Hands off Syria!

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Hands off Syria!

*

Unionist

I think we need a thread in Canadian Politics to discuss Canada's role and obligations in regard to what will soon be (IMHO) another instance of naked and bloody aggression against a sovereign state and people. We have another thread which is useful for reporting on the war which has been raging there for more than two years.

Today, I heard Paul Martin demanding military strikes against Syria, citing Canada's alleged founding role in the fraudulent "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

We need to understand where the various political forces in Canada stand - and we need to influence them, however impossible it may seem, in the direction of peace, diplomacy, and strict non-intervention.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I agree. I am afraid they are considering the old "boots on the ground" trick. This is one time Tom better not go "Ready, Aye Ready".

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Unionist wrote:

I think we need a thread in Canadian Politics to discuss Canada's role and obligations in regard to what will soon be (IMHO) another instance of naked and bloody aggression against a sovereign state and people.

It's absurd to conflate all wars and military interventions. Would you be writing the same tripe if Hitler had just invaded Poland?

The situation we have here is a brutal dictator committing acts of genocide using chemical weapons. Humanity has an obligation to intervene. NATO bombing stopped the war in Kosovo. That's clearly not the same as Bush Jr.'s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Assad doesn't represent the people of Syria. Surgical strikes could help Syrians get rid of him and put an end to the bloody conflict that already exists. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Chris Floyd has a post up about this that deserves to be read. He only mentions Obama and Cameron by name, but Harper (and Trudeau and Mulcair) deserve the same condemnation. The conclusion:

Chris Floyd wrote:

These leaders know that their action will murder innocent people (as so many of their actions do, week after week, year after year), they know (because their own analysts and experts tell them) that it will exacerbate extremism, worsen the conflict in Syria, destabilize the region, increase global tensions and lead directly and indirectly to the needless death and horrific suffering of countless people in the days and years to come.

They know all this, they will do it anyway. They know all this, but they do not care. They don't know how to care. They have given themselves over to Moloch -- to the insane, inhuman force of violent domination -- and they must blindly follow its dictates. Nothing can stop them, no reasoned argument, no moral objection, not even self-interest, national or personal. They are insane. They are stupid. They are enslaved to murderous power -- so they will kill.

kropotkin1951

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I agree. I am afraid they are considering the old "boots on the ground" trick. This is one time Tom better not go "Ready, Aye Ready".



Quote:

Mulcair was also asked about the situation in Syria, and said that if Canada is considering intervention, Parliament has to be reconvened.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to ask Gov. Gen. David Johnston to prorogue Parliament, which would mean MPs would not return to Ottawa on Sept.16 as scheduled.

"To see a government in the 21st century gasing its own citizens is an abomination, and the world has to move against that. That should be done through the institutions of international law, in particular the United Nations," he said, adding that it's a "tragedy" Canada doesn't sit on the Security Council.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/ndp-determined-to-abolish-senate-mulc...

He is in lock step with the UK and French in passing out a verdict before even seeing the evidence. At this point if our NATO allies decide to proceed with action on what basis could he object.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Well,this should please Netanyahu.

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
I think we need a thread in Canadian Politics to discuss Canada's role and obligations in regard to what will soon be (IMHO) another instance of naked and bloody aggression against a sovereign state and people. We have another thread which is useful for reporting on the war which has been raging there for more than two years.

That's a good question unionist. Specifically, when you look at what's happening on the ground world-wide, military action against Syria doesn't seem to be generating the large-scale protests that the Iraq war did. (You could say the same about Libya.) What happened? Are people more likely to protest military action started by a cowboy from Texas than a well-educated community organizer from Chicago? Has the security apparatus made demonstrations more impossible? Is it that the powers-that-be are apparently acting more swiftly on the cases of Libya and Syria than in Iraq, thus cutting off the time it would take for that sentiment to grow? What's going on?

janfromthebruce

Mulcair said nothing of what kind of intervention so let's not conflat it. I'm horrified of women and children being gassed and the number child refugees that "man war" has created again. Yell

And as for Afghanistan, why we can thank libs for getting us in there, Harper Cons cont with Liberal backup. Let's stick with that fact.

Unionist

Jan, why don't you take a break from your partisan "I love Us, I hate Them!!" and try to deal with the issue. And spare me your tears about "women and children" [did you actually really truly just write that?????] being "gassed" and "child refugees", after two years of mutual slaughter.

