Afghanistan: The NDP Minority Report and the Call to Remove Military

117 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2007-06-23 20:21

remind

Nonsense, you are spouting CPC liees and nothing more. They are against the way the CPC government has gone about these purchases, and in regards to the creeping decision to be in armed combat continuously. Plus against our military even beibng in Afghanistan so poorly equipped.

I quoted the pertinent NDP positions above, as I said who do you think you are talking to and trying to fool. It is insulting to poeple's with intelligence!

Go bash the freaking Liberals and the CPC. They are the one's playing politics with military personnel's lives, as apparently you are.

Sat, 2007-06-23 20:28

#103

Webgear

Remind

The equipment being purchased are the correct choices for the military and the NDP defence critic knows that.

I am not giving the CPC and Liberals a free ride. This thread is about the NDP report.

I will gladly bash the Liberals and the CPC in a thread about the NDP, if there was one created.

If you start one I will bash them also.

Sat, 2007-06-23 20:34

#104

Fidel

quote:

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Fidel
The NDP are stating they are "It’s the NDP that’s the effective opposition in standing up to Harper’s Conservatives.”
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/5466]Standing Up For Canadians [/url].[/b]

And that's a bull's eye statement if I ever.

Wasn't Mulroney in command from 1984 to 1993 ? No money for trucks or tanks? Ah! He was busy doing "other" things then, like wangling air bus deals with Karl Heinz-Schreiber and bailing out big banks for their gambling losses on money and global stock markets. And the Liberals don't have a very good record for either military pay or equipment by what I can tell. The NDP has 29 seats, and the two old line parties have how many votes between them, 227 ?.

If the two old line parties can put the kibosh to anti-scab law and push through corporate and finance-friendly legislation between them, what's stopping them from buying a few trucks ?.

Sat, 2007-06-23 22:05

#105

remind

quote:

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Remind
The equipment being purchased are the correct choices for the military and the NDP defence critic knows that. [/b]

As I said prior, the quibble is not with the equipment it is with how they are being purchased and for what purpose. You can try to skew it however you want, but it holds no water.

Sat, 2007-06-23 23:17

#106

jester

quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]
This is insulting and not appropriate here. Lay off the snarkiness.[/b]

What snarkiness? It certainly isn't an insult to someone who lives in a third floor garret and rides their bicycle to the greengrocers.

My point is that while progress cannot be measured to satisfy well-fed Canadians who enjoy a first world lifestyle,third world Afghans may hold a different view.

Why does Afghan progress need to be measured by white privilege standards? No amount of progress will satisfy the closed minds of Canada's anti-mission crowd.

Sat, 2007-06-23 23:26

#107

jester

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
But I'm not surprised that someone who thinks Afghans need the help of Stephen Harper, Gordon O'Connor and Rick Hillier would have a rather jaded view of humanity in general.[/b]

I agree with Jack,as I have posted above,you mendacious pipsqueak. I'm not surprised you ignore my posts and deliberately misrepresent my position.

Sat, 2007-06-23 23:31

#108

Fidel

Well if that's your opinion, you must have felt the same way when the Soviet-backed PDPA were there and building schools, hospitals, redistributing land and doing away with bride price. It's the same thing only different.

Sun, 2007-06-24 04:34

#109

Brendan Stone

The Liberal motion was NOT to withdraw completely from Afghanistan in 2009. It was to end combat operations in the south in 2009. It could easily be interpreted to mean that the troops' mission would change in 2009, which is exactly what the Liberals would do.

The NDP motion was for immediate withdrawal. The Liberal motion was for an extension of the war until 2009, at which time it could be effectively discussed and renewed. It is the same sort of slippery game the Democrats are playing in the U.S., where they keep saying "we're going to end the war...oh yes...just give us a few more years."

Let's not forget that it was the Liberals who invaded Afghanistan with our troops in 2001, and sent more troops again in 2003. Harper made the mission more overtly militaristic, but at best, the Liberals only want to go back to a more PR-friendly illegal occupation. They have no credibility on this matter.

Sun, 2007-06-24 04:42

#110

Brendan Stone

quote:

Originally posted by jester:
[b]The focus on Afghan progress should be evaluated on Afghan perceptions,not Canadian champagne socialist expectations.[/b]

[b]The Afghans are sick of our armies killing their people[/b]

quote:

The scale of civilian casualties at the hands of British and US forces is losing us the war - as I know from experience

http:REMOVETHISTEXT//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2101516,0...

