Afghanistan: The NDP Minority Report and the Call to Remove Military
Tue, 2007-06-19 17:26
#1
remind
Afghanistan: The NDP Minority Report and the Call to Remove Military
Tue, 2007-06-19 17:26
#2
remind
quote:
Minority reports underline NDP leadership and understanding of Conservative-Liberal missionOTTAWA – Yesterday, NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) presented the New Democratic Party’s dissenting opinion on the Conservative-Liberal mission in Afghanistan.
“The report lays out a concise background of Canadian and NATO involvement in Afghanistan, a solid analysis of the issues faced by Canadian troops and Afghan citizens and sets out concrete steps Canada must take in relation to our mission there,” said Black....
Black stated, “Our report explains how the Liberals got us into Afghanistan, the nature of the international community's involvement, the challenges to peace, and what it will take to stabilize the country.”
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/5462]http://www.ndp.ca/page/5462[/url]
Tue, 2007-06-19 17:39
#3
As I have pointed out about this character (Black) many times before on babble, there are only two possibilities:
1. This dissenting report reflects the view of the NDP - in which case they have betrayed the Convention decision, betrayed Layton's continued calls for withdrawal, and they should be urged, cajoled, condemned, whatever it takes, to get back on the track of withdrawal.
2. [The one I believe, and hope, to be the truth:] This is Dawn Black's own continuing feeble effort to sidetrack the party from its principled position. In this case, her ass should be soundly kicked into some role where she does not pose a danger to the interests of the Canadian people.
ETA: By the way, remind, the thread topic is misleading, but it's your choice as to what to do about it.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 17:40
#4
The reports states in its opening paragraphs.
"The New Democratic Party asks for a withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan."
This statement and the previous NDP motion(s), I have notice that the NDP does not call for a complete withdrawal of the CF from Afghanistan, only a withdrawal from the counter-insurgency mission.
Am I misreading the motion or the intent of the NDP? Or does the NDP want to have Canada commit to a different military role in Afghanistan?
This is an interesting opinion of the New Democratic Party.
Tue, 2007-06-19 17:44
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]This statement and the previous NDP motion(s), I have notice that the NDP does not call for a complete withdrawal of the CF from Afghanistan, only a withdrawal from the counter-insurgency mission.Am I misreading the motion or the intent of the NDP? Or does the NDP want to have Canada commit to a different military role in Afghanistan? [/b]
Very well done, Webgear. You are dead on. Dawn Black (hopefully not the NDP) has just adopted the cringing piece of crap "motion" that Stйphane Dion moved a few weeks ago in the House. Remember how some crybabies were saying, "Oh, if the NDP votes against that, everyone will think we support the mission and don't want withdrawal after 2009????" Well, the crybabies can stop crying - Dawn Black has just put their whining snivels into official report form.
Now someone explain to me why the hell Layton courageously, and immediately, told the media that he would not support Dion's motion?
Again, I can only hope that this is Black's ongoing bullshit, not the party turning traitor.
Tue, 2007-06-19 18:04
#6
remind
And again unionist IMV, you are mischaracterizing what was said in the report and are reading into it, either what you want to, or you are trying to manage a message that vilifies the NDP in this regard.
quote:
Afghans need a resolution to the war and sustained support to peacefully rebuild their society, not more warriors. Rather than fighting the growing insurgency with weapons, Canada should work for practical solutions to end the violence...Generally, the reconstruction and development efforts that are led by Afghans and clearly separated from the counter-insurgency have been the most successful. The projects that have been overtaken by military strategy, or instrumentalized by NATO forces, have failed and/or put Afghan civilians and Canadian troops at risk.
Throughout this war, development advocates have argued that reconstruction by,
or in close co-ordination with, coalition forces will put the beneficiaries and the
deliverers of aid at risk. When assistance strengthens the military objectives of
one side in the war, it becomes a weapon, and those who use it become targets...In this context, the New Democratic Party believes that the safe and determined
withdrawal of our troops from the counter-insurgency mission, in consultation
with our allies, is now required.
There are 2 other mission, diplomatic and developmental. They were also outlined in the report, and neither were outlined to have the use of military actions, or active military combat personnel.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 18:18
#7
Both the Development and Diplomatic side of mission contains small number of military personnel.
For example the training of the ANA and ANP, escort and protection staff for diplomatic members.
I believe the NDP understand the complete withdrawing the military from Afghanistan next to impossible, and have word the motion and their reports to reflect so.
Tue, 2007-06-19 18:39
#8
remind
Webgear, I should have worded the ending better and stated combat personnel, and I have made changes to reflect that.
But my support of the NDP on this would be pulled if part of the diplomatic and reconstruction included our military personnel still being used to guard the pipelines.
We have destroyed the country, and we must help to at least get it back to where it was prior to the trumped up invasion.
The disturbing part is for me, Ms Black's report and the description of the incremental militarization of actions there, taken with the information about the military parade on Friday, creates a a vivid picture of the military might is right under Harper.
Tue, 2007-06-19 18:40
#9
quote:
In contrast, the Liberal submission demonstrates a disregard for the complexity of the mission and a shocking lack of knowledge on the part of the Liberal defence critic. The Conservatives’ main report, which proposed extending the mission, was supported by the Liberals. The Liberals added a "Complementary Statement", but as Black says, “Canadians need MPs who critique the Harper agenda, not complement it.”Black stated, [b][i]“Our report explains how the Liberals got us into Afghanistan,[/i][/b]
Not the Liberals?
Are they the same "volunteering our lads for an out of character - "sigh" - aggressive combat mission to prop up Yankee imperialism on the other side of the planet "Liberals" ? And the Tories were right there backing them up as per usual and vice versa.
Tue, 2007-06-19 18:57
#10
Remind; I understood your wording of the original statement. From my experience this is where the trouble lies, a simple changing or rewording of a few words in a motion/operation orders/political statement does not necessary change the reality of the situation.
The government could rewrite the mission statement for Kandahar and imply that every soldier there in the province is required for the reconstruction effort however for each CIMIC detachment there will be a protection force company to guard and defend the reconstruction effort. So in reality there are no offensive combat forces in the province however there are defensive combat forces, which in reality there is no difference between the two.
When you state we have destroyed the country are you referring to pre 2001 or post 2001? And if it takes 20 or 30 years to rebuild the country should Canada have a presence in the Afghanistan?
I am not trying to difficult, I am just questioning the NDP motives and wording of their political statements and reports.
