Jack Layton goes to sea aboard HMCS Halifax

My world is not that stark

remind wrote:

My world is not that stark

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

That's quite a translation Unionist.

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

genstrike wrote:

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

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

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

NorthReport wrote:

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

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

Northernreport wrote:

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

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

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

you can't be serious?

Fidel wrote:

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

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

remind wrote:

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

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

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

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

Exactly my point just as the USA would to us.

Unionist wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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

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

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

A_J wrote:

genstrike wrote:

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

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

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

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

Fidel wrote:

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

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

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

Slumberjack wrote:

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

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

Slumberjack wrote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Fidel wrote:

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

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

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:

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

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

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

Fidel wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slumberjack wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan: landlocked

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

remind wrote:

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

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

has he even been there yet?

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unionist wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Would babblers agree that Layton should take that stand?

 

Absolutely yes.