NDP continues to challenge the extension of Canadian military presence in Afghanistan

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
al-Qa'bong

"Vote NDP.  It's got Electrolytes."

Fidel

Vote NDP if you're tired of that fraudulent party still referring to themselves as the official opposition.

NDPP

Fidel wrote:

Olivia Chow is not an independent MP. She speaks for all of the NDP. She's on our team.

NDPP

Absolutely - good for her and why not  assume Fidel is right. It was suggested to me that George Galloway intended to have at all of them in the evil Ottawa talkshop on Afghanistan and perhaps this may have helped prompt this refreshing  straight up statement by MP Chow. Well there's the talk at least - now let's see if there's some walk to go with it.

thorin_bane

Cleaning this up. I'm out of these threads

Fidel

I'm off of Galloway since discovering he is a faithful believer in the official 9/11 cover-up fairy tale. How can he defend Muslims when he runs around attacking anti-warfiteers  for suggesting that pious Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11 terror? Who's side is he on?

thorin_bane

Simple, politics. That is why not one official says so. It puts you in the crazy batch even if you believe it. So they don't. Neither does chomsky. Even if many scientists question the legitimacy, no one will outright say the US killed its own people. That leaves an aful taste in everyones mouth. More so because that means they were complicate in attacking a country for a false reason-most likely resources.

al-Qa'bong

CBC Radio news reported this morning that, while the Liberal-Conservative Party has voted in favour of carrying on with the military adventure in the graveyard of empires, the NDP wants Canadian forces out of Afghanistan.  The CBC provided no other details.

Unionist

al-Qa'bong wrote:

CBC Radio news reported this morning that, while the Liberal-Conservative Party has voted in favour of carrying on with the military adventure in the graveyard of empires, the NDP wants Canadian forces out of Afghanistan.  The CBC provided no other details.

[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mod... is yesterday's Hansard.[/url] Layton, unfortunately, continues to go on and on about "why no vote" and "broken promise" - he does not once say, "bring the troops home now" or "bring them all home in 2011" or anything of that nature.

The Bloc MPs (Pierre Paquette, Claude DeBellefeuille) follow exactly, precisely, the same line as Layton. Not surprising, given the Bloc's stand over the years on Afghanistan, which never once approached the NDP's courageous policy decision in 2006.

Olivia Chow - the one and only - spoke on several items yesterday. But not on Afghanistan.

Still hoping the NDP listens to her. Has anyone found any other NDP MPs saying what she said yesterday?

 

KenS

The Bloc doesnt have to worry about what it said and what it voted for 3 plus years ago. Nor does it drive what they think they should do.

I did say yesterday that maybe I was premature in assessing that the window for playing the "no vote" and "broken promise" card. Which does matter to most peole we are trying to reach. Whether it matters to us is irrelevant.

And I'll note that whether or not the NDP as a whole is making the kind of focused statement that would satisfy you, the message is certainly getting out there that the NDP and the Bloc want withdrawl, period.

Is there some harm being down by using some of the "eyeball time" to focus on the voter trust issues while that is still alive?

Is just leaving it to wither from not keeping it going as long as possible going to gain something that would replace the political capital that would be lost? Becasue the trust issue certainly 'primes' people who want withdrawl to make the issue among their priorities.

Fidel

[url=NDP">http://www.ndp.ca/afghanistan?ref=nf]NDP What’s going on in Afghanistan?[/url]

Jack Layton wrote:
Stephen Harper is trying to extend the military mission in Afghanistan – without even so much as a vote. 

He promised Canadians he’d bring our troops home in 2011. He said there was no wiggle room on this. Now he’s going back on his word. We need to send him a strong message.

Stephen Harper –bring your Afghanistan mission extension to a full debate and vote in Parliament. Stop playing games with our troops and their families.

After nine years of combat, 152 Canadian soldiers lost, and hundreds more returning home wounded and traumatized – our soldiers have done their fair share with honour. To extend the mission after Harper said he wouldn’t, without even a vote in Parliament, is simply unacceptable.