Sun, 2007-06-24 05:02

#111

Webgear

quote:

Originally posted by Brendan Stone:
[b]
The NDP motion was for immediate withdrawal.
[/b]

Brenda

This 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.

[ 24 June 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

Sun, 2007-06-24 05:24

#112

Brendan Stone

Ah, I must have gotten the wrong impression from NDP headlines like:

"Canada must immediately withdraw from Afghanistan: NDP"

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/5183]http://www.ndp.ca/page/5183[/url]

Delegates voted for Canada OUT of Afghanistan at convention, and that is what members will advocate for as the debate continues.

Sun, 2007-06-24 05:42

#113

Webgear

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]
As I said prior, the quibble is not with the equipment it is with how they are being purchased and for what purpose. You can try to skew it however you want, but it holds no water.
[/b]

I agree the purchases may not have been done fairly however the correct equipment was purchased.

As for purpose of the equipment, the current White Paper outlines the role of the military, and until the new paper is produce the military must follow the directions given in the current paper.

There should have been a new paper produced over 5 years ago in my view.

Sun, 2007-06-24 05:46

#114

Webgear

quote:

Originally posted by Brendan Stone:
[b]
Delegates voted for Canada OUT of Afghanistan at convention, and that is what members will advocate for as the debate continues.
[/b]

The delegates may have voted for Canada out of Afghanistan however if you read the motions and reports in Parliament the NDP do not call for a complete withdraw from Afghanistan.

Have you read some of the earlier posts in this thread by Unionist and myself?

Sun, 2007-06-24 06:10

#115

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]
Have you read some of the earlier posts in this thread by Unionist and myself?[/b]

Webgear, you are correct, but so is Brendan. There are two (or likely more) clear lines on this issue that are alive and well within the NDP, struggling for dominance.

That's why you will see an extremely clear headline (like the one Brendan quoted) of "Canada must [b]immediately withdraw from Afghanistan[/b]: NDP" - but in the body you read:

quote:

The NDP is demanding an immediate safe and secure withdraw of all Canadian [b]combat[/b] troops from the [b]Southern Afghanistan region[/b].

The headline reflects the will of the convention, while the body is massaged to reflect something else.

While these two aims and approaches are in contention, my view is that it is essential for pressure be put to have the right one prevail.

Webgear, you and I might differ as to which is the right one. But there is no doubt that the NDP is not presenting a unified monolithic view on this issue. Those that claim otherwise are letting their passion for the NDP get in the way of their duty to help the NDP.

ETA: Let me add that Dawn Black's report, as I mentioned above, represents yet a "third" line, a further retreat from the "southern Afghanistan" approach of before, because it entirely deletes the urgency and immediacy of the previous demands.

[ 24 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Sun, 2007-06-24 06:23

#116

Brendan Stone

Are you referring to the conversation directly above when Unionist posted links to articles referring to Layton's calls for pullout, and this NDP speech in parliament:

"Bill Siksay: Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position is absolutely clear. It calls for a safe and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. 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 there is no other military role for Canada in Afghanistan 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 fully and completely withdrawing in a safe and responsible manner, but doing that immediately."

Yes, there have been variations on the theme coming from the NDP, but I wouldn't put much faith in hoping that the NDP will backtrack from its position. From what I've heard, the party leadership is soon take a more direct position on withdrawal, reflecting the membership's position.

Now let's talk about the real politics.

If the Liberals truly wanted to end the combat mission, they would have supported the NDP's motion. Why do we have to continue the combat mission until 2009 and then think about it some more? The Liberals acknowledge their combat mission is a failure, and then call for it to go on for two more years?

It's also the case that the Liberals had earlier opposed the idea of a mission extension, but suddenly in fact decided to propose a mission extension until 2009.

Clearly, they were trying to pin down the NDP, instead of taking the political risk of campaigning to end the war crimes like the NDP has been doing for months.

Why are some people taken in by this political game the Liberals are playing?

Sun, 2007-06-24 06:40

#117

Unionist

Methinks Brendan and I cross-posted.

Anyway, this thread will close soon, so I suggest we continue the discussion [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009443]he....

Pages

Topic locked