The issue is, what stand will Canadians take on the pending aggression against Syria?

janfromthebruce

please quit using partisan as a way to surpress social dem supporters voices on babble. I'm a proud partisan and glad I support a progressive party with real progressive roots. And just because you opened this thread doesn't mean that you get to call the shots and what things get talked about.

I came from a feminist bent so deal with it. Or is it I can't post in this thread because I'm not obeying your direction. That's rhetorical and done purposefully to show how some here appearing to attempt con't to supress voices. It's come troll like.

Unionist

So anyway, jan, why not stick your neck out and say what position Canada should take about launching a military strike against Syria?

I'm not suppressing your "voice". I'd actually like to hear it.

Attack? Not attack? What?

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
I'm not suppressing your "voice". I'd actually like to hear it.

Attack? Not attack? What?

My position? Not attack. Strict sanctions that are targeted to reduce the flow of weapons into Syria. Encourage a negotiated settlement.

Unionist

Bravo. Me too.

Where do the political parties stand?

Not much time left to take a stand, by my reckoning.

 

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I served. I am entirely against this. Tom better get this right.

Bravo! Tom's my MP and has already heard from me, for what that's worth.

Canadians must raise their voices.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

My position, unless Trudeau is willing to enlist, at age  40 he could still join, and carry a weapon in combat with the sons and daughters of Tory MPs of suitable age, I'm against it. Enough! This isn't about anything but oil. Anyone recall hearing anything else about Somaila, no....I didn't think so. I served. I am entirely against this. Tom better get this right.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"Canadians must raise their voices."

That includes asking Le Dauphin where HE stands. Don't bother, he'll do whatever the Amercans tell him to do. He' NOT his dad.

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Canadians must raise their voices."

That includes asking Le Dauphin where HE stands.

This just in:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-urges-parliament-re... urges Parliament recall to debate Syria[/url]

Quote:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says Parliament should be recalled immediately to debate the situation in Syria – whether Canada plays a role in any intervention or not. [...]

He said Canada can play a humanitarian role, but is concerned about military intervention.

Military intervention, he says, raises complex issues, including what a military victory would look like. “I don’t think we should be playing politics with this,” he said. [...]

Mr. Trudeau did not rule out Canada participating in a no-fly zone, but he said it was one of “many ideas to look at.”

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist, do you want Trudeau to win. And by the way,  once he's PM, Le Dauphin will do whatever the Americans tell him to do. This is grand standing. So what, he wants a debate. Big deal; once he's  PM, he won't have a problem doing whatever the Americans tell him to do. I think you know that. And if you don't, well don't blame when I say to you, told you so. Trudeau is a Corporatist; he'll do whatever the Americans tell him to do. And I ask again, do you want Le Dauphin to be Prime Minister? I'd like to know;  that's what it looks like to me.

I told you, I served. I have first hand experience with sending people off to fight and how it affects them and their families. This isn't a game of gotcha.

And by the way, stop rubbing my face in it. I'm getting tired of it.

Unionist

Arthur. Relax. That's an order. We're talking about Syria, not which asshole "wins" the next election.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Big deal; once he's  PM, he won't have a problem doing whatever the Americans tell him to do.

Bullshit, Arthur. We, the people of Canada, will determine what the next government does, whether it's led by one asshole or the other.

Don't believe me? Look at the mass demonstrations across Canada in January and February 2003 demanding "Hands off Iraq!". Now tell me whether Canada sent troops to Iraq.

We will win. As long as we start by setting aside the utter nauseating crap about "I love the NDP, I hate Liberals, I mock the Greens, the Bloc are finished, anyway they're separatists so who cares" and all the rest of it.

Jack Layton knew how to set aside that bullshit when it came time to represent the best interests of Canadians. See if we can have a discussion about imperialist aggression against Syria without accusing each other of being closet Liberals or trolls or whatever.

Thanks a bunch.

 

Bubbles

Unionist,

I am glad to see that you are still around.

If it was up to me we would stay out of Syria.

Obama is a stupid man, when he drew a line in the sand.

With the rebels losing, crossing that line in the sand became their motivation.

Also the American government has lost all credibillity.

And beside that we have enough on our hands to recapture our democracy from corporate control.

Unionist

Bravo, Bubbles - and I'm glad to see you back!

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, I'll take Tom's quiet acquiescence over Le Dauphin's crocidile tears; at least its more honest.