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:02
#11
remind
Post 2001, Ms Black details what has diminished by oir being there, time limits and rsults monitored, and absolutely NO protection combat forces.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:14
#12
Remind, kindly don't lecture me about "vilifying the NDP". I have strongly and unstintingly supported the NDP's position on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan ever since they belatedly but clearly adopted it (last September). Part of that support is calling betrayal wherever I see it and before it becomes party policy.
So perhaps you could explain how I "mischaracterized" these statements from the report, by telling me what they are supposed to mean:
quote:
We believe that the strategy being pursued by NATO and allied forces in [b]Southern[/b] Afghanistan is endangering our forces, endangering the Afghan people, and damaging Canada’s credibility.
Pardon?
quote:
The New Democratic Party asks for a withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.
Huh? So the troops can stay in Afghanistan!?
quote:
The legal justification for the invasion was a series of UN Security Council Resolutions in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks.
Alexa McDonough criticized Canada's decision to join the invasion right in October 2001. What's Dawn Black's view? She says it was legally justified. I didn't see the word "alleged" or any scare quotes around that phrase. This is sickening.
quote:
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper presented a motion before the house to extend the mission to 2009, he was asking Parliament to extend the mission regardless of who authorized it, regardless of the partners.
So, the door is now open to extending the mission - just depends on who authorizes it and who the partners are!? Where did this come from??
quote:
Rather than fighting the growing insurgency with weapons, Canada should work for practical solutions to end the violence.
Canada? [b]Why?[/b] I thought our job was to get out. What kind of "practical" intervention is Ms. Black now suggesting? And which Afghan people have voted to let us stay with or without weapons - the warlords? the druglords? Was she on a cocktail break when Malalai Joya addressed the convention?
quote:
The lessons learned by the United States in Iraq have not been heeded in Canada. A continuous push for more armour and more firepower as part of a counter-insurgency campaign will inevitably lead to more sophisticated weapons such as Improvised Explosive Devices by insurgent forces.
I thought the lesson learned by the United States was that it was illegal and immoral to invade other countries, overthrow their governments, and impose your own puppet regime backed by military dictatorship. But I guess Dawn Black's lesson is that we have to be smarter in order to win the war.
quote:
Support for the establishment of a viable, law-abiding and civilian-controlled Afghan National Army should also be a central component of the mission’s effectiveness.
So now we must not only support the puppet warlord and druglord Karzai regime, but must support the building of its army (with lovely adjectives, of course) so it can carry on the civil war if Canada ever does leave. Didn't Nixon do that in Vietnam?
quote:
The enormous burden of operations in Afghanistan has limited the Canadian Forces ability to act both at home and abroad.
There's an excellent reason not to commit aggression and war crimes. It limits our ability to do so elsewhere! Who the hell writes this crap?
quote:
It is known that NATO is looking to create an Alliancewide policy on the handling of detainees, and the Government should examine the possibility of jointly building a detention facility with NATO and the Afghan government.
The question of who should be detained, and what right Canadians have to detain them, doesn't occur to this character.
quote:
Afghan women are not being adequately protected or supported by the international military presence in their country.
True. But I defy you to find what she says ought to be done about this situation. It's just pompous wailing by someone who is desperately promoting the "mission", but wants it changed so as to more effectively entrench Karzai and his masters.
quote:
The Liberals and Bloc have publicly stated that they are open to continued Canadian deployments after 2009.
Correct - and that's one (but only one) of the reasons the NDP boldly voted against Dion's motion. But is Dawn Black open to "continued Canadian deployments after 2009"? Guess what: [b][i]SHE DOESN'T SAY.[/i][/b]
This disgraceful document should be repudiated by all who cherish progress and peace. The NDP must be told, in no uncertain terms, that there can be no retreat from the principled position staked out by Layton in September and reiterated courageously in recent weeks, in the face of huge pressure from the media and some false "friends" to support the Liberal-Bloc motion.
ETA: Did I mention what's [b]not[/b] in the report:
1. Not a word of criticism of George W. Bush's policy in the region or a call to separate Canada from that policy.
2. Not a word of criticism of the Karzai puppet regime or its legitimacy.
3. No call for Canada to withdraw from Afghanistan - except for the kind of withdrawal that Stйphane Dion and Gilles Duceppe would smilingly approve.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:16
#13
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Post 2001, Ms Black details what has diminished by oir being there, time limits and rsults monitored, and absolutely NO protection combat forces.[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: remind ][/b]
So you would have soldiers in a possible hostile environment that could not defend themselves if attack?
Of course you would not want this to happen, and I do not believe this to be the case by any member of the Canadian public.
This would be political suicide of any government that sent troops into a hostile environment without the proper equipment.
So this goes back to my point of rewording and meaning of motions/political statements.
What is a protection force in your own words?
I believe the NDP are playing political games with Afghanistan (which I believe is there right to do so) and the Defence Critic Dawn Black is understands this.
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:44
#14
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]So perhaps you could explain how I "mischaracterized" these statements from the report, by telling me what they are supposed to mean:[/b]
Black's report also says:
[b][i]The New Democratic Party asks for a withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the
counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.[/i][/b]
Jeez, it sounds exactly like the NDP is calling for withdrawal of our troops from an aggressive combat situation against poor people living in another country.
quote:
[b]Correct - and that's one (but only one) of the reasons the NDP boldly voted against Dion's motion. But is Dawn Black open to "continued Canadian deployments after 2009"? Guess what: [b][i]SHE DOESN'T SAY.[/i][/b][/b]
Black also doesn't say whether she prefers red M&Ms to green ones. The NDP just never says the kinds of things you think they should be saying, unionist. But she did say the NDP is calling for a pullout. Not tomorrow, not 2035, but today. The Liberal's position is effectively the Tory position on Afghanistan, and vice versa.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:47
#15
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]The legal justification for the invasion was a series of UN Security Council Resolutions in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Alexa McDonough criticized Canada's decision to join the invasion right in October 2001. What's Dawn Black's view? She says it was legally justified. I didn't see the word "alleged" or any scare quotes around that phrase. This is sickening.
[/b]
There were UN resolutions demanding that the Taliban (Gov't?) hand over Bin Laden and his associates even prior to 2001, based on Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Africa against a US embassy and a warship.
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:49
#16
Fidel, you made a courageous and difficult move when you overcame your disgust for the Talibanization of the country (which I share) and saw the injustice of foreign intervention in Afghanistan. I admired that move and still do. I also respect your allegiance to the NDP. But can't true allegiance also sometimes involve praising the NDP's official position (which in this case is the right one) and condemning those (like Black) who are not-so-subtly trying to change it?