I want you to put the pressure on Stephen Harper to do the right thing. ...(See: Spread the word on Facebook and Twitter)

Unionist

Beautiful, Fidel. There's only one small thing missing from his rant - namely, what is the "right thing" we're pressuring Harper to do.

He should authorize Olivia Chow to speak to the issue again. She was oddly silent on Afghanistan in the house yesterday, after doing brilliantly on Monday.

 

Fidel

Well we've been kissing Uncle Sam's hiney in Afghanistan for nine long years. If Canadians don't know by now we might as well hoist the Stars and Stripes over the Parliament buildings in Ottawa and get it over with.

NDPP

Unionist wrote:

Beautiful, Fidel. There's only one small thing missing from his rant - namely, what is the "right thing" we're pressuring Harper to do.

He should authorize Olivia Chow to speak to the issue again. She was oddly silent on Afghanistan in the house yesterday, after doing brilliantly on Monday.

NDPP

That quote must be repeated relentlessly - it may be as good as it gets. Block any and all possible retreats

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Ad huminous al strawman.

 

OLIVIA ROCKS!  Let's see any other elected representative be so brave!!!

 

Who do you got U?

NDPP

Liberals Accuse NDP of 'Hypocrisy' on Afghanistan

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-ac...

"A senior Ignatieff official said Wednesday that if the New Democrats 'are going to try to score political points on Afghanistan, it's important to point out the hypocrisy of their position. The NDP wants to have it both ways - they don't want to be accused of abandoning Afghanistan so they're proposing a major civilian mission extending even into Kandahar where home security, policing and governance still need to be secured, the official told the Globe.."

John Ivison: Liberal Party Versus Leadership on Afghan Extension

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/17/john-ivison-liberal-party...

"The decision to support the extension of the Afghan mission by Michael Ignatieff and[former Ontario ndp premier and zionist]Bob Rae has infused the Liberal party with the politics of conviction. Unfortunately for them, it seems many members of the Liberal caucus don't share the same conviction as the leadership...

But it was left to Mr Rae to rally the Liberal troops. He admitted that the position taken by the party has cost it support and depraved it of the chance to take on the government on Afghanistan.

However he said the decision was based on what was judged best for the Afghans, for the United Nations and NATO. 'Mr (Lester B) Pearson would have done the same,'"

no doubt. And speaking of NATO

US To Intensify Military Drive into Asia - by Rick Rozoff

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21977

"Barack Obama, the latest rotating imperator of the first global empire, will arrive in Lisbon on November 19 to receive the plaudits of 27 North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and secure their continued fealty.."

Taliban Chief Rejects Peace Talks

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/11/20101115223416865656.html

"The leader of the Afghan Taliban has said the group remains opposed to peace talks...In a statement issued on Monday, Mullah Mohammad Omar reiterated that negotiations would not be possible until all foreign troops - now at about 150,000 leave Afghanistan, labelling talk of negotiations 'mere propaganda'..

The cunning enemy which has occupied our country is trying on the one hand to expand its military operations and, on the other hand, wants to throw dust in the eyes of the people by spreading rumor of negotiations, Omar said in a statement.."

Afghan Deaths Focus of Special Forces Probe

http://mostlywater.org/jtf2_improper_killing_afghan_deaths_focus_special...

"Two criminal investigations launched by military police into the actions of Canadian Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan probe the alleged improper killing of Afghans, CBC News has learned.."

Former British Ambassador Forecasts 50 Year Foreign Role in Afghanistan

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/afgh-n18.shtml

"Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the former British ambassador to Kabul, has forecast a half-century role for foreign forces and outside agencies in Afghanistan...this dovetails with the increase in resolve in political and military circles in Washington and London to dispense with previous troop withdrawal timetables and step up the occupation of Afghanistan...

In one of his more cynical but revealing comments, Cowper Coles explained that 'withdrawal timetables can be a political tool for attempts to lessen opposition..."

Canada's military and civilian occupiers Out Now!

siamdave

Cueball wrote:

George. You should chill out 90% of your posts over the last few days have been personal attacks, and void of any real content. .....

- so I wasn't the only one who noticed ...