But I will tell you one thing, I agree with you when you use the word a...... As I said I know first hand how this impacts the people who get called to go on these wars of self indulgence. These poliiticians think this is a G-d damn game; of course its easy to play it when you know nothing you decide will affect your loved ones. I guess its always been that way. But to say it makes me mad, is, to say the least, an understatement. I say it again, Tom better get this right. Mind you, they don't care what I think. He got my vote and my money. I don't know why I keep trying. I must be a masochist. It could be just a kind of a "next year in Jeruslem", thing. Brother.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist, regarding Irag, you simply make my point. The Lib wanted to do it. With this Trudueamania stuff, the chance of Candians standing up against Le Dauphin is an open question. The guy is a dangerous liar; a demagogue, air headed, bubble brain. He's as shallow as a shadow, and as as deep as a puddle. But the potential of the damage he'd do to Canada if he gets the chance is to me terrifying. You can say B...... to what I say but I say it again. At least Tom is more honest about this. By the way, I say it once more, you tell me how you'd handle the 9PM phone calls from wives asking me why the CF was sending her husband and father of her children overseas to potentially meet his maker for something that made no sense to her? I dealt with that more then once as I sat at a desk shuffling paper and making recommendations. I am thankful I am out now; once was enough. Le Dauphin is dangerous.

Geoff

We were lied to in the lead-up to the first invasion of Iraq (the incubator caper), we were lied to in the lead-up to the second invasion of Iraq (non-existent weapons of mass destruction).  Why is no politician or high-profile journalist in Canada asking some hard questions about the propaganda leading up to the anticipated attack on Syria? 

While we're at it, why not point out the obvious, which is that the Syrian Government has nothing to gain by using chemical weapons, as they have been gaining ground against the rebels, and as they know using them would likely result in an attack by the US and its minions?  The rebels, on the other hand, are losing ground, so they are more likely to become desperate, and therefore be more likely to resort to employing chemical weapons.

I see there's another thread about differences between the Liberals and the NDP on policy.  Well, here's a chance for Tom to demonstrate at least one difference, big time.

DaveW

nakedApe42 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I think we need a thread in Canadian Politics to discuss Canada's role and obligations in regard to what will soon be (IMHO) another instance of naked and bloody aggression against a sovereign state and people.

It's absurd to conflate all wars and military interventions. Would you be writing the same tripe if Hitler had just invaded Poland?

The situation we have here is a brutal dictator committing acts of genocide using chemical weapons. ....

Good point, Ape. But don't expect distinctions like that to be noticed at Babble. Let the Syrians fight to the last man ... the principle of non-intervention trumps humanitarian concerns.

Unionist

Tom Mulcair didn't actually wait for the chemical weapons attack on "women and children":

Tom Mulcair, on March 10, 2012 wrote:
“I do think that we should have long ago been in Syria to stop the wholesale slaughter of the civilian population there…It is absolutely unthinkable that the world today would allow such an attack,” he said.

 

janfromthebruce

Good for Tom. Take note that he didn't say what kind of intervention. This is my position presently and dependent on how the situation unfolds. I also believe that Mulcair has more information than we do on what is happening in Syria.

My position? Not attack. Strict sanctions that are targeted to reduce the flow of weapons into Syria. Encourage a negotiated settlement.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Unionist wrote:

Jack Layton knew how to set aside that bullshit when it came time to represent the best interests of Canadians. See if we can have a discussion about imperialist aggression against Syria without accusing each other of being closet Liberals or trolls or whatever.

Syria is a shithole. What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it? Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

Let's compare this to Bush Jr. beating the war drum on Iraq. It was crystal clear back then that the US was manufacturing evidence of WMD to justify invading the country to secure its oil resources. It got so ridiculous Powell was saying this balsa-wood and duct-tape Red Green version of a drone was capable of delivering WMDs.

The two are not similar by any stretch of the imagination.

eastnoireast

nakedape42 wrote: Syria is a shithole. What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it?

the whole country? your comment is a racist shithole.

 

nakedape42 wrote: Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

ha ha ha. "western countries", white and pure as the driven snow, outraged at the brown folks in their self-made shitholes.

and, oh yeah, this is the same syrian regime canada was happy to have mr arar tourtured by.

-

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

E. May today:

“I expressed to Mr. Baird that no military action should take place in the absence of a UN resolution. Military action is unlikely to resolve the conflict and could, in fact, worsen the humanitarian crisis.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Can we agree that saying rascist things about anyone is bad? NA, I don't get what you were thinking. That's a real boner, to say the least. Want to clarify things a little.