I'm actually appealing to you to pretend, for a moment, that you had just happened upon this document and didn't know it had any NDP connection. Pretend it was signed by one of Stйphane Dion's hacks (because it's not that far off). And then read it, carefully, and vigilantly. I'm confident you'll see the danger.
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:51
#17
quote:
Originally posted by FraserValleyMan:
[b]There were UN resolutions demanding that the Taliban (Gov't?) hand over Bin Laden and his associates even prior to 2001, based on Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Africa against a US embassy and a warship.[/b]
I don't actually know what resolutions you're talking about, but you apparently believe the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Not sure what the point of your post is otherwise. If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I just hope to God the NDP never takes up that view.
Tue, 2007-06-19 19:58
#18
Webgear, I think Ms Black is in the same place Joschka Fischer was a few years back. You never thought you would be in the place of sending out troops or possibly supporting it. Knowing it may be unpopular with your regular constituency.
Are not even protection forces combat ready? Should they not be? I think of Medak Pocket.
Tue, 2007-06-19 20:13
#19
Malcolm
Layton and the NDP have never, to my knowledge, advocated pulling all military personnel and all Canadian resources out of Afghanistan, only for an end to Canadian participation in the counterinsurgency operations - effectively meaning operations in the southern provinces only.
While I don't agree with the policy, I don't think it quite fits the all out withdrawal of everything that unionist is claiming it was.
Tue, 2007-06-19 20:28
#20
Unionist, my eyes are wicked tired. I'm not seeing what you're reading. The NDP dissent report on the mission is basically a pretty grim assessment of the situation for everyone involved.
What I did notice is the NDP does say there are some bright lights but not many. The most successful reconstruction efforts seem to be those projects carried out by Afghans and where Canadians and NATO haven't militarized the situation.
The report goes on to say that Harper's people are for troop rotations well past 2009. The Liberals, the ones who signed us up for U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan, are all for Canadians participating in the counter-insurgency efforts to at least 2009.
The NDP is calling for troop withdrawals - our troops. I think they understand that other NATO troops and the 8000 or so American soldiers could still be there after Canadian pullout. I believe what the NDP is saying is that there's nothing stopping the feds from continuing to donate aid money to a country that ranks 173rd out of a list of 178 wrt HDI.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 20:38
#21
A friendly reminder as to the NDP's position on [b]full, safe, and immediate withdrawal[/b] from Afghanistan:
[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060813/afghanistan... 1, 2006 - Layton wants February withdrawal from Afghanistan[/url]
quote:
OTTAWA -- NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada should [b]pull its troops out of Afghanistan by February[/b] because the mission has gone astray.Sniping at both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President George W. Bush, Layton said the Afghan mission has lost its direction.
It has no clear goals, no exit strategy and no criteria to judge success, he said at a news conference Thursday.
"This is not the right mission for Canada,'' he said. "There is no balance. In particular, it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance.''
The focus in Afghanistan has changed from reconstruction to open war and Canada should have no part of it, he said.
"Stephen Harper wants to take Canada in the wrong direction."
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/03/afghan-layton.html]September 3, 2006 - Layton again calls for pullout, in wake of deaths[/url]
quote:
Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton has repeated his earlier calls for Canada to [b]withdraw its troops from Afghanistan[/b], after four soldiers died on the weekend while battling Taliban militants."This is the wrong mission for Canada," Layton said Sunday at a news conference in Toronto following the announcement of the soldiers' deaths.
Layton said the focus of the mission has shifted from reconstruction to open war, which he said did not reflect Canada's traditional role as a peacekeeping nation.
"It's not balanced. It doesn’t represent the equilibrium between humanitarian aid, reconstruction and comprehensive peace process that Canadians would want to see."
Last week, Layton called for Canada to [b]pull its troops out by February[/b].
[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2874604&..., April 26, 2007, speeches by Bill Siksay:[/url]
quote:
The NDP position has been clear and consistent. We have voted along clear and consistent lines since the beginning of this conflict.We raised serious questions about our participation in the mission when it was originally proposed as Operation Enduring Freedom by the Liberals, despite the difficulties and fears that surrounded us at that time immediately post-September 11.
We have consistently called for a peacekeeping role, for development aid and for diplomacy.
Last August the federal NDP convention passed a very clear resolution that called for a [b]safe and immediate withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan[/b] and said that we should continue our aid, undertake diplomacy, support our troops and participate in peacekeeping missions through the United Nations in other areas of the world.
I, like many Canadians, support a [b]full withdrawal from Afghanistan[/b]. I do not believe we can play a significant peacekeeping role there now that we have been a combatant on one side of the conflict. [...]
Mr. Speaker, [b]the NDP's position is absolutely clear. It calls for a safe and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.[/b] I have been very clear in the House. In May 2006 I stood and said that we should withdraw immediately from Afghanistan. I was very clear in my speech today. I believe [b]there is no other military role for Canada in Afghanistan[/b] as a result of our participation in this counter-insurgency combat mission. It is very difficult for us to transfer into a peacekeeping mission after we participated in the current mission in Kandahar.
Therefore, I favour [b]fully and completely withdrawing in a safe and responsible manner, but doing that immediately[/b].
Are there any NDP supporters that are troubled by the contrast between Jack Layton and Bill Siksay's clear statements (on the one hand) and Dawn Black's slide into Liberal-Conservative-Bush terrain (on the other)?
I sure hope so, because the credibility of the party is at stake here, besides the direction of our country.
[i]ETA: I've bolded all the key references to full and immediate withdrawal, because some subsequent posters appear to have missed the point. As for Dawn Black, nowhere does she call for full withdrawal for Afghanistan, nor does she in fact use the word "immediate" for any of her proposals.[/i]
[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 20:45
#22
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Are there any NDP supporters that are troubled by the contrast between Jack Layton and Bill Siksay's clear statements (on the one hand) and Dawn Black's slide into Liberal-Conservative-Bush terrain (on the other)?[/b]
That's what I was asking you to point out - where does Dawn Black give herself away as being a tool for the warmongering chickenhawks ?.
Tue, 2007-06-19 20:50
#23
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]That's what I was asking you to point out - where does Dawn Black give herself away as being a tool for the warmongering chickenhawks ?.[/b]
Fidel, take a moment please and read the detailed excerpts I quoted above from her report - then compare them with the excerpts I just quoted from Layton and Siksay. If it's still not clear, ask me again and I'll draw the contrasts tomorrow morning. Good night.
Tue, 2007-06-19 21:31
#24
Does this have to do with a possible building of an Afghan-NATO detention facility in that country as an alternative to shipping them out to CIA ghost prisons for torture and Gitmo ?. Canada is still a NATO country, and it looks like the NDP is trying to suggest to highly unmotivated MP's in Canada's oldest political parties that we attempt to address the appalling situation wrt "detainees."
