Jack Layton goes to sea aboard HMCS Halifax

131 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

You running unionist?

Unionist

No. I'm just reminding.

 

remind remind's picture

My world is not that stark

Slumberjack

And it wouldn't be too much to ask if Layton would stand up once in awhile to offer condolences, at the very least, for those Afghan civilians who are killed as a result of the conflict within the Canadian area of responsibility in Khandahar province, regardless if their deaths are directly attributable to Canadian soldiers or not.  After all, an occupying force, and the country that sends them, are responsible for the safety of non-combatants in their respective areas of activity.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
My world is not that stark

Not surprising.  Rose coloured glasses renders everything in a lovely hue.

remind remind's picture

Funny, I have never before been accused of wearing rose coloured glasses. Quite the opposite actually.

 

All this and yet the NDP remain the only party in Canada to have RAWA speak to their membership and give them a voice and continue to do so.

 

 

jrootham

That's quite a translation Unionist.

ETA  I called you on making a flip comment, not on your considered position on Jack Layton.

 

Unionist

Oh, that makes it all ok.

 

A_J

genstrike wrote:
When was the last time the Canadian military participated in something that wasn't an exercise in imperialism?  The only Canadian soldiers that I would want to support would be the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion

That's a bit of a contradiction don't you think?

Opposing imperialism on one hand, while on the other endorsing sending soldiers to intervene in a foreign civil war.

NorthReport

Papal Bull wrote:

Abolishing the military is a lovely dream. Name me one major country that has no military.

 

Yeah, I can't name one either. The permanent military is going to be with us forever more.

Exactly.

What part of war being a good business deal dont people get.

Our planets super power, the USA, is ramping up the troop numbers in Afghanistan, and after there they will move on to some other so-called hot spot. Its just business. Karzai will get re-elected with a big majority.

The left, if it wants to be relevant, might consider promoting good working conditions, wages, etc., for our boys and girls in the military

Slumberjack

NorthReport wrote:
The left, if it wants to be relevant, might consider promoting good working conditions, wages, etc., for our boys and girls in the military

Things have improved substantially since the well publicized compensation shortcomings that DND presided over during the 90s.  The left would make better use of its time in trying to achieve relevance with other pressing areas of concern.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
The left, if it wants to be relevant, might consider promoting good working conditions, wages, etc., for our boys and girls in the military

Things have improved substantially since the well publicized compensation shortcomings that DND presided over during the 90s.  The left would make better use of its time in trying to achieve relevance with other pressing areas of concern.

Slumberjack, in what way is boosting Canada's military budget to crazy George levels of spending a relevant thing? At what point are the Harpers overcompensating for Canada's pathetic inability to have a decent war with whatever country the next crazy George instructs Ottawa to join? And really, theyre all crazy Georges in Warshington as far as warmongering is concerned

remind remind's picture

 

Northernreport wrote:
What part of war being a good business deal dont people get.

Our planets super power, the USA, is ramping up the troop numbers in Afghanistan, and after there they will move on to some other so-called hot spot. Its just business. Karzai will get re-elected with a big majority.

The left, if it wants to be relevant, might consider promoting good working conditions, wages, etc., for our boys and girls in the military

 

you can't be serious?

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

 

The left, if it wants to be relevant, might consider promoting good working conditions, wages, etc., for our boys and girls in the military

So we can suck more kids into becoming murderers and corpses? No thanks, bud, if that's the price of being "left" or "relevant", I'll choose neither.

 

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
Slumberjack, in what way is boosting Canada's military budget to crazy George levels of spending a relevant thing? At what point are the Harpers overcompensating for Canada's pathetic inability to have a decent war with whatever country the next crazy George instructs Ottawa to join?

I didn't say it was relevant thing to be doing at all.  Why don't you pose the question to NorthReport, who feels the left should be advocating for an increase in defense expenditures to improve personnel compensation levels?  BTW, the other pressing areas of 'concern' of course should be non-DND related.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:

Funny, I have never before been accused of wearing rose coloured glasses. Quite the opposite actually.