For my money, this is about Israel and oil. As a Jew, I am tired of the strength of the Israeli lobby. I don't know if its a minority or majority opinion in the community, but its mine.

Aristotleded24

Here is a hastily-written letter I just wrote to my MP on the Syrian subject. I encourage the rest of you to do likewise:

Quote:
Dear Mr. Bruinooge:

I am very concerned about the situation in Syria. While I share the government's outrage over the recent chemical attack, I do not agree with any military action whatsoever. You can spin it all you want, the fact is that a military action will inevitably result in the loss of civilian life, the very civilians the Canadian government is concerned about protecting. Furthermore, a military strike only risks destabilizing the situation further, which will cause more anger and frustration, and puts Canadians in more danger as a military strike gives terrorist organisations an excuse to recruit more members. The root causes of the strife in Syria are very complex, and I am asking that the Canadian government advocate, through the UN and other international agencies, for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. There are other means of controlling the violence, such as targeted sanctions against weapons that can be directed at the Syrian government that will not be nearly as destructive as a military strike. Furthermore, empowering the Syrian population to resolve the conflict without violence will result in a more stable region, will gain Canada respect, and provide fewer and fewer incentives for terrorist recruiting as people will no longer feel intense frustration.

Please do not lend any support, military, moral, or otherwise, to this dangerous mission, and advocate for a peaceful settlement.

Sincerely,

*personal contact information removed*

CC: Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Robert Nicholson, Minister of Defence
Thomas Mulcair, Opposition Leader
Paul Dewar, Opposition Critic for Foreign Affairs
Jack Harris, Opposition Critic for National Defence
Justin Trudeau, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Dominic Leblanc, Liberal Critic for Foreign Affairs
John McKay, Liberal Critic for National Defence
Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada
Bruce Hyer, Independent Member of Parliament for Thunder Bay-Superior North
Brent Rathgeber, Independent Member of Parliament for Edmonton-St. Albert

It's bad enough that American citizens do not have the option to vote against a violent foreign policy, but it appears Canada is going down that same path.

Aristotleded24

nakedApe42 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Jack Layton knew how to set aside that bullshit when it came time to represent the best interests of Canadians. See if we can have a discussion about imperialist aggression against Syria without accusing each other of being closet Liberals or trolls or whatever.

Syria is a shithole. What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it? Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

A chemical weapons attack which the UN has blamed on a terrorist group, not the Syrian government.

Besides, think of your logic. You want to kill Syrian civilians to stop the Syrian government from killing civilians.

Good on Elizabeth May for being the only Opposition Leader to oppose the use of military force in Syria. My quibble with her statement is that I would ammend it to say no military action, period.

Unionist

nakedApe42 wrote:

Syria is a shithole.

You sound like an expert on the subject.

Quote:
What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it?

Kill people, on a whim. They do that a lot you know.

Quote:
Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

I've considered the possibility that it's opinions like yours that are responsible for all the evil in the world, with few exceptions. Thanks for showing me the darkest side of the human face. It's scary, but educational.

 

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

E. May today:

“I expressed to Mr. Baird that no military action should take place in the absence of a UN resolution. Military action is unlikely to resolve the conflict and could, in fact, worsen the humanitarian crisis.

Excellent (relatively speaking). Thanks for that, Boom Boom!

 

Goggles Pissano

I think some of you may want to reconsider your support of "sanctions" as well.  The term sounds nice, but it is just a slower form of violence against a country you wish to subdue.  Sanctions includes cutting off imports of food and products used to grow food domestically.  The last people to get fed during times of economic suppression ARE the most vulnerable...the women and children. 

By the way, after Canada told the US that Canadian troups would not go into Iraq, that is when western Canadian ranchers got the mysterious "BSE" outbreak from an American rancher ranching in Alberta with an American infected cow. Western Canadian ranchers know how hard sanctions can hurt, and I think that people had better look at the role sanctions play internationally as a silent form of agression against another country and the long term consequences of such violence.

 

Unionist

Goggles Pissano wrote:

I think some of you may want to reconsider your support of "sanctions" as well.  The term sounds nice, but it is just a slower form of violence against a country you wish to subdue. 

Agreed.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:

Goggles Pissano wrote:

I think some of you may want to reconsider your support of "sanctions" as well.  The term sounds nice, but it is just a slower form of violence against a country you wish to subdue. 