Because now would be the time to make these kinds of suggestions to NATO and Uncle Sam while the two parties have volunteered so many Canadian citizens to an aggressive counter-insurgency operation, and with Afghanistan being Canada's largest aid recipient in this country's history. There should be at least one or two strings tied to the billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars already committed to Afghanistan by Ottawa in the form of aid. Canadians should be seeing a lot more for their money and not just Karzai's people building big homes while 70 percent of Afghans continue to be malnourished.
It looks like the most promising target for the billions of aid dollars would be to direct it toward development projects led by Afghans themselves. Things that Karzai's council of gangsters in Kabul would find difficult to corrupt or profit by, like: schools, hospitals and basic infrastructure similar to what was destroyed by the mujahideen and foreign-based mercenaries some two years after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and while NATO turned a blind eye to it all.
If the worthwhile reconstruction projects are not destroyed by the Taliban, like canaries in a coal mine, we'd know the air isn't poisoned altogether and possibly make yet another executive decision as to whether even the aid money our autocrats have committed is well spent two or three years down the road. And if not, then the MP's would be able to reassess the situation and come to a democratic decision based on one or two goal statements agreed to in the here and now. But this open chequebook stuff looks a little shady to me. It's not that I don't trust the two old line parties - it's just that I don't believe a damn word they've ever said about anything involving public money and them pissing it away like there's no tomorrow. And I think the plutocrats should be made to keep their hands on the table at all times. Okay, enough!
I'm not plussed by our two old line parties records for shovelling aid money and Canadian lives as indiscriminately as they have toward an imperialist occupation of Afghanistan though. There's no life in that position for me since you wised me up. Over to you, comrade commissar.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Tue, 2007-06-19 23:05
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Are there any NDP supporters that are troubled by the contrast between Jack Layton and Bill Siksay's clear statements (on the one hand) and Dawn Black's slide into Liberal-Conservative-Bush terrain (on the other)?[/b]
No, and there was NO slide by Dawn Black anywhere.
quote:
[b]I sure hope so, because the credibility of the party is at stake here, besides the direction of our country.[/b]
I do not think it is the party's credibility at stake.
Jack's position as quoted by you:
quote:
[b]"This is not the right mission for Canada,'[/b]' he said. "There is no balance. In particular, it lacks a [b]comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance".The focus in Afghanistan has changed from reconstruction to open war[/b] and Canada should have no part of it, he said.
3 bolding mine
Dawn Black's Report as quoted by you further above:
quote:
The New Democratic Party asks for a withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.
Okay, as you can see Unionist, they say exactly the same thing. Jack talks about it being the wrong mission. There are 3 identified missions by Ms Black in the Report. Counter Insurrgency, developmental aid and reconstruction.
As you can see, Jack indicates, in your quote above, what is the wrong mission, which is open warfare, or as Dawn Black formally puts it the counter insurrgency mission.
Moreover, Jack clearly talks about "commensurate developmental" actions and reconstruction. Which are the other 2 missions that Dawn Black refers to as needing to be focused upon, and not the 3 mission of "open warfare/counter insurgency".
Then we have Jack's words as quoted by you:
quote:
"This is the wrong mission for Canada," Layton said Sunday at a news conference in Toronto following the announcement of the soldiers' deaths.Layton said the focus of the mission has shifted from reconstruction to open war, which he said did not reflect Canada's traditional role as a peacekeeping nation.
"It's not balanced. It doesn’t represent the equilibrium between humanitarian aid, reconstruction and comprehensive peace process that Canadians would want to see."
Again, Jack says it is the "wrong mission", there are 3 missions. And again, Jack states what are the correct missions humanitarian aid reconstruction, and this time he included "peacekeeping". Just what is peacekeepuing mean other than have some military present? And again, Jack just said the same thing Dawn Black said, only she put it succinctly and the body of the report document was the fleshing out of what Jack stated by way of media statements, and Hansard, that you yourself brought forward.
Then we have Jack's statement you quoted from Hansard:
quote:
The NDP position has been clear and consistent. We have voted along clear and consistent lines since the beginning of this conflict.We raised serious questions about our participation in the mission when it was originally proposed as Operation Enduring Freedom by the Liberals, despite the difficulties and fears that surrounded us at that time immediately post-September 11.
We have consistently called for a peacekeeping role, for development aid and for diplomacy.
Now again unionist, this lines up exactly with what Dawn Black stated in the report. He refers to the 1 mission, which is combat and it being wrong. Then He states what missions are correct and that is developmental aid, diplomacy and "peacekeeping". No where did he say that the NDP were calling for a complete removal of Canada from the lives of Afghanis. He even speaks of "peacekeepers".
Why, can you take what Jack says as being positive, while Dawn Black says, exactly the same thing, basically re-iterating Jack's words, and you think she is misrepresenting the whole thing and trying to change the NDP's position and basically shafting the whole party?
Moreover, she was absolutely correct when she said:
quote:
The legal justification for the invasion was a series of UN Security Council Resolutions in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks.
That preamble explains the what why, what and how the military is there. This document is a government document and it should contain the facts critically without emotion. It in no way can be compared with what Alexa McDonough said, it is apples and oranges contextually.
Moreover, it was the Oppositions Report, why would it criticize George Bush? It was about Afghanistan peoples and Canada. At this point Bush does not factor into anything.
The rest of the things you pulled out of context and made commentary on are not worth rebutting. For example, bashing the detainee centre commentary, this was a solution presented in response to Canadians concerns regarding prisoner treatment by Afghans, remember that whole scandal?
Then you carried on about her criticism of Harper, and the Liberals, and it apparently wasn't good enough. Even though it is strong wording for the venue it is being presented in. She could hardly condemn Karzi in such a document, and most Canadians wouldn't know who it was anyway. Or even that it is a puppet regime.
Plus, why would you shit on someone, if you want to enter into diplomatic relations, with them? Diplomatic relations that Jack has long suggested even. The 2 are NOT mutally compatable.
You make this huge call to arms for no reason.
quote:
This disgraceful document should be repudiated by all who cherish progress and peace. The NDP must be told, in no uncertain terms, that there can be no retreat from the principled position staked out by Layton in September and reiterated courageously in recent weeks, in the face of huge pressure from the media and some false "friends" to support the Liberal-Bloc motion.
In conclusion, as anyone can clearly see, Dawn Black's words mirror Jack's, so what is with that attack and call to arms? Why do you have this angst towards Ms Black, so much so, that you are not critically and honestly comparing her and Jack's words? There was no retreat from the principled position taken by the NDP, there was re-enforcing of it.