Unionist

Yesterday - yet again - Olivia Chow was present in the House but for unknown reasons did not pursue  her comments on Afghanistan. Instead, Jack Layton, Paul Dewar, and Jack Harris were delegated to repeat the same crap about "why not have a vote" and "you broke your promise". Never once did they declare - as Olivia did on Monday - that the troops should be brought home.

Likewise, the Bloc (Duceppe, Paquette, others) sounded like NDP clones. In their case, of course, they have never called for immediate withdrawal, so at least they can't be accused of hypocrisy - only treachery.

Speaking of treachery, here is Paul Dewar's plea to keep on "helping" the Afghan people (as if that won't require interference in their affairs, troops for "security", etc.):

Quote:

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):  
    Mr. Speaker, among all the broken promises this week, the most devastating for Afghans was the Conservatives' cutting of development commitments to the people of Kandahar. We promised to build 50 schools, but only 19 have been built. We promised to train 3,000 teachers, but we have not even reached half that target. We committed to be partners in Afghan reconciliation, but the government has no progress to show there.

 

    Can the Conservatives explain why they broke their word to the people of Canada, and most importantly, why they broke their word to the people of Afghanistan?



What a tool.

remind remind's picture

Yes let's pretend Olivia should be making the same statements over and over again everyday, even though MP's of the 4th party only get so much time to talk, just so some people will "know" she is still where she was at, and let's pretend NATO, ergo Canada, did not make promises to rebuild Afghanistan after it was ruined....by our military.

 

Oh yes, and let's also pretend Olivia is an independant, and therefor is only speaking for herself.

Unionist

I don't care whether Olivia speaks again or not. What I care about is that other MPs take up her call - and they have not. One voice is not enough, and we all know that the Conservatives, Liberals, and Bloc stand on the side of continuing intervention in Afghanistan. The only hope in the short term is from NDP members of conscience, and Olivia has led the way.

[drift]

Oh, and remind, before you defend Paul Dewar, recall that he issued a press release praising Harper's boycott of Durban II at Geneva (because Durban I was allegedly "anti-semitic"), and that his shameless statement had to be removed from the NDP web site after the massive anger it generated. I'll dig up the link to that babble discussion if you wish, though I'm sure you recall it. [end drift]

remind remind's picture

apparently you do care, contrary to your latest claims, as you have carried on ad naseum that she hasn't.

 

And BTW, when she speaks on foreign policy especially, like she did, she is speaking for the NDP caucus on this, as  it stretches credibility too much for any thinking person to believe that with her being the partner of the leader, as well as an MP, that she would be speaking  "out of turn".

 ETA following your edit.

Making more stuff up unionist? As I never even mentioned Dewar. Please do stop putting words in my mouth and actions upon me, it is not appreciated.

Unionist

remind wrote:

And BTW, when she speaks on foreign policy especially, like she did, she is speaking for the NDP caucus on this, ...

Olivia was not speaking for the "NDP caucus" when she called for bringing the troops home. She's the critic for citizenship and immigration. I wish she had been speaking for caucus. Jack Layton and Paul Dewar (foreign affairs critic) were speaking for the party. They have not called - not once - for all troops to be brought home in 2011.

If you care about this issue, you will take the time to read their comments and do something proactive about getting caucus to honour the convention decision and the wishes of a majority of Canadians. Or, you can continue with your sarcastic slagging of me if that gives you more satisfaction.

KenS

The point of Dewars comment is that the military commitments are honoured, but the development commitments are not.

Yes, if there is going to be that kind of development, there also has to be 'security' [military]. But we urge on opposition parties all manner of things that in practice will bring along something else we dont want. But thats what opposition parties do- and we dont make a habit of charging them with calling for the consequences.

In terms of the public debate, what you see is what you get. People will, and should, read it as the NDP calling out that the development promises are a scam. Period.

Olivia Chow would not be speaking to the issue period in the House. Its not her formal role.

You are complaining again that they are still talking the no vote and broken promise line.

You still have not explained what the problem is with that. I asked yesterday:

KenS wrote:

I did say yesterday that maybe I was premature in assessing that the window for playing the "no vote" and "broken promise" card. Which does matter to most peole we are trying to reach. Whether it matters to us is irrelevant.