Agreed.

Hence my arguing for targeted sanctions, particularly when it comes to weapons. I know that sanctions can cause harm but I believe they can also be a useful tool if done properly. I believe we should be advocating for the reduction of weapons world wide in any case. The fewer weapons available, the fewer people who are going to get killed.

Aristotleded24

Goggles Pissano wrote:
By the way, after Canada told the US that Canadian troups would not go into Iraq, that is when western Canadian ranchers got the mysterious "BSE" outbreak from an American rancher ranching in Alberta with an American infected cow. Western Canadian ranchers know how hard sanctions can hurt, and I think that people had better look at the role sanctions play internationally as a silent form of agression against another country and the long term consequences of such violence.

First time I ever heard that. How is the BSE crisis connected to the Iraq war, aside from the fact that they happened about the same time?

Goggles Pissano

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 

Hence my arguing for targeted sanctions, particularly when it comes to weapons. I know that sanctions can cause harm but I believe they can also be a useful tool if done properly. I believe we should be advocating for the reduction of weapons world wide in any case. The fewer weapons available, the fewer people who are going to get killed.

That was the excuse the Canadian government used to justify their sanctions against the Mohawks at Oka during the Oka standoff.  All we heard from the MSM  during the whole ordeal was that the Mohawk warriors had weapons.  Then, when I watched the independent video documentaries after the fact, I saw for myself exactly what "TARGETED" sanctions really meant.  Canadian troups bayonetted all the flour coming into the reserve thus wrecking the entire shipment by making it unsanitary. The Canadian troups justified their actions citing that there could be "weapons" being smuggled in. Food rations were slowed down to a trickle and all food imports closely supervised and inspected by Canadian forces thus violating the privacy of the Oka Mohawk people.

This is how Canadian forces behave with fellow Canadians. Just imagine how they would react with people who are not their neighbours and when they are not on home soil.

As for weapons, since the beginning of civilization, people have had and used weapons.  Any time the economy is bad and in a recession, you can expect the United States to invade another country somewhere on the planet.  One can also expect them to use the other country's weapons as a justification for going to war.

 

Goggles Pissano

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Goggles Pissano wrote:
By the way, after Canada told the US that Canadian troups would not go into Iraq, that is when western Canadian ranchers got the mysterious "BSE" outbreak from an American rancher ranching in Alberta with an American infected cow. Western Canadian ranchers know how hard sanctions can hurt, and I think that people had better look at the role sanctions play internationally as a silent form of agression against another country and the long term consequences of such violence.

First time I ever heard that. How is the BSE crisis connected to the Iraq war, aside from the fact that they happened about the same time?

American ranchers for years had been complaining about Canadian imports of beef into the United States.  Texas happens to be a very big ranching state which is where Bush Jr. is from.  Although there is no proof, there is speculation by some Canadian beef producers that the mad cow was planted in Alberta by the United States government to sabotage the Canadian beef industry and to forcefully shut down the export of Canadian beef into the United States as a form of retaliation or punishment for not supporting Bush and his war efforts in Iraq. Then Bush said that the United States was no longer going to call slivers of potatoes "french fries" anymore.  They were going to be renamed "freedom fries" because France did not support the United States in their war in Iraq.  Canadian beef, French fries.

Ripple

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/iraq-war-anniversary-birth-defe...

Tell me again about the outrage over the use of chemical weapons.

mmphosis
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Killing Civilians to Protect Civilians in Syria

excerpt:

The United States and its allies must refrain from military intervention in Syria and take affirmative steps to promote a durable ceasefire and a political solution consistent with international law. If the U.S. government were truly interested in fomenting peace and promoting accountability, it should apologize to and compensate the victims of its own use of chemical weapons around the world.

Ripple

I was thinking of the great work Phyllis Bennis did around the lead-up to the Iraq war, especially her primer and alternatives to war. Here is her latest on the false dichotomy the US is creating - it's a military strike or we stand by and do nothing.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175928/moral-obscenities-syria#

Quote:
Let’s be clear. Any US military attack, cruise missiles or anything else, will not be to protect civilians—it will mean taking sides once again in a bloody, complicated civil war. And Al Qaeda would be very pleased.