In fact, it appears as though you are trying to tarnish Dawn Black's charater.
[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Wed, 2007-06-20 03:26
#26
Let me be a little more basic then.
Layton and Siksay continually and relentlessly repeated that Canada must withdraw from Afghanistan [b]immediately[/b]. I've give the quotes above, remind, although those aren't the ones you chose to look at in your post.
[i]The word "immediately" never once appears in Dawn Black's 12-page report.[/i]
[i]Nor is there one single call to withdraw from Afghanistan.[/i]
Yet you say:
quote:
There was no retreat from the principled position taken by the NDP, there was re-enforcing of it.
And why are you so worried about defending Dawn Black's "character"? Isn't it more important to worry about the policies she is proposing? That's my focus, anyway.
Wed, 2007-06-20 04:34
#27
N.Beltov
An interesting critique of the opposition - both the Liberals and the NDP - from the former co-chair of the Canadian Peace Alliance Darrell Rankin. Rankin is the Communist leader in Manitoba.
The gist of Rankin's argument is that the opposition needs to pass some sort of compromise resolution in Parliament, before the next election, setting a date to end the Afghan carnage. Rankin is of the view that this will help to isolate the Harper Conservatives and prevent them from getting a majority government.
[url=http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/Pv16jn07.html#Rivalry_and_opportunism]Rankin: Rivalry and Opportunism[/url]
quote:
Rankin: Two votes in the House of Commons at the end of April concerned Canada’s occupation of Afghanistan. The votes show that the Liberal party took an important step towards ending the occupation by setting a February 2009 deadline to end Canada’s combat role.Of course, the minority Conservative government and its U.S. and NATO allies were most pleased by the defeat of the Liberal motion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and General Rick Hillier have stepped up their campaign to dismiss the idea of any deadline. They want Canada to stay “until the job is done.”
It would have been many times harder to launch this crude and deceitful pro-war campaign had the opposition parties all supported a deadline ...
Rankin sees this as a real change on the part of the Liberals ... by setting an actual deadline.
quote:
Rankin: Last year, Parliament narrowly passed a Conservative motion to extend Canada’s “mission” until February 2009, with the help of a divided Liberal caucus. This year, the Liberals, now led by Stйphane Dion took the initiative. The Liberal motion was to make February 2009 the deadline to end Canada’s combat operations in Southern Afghanistan. Not since 2001 when the Chrйtien government first sent troops to Afghanistan have the Liberals had such a change of heart on the issue .
On the NDP ...
quote:
At issue is determining a principled position against the Afghan war and the minority government’s imperialist policies.[b]Anything that moves Canada away from war and frustrates and divides the pro-war class and political forces must be pursued, including compromises and temporary alliances that weaken the pro-war forces. [/b]But rather than support the Liberal motion, the NDP put its short-term interests ahead of the long-term interests of the working class and all peace-supporting Canadians.The NDP’s claim of a more principled position than the Liberals on Afghanistan is covering a deeper motivation in the NDP parliamentary caucus to grandstand and attack the Liberals. That objective – for the NDP – was more important than advancing the cause of peace. This led the NDP to collude with the strongest pro-war party, handing the Harper Conservatives a significant, but not fatal, victory.
The NDP fails to realize there is a difference between last year’s 30 month Conservative extension and April’s Liberal deadline of 18 months. This is like failing to see that there is a key difference in the United States between the Democrats who want a deadline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq, and most Republicans who want no deadline. I’ll bet most Iraqi people see a difference.
Finally, on the NDP motion ...
quote:
Now let’s look at the failed NDP motion “to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan.”NDP leader Jack Layton told Parliament that the motion called “for the immediate, safe and secure withdrawal of our troops from the counter-insurgency mission...” That is misleading. The motion did not call for immediate withdrawal, but to “begin withdrawing” troops. .... Essentially, the NDP law would cause no trouble for the U.S. or NATO. Imperialism’s sordid history is full of examples where people are reassured that an occupation is “beginning” to end. For example, U.S. imperialism for several years “began” to withdraw troops from Vietnam - after starting to prepare a massive, puppet army. The U.S. and NATO have the same strategy in Afghanistan today. ....
Most people have the view that the NDP is the most staunchly anti-war party in Parliament. Yet the NDP voted with the Conservatives, and now Canada has no deadline to leave Afghanistan. Consider how, despite significant membership disapproval, social democratic governments around the world (including the Manitoba NDP) supported various NATO aggressions.
Parliamentary motions have the force of law and must say what is actually intended. [b]By this measure, the NDP Parliamentary caucus has clearly failed to uphold the spirit and intention of last September’s NDP Convention resolution for Canada to leave Afghanistan immediately. Given a choice between the Liberal deadline and the wording of the NDP motion, most anti-war groups would support the Liberal motion. [/b]
Rankin concludes ...
quote:
Parliamentary opposition parties need to agree on a compromise date to end the Afghan carnage. It would be a betrayal of Canada’s “peace majority” and a shameful abdication of political responsibility if they do not agree on a common motion before the next election.
[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Wed, 2007-06-20 07:38
#28
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Let me be a little more basic then.Layton and Siksay continually and relentlessly repeated that Canada must withdraw from Afghanistan [b]immediately[/b]. I've give the quotes above, remind, although those aren't the ones you chose to look at in your post.[/b]
First, please refrain from talking down to me. You "basic" comment was a put down.
Moroverover, I choose to look at every quote you put forward, and indeed I covered most every aspect that you put forward, and did not bother with those I felt were a taken out of context rant.
quote:
[b][i]The word "immediately" never once appears in Dawn Black's 12-page report.[/i[/qb[
]Unionist, you are reduced to saying that she did not say immediate. Please, it was stated many other ways in the report and I take the "now" comment to be immediate.
quote:
In this context, the New Democratic Party believes that the safe and determined
withdrawal of our troops from the counter-insurgency mission, in consultation
with our allies, is [b]now required[/b].
The NDP did not vote to extend the mission, and this report upholds their position to bring the military personnel home now.
quote:
[qb][i]Nor is there one single call to withdraw from Afghanistan.[/i][/b]
Yes, there are numerous calls, that you choose to acknowledge them, or you thoink the wording is to soft, does not mean that they are not present. Frankly, Dawn Black's report mirrors the letter I received from Jack.
quote:
[b]And why are you so worried about defending Dawn Black's "character"? Isn't it more important to worry about the policies she is proposing? That's my focus, anyway.[/b]
No, I do not think it is the politics that she is proposing, that you have problems with, as it is the SAME politics as Jack's words that you gave in quotes. I wonder how you would've received it, if it was a man who wrote it?
