Deal to extend Afghanistan mission without vote. part IV

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In the '80's the NDP had banners at all the rallies not so much anymore.

My guess would be that many of the fiery idealists from that era have since retired or died off, and what we're left to contend with is the cold pragmatism of collaboration. The earlier passion of the NDP's activism in support of the debate surrounding real questions and solutions has been replaced by a passion for seeing debate and activism shut down as soon as possible.

Which is why you don't need idealists. What you need are people with a solid hard headed analysis. Having someone in parliament who could accuse the Prime Minister of being a "fuzzy headed idealist" for believing you can successfully "build schools in a war zone" would wound the Tory ego far more than accusing them of deceit. Deceit because they know better than everyone else is in their playbook as a virtue.

Making Harper appear soft and naive would hurt Harper's ego and would bare more fruit than having Layton an co. feed Harper the rhetoric of "humanitarian intervention" as a casus beli for nine years.

People will vote for hard headed pragmatist over nice guys, any day of the week.


The NDP has a duty to prepare or develop the public space for the political view that we have to get the military out of Afghanistan, period. It failed to do so, and that is showing now.


The anti-war movement voted with its feet to live with the promise that the Canadian intervention would end in 2011. That de facto quiescence is being paid for now, and appears even to continue.

Did I tell you about what is wrong with the NDP?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Fine! You vote NDP. I don't. At least not religiously. Who cares?

I really don't know why you are obsessed with trying to pin lack of NDP activity on lack of peace movement activity. It is really irrelevant. It is about the position on the issues, and where they stand. If you ask me where the NDP stands on this issue, I will tell you that for the most part they suck.

Does that mean they started the war? No. It just means I don't think they are doing a whole hell of a lot to stop it. Its just another sound byte for them, or so it seems.


George Victor

Given the interest of some of the old Mujahideen in schooling for the children of their villages, it could now be that the kids of Afghanistan - girls as well as boys - would be given access to schooling under the new-old regime.

Just got another of the weekly propaganda missives in the mail from Gary Goodyear. This one is militaristic: "Oour Conservative Government will always stand up for the men and women in uniform who defend our great country.

"Thank you to all our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen for keeping Canada safe.

"Who is on the right track to deliver for the Armed Forces?

Michael Ignatieff (circle) Stephen Harper (circle) Jack Layton (circle) Elizabeth May (circle)  

519-624-7440  or comment online at


I'm afraid that that is the hard-headed pragmatism that gets the vote in this neck of the woods.  And it needs a BIG budget...

Waiting for the ass-kissing media to report anything (correctly) is hopelessly naive.




KenS I don't understand how mass avoidance of the draft proves that the draft did not play a significant role in the development of the mass anti-war movement.  It seems to me that all those young people faced with conflicting moral and legal obligations became the foot soldiers of the movement.  


Cueball wrote:

I really don't know why you are obsessed with trying to pin lack of NDP activity on lack of peace movement activity.

Let alone obsessed, show me where this supposed narrative is.

What I have said many times is that people dont seem to have any interest in delving into the dearth of visible peace movement activity.

Taking another kick at the NDPs failings seems to be the only people want to talk about. Is there nothing else in the cupboard?

I mean, nobody has said that it is all about the NDP. So....


Krop- I think the drarft did play a important role.

I'm probably finished today for this, we're over 100 posts, and this is played out anyway.

If someone else deosesnt do it, I'll start another thread on the politics.

I objected to people offering singular exceptionalist explanations like "the draft is/was the difference".

As such, it becomes an excuse.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The antiwar movement is not a political party. It is a lose collection of ad hoc groups and individuals. It has no where near the economic or political resources of the NDP, and is not at all cohesive in that way. You can not critique the antiwar movement in the same way.

For one thing the grass roots activist movement has changed substantially. Where was the antiwar movement recently you ask? It was getting its ass kicked at the G20 demonstrations. Indeed, this movement has moved beyond a single issue movement and now represents a much more wholistic view of social change, of which being against the empire is but one facet.

We note, that not a single NDP MP was at the G20 cop riot. Am I mistaken on this point?

George Victor

Given that it is a political party without the resources to explain (with weekly handouts in every riding) just what it was up to, it would have been a ridiculously naive act to have been present.  Wishful thinking and avoidance of the imbalance of resources between political parties is surely not the "hard-headed realism" that some call for....

By the way, what happened to that "hard headed realism" passage...?  Musta got edited out. 

But then, that's what happens to sound bytes.

Cueball Cueball's picture

It wasn't there. It was "hard headed analysis" and "hard headed pragmatism". Maybe I changed realism to pragmatism, does it matter that much? That I can answer. I have no idea what else you are talking about so I can't comment.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing for length. Part 5 anyone?


Topic locked