babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Really?
So, if we just keep bringing forward more examples of Canadian complicity in Iraq - Canadians will connect the dots and demand that we get out of Afghanistan?
Hmm, gotta think that one over.
Wait a sec - every poll I've seen says Canadians want out of Afghanistan already. It's only the Conservatives and Liberals that haven't figured that out.
Now I'm really confused.
The point? It's certainly not to save a handful of Canadian lives, or to "support the troops".
It's to end an illegal military intervention in a civil war, in support of a corrupt neoliberal regime, and to expose our government's role in extending the long arm of imperialism on Afghanistan and around the world.
I think it's more important to mobilize public opinion around those truths than around myths and lies of the Canadian ruling class as a benevolent force for world peace, proudly abstaining from the imperialist "war on terror".
Yeah, I agree, but that's not the dichotomy. Can't we mobilize people against Canada's participation in the Afghan war and occupation without praising Jean Chrйtien or perpetuating mythology about Lester Pearson?
More importantly, is it really not essential to spend more time and effort getting Canada to quit the Afghan war than in calling on people to hit the streets to fire some guy called Natanczyk or whatever???
I happen to think we can mobilize against the Afghanistan war and at the same time condemn Jean Chrétien and debunk the myths about Lester Pearson.
Some people, however, think that's very counterproductive.
I think these are all complementary strategies for the anti-imperialist left.
All right, all right, all right - I agree.
I've been arguing some point to death until I realized that I don't really agree with my own point.
I think what stuck in my craw was when Richard didn't seem to care about the role played by McLaughlin and the NDI and various ideologues, essentially saying: "That's not my project!", and then harping on about the "Liberals" - who of course were pro-U.S. warmongers all along, as Afghanistan showed clearly. I didn't like the partisan flavour to his comments, and I still don't.
But that got me making an argument I don't really believe in.
So there. You're right, I'm wrong. How much do I owe you?
So this would apply predominantly to the ones who "support our troops", i.e. those that Harper is playing to and counting on to elect his next government.
I do run into a lot of confusion though even with people who don't like to see us over there. People know that Canadian soldiers are dying and most of us realize it's in Afghanistan. But a lot of us have no idea what it is we're even supposed to be doing there, except that it's in context of the same, vague, middle east /terrorism problem wherein Chretien said no to Bush on Iraq. That is a contradiction and I think on a very basic level it finds some resolution in that comfortable, durable old informing myth of Canadian neutrality.
That's sort of the picture I get from talking to people, deep in social conservative territory where I live and work. Not sure how much of that would be captured in the polls but it makes me nervous because all it would take is a few good atrocity stories and a lot more of us could end up voting to support our troops. But if it were to become clear that there is currently Canadian involvement in Iraq, that would solidify an "anyone but Harper" vote in the next election. He'll go down in flames with Bush. Could be a Bob Rae scenario.
Interesting that the Bloc is now putting it out there that they are the only party that can effectively represent the interests of Quebecois on Afghanistan. I think they're right and I believe our military involvement anywhere in the world is a national issue for Quebec, given the high proportion of Canadiens francais in the armed forces.
Unionist's has made a powerful admission here and it needs to be acknowledged and appreciated. It isn't easy to admit that one was wrong.
It is also an important lesson about the value of argumentation.
Sometimes it is only when we are forced to actually argue our position that we realise that our ideas are inaccurate, contradictory or untenable.
I think that sometimes we can be drawn along to argue something because we want to side with others in a public debate, or side against certain others, or because there is something in the style of the person you are arguing against that sticks in your craw even though you actually agree with them on the point at hand.
As for my flaws, it seems that it may have appeared that I was antiLiberal.
Gee, how could anyone get that idea?
As for the NDP, Unionist said I should have included a critique of the role played by NDP luminaries in certain aspects of the Iraq occupation.
I then merely explained that my article focused on the Canadian government's military role in the Iraq war.
I strongly agree that we need to examine the NDP luminaries's roles in the "democracy promotion" dimensions of the Iraq occupation.
I didn't include that stuff in my article for the same reason I didn't include Canada's general industrial contributions to American capitalism.
I believe it is better to be as focused as possible and to examine the best examples of the problem at hand, namely -- in this case -- Canadian military participation in Iraq.
This focus is necessary in this case because it was this military participation that our government was vehemently denying while so much blatant evidence was available to the contrary.
I do think it is particularly important for the left to examine the current NDP leadership's statements which bolster the Canadian government's lie that it did not join the Iraq War.
That is exactly why I went on in subsequent postings to present evidence on the current NDP leadership's position and to strongly critique that position.