And I'll note that whether or not the NDP as a whole is making the kind of focused statement that would satisfy you, the message is certainly getting out there that the NDP and the Bloc want withdrawl, period.

Is there some harm being down by using some of the "eyeball time" to focus on the voter trust issues while that is still alive?

Is just leaving it to wither from not keeping it going as long as possible going to gain something that would replace the political capital that would be lost? Becasue the trust issue certainly 'primes' people who want withdrawl to make the issue among their priorities.

1.] The message is clearly getting out that the Bloc and the NDP want complete withdrawl. Because it is said many times a day in the media and has entered the realm of well worn fact.

2.] A reasonable person looking at Olivias stament you like so much would know that a) Olivia would not be saying it if the NDP was not 100% behind what she says, and b) that it was put out to make sure the strong message that will be hit more is out there while the momentary focus remains on reaping for the short term they are going to be top of mind, the benefits of the no vote / broken promises trope.

So what is the problem with first billing on that trope while there is political capital to be drawn from it?

 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

You are complaining again that they are still talking the no vote and broken promise line?

You still have not explained what the problem is with that.

They are not saying, "we must bring the troops home in 2011". That's what's wrong - as if I haven't mentioned it once or twice in the past week.

Quote:
A reasonable person looking at Olivias stament you like so much would know that a) Olivia would not be saying it if the NDP was not 100% behind what she says, and b) that it was put out to make sure the strong message that will be hit more is out there while the momentary focus remains on reaping for the short term they are going to be top of mind, the benefits of the no vote / broken promises trope.

Olivia's statement got zero play. You didn't know about it. No one did. I found it by trawling through Hansard to see if I could find one single MP who stood up for peace. I found one.

First you said it's premature for Jack to call for withdrawal when he can still play the democracy card and call for debate and a vote.

Then, after I posted Olivia's statement, you said, oh all right, the call for a vote and debate phase is over, but it was good while it lasted, as a short-term (2-3 day) issue.

Now you're back to your first line.

My line is simple. We need someone in Parliament reflecting the demands of peace and justice - the demand that Canada withdraw from Afghanistan. We now have Olivia Chow, although no one in the MSM has picked up on her statement. We also have the MSM falsely portraying the stand of the NDP and the BQ - but that won't last long. We desperately need one or both of them to get back on track. The NDP is the best placed to do this. They don't need whitewashing right now. They need encouragement.

 

KenS

Unionist: They are not saying, "we must bring the troops home in 2011".

For the umpteenth time:

The media has got the idea that the Bloc and NDP want complete withdrawl. Every story when mentioning the Liberals supporting the government, also says that the Bloc and NDP want complete withdrawl in 2011. Period. Thats the idea people have. Does that count for nothing?

They dont make that first billing in the House because they are first reaping the benefits of the breaking of promise / trust line, which will only last a short time because it will very soon be eclipsed by the intervention itself.

The reason for politicians saying anything, is to further the public debate. Is some harm being done to the deveopment of that debate by spending some brief time focusing on the breach of trust thing?

KenS

Unionist wrote:

We also have the MSM falsely portraying the stand of the NDP and the BQ - but that won't last long.

I just noticed this. How is the MSM falsely portraying them?

Unionist

KenS wrote:
Is some harm being done to the deveopment of that debate by spending some brief time focusing on the breach of trust thing?

Of course there is harm - it puts the debate on the wrong footing, just as Layton did in the 2005-6 election. He never once said "troops out" - he said, "we need a debate in the House". Once he got a debate in the House, the invasion had a Parliamentary seal of approval in 2006 - and even then Layton wasn't yet calling for complete withdrawal.

The "breach of trust" line only makes sense if Layton follows it up by saying: "... and Harper must now keep that promise..." Tell me again why Layton and Dewar have not made that simple statement??

It is entirely possible that some MP will get a motion on the floor on this issue - and it will be overwhelmingly defeated. Every Canadian, even the laziest, knows that the Cons and Libs now favour keeping troops in Afghanistan. Is there someone so stupid to believe that a debate and vote in the House would change that?