All this and yet the NDP remain the only party in Canada to have RAWA speak to their membership and give them a voice and continue to do so. 

Hilarious, you're right.

Frmrsldr

remind wrote:

And what would you see happening if there was no military?

Do you think a militia military could stand alone/function itself withour regular forces in place first?

What other countries in the world have no military that we could example ourselves after?

Iceland. But then the U.K. unasked and uninvited "stepped up to the plate" to provide for Iceland's military defense.

Doug

jrootham wrote:

Costa Rica

During 1996, the Ministry of Public Security established the Fuerza Pública or Public Force which reorganized and eliminated the Civil Guard, Rural Assistance Guard, and Frontier Guards as separate entities; they are now under the Ministry and operate on a geographic command basis performing ground security, law enforcement, counter-narcotics, and border patrol functions.

Outside the Fuerza Publica, there is a small Special Forces Unit, the Unidad Especial de Intervencion (UEI) or Special Intervention Unit, which trains with special forces of Israel, and its namesake in Spain and other democratic nations, but is not part of the main police forces, instead it is part of the Intelligence and Security Directorate (DIS) which reports directly to the Minister of the Presidency.

 

Sounds military-ish to me, even though it's called something else. In a way, it seems like the worst of both worlds - some of the defence responsibilities and therefore, weaponry, of a military combined with the law enforcement powers and goals of police.

A military is like a box of tools. You don't necessarily keep it to use all the time but it's important to have it when it's needed.

remind remind's picture

Exactly my point just as the USA would to us.

Frmrsldr

jrootham wrote:

Job A being more important than job B does not imply job B is not important.

Canada's military is imperialist because our elected governments have decided they should be imperialist.

There is a huge space between an imperialistic military and no military. 

ETA, Sorry, posting delay.

What is the purpose of a large, permanent (Regular Forces) standing military? To do the bidding of the federal government - either to kill foreigners or (potentially) to kill and oppress Canadians at home.

I think all volunteer citizen's militia(s) formed along democratic/anarchist lines to provide disaster relief and defense (if invaded) is the ideal - if we are to have a military at all, that is.

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I must have been away the day that Jack Layton said that all those other people in our society don't matter.  rolleyes.

I must have been away the day that Jack Layton issued public statements of condolence to the families of workers killed on the job, calling them "heroic" etc.

What Jack, in addition to this, should do is criticize the Cons and Libs for supporting/escalating the Afghan war that killed our loved ones and the loved ones of the Afghans.

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Slumberjack, in what way is boosting Canada's military budget to crazy George levels of spending a relevant thing? At what point are the Harpers overcompensating for Canada's pathetic inability to have a decent war with whatever country the next crazy George instructs Ottawa to join?

I didn't say it was relevant thing to be doing at all.  Why don't you pose the question to NorthReport, who feels the left should be advocating for an increase in defense expenditures to improve personnel compensation levels?  BTW, the other pressing areas of 'concern' of course should be non-DND related.

During twelve years of Liberal rule, Canada's military role shifted from one of a peacekeeping nature to that of US-led colonial administrative duties under US command with the emphasis on joining US-led wars of aggression. By 2006, Canada was spending less than 1% on UN-led missions overseas, down from 93% when the Liberals were elected in 1993.

Liberal governments made deep cuts to DND and CF personel were suffering from low pay, substandard housing and aging equipment. And training of troops suffered as a result. Pierre Burton  wrote about the world wars and how British commanders took notice of how ill eqipped and trained Canadians were in the first half of the last century. If another world war does break out, I can see where we would probably send more poorly trained and ill equipped Canadian youth to be slaughtered on the battle fields of some far away country. And I believe one of the goals of the United Nations is to prevent world conflicts and keep the peace. Most countries which agreed to join the UN did so to prevent another world war. Peacekeeping, in my opinion, shaers a principle of prevention similar to the cornerstone of Canada's medicare. Neglect of our UN oblicgations to peacekeeping will lead to decay and rot, and war.