I have also emailed my article on Canada's role in Iraq -- and my Babble critique of the NDP position -- to all NDP MPs.
Anyhow, I'm truly sorry if I had any role in prolonging Unionists' painful conversion to the straight and true path. I'm glad we're all on track now on this issue. Let's proceed by taking the mythical bull by the horns and wrestle it down, or get gored to death in the process.
But more importantly right now, let's have a round of applause and offer our thanks to Unionist for his honest admission.
And, for once, I am not being sarcastic. (Really!)
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
No, you were right all along, just loosing sight of the end game momentarily. I agreed with Richard as well, but took issue with several aspects of his commentary. It doesn't mean the obvious truths become meaningless, only common ground.
I think it's great that you're uncovering the stoogeocracy's under the radar role in Iraq. But Canada was always complicit with American imperialism in general. We've had an NDP MLA's wife sue the CIA and Washington over illegal and immoral mind control experiments performed in this country with tacit approval of the old line parties in government at the time. US imperialism and the dirty rotten things they've done are not news to the left in Canada. The NDP just doesn't have the resources to focus on attacking Canada's long-time largest trading partner in crime. I think you should focus on exposing those in power and politicos who've made all of the high level decisions in Ottawa not the fourth political party and effective opposition NDP with 30 seats and deserving of 55 if our's was a modern democracy. I never shoot at fawns or yearlings when hunting deer because it's just not good sportsmanship besides other things. Keep your eyes peeled for the buck in the brush, Richard.
That's no reflection on the NDP. She was a personal victim of the experiments who just happened to be married to a politician.
But Canadian imperialism always seems to come as a great shock to some of the "left" in Canada. They have such a hard time imagining that Canada might actually be giving material aid and knowhow to support the Iraq war, even when confronted with the smoking-gun evidence.
Their eyes are blinded by crude nationalism.
If they have the "resources" to congratulate themselves on having persuaded the Liberals to stay out of the war in Iraq, they have the resources to tell the truth about Canada's real role in assisting the US in the war.
It's not a matter of resources. It's a matter of peddling mythology as truth.
No, Jack Layton and the NDP were successful in lobbying the weak and ineffective Liberal stoogeocrats in preventing Canadian soldiers being sent to Iraq. Period. That's a fact.
Here's an alternative: Start up your own political party and decide how much of your time and precious resources should be spent on exposing the military-industrial complex. It's a very large issue, and Richard is chiselling away at the tip of an iceberg. I think it's great, but do I think this issue is going to move Canadians to vote against the stoogeocracy in large numbers? No, but Canadians should be made aware of it anyway. The NDP can't be focussed on running down every story on Can-Am imperialism and expect to remain the fourth political party and effective opposition in Ottawa.
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Such lofty ambitions! To remain the fourth political party! My head is swimming at the thought.
The duty of the opposition is to oppose. This includes exposing the government's complicity in the unpopular Iraq war.
If you think that won't win votes, well, maybe you're right. But why should the NDP be constantly guided by political opportunism rather than telling the truth?
Anyway, I think the more MP's a party has elected, the more funding the party receives for research. The NDP is the fourth political party and should be third if advanced democracy was the rule in this Northern colonial outpost. But we're stuck with an absolete, vote-distorting FPP system scrapped by over 70 countries decades ago.
[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
(1) NDP bashing: 99% of my work time is spent opposing the war machine and what Fidel calls its "stoogocrats" (who in Canada work for and support the two big parties). The other 1% of my time is split betwixt a number of things, only one of which is critiquing the NDP. As an NDP member, I have a right to try to influence my party, and ocasionally to do it publicly. The "influence operation" here is to try to help them/us change an incorrect policy that undermines their/our efforts. Therefore the purpose of the change is to help them/us win more seats. Most Canadians are against the War in Iraq. If it became clear that the NDP was really opposed to the war, whereas the twofaced Liberals only give lip service to that opposition, then the NDP would gain more votes.
(2) Resources: The NDP has a million times more resources than we do. The information about Canada's role in Iraq is readily available. My first article on the subject was published in the Globe and Mail in March 2003! So, how hard should it be for the NDP to figure out that the Liberals were lying. I think they knew this but thought it better to score political points by saying they helped sway the Liberals to their (supposed) decision to refuse support for the war. And, the Iraq war is not just any old story that the NDP should or shouldn't follow, it is a HUGE story.
(3) Wife: She was an NDP MPs wife, not an MLA's wife. Her name was Velma Orlikow and her husband was David.
And here's a related one for you trivia buffs: Mila Mulroney's father (Dr. Pivnicki) worked with Dr. Ewen Cameron (the CIA-paid, mind-control mad scientist) on related MKULTRA projects!