It's conceivable that Layton, once again, is just following the advice of extremely stupid tacticians who can't punch their way out of the moistest paper bags that Harper constructs for them. If so, he needs people to tell him to take a stand that Canadians will support, appreciate, and remember him for. He does not need your brand of post-facto rationalization.

KenS wrote:
I just noticed this. How is the MSM falsely portraying them?

Oh give me a break. The Bloc does not support complete withdrawal. The MSM pretends that they do (without being able to provide quotes, of course - just as some babblers have been doing). Likewise, the NDP (other than Olivia) have NOT called for complete withdrawal. The MSM simply leaves the false impression that they have. What is your problem - you don't have to agree with me, but haven't you been listening?

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
remind wrote:
And BTW, when she speaks on foreign policy especially, like she did, she is speaking for the NDP caucus on this, ...

Olivia was not speaking for the "NDP caucus" when she called for bringing the troops home. She's the critic for citizenship and immigration. I wish she had been speaking for caucus. Jack Layton and Paul Dewar (foreign affairs critic) were speaking for the party. They have not called - not once - for all troops to be brought home in 2011.

Yes she was speaking for the NDP. It is completely beyond credibility that you would state otherwise.

Quote:
If you care about this issue,

How dare you try and state what I care about and what I do not, and to try and infer that I have done nothing on thiis matter is beyond belief. As you did below.

Quote:
you will take the time to read their comments and do something proactive about getting caucus to honour the convention decision and the wishes of a majority of Canadians.

Am on record here from long ago now, stating I have writen letters and made phone calls to NDP MPs and I have nothing to prove to you about it.

Quote:
Or, you can continue with your sarcastic slagging of me if that gives you more satisfaction.

This is rich, given I did not slag you, in the least.  Unlike yourself who has put words in my mouth, and gave a false impression of  my actions.

 

Unionist

remind wrote:

This is rich, given I did not slag you, in the least.  Unlike yourself who has put words in my mouth, and gave a false impression of  my actions.

Here's what I was responding to:

remind wrote:
... you have carried on ad naseum...

... it stretches credibility too much for any thinking person...

... Making more stuff up unionist?

Remember saying those things - exactly one hour ago?

I will not reciprocate, remind. I will call Dewar and Martin and others by the names they deserve, but with you and other babblers, I will only address issues of discussion. You should do the same, without commenting on people's motives, styles, etc.

Sorry for the drift, but this discussion is way too important to descend into personal attacks.

remind remind's picture

Sealed

Slumberjack

We'll just have to accept and judge accordingly the fact that we'll be waiting until 2014 and beyond for the NDP to produce a definitive troops "in or out" policy.  In the meantime, the dangers of holding one's breath needs no examination here.  From this, we can also conclude that it would be a mistake to subscribe to the notion that the NDP is an anti-imperialistic movement.

Unionist

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Beautiful, Fidel. There's only one small thing missing from his rant - namely, what is the "right thing" we're pressuring Harper to do.

He should authorize Olivia Chow to speak to the issue again. She was oddly silent on Afghanistan in the house yesterday, after doing brilliantly on Monday.

NDPP

That quote must be repeated relentlessly - it may be as good as it gets. Block any and all possible retreats

Agreed. And before this thread closes for length, I've created a [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/canadian-troops-out-afghanista... thread[/url] dedicated to the sole purpose of compiling statements by politicians and parties calling unequivocally for Canada to get its troops out of Afghanistan. Hopefully it will be part of a historical record as well as contribute slightly to getting politicians to do the right thing.

KenS

 

KenS wrote:
I just noticed this. How is the MSM falsely portraying them?
 

Unionist wrote:
Oh give me a break. The Bloc does not support complete withdrawal. The MSM pretends that they do (without being able to provide quotes, of course - just as some babblers have been doing). Likewise, the NDP (other than Olivia) have NOT called for complete withdrawal. The MSM simply leaves the false impression that they have.

The media gives the false impression that the NDP are calling for complete withdrawl?

So you reading everything and giving your interpretation of the NDPs position, thats what is true?