So we have Liberal governments that stiff soldiers on salaries andn housing while starving the military and then volunteer them to dangerous US-led military conquests of sovereign countries. And then we have political conservatives who also support US-led aggression with Canadian troops, but they want to spend tens of billions of dollars on tanks and navy destroyers and other equipment that has nothing to do with Canada's UN peacekeeping obligations. I'm voting NDP and not for either of those two unbalanced pro-USA old line parties, that's for sure.

Frmrsldr

A_J wrote:

genstrike wrote:
When was the last time the Canadian military participated in something that wasn't an exercise in imperialism?  The only Canadian soldiers that I would want to support would be the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion

That's a bit of a contradiction don't you think?

Opposing imperialism on one hand, while on the other endorsing sending soldiers to intervene in a foreign civil war.

The Mackenzie-Papineaus were a volunteer international brigade (citizen's militia), They were neither sent nor were they endorsed by the government. The only "left" (or non fascist) government that supported sending national troops to Spain was the U.S.S.R.

Fidel

We're a country of followers to US-led wars of aggression since the Liberals and continuing under Steve Harper.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
During twelve years of Liberal rule, Canada's military role shifted from one of a peacekeeping nature to that of US-led colonial administrative nature with the emphasis on joining US-led aggression. By 2006, Canada was spending less than 1% on UN-led missions overseas, down from 93% when the Liberals were elected in 1993.

Liberal governments made deep cuts to DoD and CF personel were suffering from low pay, substandard housing and aging equipment. And training of troops suffered as a result. Pierre Burton  wrote about the world wars and how British commanders took notice of how ill eqipped and trained Canadians were in the first half of the last century. If another world war does break out, I can see where we would probably send more poorly trained and ill equipped Canadian youth to be slaughtered on the battle fields of some far away country. And I believe one of the goals of the United Nations is to prevent world conflicts and keep the peace. Most countries which agreed to join the UN did so to prevent another world war. Peacekeeping, in my opinion, shaers a principle of prevention similar to the cornerstone of Canada's medicare. Neglect of our UN oblicgations to peacekeeping will lead to decay and rot, and war.

Canada's role in conducting peacekeeping missions has changed to a great extent from what it once was during the 70s and 80s.  I don't see this as being a negative thing in itself.  Many nations are capable of generating the forces required to undertake traditional peacekeeping roles, and I don't see those situations as being the sole preserve of white western nations to send their troops around the world to intervene between quarreling factions.  Preferably, what I would support is more financial assistance, and perhaps training and equipment provisions, if requested by soverign nations who are participating under UN or AU auspices.  A collective approach shared among nations that have demonstrated less of an historical alliance with the traditional hegemony powers would be more appropriate in my view.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

Slumberjack, in what way is boosting Canada's military budget to crazy George levels of spending a relevant thing? At what point are the Harpers overcompensating for Canada's pathetic inability to have a decent war with whatever country the next crazy George instructs Ottawa to join? And really, theyre all crazy Georges in Warshington as far as warmongering is concerned

[IMG]http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.jpg[/IMG]

 

[IMG]http://i31.tinypic.com/2zxt47p.gif[/IMG]

Frmrsldr

Slumberjack wrote:

Canada's role in conducting peacekeeping missions has changed to a great extent from what it once was during the 70s and 80s.  I don't see this as being a negative thing in itself.  Many nations are capable of generating the forces required to undertake traditional peacekeeping roles, and I don't see those situations as being the sole preserve of white western nations to send their troops around the world to intervene between quarreling factions.  Preferably, what I would support is more financial assistance, and perhaps training and equipment provisions, if requested by soverign nations who are participating under UN or AU auspices.  A collective approach shared among nations that have demonstrated less of an historical alliance with the traditional hegemony powers would be more appropriate in my view.

Slumberjack, good point. I agree with you. I don't think any U.N. Secretary General (past, present, or future) would disagree with you.

Unionist

Frmrsldr wrote:

What Jack, in addition to this, should do is criticize the Cons and Libs for supporting/escalating the Afghan war that killed our loved ones and the loved ones of the Afghans.