We knew her as Val Orlikow - that's what Dave called her anyway. It was such a tragic situation.
I was under the impression that annual research budgets for federal parties are proportional to and increase with the number of MP's a party elects, but don't quote me. Funny that we don't elect MP's proportionally though. So I'm thinking that if someone wants to start a new anti-war, anti-USSA party and try to get a minimum number of MP's elected in achieving party status with associated research budget, I think it would be a great idea. All the power to them, I say.
And you're right, David Orlikow was an NDP MP. It's all there and more in the "dirty rotten" link above and more. Iraq is but one of dozens of dirty wars our largest trading partners in crime have waged on poor countries from last century to this one. Your revelations concerning Canada's aiding and abetting the vicious empire in Iraq is certainly news to me. But it's nothing new to the overall picture and scheme of things, imo, Richard. Canada is just a northern colony, a repository of unparalleled natural wealth for corporate America to raid at will. I am not under the illusion that our's is a sovereign country separate and distinct from a large and powerful republic to the south of us. We don't even have a national dental officer let alone a made in Canada national energy plan.
Perhaps Canadians are as misled today as they were about Ottawa's compliance with an immoral war in Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. Do they even care to know? Are they listening, do you think? I think the NDP is fighting for something even more basic to democracy than exposing Ottawa's long-time colonial outpost role within a vicious empire.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
I just thought we should make it absolutely clear as day as to exactly which two old line party stoogeocracies were in power or sharing power with the other at any given time of complicity to the vicious empire's imperial ambitions, whether we're talking about this century or the last one. Pressuring the Libranos into not sending Canadian troops to Iraq is not complying with imperialism.
[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
I agree with Fidel up to his last line, which--if I understand correctly--I think reveals the myth trying to rear its ugly head again.
Surely by helping to cover up the government's complicity in that war, the NDP *is* complying with imperialism, isn't it?
In reality the Liberals actually *did* send troops to the Iraq war. (And, I believe at least five Canadian soldiers died while fighting there. Perhaps more since then. They don't get that much media time. Wonder why...)
And what about all the CF personnel aboard Canadian warships that protect the US warships like those massmurdering aircraft carriers etc? Don't we count them? And the CC-130 crews? and the AWACs guys? and the warplanners etc? And the generals that help order all the tens of thousands of US and British troops around? Perhaps all those Canadian CF personnel don't count as "troops." Perhaps because most of them didn't have their "boots on the ground."
Sure Canada could have sent *more* troops than we did, but we couldn't properly fight *two* US-led wars simultaneously now could we?
The Canadian government knows well the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu (5th century BC?)
In chapter one "Laying Plans" (verse 18-19) Tzu said:
"All warfare is based on deception."
"Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive.
"Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable"
Every Canadian comedian seems to feel it is necessary to have at least ten jokes in their repertoire ion order to help Sun Tzu out on this one. They bolster the myth that Canada's military is poorly equipped, underfunded and constantly needing a few extra billion dollars just to keep up with Liechtenstein. This is such BS. Canada is about 10th out of 200 countries in terms of how much money we actually give to our military. They distract us by looking at military spending as a percent of GNP etc. which would mean Israel spends more on their military than the US does. The US in fact spends as much as all the world's countries combined.
"when using our forces, we must seem inactive."
Example: Canada has been actively participating in the Iraq war from the start but pretends to have been uninvolved, and to still be "inactive" there. ie., we never sent troops and decided not to join, we stayed out, our hands are lily white.
Now some will argue that Sun Tzu meant that these deceptions were to be aimed at tricking the enemy, whereas these deceptive myths that I am talking about are used to deceive the Canadian public.
However, the Cdn public is the biggest potential enemy of our military. The public is afterall paying for the military and elects the politicians who hold the purse stings and tell the military where to go and what to do.
Therefore the public (including, of course, the public that belongs to the "left") is the target of deception campaigns too, as was made clear by that Canadian military-funded "influence operations" document that I quoted from in the last thread.
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Richard Sanders ]
I think if we were able to prove the NDP willingly deceived Canadians about any of those things, Richard, then maybe it could be said that the fourth political party in Ottawa played an accidental, minor role. I really don't think you'd be able to prove that even was the case.