------------------------------------------
NBeltov, the Communist Party leader in Manitoba sounds like a shill for the Liberal Party, and is doing his best to slam the NDP who apparently he must feel is a rival party.
Wed, 2007-06-20 08:19
#29
N.Beltov
quote:
remind: the CP leader in Manitoba sounds like a shill for the Liberal Party, and is doing his best to slam the NDP who apparently he must feel is a rival party.
Rankin makes the claim that the NDP motion calls for Canada to "begin withdrawing troops" which need not cause any discomfort to the US and their future plans for Afghanistan. An Afghan puppet army could be developed just as efforts were once made to create a Vietnamese puppet army, while troops are "begun" to be withdrawn. Setting a deadline, as the Liberal motion did, seems a way to get around that loophole. Did you have a substantive critique of Rankin's points or did you just want to indulge in [i]ad hominem[/i] and leave it at that?
I've got to admit that initially I pretty well sided with the NDP on this one. Rankin's claim is that the NDP and the Liberals and the entire opposition still have an opportunity to isolate the Conservatives on this issue, partly due to the shift of the Liberals under Dion, and should do so before the next election to put the kibosh on a possible Conservative majority. What the hell is wrong with that sort of reasoning?
Wed, 2007-06-20 08:32
#30
There are tactical issues which must be addressed in determining the best way out of Afghanistan.
The Liberals have one idea, which is too watered down for my taste, and the NDP has another, which is more absolutist.
"You should have supported our motion!" is answered by "No, you should have supported OUR motion!"
Hopefully, a real motion to get the troops out damn soon, if not immediately, should be agreed upon, and adopted. The two parties owe Canadians their best efforts at reaching a compromise. So far, I don't think the Liberals or the NDP have made enough of an attempt.
The LAST thing anyone should do is listen to the leader of the Communist Party on any tactical issue, since their unfailing sense of tactics has driven them to their present standing of 0.0% in the polls.
Wed, 2007-06-20 08:35
#31
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Let me be a little more basic then.Layton and Siksay continually and relentlessly repeated that Canada must withdraw from Afghanistan [b]immediately[/b].[/b]
Aha! So Black's letter of dissent could be misconstrued to specifically not mean immediately. As is in pronto,undalez, ariba, forthwith - pack your bags, you take the high road and I'll take the low - scram - here's your flak jacket what's your hurry?. I see what you're getting at now. I think Dawn Black could have asked for a shrubbery somewhere in there as well.
Wed, 2007-06-20 08:43
#32
N.Beltov
That's funny Jeff. You've basically regurgitated Rankin's argument and then denounced, in principle, all arguments made by Communists like him. Communist yes! Communist no! Communist in the pot nine days old! Ahahahaha!
Wed, 2007-06-20 10:44
#33
The Unionist wrote:
quote:
As I have pointed out about this character (Black) many times before on babble, there are only two possibilities:
1. This dissenting report reflects the view of the NDP - in which case they have betrayed the Convention decision, betrayed Layton's continued calls for withdrawal, and they should be urged, cajoled, condemned, whatever it takes, to get back on the track of withdrawal.2. [The one I believe, and hope, to be the truth:] This is Dawn Black's own continuing feeble effort to sidetrack the party from its principled position. In this case, her ass should be soundly kicked into some role where she does not pose a danger to the interests of the Canadian people.
Neither of these is correct.
First, this report, which folks can directly [url=http://www.ndp.ca/xfer/pdf/2007-06-19_Dissenting_Opinion.pdf]read here[/url], was not to focus on the demand for an immediate winding down and pull-out from Afghanistan.
The NDP has already said and done this many times.
Rather, the report is an assessment of the current situation there as a result of the mission.
To summarize the report's findings, we see that:
--support for the resistance to NATO is growing among the Afghani people.
--active combat, or "counterinsurgency" measures, which is what the Canadian troops are overwhelmingly focused on doing, is not effective and goes against all aspects of peace-keeping.
--the lack of support for reconstruction initiatives and protecting and improving the rights and safety of the Afghani people (especially women) is making the situation worse.
--that the US-installed regime there has monopolized power, marginalized any legitimate opposition and thwarting whatever democratic development that is trying to get off the ground.
--that Canadian troops, while being lauded by the government, are being needlessly put at risk as the government is not providing measures to properly ensure their safety.
--that there is a danger the Conservative regime is planning to extend the mission in full scale well beyond the 2009 pull-out date.
Now, folks can make what they will about these assessments, but I don't see anywhere how this betrays the NDP's policy position of withdrawing the troops, especially since this report, on page 159, re-affirms this position by saying:
quote:
In this context, the New Democratic Party believes that the safe and determined
withdrawal of our troops from the counter-insurgency mission, in consultation
with our allies, is now required.
It further adds:
quote:
The Conservative position is clear: they have an open ended commitment to
whatever is requested by NATO or the United States regardless of the cost to
members of the Forces and their families. The Liberals and Bloc have publicly
stated that they are open to continued Canadian deployments after 2009. While
they criticize the way the mission is being administered, that criticism is
undermined by the fact that they too would commit the Canadian Forces to this
counter-insurgency mission regardless of the financial and human costs.
So the fact is, even though this report is a situational assessment, it still compliments the NDP’s call for an end to the war.
Wed, 2007-06-20 11:58
#34
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Hopefully, a real motion to get the troops out damn soon, if not immediately, should be agreed upon, and adopted. The two parties owe Canadians their best efforts at reaching a compromise. So far, I don't think the Liberals or the NDP have made enough of an attempt.[/b]
There are a number of problems with this. There are over 100 Liberal MP's and more than 120 of their ideological cousins in the Conservative Party-led minority government. The NDP is way outnumbered in Ottawa, as has been the case since
Tsarist era security forces policed breadlines in Moscow. The two old line parties have consistently and steadfastly never voted [i]with[/i] the NDP on issues of real importance. And the reason for that is the Liberals are pretenders to the left. They don't want Canadians to realize that the NDP is actually far more progressive than the Conservabrals, I mean the Liberatives. I mean, awww! You know what I mean. The two old line parties, with long-time connections to big business and the banking cabal, rarely ever, as in once in a blue moon, side with the NDP on something this important to U.S. imperialism abroad.
2009 is what the Liberals proposed, Jeff. And it stinks just as bad now as it did then. We can thank the Liberals for 2011 and what looks like Harper's never-never plan, or pending a change of assignment from Warshington. The Congress of Canadian Soviets have their orders from Warshington. There will be no deviation from our colonial administraitorship's assigned military task as long as the two old line parties are in power and sharing power.