There is no basis for the media reading what they have heard from the NDP- and they have heard about wanting complete wirhdrawl quite a number of times now- that they have got it wrong?

They are putting out the simple staraight up idea that the Bloc and the NDP want complete withdrawl, and you think this is a problem?

 

remind remind's picture

Your last quote proves my point that you think Olivia should be speaking every day about it, contrary to your assertations that you  haven't.

Keeping on insisting she is not speaking for the NDP, continues to be beyond credibility of reality. And more claims along  this line will be just as incredible.

 

 

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
Your last quote proves my point that you think Olivia should be speaking every day about it, contrary to your assertations that you  haven't.

Keeping on insisting she is not speaking for the NDP, continues to be beyond credibility of reality. And more claims along  this line will be just as incredible. 

No one has to repeat it every day.  Hearing that statement once from Layton would suffice.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

The "breach of trust" line only makes sense if Layton follows it up by saying: "... and Harper must now keep that promise..." Tell me again why Layton and Dewar have not made that simple statement??

They have. I have CBC Radio going all the time I'm working, into the early evening. And I've heard that more than once.

Unionist wrote:

It is entirely possible that some MP will get a motion on the floor on this issue - and it will be overwhelmingly defeated. Every Canadian, even the laziest, knows that the Cons and Libs now favour keeping troops in Afghanistan. Is there someone so stupid to believe that a debate and vote in the House would change that?

I have said multiple times, at least one of them occassioned by a statement of yours:

Of course the outcome of a vote is a forgone conclusion. But most people see it as relevant in its own right, and dont [yet] really know that its a forgone conclusion [though not much longer for that, even for the inattentive]. There is an inherent 'handle' on the breach of trust thing. And its very alive since Harper repeated his promises so many times, so recently, and so uequivocally. With that driven home, it frames the debate about the extension of the military presence, and becomes an asset for pressing home the advantage that is only latent that people want the troops out of there. But driving home the point about the breach of trust does not happen laissaez faire.

In fact, a big part of the reason the media sticks to the short form of "Bloc and NDP want complete withdrawl" is because they know the "breaking promises" schtick is passing its prime, so they just go straight to what they know is the meat of the matter: the NDP and Bloc want complete withdrawl.

KenS

Theres a big bad elephant in the room of this discussion. And I dont think she has been noticed.

Critics are to varying degrees certain that ultimately the NDP is NOT going to call for complete withdrawl. And for a variety of reasons, whatever they have said, it isnt going to count until Jack Layton gets up and says that and nothing else.

If you expect that is where things are going, then discussions about how most effectively to put out the complete withdrawl position become irrelevant. There just cant be such a discussion.

It doesnt matter the fact that Olivia Chow's statement would at the very least have been run by Jack, and would not be out there if they had any doubt that it would be consistent with current and coming statements and positioning. In other words, if the NDP's positioning is going to be talk about the vote and debate, followed by 'I guess this OK after all'... then there would not have been that statement from Olivia.

Nor does it seem to matter to any of you  that the way this has shaken out the Bloc and the NDP are both going to reap substantial benefits from the complete withdrawl position. Its a no brainer. They'd be kicking the gift horse in the mouth to take any other position. The seemingly contradictory position of the NDP was politicaly useful. But that is no longer the case.

Its very difficult to have a discussion when one 'side' of that makes statements about the political realities of the moment- but has such a thoroughgoing disdain for those realities. The disdain itself is come by honestly: its no great political system, and there is an argument for not getting caught up in it. But that disdain, and contempt, also makes such a circus out of the fact-based discussions and interpretations of what is happening.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

The media has got the idea that the Bloc and NDP want complete withdrawl. Every story when mentioning the Liberals supporting the government, also says that the Bloc and NDP want complete withdrawl in 2011. Period. Thats the idea people have. Does that count for nothing?

About as much as Barack Obama being a Muslim or Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

Slumberjack

KenS wrote:
It doesnt matter the fact that Olivia Chow's statement would at the very least have been run by Jack, and would not be out there if they had any doubt that it would be consistent with current and coming statements and positioning. In other words, if the NDP's positioning is going to be talk about the vote and debate, followed by 'I guess this OK after all'... then there would not have been that statement from Olivia.