It's not for lack of trying, but the NDP can't even find out what Canadian colonial administrators of the North American shadow government actually do with detainees in Afghanistan. Are we handing them over to USSA Central Army? Are they being sent to Gitmo Bay, Cuba for interrorgation and routine torture? And this is a war which Canada is directly involved in officially. I think the NDP is on the outside looking in on this and many other issues concerning Canada's subserviant role to US imperialism around the world. And I think the old line party stoogeocrats in power and sharing power in Ottawa for the last 140 consecutive years in a row without a break inbetween have witheld even more information than just that from the NDP and Canadian public over the years. Volunteering Canadian citizens for CIA mind control experiments, whether it was supplying a US shadow government with troops or Canadian technology, or allowing the Yanks to test nerve gas, agent organge-purple on Canadian citizens or whatever the case may have been at any given time since we helped out with the military-mercenary army invasion of Russia from 1919-1923 through to playing lap dogs to the USSA throughout a vicious cold war.
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
So, it's because the poor NDP couldn't get any "information" about what was happening in the world that Jack Layton unilaterally cancelled the call to get Canada out of NATO, right?
Can't blame him - the Liberals and Conservatives wouldn't tell him what was going on!!
You see, Richard, the story of the Canadian government's complicity in imperial marauding is not just a story of the "government" - and just focussing on that aspect may mislead, because it doesn't address the root causes which maintain similar policies regardless of change of government.
It's the entire Canadian political class which is complicit. Only individuals, from time to time, raise their voice, but sooner or later they are suppressed. Remember Svend?
I'm sure that if and when Richard can pin any of the blame for Canada's ongoing stoogeocracy and their compliance with USSA's imperialism, then we will be the first to know. I find it odd that someone believes Canada is suddenly compliant with USSA imperialism just since 2003 or so.
We've had colonial administrators in Ottawa for a lot longer than since just 2003, Richard.
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
It may take the NDP in power federally to wake you up. Rae didn't, Doer doesn't, Calvert and Romanow and Blakeney and the rest...
If they can be so inconsistent in opposition, expect a clone of the Democratic/Liberal Party once they're in power.
UNLESS..., maybe, people stop blindly praising them every time they come up with a newly-hatched neo-con policy, and ONLY praise and encourage them when they do the right thing.
In short, Fidel... even though I love you... I blame you and other cheerleaders like you. Layton can support the Clarity Act, decide NATO just needs to be "transformed", call for tax cuts, say Afghanistan needs to be "debated" (as he did for the first 2.5 years of his leadership), support "tough on crime" and anti-youth social con measures, whatever - without a peep from the cheerleaders.
That's why I call them the "false friends" of the NDP. A true friend whispers a warning when s/he sees you marching off the cliff.
Ottawa's stoogeocracy is a lot older than 2003 and the Iraq-Afghanistan quagmire. This is par for the course for the stoogeocracy in Ottawa.
It's too late for some I suppose. We could never change old line party loyalties of the large minority of voting Canadians electing phony-majority and now phony-minority coalition stoogeocracy decade after decade.
Canadians need electoral reform first and foremost in order to clean the smiling white Liberals from power in Ottawa before we can even think about democracy in this frozen Puerto Rico. It would be a glorious day for democracy.
I follow the Moskva
Down to Gorky Park
Listening to the wind of change
An August summer night
Soldiers passing by
Listening to the wind of change
The world closing in
Did you ever think
That we could be so close,like brothers
The future's in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Blowing with the wind of change
Chorus
Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the wind of change
Walking down the street
Distant memories
Are buried in the past forever
[ 24 February 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
I think my post must have been confusing. I'm sorry.
I agree that the NDP have played, at the very worst, an "accidental" or "minor role" in lending some limited support to the whole mess, by the mess, in this case, i mean the myth that Canada didn't join the war in Iraq, just as it lent credence to the myth that Canada din't join BMD.
The NDP leaders/policymakers didn't start these myths, though it seems that they fell for them.
I believe that NDPers, like everyone else in Canada, are subject to the same kinds of prevailing PR, propaganda and mythology that everyone else is subject to.
So many Canadians love to imagine the peaceloving qualities of our country, its government and people.
And of course this war-serving mythology, like so many other practical and psychological and logistical aspects of Canada's role in war and injustice have been going on since as long as there has been a Canada, or Canadians. I never said that Canadian duplicity, complicity and warmongering started in 2003. That would be just silly.
Surely we do have to be as aware as possible of how our own own actions -- or the actions of our friends and colleagues -- may be contributing to the "evils" that we deplore and rant and organize against.
This doesn't mean that we can ever be perfect. We can't help in this society to contribute to "evil" by buying certain products for instance, that are made by folks working for near slave wages. We presumably try to avoid such purchases, but we are all complicit in the "evils" that we hate, wherther we admit it or know it or not.
But when we buy some product with dubious origins surely we are not as culpable as the factory owner who started the whole operation, makes millions off it, buys the politicians who outlaw unions, or rents the thugs to beat up the unionizers, and dumps the toxins in the ground, etc etc..