[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2007-06-20 12:20
#35
N.Beltov
Fidel, remind me again why setting a deadline for the troops to leave Afghanistan is such a bad thing. Yea, I know the evil Liberals (and more evil Commies!) would support it. Any [i]other[/i] reasons why it's a bad thing? Isn't half a loaf, especially if it can isolate the Conservatives, better than none at all?
The Liberals and Conservatives aren't monolithic. There are real differences here. Those differences should be taken advantage of ... and not urinated away.
Wed, 2007-06-20 12:25
#36
Interesting I just found the press release from the city of toronto regarding the ribbons on city vehicles.
As some will know the city was voting on if they should keeep the support the troop ribbons or not.
[url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2007/20/c7285.html]newswi...
quote:
TORONTO, June 20 /CNW/ - Toronto City Council today voted unanimously to
continue the ribbon campaign on Toronto Fire and EMS vehicles for an
indefinite period of time as a show of support for the Canadian Forces
Personnel Support Agency.
In recommending that City Council unanimously endorse the continuation of
the ribbon campaign, Mayor David Miller said that all of Canada's men and
women serving in the military have the unwavering support of all Torontonians.
With the way city council is on the polital spectrum does this have any impact on NDP policy?
Wed, 2007-06-20 12:27
#37
The NDP could compromise their principles and be more like Liberals, I suppose. They'd run a high risk of losing my vote though if they did. 2009 is a nothing date. It's stalling for time until U.S. Liberal Democrats are in power and voting with Republicans for another war, another Yugoslavia or another Iraq.
There are thousands of proxy fighters in surrounding countries waiting to pour in over the borders in support of their extended groups in Afghanistan like 1989 if this thing escalates, which I think is a real possibility according to the NDP's research. And then more Canadians will be coming home to their families in plastic bags. The NDP will be vindicated for this position they are taking now. Enough!
[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2007-06-20 12:38
#38
N.Beltov
So, in your view Fidel, are there any circumstances where you think the NDP could/should vote with the Liberals, on a motion other than the NDP's own policy of "beginning" a troop withdrawal, in order to isolate the Conservatives on this issue?
Why is compromising NDP principles OK for health care under Martin but not OK for anti-war policies with Dion?
Wed, 2007-06-20 12:43
#39
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Why is compromising NDP principles OK for health care under Martin but not OK for anti-war policies with Dion?[/b]
What [i]is[/i] compromised in this country is democracy itself. We have 29 MP's when we should have 54. Canadians don't want another Liberal Party.
Wed, 2007-06-20 13:08
#40
N.Beltov
You won't get any argument from me in regard to the under-representation of the NDP in Parliament. Clearly, even with 29 MPs the NDP is making a difference. But that's irrelevant here ... except that the NDP is likely going to have to compromise at least as much as the Liberals if those 2 parties have any chance of working together to give the Conservatives a richly deserved pounding on this issue.
I would suggest that putting NDP fortunes ahead of the "half of a loaf" of setting the deadline (an improvement over the position of former PM Martin, clearly) is making the NDP look very much LIKE the opportunistic Liberals rather than distinguishing the NDP from them. C'mon, Fidel. You should be able to do better than that.
Is there an issue more important than war and peace? Only the environment. And we know the Conservatives will take a thrashing on that issue anyway. They've even taken to sponsoring a gas-guzzling NASCAR entry in an effort to distract the pick-up truck and SUV crowd.
Wed, 2007-06-20 13:10
#41
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]First, please refrain from talking down to me. You "basic" comment was a put down.[/b]
That was the furthest thing from my mind, but I see now how you could have read it. Please accept my apology. I have absolutely no reason to put you down, and I consider you an ally on all the fundamental issues that we discuss on this board.
At the same time, if I think some NDP spokesperson or policy is way out of line, I will continue to be very clear in opposing them.
I believe the NDP, like any individual, are only as good as the positions and principles they embody and defend. In the case of Dawn Black, I have little to go by except her words, and I have never seen in those words a recognition that Canada is party to war crimes in Afghanistan and that this must all stop, now.
In the case of Jack Layton, Libby Davis, Bill Siksay, Alexa McDonough (all in varying degrees depending on time and place), I see much more principle and sense of shame at what the Liberal and Conservative governments have done. So, I praise those stands and those people. It may seem simplistic to some, but there it is.
Wed, 2007-06-20 13:27
#42
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I would suggest that putting NDP fortunes ahead of the "half of a loaf" of setting the deadline (an improvement over the position of former PM Martin, clearly) is making the NDP look very much LIKE the opportunistic Liberals rather than distinguishing the NDP from them. C'mon, Fidel. You should be able to do better than that.[/b]
2009 ? What if the NDP had voted for 2009, and then enough Liberals voted against the resolution like they did in the end with cancelling anti-scab law ?. I think the NDP knows full well that the Liberal Party tends to be slipperier'n a snake's belly in a wagon rut after a downpour. The Liberals have no qualms about hanging the NDP out to dry. I think we just can't peg the Liberals to take any kind of a real stand on this. Liberals are predictable, however, when it comes to effectively backing up their ideological cousins. The net effect is that the Liberals are happy where they are with 100 plus MP's and making zero effort to oppose the other wing of the party, the Conservative government.
Wed, 2007-06-20 13:39
#43
N.Beltov
quote:
Fidel: 2009 ? What if the NDP had voted for 2009, and then enough Liberals voted against the resolution like they did in the end with cancelling anti-scab law ?. I think the NDP knows full well that the Liberal Party tends to be slipperier'n a snake's belly in a wagon rut after a downpour.
Liberals might well be snakes but when there is a vote in Parliament don't the "Yeas" vote first? It's not like the NDP MPs would have been required to vote first, after which the Liberals could carry out a "bait and switch" on them. I've watched votes in the House like everyone else here. Furthermore, they seem to count the NDP votes [i]last.[/i] Which means the NDP could be the ones to pull the rug out from under the Liberals if they wanted to.
Even snake-like activity by the Liberals can be exposed if it is known. The NDP was able to get the message out about its bottom line in regard to health issues and why the NDP MPs voted the way they did when Martin's government fell when it did. The voters rewarded the NDP with more seats in Parliament. Getting played by the Liberals, if it is responded to in a principled way, could even help the NDP.
I'm not buying what you're selling here. I realize this is currently somewhat academic as the 2 motions have already been voted on. But the election hasn't been called and the Conservatives don't have their majority ... yet.
Am I not getting something here?
Wed, 2007-06-20 13:55
#44
I find this paragraph from Defence Critic Dawn Black report interesting.