Yes, well here's what I said after that post:

Quote:
Layton should get on a podium and tell the truth - that every single death of a Canadian in Afghanistan is a horrible waste - a death in vain. He should clearly call upon Canadian youth to not enlist if it means going to Afghanistan.

Would babblers agree that Layton should take that stand?

 

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
Canada's role in conducting peacekeeping missions has changed to a great extent from what it once was during the 70s and 80s.  I don't see this as being a negative thing in itself.

 

 From Mel Hurtig's [url=http://www.oceansidecoalition.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_... Truth About Canada[/url]:

 

Quote:
"In 1991, Canada had almost 1,150 soldiers directly involved in UN peacekeeping operations. By the fall of 2006 we were down to only 55 out of a total of over 100,000 UN peacekeepers." Nevertheless, "in a 2007 public opinion poll, two-thirds of Canadians mistakenly agreed that 'Canada is an essential contributor to peacekeeping'."

 

The Liberals took a peacekeeping country and transformed it into a nation of vicious toadies to US aggression on the other side of the world.

 

Slumberjack

Frmrsldr wrote:
Slumberjack, good point. I agree with you. I don't think any U.N. Secretary General (past, present, or future) would disagree with you.

As an example, these Grizzley APCs were given by Canada to AU forces for use within Sudan.  Sometimes, they are used to provide escort for Military Ceasefire Observers and NGO organizations if requested.

Grizzly APC

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
The Liberals took a peacekeeping country and transformed it into a nation of vicious toadies to US aggression on the other side of the world. 

In relation to Canada's military history, the 'peacekeeping nation' label is misleading in considering the sum total.  We've been fighting wars as a nation since the NorthWest campaigns and Boer War eras.  A few outside peacekeeping missions here and there, the Sinai, Golan Heights, etc, doesnt' quite measure up in comparison.  

Frmrsldr

Unionist wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

What Jack, in addition to this, should do is criticize the Cons and Libs for supporting/escalating the Afghan war that killed our loved ones and the loved ones of the Afghans.

Yes, well here's what I said after that post:

Quote:
Layton should get on a podium and tell the truth - that every single death of a Canadian in Afghanistan is a horrible waste - a death in vain. He should clearly call upon Canadian youth to not enlist if it means going to Afghanistan.

Would babblers agree that Layton should take that stand?

You bet, Unionist!

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
The Liberals took a peacekeeping country and transformed it into a nation of vicious toadies to US aggression on the other side of the world. 

  A few outside peacekeeping missions here and there, the Sinai, Golan Heights, etc, doesnt' quite measure up in comparison. 

But that's not what the Manley report said. Liberal John Manley cited Lester Pearson and Canada's proud history for peacekeeping up and down left and right as the reason why his Liberal government kow-towed to sane and sound of mind US president George Bush II and the US-led phony war on terror. Manley exploited Canada's history for peacekeeping at a time when Canadians were under the impression that people were being tortured in Afghanistan with the US Army leading Canadians off the beaten peacekeeping path. That and the fact that Canada's commitment to extending Canadian participation to 2011 was at stake.

 

Slumberjack

I think it was John Manley, a warmonger and neo-liberal partisan hack.

Frmrsldr

Fidel wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
The Liberals took a peacekeeping country and transformed it into a nation of vicious toadies to US aggression on the other side of the world. 

  A few outside peacekeeping missions here and there, the Sinai, Golan Heights, etc, doesnt' quite measure up in comparison. 

But that's not what the Manley report said. Liberal John Manley cited Lester Pearson and Canada's proud history for peacekeeping up and down left and right as the reason why his Liberal government kow-towed to sane and sound of mind US president George Bush II and the US-led phony war on terror. Manley exploited Canada's history for peacekeeping at a time when Canadians were under the impression that people were being tortured in Afghanistan with the US Army leading Canadians off the beaten peacekeeping path. That and the fact that Canada's commitment to extending Canadian participation to 2011 was at stake.

U.N. peacekeeping and NATO peacemaking ("warmaking" more accurately) are intentionally confused by the Canadian government and military. A cheerleading and intellectually lazy mainstream media has done nothing to clear up the confusion among the uninterested and uninformed. Naturally, the rightists, the fascists, the militarists, etc., jump all over this and use it to justify the Afghan war.