I believe Olivia Chow's statement was a patronizing bone purposely tossed to the party's remaining anti-war supporters in order to keep them tethered to the hook in their mouths. Either that, or Olivia Chow has mistakenly spoken out of turn by making a statement that the party does not support. At any rate, the house is a liar's den on the best of days, and any statement can be subsequently disregarded as merely the opinion or ranting of an individual member, and not necessarily respective party policy. The fact remains that the NDP does not wish to announce its official position, if it indeed has one, on either the issue of a complete withdrawal of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan, or on the issue of turning the current aggressive military mission into a behind the wire training mission in another part of the country. Instead, they prefer to nauseate us with it's latest spectacle to do with a thumbs up, thumbs down vote with respect to the ongoing project of western imperialism in Afghanistan.

KenS

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

The media has got the idea that the Bloc and NDP want complete withdrawl. Every story when mentioning the Liberals supporting the government, also says that the Bloc and NDP want complete withdrawl in 2011. Period. Thats the idea people have. Does that count for nothing?

About as much as Barack Obama being a Muslim or Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

Somebody needs to explain this to me.

Obama-Muslim and Iraq-WMD are tropes that serve a clear and very identifiable purpose. And they are [were for the WMD myth] things that could circulate on 'information' that wasnt definiteively falsifiable.

In the case of the NDP and calling for complete withdrawl, there is a factual current basis for the media saying that is what the NDP wants. You dont like and make interpreations based on the fact that is not the straight up primary thing that is put out there in the statements that get the most play. That's still just your interpretation. At any rate we are talking about interpretation of directly verifiable facts, however much we may diverge on the interpreations. That wasnt/isnt the case with WMD and ObamaMuslim.

The purpose served in those examples of smearing myths is pretty obvious. What is the purpose, and harm, in circulating [what you think is] did-information the NDP wants complete withdrawl? What is the goal/harm in having people beleive this when[if] it is not true?

We want the NDP to be calling for the complete withdrawl to further that happening. Most people would know about that through the media, and the media 'falsely reporting' this is going to cause what harm to the cause?

NDPP

Train Afghan Troops? Good Luck With That  - by Margaret Wente

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/train-afghan-troops...

"...We're staying on because US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and our friends at NATO put the arm on him, and when these folks get that insistent, its awfully hard to refuse...

But I also think that someone should explain how any of our training could possibly make a difference. Ultimately the success of the Afghan forces depends on the support of the Afghan people.

And that brings us to the worst problem of all - the deeply corrupt and deeply reviled Karzai government itself. The way a lot of Afghans see it, we'll simply be helping to prop up another bad regime. And they won't be wrong."

Extension of Afghan Mission Result of Rare Bipartisan Effort

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/extension-effort/article180...

In a Parliament where bipartisan conversation on big issues is often toxic, Liberal Bob Rae played a key role in setting the stage for the Harper Conservatives to send a new military training mssion to Afghanistan next year, serving behind the scenes as a sounding board as the government faced pressure to flip flop...

And Mr Rae was also discussing a potential training mission with US Ambassador David Jacobsen, who was conducting a kind of shuttle diplomacy between Liberals and Conservatives..

Mr Jacobsen said in an email that 'it's no secret' he and other US officials spoke to many Canadian counterparts...

Mr Rae said that he and his wife have become close friends of the Jacobsons - and that foreign governments expressed their views."

 

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

The purpose served in those examples of smearing myths is pretty obvious. What is the purpose, and harm, in circulating [what you think is] did-information the NDP wants complete withdrawl? What is the goal/harm in having people beleive this when[if] it is not true?

I've already expressed my opinion about cynical political opportunism.

NDPP

Actually our military has NOT served with honour but in the commission of war crime. The rest is merely cover for continuing to support this imperial intervention in Afghanistan.  All Home Now!

Unionist

remind wrote:
The NDP position has not changed since the beginning, indeed their current statement  reads much like the 2006 Convention statement, unionist linked to in another thread.