However, that said, we still shouldn't buy the damned product, or support the deceptive myth, because to do so does helps to continue the business we are against and surely the more of us who say no and refuse to go along with the system, the better.
Similarly, if we -- or a party we vote for -- has a view or policy that wittingly or not supports some greater "evil" we should try our best to draw attention to the contradiction so that our friends and colleagues can do likewise. Perhaps then the party or its members at least might change and some positive effect may result. What else can we do?
Frankly though I just don't really get the argument going on between Fidel and unionist. I find I am agreeing with the main points being made by both "sides."
So... can't we all just get along, at least for the sake of some common task? I know there's a ton of common ground under us here, so rather than have us always looking for whatever little divisions or cracks there may be between us can't we instead just find some big ugly boulder that we can all agree should be pushed, and just get down to the hard work of pushing it? One boulder that I thought we could try to put our shoulders into and get rid of was this silly myth that Canada didn't join the Iraq war. It's an easy target, and in pushing at it we can expose other stuff along the way, stuff that unionist was wanting us to look at like the complicity of some lefties in the "democracy promotion" business in Iraq and like Fidel is wont to point out, the long history of Canadian complicity in warmongering. These are all noble obstaclesbut I just figure that when we are pushing against some obstacle it shouldn't be too big, or too slippery or too amorphous that we keep falling down all over ourselves, stepping on our own toes and arguing with each other about where the business end of the dang thing is to push on.
I think what Canadians want and perhaps don't fully realize it yet is electoral reform. But would our two old line parties in Ottawa even trust Canadians with a national referendum on electoral reform, and with what would be just the fourth national referendum since 1898 ? That issue is high on the NDP's wish list in Ottawa.
But so far, the two old line parties are content with propping up each other on minor, less talked about issues in the news media, like: federal budgets, U.S.-style law and order, selling Canada's environment to Exxon-Imperial, and waging war in the Middle East and Central Asia. And when Dion or Harper do say something, the Liberal news media hang on their every word as if indulging in manna from heaven.
This deployment includes three Canadian warships and more than 850 sailors, soldiers and airmen and women. They will be assigned to "monitor shipping, and help detect, deter and protect against unauthorized activity."
Essentially this means acting as pirates in international waters, intercepting vessels, boarding, and searching them, with no legal authority whatsoever.
HMCS Iroquois, a destroyer, will act as the command platform for the task force. HMCS Calgary, a frigate, and HMCS Protecteur, an auxiliary oil replenishment ship will round out this fourth rotation of Operation Altair, "Canada’s contribution to the maritime portion of the global war on terrorism."
These ships will be replacing HMCS Charlottetown, which was sent to the Persian Gulf last November, to operate with the USS Harry S Truman Carrier Strike Group, conducting "surveillance patrols" and "maritime interdiction operations".
-- Dept. of National Defence sources
Meet Canada's new Chief of Defence Staff:
With Harper's plans for more aggressive warfare in support of US world hegemony, this guy's experience in running the show in Iraq will come in real handy.
Natynczyk commanded ten brigades totalling 35,000 troops stationed throughout Iraq. When Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson gave Natynczyk Canada's Meritorious Service Cross, her office extolled his "pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations [which] resulted in a tremendous contribution to...Operation IRAQI FREEDOM..."
---
The appointment of Lt.-Gen. Walt Natynczyk to head the Canadian Armed Forces was hailed in Washington on Friday by senior U.S. army officers who worked with him four years ago in Iraq.
Ah yes, I almost forgot, "Operation Iraqi Freedom". what a proud role for Canada---more medals please!
"Operation Iraqi Freedom". It somehow has a pleasanter ring than.. oh, say, "Operation Slavery, Slaughter, Deceit, Coerced PERMANENT Occupation and Imperialism"
======================
Published on Friday, June 13, 2008 by Inter Press Service
"Bush Pledges on Iraq Bases Pact Were a Ruse
by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - Two key pledges made by the George W. Bush administration on military bases in its negotiations with the government of Iraq have now been revealed as carefully-worded ruses aimed at concealing U.S. negotiating aims from both U.S. citizens and Iraqis who would object to them if they were made clear.
Recent statements by Iraqis familiar with U.S. demands in negotiations on the U.S.-Iraq “strategic framework” agreement have highlighted the fact that administration promises that it would not seek “permanent bases” or the use of bases to attack Iran or any other neighbouring countries were deliberately misleading. The wording used by the Bush administration appears to have been chosen to obscure its intention to have both long-term access to Iraqi bases and complete freedom to use them to launch operations against Iran and Syria....."
Canada's Master