Fidel

And [url=http://www.lindamcquaig.com/Columns/ViewColumn.cfm?REF=100]Linda McQuaig[/url] said:

Quote:
Canada's contribution to UN peacekeeping is now at an all-time low, ranking just below Slovakia's and just above Malawi's.

And a Federal commitment to 20 years of increases for military spending

Quote:

Less well known, but equally ominous on the war front, is the Harper government's plan to spend a massive $490 billion on the military and on sophisticated weaponry over the next 20 years - even though Canada is already the sixth biggest military spender in NATO.

Slumberjack's right, Canada wont be doing much peacekeeping with the hardware we'll be signing PO's and long-term contracts for with US and other defence companies. McQuaig goes on to say:

Quote:
So forget the auto sector, alternative fuels or green technologies. The bulk of our taxpayer dollars for industrial development in the next two decades will be going to build up Canada's "defence" sector

Canadians can forget green economy of the future. Their tax dollars will be going to pay for massive Keynesian-militarism US-Canadian style. If Uncle Sam told our stooges to go jump in a lake, they'd gladly do it without question. Four more wars!

Slumberjack

Through policy decisions which have laid bare our improved status as a second tier, ready and willing accomplice, Canada and it's citizens have arrived at the long sought after plateau of favoured boot licking subservience to external and domestic geo-political economic interests.

In the past, we were blissfully, depending on ones point of view, considered as a third rate wallflower of a nation, always available on the sidelines of effectiveness, but with little of substance to offer in the overall dominant picture, our acquiescence was generally considered as payment in kind for a ticket to the children's table in the grand scheme.  Third string status doesn't  come easily to proud military leaders and policy operatives.  In striving towards the brutal US model of success, the desirable usefulness is combined with delusion, pride and selfish careerism, which dominates the mindset of those who formulate policy with a view towards influencing those in power who require not influence, but only excuses and facades which can be trotted out to the general public as immediate necessities requiring subtle, or not so subtle shifts towards outright fascism. 

The marriage between industry and defence, which by definition is fascism, provides the upper echelon within DND with a seamless two way transition whereby influence peddling, policy advice, and think tank masquerades access the open and welcoming doors of state.

And in these circumstances, Jack Layton arrives seeking a turn at the pulpit, not to backslap the sacrificial deeds of the troops, who are actually sailors in this case, but to reassure all of it with a wink.

remind remind's picture

How do you know were you there? Have you read reports? Or is it just spurious speculation?

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:
And in these circumstances, Jack Layton arrives seeking a turn at the pulpit, not to backslap the sacrificial deeds of the troops, who are actually sailors in this case, but to reassure all of it with a wink.

The NDP is concerned about [url=http://lindaduncan.ndp.ca/node/125]Arctic waters pollution prevention[/url] and the fact that the Canadian Navy is ill equipped to deal with security in what will be an emerging seafaring route for trade and and the extraction of Arctic resources.

And, the NDP has been [url=http://meganleslie.ndp.ca/node/249]standing up for Canada's East Coast shipbuilders[/url]. We havent had a Canadian Navy icebreaker in the Arctic since the 1950's.

And besides, Afghanistan is a landlocked country, Canada's sailors will be useless to Canada's search and destroy missions against the Taliban, which became Ottawa's new colonial administrative assignment as of 2006 or so.

Jack knows all too well that the job of vicious toady to Warshington is a highly sought after job slot monopolized by the two old line parties for a long time. Jack knows he can't compete with Iggy and Harper for that designated colonial administrative assignment. Wink

George Victor

 

Steve's passage through the shipbuilding industries of the east, recently, were to reassure all that military keynesianism was alive and well within the anti-statist party.

 

I think Ontario's old shipbuilding industry on Georgian Bay, where fear of a U.S. invasion in the 19th century meant they were "ready, aye ready" for a  flurry of activity  after 1939, helping Canada, in a small  way, to float the world's 4th largest navy by 1945 - also deserves a crack at it...if the rust can be removed in timely fashion.  And I suppose a country with the longest coastline in the world should not be too jocular about its current shipbuilding capacity or naval capabilities.