This time, maybe the Obama administration isn’t about to launch cruise missiles against Syria. Maybe there’s still time to prevent it. Right now, those risking their lives on the ground to help the Syrian people are the UN inspectors. If the United States is really concerned about their safety, and recognizes the legitimacy of UN inspectors, the Obama administration should immediately engage with the UN leadership and with the Syrian, Russian and other relevant governments to insure their safety while they continue their crucial efforts. Cruise missiles will make that work impossible. What’s needed now is tough diplomacy, not politically motivated military strikes that will make a horrific war even worse.

Aristotleded24

By the way, for those who want to pin the failings of NDP foreign policy on Mulcair, does anybody here believe for one second that Jack would have taken a different position on Syria than what Mulcair is doing now?

I certainly don't.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

By the way, for those who want to pin the failings of NDP foreign policy on Mulcair, does anybody here believe for one second that Jack would have taken a different position on Syria than what Mulcair is doing now?

I certainly don't.

Me neither.

We spent years on this board (and elsewhere in society) tying to get Layton to take a simple clear stand on complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

He fought the 2005-6 election campaign on the courageous slogan: "We need a debate in Parliament!" - four (4) years after Chrétien had first sent in troops, over the opposition of Alexa McDonough.

Finally the rank and file revolted, and at the Québec City convention, delegates voted overwhelmingly for an "immediate, safe withdrawal" of all troops.

But Layton, using Dawn Black as his mouthpiece (or toeing her line - whoever deserves the "credit"), downplayed and diluted the resolution, and turned it into a withdrawal of "combat troops" from "southern Afghanistan". This cowardly line carried on for years.

I used to vote Bloc in Outremont to try to topple the Liberal hegemony, and because they used to have some decent candidates (like Amir Khadir!). But in the 2007 byelection, I actively campaigned and voted for Mulcair. One of the main reasons was that, contrary to Layton's hypocritical stand, Tom clearly and unequivocally called for withdrawal.

It was also Layton who unilaterally decided the NDP had been wrong, and we needed to stay in the murderous NATO alliance.

So I fully agree. Anyone who blames Mulcair for the NDP's foreign policy should sit back, relax, and reflect. Or do some research.

Right here on this board, we have people who cheered aggression against Afghanistan, and Libya - and who are now waiting for the Word of  God to Descend from Above so that they can cheer Obama's cruise missiles.

Oh, and where is Libby Davies - who got bullied and beaten once too often? Where are all the alleged new fresh forces that have also been clubbed into "loyalty" to the Leader?

The problem is a lot deeper than Mulcair. It's very distressing, and I don't know what we should do. That's one reason I opened this thread - but maybe Aristotleded24's "foreign policy elephant" thread can serve for the broader discussion.

 

MegB

nakedApe42 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Jack Layton knew how to set aside that bullshit when it came time to represent the best interests of Canadians. See if we can have a discussion about imperialist aggression against Syria without accusing each other of being closet Liberals or trolls or whatever.

Syria is a shithole. What on earth would any "imperialist" power want with it? Have you even considered the possibility Western countries are simply outraged over the use of chemical weapons and want to see the conflict stopped sooner rather than later?

While eastnoireast's remark "your comment is a racist shithole" lacks elegance, it's essentially true. Your ignorance of Syria and Mid-east politics is staggering, and is certainly no excuse for such a position. Your inability to understand the underpinnings of imperialism is also evident. I suggest you educate yourself on the issues before claiming that Syria is a shithole that holds no interest for the West.

Outraged over the use of chemical weapons? Yeah, like they were outraged when Saddam obliterated entire Kurdish villages with poison gas. Your naïveté, if that's what it is, is jaw-dropping.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Obama = Bush?

By ordering air strikes against Syria without UN security council support, Obama will be doing the same as Bush in 2003.

Hans Blix, The Guardian

Unionist

Thanks for that, Boom Boom!

I've heard a couple of references on CBC radio to a Doctors Without Borders report being used as justification for a military strike. I think this belongs here:

[url=http://www.msf.org/article/syria-msf-statements-should-not-be-used-justi... statements should not be used to justify military actions[/url]

Quote:
Over the last two days, the US Administration and other governmental authorities have referred to reports from several agencies, including Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), while stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was “undeniable” and to designate the perpetrators. MSF today warned that its medical information could not be used as evidence to certify the precise origin of the exposure to a neurotoxic agent nor to attribute responsibility. [...]

Now that an investigation is underway by UN inspectors, MSF rejects that our statement be used as a substitute for the investigation or as a justification for military action.

I don't imagine the MSM will be reporting this disclaimer, though.

 

Pages