    Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Our work in Libya is in accordance with the UN resolution. Our military mission has not changed. The resolution on this policy, which we will debate tomorrow, will aim to extend the mission by three and a half months.

That basically settled it, Layton asked his fake naive question and the protector-of-innocents answered. (and a few lines on thanked the NDP/Liberals for their support)

Would someone explain to me why I should keep voting NDP? 

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Would someone explain to me why I should keep voting NDP? 

Try John Baird.

What a hell of a way to mark 50 years and May 2. For some reason, the wait somehow doesn't seem so worth it.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Would someone explain to me why I should keep voting NDP? 

This is the problem.

If the NDP acts like the (former) Liberal Party and supports the Cons. then come next federal election, people who will not support the Cons. will either not vote - which will help the Cons. and hurt the NDP or will form a more left party which will hurt the NDP and benefit the Cons. by dividing the left.

Keep this up and the NDP could go the way of the Li(e)berals.

Apparently some require more convincing than others.  No worries though, as the next four years will see that path worn down to the cobbles.