Fidel

So if Canada goes big with shipbuilding, Nova Scotia should get their fair share of government contracts. Jack plugging the HMCS Halifax is good PR for Nova Scotia shipbuilders.

Afghanistan: landlocked

Canada: borders three oceans, St Lawrence seaway and Great Lakes. That's a lot of water to float some boats not to mention Canadian jobs

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
And besides, Afghanistan is a landlocked country, Canada's sailors will be useless to Canada's search and destroy missions against the Taliban, which became Ottawa's new colonial administrative assignment as of 2006 or so.

Canada's Navy enthusiastically performed its duty as integral partners within US aircraft carrier battle groups, which strangulated Iraq during the 90s up to the second Gulf war.  By participating in the enforcement of sanctions, we collaborated with monstrous crimes against humanity that cost countless lives.  Quaint though all the same, the concern about Arctic pollution and fate of shipbuilders, plugging away in earnest at the immediate issues.

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
How do you know were you there? Have you read reports? Or is it just spurious speculation?

He's there to glad hand, and offer up his thanks and support for the hard work around the world, while reviewing the capabilities of the good ship lollypop.  The same as other politicians and industry big wigs who happen by on those occasions.  Its a standard routine, the drill is well practiced.  That, and the sources onboard.

George Victor

 

"Quaint". Well , really!  You have trouble imagining narco smugglers landing on Boothia Peninsula as the ice melts?

You will leave that, too, up to the U.S. Coast Guard?

Get serious (not before reading Desmond Morton on the completeness of the travesty of Canadian military preparedness.)

 

remind remind's picture

has he even been there yet?

 

George Victor

Who?

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
And besides, Afghanistan is a landlocked country, Canada's sailors will be useless to Canada's search and destroy missions against the Taliban, which became Ottawa's new colonial administrative assignment as of 2006 or so.

Canada's Navy enthusiastically performed its duty as integral partners within US aircraft carrier battle groups, which strangulated Iraq during the 90s up to the second Gulf war.  By participating in the enforcement of sanctions, we collaborated with monstrous crimes against humanity that cost countless lives.  Quaint though all the same, the concern about Arctic pollution and fate of shipbuilders, plugging away in earnest at the immediate issues

The NDP spoke out against US-led medieval siege of Iraq. And the NDP spoke out against the US-led phony war on terror in Afghanistan. It was Canada's two snivelling, grovelling old line parties who were tripping over one another to kiss crazy George's combat boots on those issues, not the NDP.

The suggestion here seems to be that Jack Layton is giving some kind of high sign to the warmongers that Canada will comply with the goals of empire, if Jack Layton has anything to do with it. Well, Canada is already compliant with the vicious empire's phony war on terror in Central Asia and Middle Eastern energy-rich country of Iraq. The medieval siege is over for a long time, and now the Yanks and Brits are laying siege to Iraqi oil with the very crooked production sharing agreements like the ones Exxon, Mobil and BP signed with Russia for Sakhalin islands oil and gas development in the early 1990's.

But in reality, Jack and the NDP were against extending the imperialist mission in Afghanistan to 2011. And it was the two old line parties which, aligned together against the NDP and Bloc, voted for phony mission extension. The idea that we can lump the NDP in with the lowly colonial administrative aspirations of the Liberals and Tories doesnt hold water. For one thing, Jack and the NDP are for Canada eventually gaining a voice on the UNSC specifically so that Canada can object to wars of aggression, and especially US-led wars of aggression since 1991. Our Liberals and Tories have no such aspirations for international peacekeeping-  encouraging democracy for other countries and not forcing an imperialist version of it on others - or to so much as buck Uncle Sam on issues of fair trade and illegal war. Liberal and Tory plans for the future of our Northern Puerto Rico are very limited and without vision for much of anything in a positive sense

If elected to another phony majority, the Liberals will likely trash the Tories Navy expansion and shovel the money to corporate tax evaders and big banks anyway while they preside over the worst aggregate economic performance of 30 developed countries, like they did during the decade of the 1990's. If the Liberals had their way, Canada would be a total Northern Puerto Rico and foreign factory ships overfishing our coastal waters, and foreigners claiming squatters rights to Canadian Arctic. At the very least Canadians might gain some full-time jobs with a few navy ships and icebreakers. Even Honduras has a navy, and they're the original banana republic.