Exactly - except for one small thing that's missing - "the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops". Other than that, it's pretty much the same.

 

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
  This is wrong," said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton. "A majority of Canadians say they are against extending the military mission - Conservatives and Liberals must start listening to Canadians, not just to each other."  "What New Democrats are saying is we need an increased focus on diplomacy, development and governance in Afghanistan, in order to build a lasting peace to this region," said Layton. "Canada's military has served with honour and done its fair share, now it's time for Canada's contribution to be through aid and diplomacy."

This is more of the same doubespeak.  The government is not in fact extending the current military mission, they are planning for another military mission entirely.  Will Layton and Co. support a mission that involves the training of Afghan military forces by Canadian troops, or not?  What does Layton have in mind when he speaks of 'aid.'  The public simply does not know where the NDP stands on the issue of retaining Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan for a new 'mission' because it refuses to announce an unequivocal policy statement.

ETA:  Nine years into Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, and the New Democratic Party of Canada has not considered it appropriate to inform Canadians about its policy position regarding the involvement of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Frmrsldr

Slumberjack wrote:

This is more of the same doubespeak.  The government is not in fact extending the current military mission, they are planning for another military mission entirely.  Will Layton and Co. support a mission that involves the training of Afghan military forces by Canadian troops, or not?  What does Layton have in mind when he speaks of 'aid.'  The public simply does not know where the NDP stands on the issue of retaining Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan for a new 'mission' because it refuses to announce an unequivocal policy statement.

ETA:  Nine years into Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, and the New Democratic Party of Canada has not considered it appropriate to inform Canadians about its policy position regarding the involvement of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

The engagement of Canada's military in Afghanistan has been escalated (to 2014. 2014 is the new 2011.)

What remains the same is Canada's military engagement (ie., presence) in Afghanistan. The only thing that has "changed" (if one can call it that) is that the role of the troops has been rebranded.

Change you can believe in.Frown

Fidel

It's not the Tory-Liberal same old same-olds in government and phony opposition who are in the wrong here with disallowing a House vote to save the the official oppo party from further embarrassment of actually not opposing.... again!

It's the NDP who are at fault for not making Afghanistan a front, left andcentre issue in every Parliamentary question of the day and their every waking thought 24-7. There is nothing more important going on in Canada right now, or the world for that matter, than reversing the NDP's fortunes on this gift to them by the two dirty old line parties.

Olivia Chow isn't even an NDP MP!! She's an independent MP loosely affiliated with her husband, Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party of Canada. So don't go thinking that Olivia represents the NDP or anything. Don't give the NDP an inch on this matter.

Bottom line? Vote Liber-Tory, You'll get more of the same. Or don't vote at all and get more of the same. It's all about choices as long as you don't vote NDP.

Polunatic2

One could make the argument that there is nothing more important than war and peace - nothing. It might even be more important than heating oil. That doesn't mean it's the only issue to discuss - nor is anyone suggesting that straw man. Whatever happened to those Afghan detainee documents anyway? Who's talking about that - at all? Ever?

Unionist

Polunatic2 wrote:

One could make the argument that there is nothing more important than war and peace - nothing. It might even be more important than heating oil. That doesn't mean it's the only issue to discuss - nor is anyone suggesting that straw man. Whatever happened to those Afghan detainee documents anyway? Who's talking about that - at all? Ever?

Well said. The detainee issue was simply hijacked by Harper. Even though the NDP didn't sign on to the deal last spring, no one - including the NDP - has kept that matter alive. Harper won, hands down - as he has now won on the extension of the "mission". He has got the Liberals onside, the NDP blathering about a vote, and the BQ too lazy to even develop their own talking points, so they're copying the NDP's.

There is no opposition. And even when someone steps out of the box, briefly, like Olivia Chow, she is ignored. This must not be allowed.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Polunatic2 wrote:

One could make the argument that there is nothing more important than war and peace - nothing. It might even be more important than heating oil. That doesn't mean it's the only issue to discuss - nor is anyone suggesting that straw man.

One could make that argument, but I sure wouldn't.

Polunatic2

Why not Pogo? 

Pages

Topic locked