“On the ground in Afghanistan, members of the Forces have had to deal with two
problems: 1) Old equipment such as utility trucks that are proving difficult to
maintain in the harsh conditions and 2) An escalation of fighting, which has had a
negative impact on the psychological health of the Forces.”
Would this be the same equipment that is currently being replace yet the NDP does not want to have replaced?
Why does she not provide any information on about the psychological health of the Forces?
Wed, 2007-06-20 14:07
#45
I see what you're saying, N. A date for troop withdrawal in writing would be something more than nothing.
If I can trust the NDP summary of the situation in Aghanistan, then I would have to think that this isn't going to be any better by 2009. But at the same time, there doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency among the 100 plus Liberals to create much of a reputation among themselves for opposing Harper. It's time the Liberals shifted just a little to the left. Because they know the NDP won't cozy-up to imperialism.
I think the Liberals proposed 2009 to give Liberal Democrats in the U.S. time to win that election. If that's the case, then they are pinning the future of our troops in Afhghanistan on U.S. decisions not our own.
The NDP has already stated in Dawn Black's letter of dissent what they think of the militarization of Afghanistan and how it's unfolding. If we believe Dawn Black's description of the situation, then it's futile for our troops to be there. Bad decisions have been made by incompetent leadership at the highest levels of power in Canada, and I think the NDP is correct for being most consistent in their opposition to what are very similar positions taken by Stephen Dion and Stephane Harper on Afghanistan.
Wed, 2007-06-20 14:35
#46
N.Beltov
quote:
Fidel: I see what you're saying, N. A date for troop withdrawal in writing would be something more than nothing.
Well, yea. Not just for setting that goal, and making the Liberals stick to [b]something[/b], but also to [i]isolate[/i] the Conservatives and box them it. It's easier, whoever's doing the shooting, to pick off the Conservatives if they're trapped in that barrel. The NDP could put pressure on Canadian Liberals that is more difficult to apply to US liberals (in the Democratic Party) because they don't have 29 NDPers in the US Congress.
quote:
Fidel: I think the Liberals proposed 2009 to give Liberal Democrats in the U.S. time to win that election. If that's the case, then they are pinning the future of our troops in Afhghanistan on U.S. decisions not our own.
Democrats may be willing to shift US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and replace Canadian troops there. But that's not something to rely upon. All the more reason to pin the Liberals down now, with something, before they try to weasel out of any responsibility, or back away from their current position.
quote:
I think the NDP is correct for being most consistent in their opposition to what are very similar positions taken by Stephen Dion and Stephane Harper on Afghanistan.
The NDP position is more consistent but that isn't going to save the lives of any Canadian soldiers, or Afghan civilians, unless some action is taken by the Government of Canada. Preventing the Conservatives from forming a majority by somehow working with the Liberals, and anyone else in Parliament I might add, to establish a deadline that could be used as a lever to boot the Conservatives from power, would go a long way towards helping the NDP as well ... if the results of the most recent election are anything to go by.
Wed, 2007-06-20 14:43
#47
Okay, Liberals get in with a landslide at some point in the next year or so, and partly due to their resolution for 2009. Then what ?. 2009 happens, and U.S. Democrats haven't said anything about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. What's to stop our Liberals(and count on conservatives to back them up) from renewing the pledge to be in Afghanistan past 2009 ?. I think they'd do it faster than you can say "NAFTA and GST", or "SPP and North American Union"
[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2007-06-20 14:47
#48
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]That was the furthest thing from my mind, but I see now how you could have read it. Please accept my apology. I have absolutely no reason to put you down, and I consider you an ally on all the fundamental issues that we discuss on this board.[/b]
Thank you for the explanation, no apology was needed, but thank you anyway. And I will add, I should've stated how that appeared to me, and asked for clarification before presuming such was the case.
quote:
[b]At the same time, if I think some NDP spokesperson or policy is way out of line, I will continue to be very clear in opposing them.[/b][/quoteAnd I agree with that, and was unsure myself when we were discussing Ms Black's words a few months back. At that time indicated that I was writing to Jack to seek clarifications and was waiting for his response.
What I failed to say in this regard, after the fact, was that I received a very lengthy personal response back from Jack. And as I indicated above, his words to me in the letter, were almost identical to that of Ms Blacks in this and when I read Ms Black's report, I "heard" Jack's voice within it, not Ms Black's.
[quote][b]I believe the NDP, like any individual, are only as good as the positions and principles they embody and defend. In the case of Dawn Black, I have little to go by except her words, and I have never seen in those words a recognition that Canada is party to war crimes in Afghanistan and that this must all stop, now.
In the case of Jack Layton, Libby Davis, Bill Siksay, Alexa McDonough (all in varying degrees depending on time and place), I see much more principle and sense of shame at what the Liberal and Conservative governments have done. So, I praise those stands and those people. It may seem simplistic to some, but there it is.[/b]
I certainly do see where you are coming from, however, I still see Ms Black's stance as that of the NDP's consistent position, and of those you listed above. Words for formal government reports is much different that media talk. What passes for weak language in public talk, is actually strong language in government and business venues.
Wed, 2007-06-20 14:56
#49
N.Beltov
Well, there are few guarantees in politics. We've got our Charter, of course, but even that could be put aside by a government willing to use the Notwithstanding Clause.
Pinning the Liberals down, and exposing the Conservatives, shouldn't mean that the NDP has to abandon fundamental principles. And there's no reason why the NDP can't make a deal with the Liberals and then campaign in an election on the basis that the Liberals can't be trusted to live up to the deal. There's so much evidence, as you have pointed out, out there to prove that. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-06-21 04:45
#50
quote:
Toronto City Council today voted unanimously to
continue the ribbon campaign on Toronto Fire and EMS vehicles for an
indefinite period of time as a show of support for the Canadian Forces
Personnel Support Agency.
In recommending that City Council unanimously endorse the continuation of
the ribbon campaign, Mayor David Miller said that all of Canada's men and
women serving in the military have the unwavering support of all Torontonians.
Patriotic correctness carries the day. While it may seem innocuous, don't fool yourself. It is difficult to untangle "support for the troops" from support for the mission. This is what the pro-war folks want. To phrase the question in patriotic terms and force those who oppose continuing the mission on the defensive and use the wedge created as club against those opponents. I've seen plenty of it down here over the years. So, beware.
[ 21 June 2007: Message edited by: josh ]
Thu, 2007-06-21 04:57
#51
You are right, josh. But I personally think that it is about time to untangle this.
I personally did just that time ago: I do not support the troups and I do not support the mission.