Treetop

Fidel wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Slumberjack, in what way is boosting Canada's military budget to crazy George levels of spending a relevant thing? At what point are the Harpers overcompensating for Canada's pathetic inability to have a decent war with whatever country the next crazy George instructs Ottawa to join?

I didn't say it was relevant thing to be doing at all.  Why don't you pose the question to NorthReport, who feels the left should be advocating for an increase in defense expenditures to improve personnel compensation levels?  BTW, the other pressing areas of 'concern' of course should be non-DND related.

During twelve years of Liberal rule, Canada's military role shifted from one of a peacekeeping nature to that of US-led colonial administrative duties under US command with the emphasis on joining US-led wars of aggression. By 2006, Canada was spending less than 1% on UN-led missions overseas, down from 93% when the Liberals were elected in 1993.

Liberal governments made deep cuts to DND and CF personel were suffering from low pay, substandard housing and aging equipment. And training of troops suffered as a result. Pierre Burton  wrote about the world wars and how British commanders took notice of how ill eqipped and trained Canadians were in the first half of the last century. If another world war does break out, I can see where we would probably send more poorly trained and ill equipped Canadian youth to be slaughtered on the battle fields of some far away country. And I believe one of the goals of the United Nations is to prevent world conflicts and keep the peace. Most countries which agreed to join the UN did so to prevent another world war. Peacekeeping, in my opinion, shaers a principle of prevention similar to the cornerstone of Canada's medicare. Neglect of our UN oblicgations to peacekeeping will lead to decay and rot, and war.

So we have Liberal governments that stiff soldiers on salaries andn housing while starving the military and then volunteer them to dangerous US-led military conquests of sovereign countries. And then we have political conservatives who also support US-led aggression with Canadian troops, but they want to spend tens of billions of dollars on tanks and navy destroyers and other equipment that has nothing to do with Canada's UN peacekeeping obligations. I'm voting NDP and not for either of those two unbalanced pro-USA old line parties, that's for sure.

 

I second that.

Treetop

Unionist wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

What Jack, in addition to this, should do is criticize the Cons and Libs for supporting/escalating the Afghan war that killed our loved ones and the loved ones of the Afghans.

Yes, well here's what I said after that post:

Quote:
Layton should get on a podium and tell the truth - that every single death of a Canadian in Afghanistan is a horrible waste - a death in vain. He should clearly call upon Canadian youth to not enlist if it means going to Afghanistan.

Would babblers agree that Layton should take that stand?

 

 

Absolutely yes.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
But in reality, Jack and the NDP were against extending the imperialist mission in Afghanistan to 2011.

True, the record does show that.  The record also shows, if the NDP website is any indication, the following statement which is located at the bottom of the "other priorities for Canadians" list:

"The War and Combat Mission in Afghanistan
Jack Layton and the New Democrats will:

Withdraw all Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission, with reasonable advance notice and in consultation with our allies."

This statement does not call for the complete withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan, but the withdrawal from the "Combat Mission."  Presumably what is envisioned, but not expanded upon most likely due to the need to assure the party base, is for the focus to shift more along the lines of what some of the Europeans are doing in other, less active sectors, with either the same force levels in terms of troop numbers, or a reduced number, who knows.  The point is that complete military withdrawal from all aspects of NATO alliance involvement in the country is not readily apparent within the NDP statement.  It leaves room for some other arrangement which is less 'combat' intense, but still within the range, and in keeping with the overall NATO committment, as other countries do without getting into the worst of it.  But I'll let you tell me if I'm wrong in seeing it that way, because as you would know, the word which best describes any sort of armed cooperation with the US installed regime in Kabul is collaboration, isn't it?

Pages

Topic locked