Jack Layton goes to sea aboard HMCS Halifax

Wow, a real honest to goodness soldier we can talk to for the straight goods.  Or are you a sailor?

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The German government is, sadly, sinking deeper into the Afghan quagmire. German troops and the German government are experiencing mission creep. The German government (against the wishes of the majority of Germans) is escalating its combat engagement:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1494337.php/M...

The NDP, NDP MPs and federal party members talk about multilateral peace talks, including with Taliban leaders. If peace or an armistice are agreed to, and the Afghan government asks U.S., NATO and ISAF to leave; in their view, Canada will leave. If the Afghan government asks for Canadian (and other countries') NGOs to engage in reconstruction, redevelopment and humanitarian aid, then Canada will be in Afghanistan in this capacity.

These are the NDP talking points I have heard on this subject.

Winston:

"Some of you need to get your heads out of your orthodox ideological as3es.  I've been a social democrat my whole life, and some of you have me questioning the value of supporting the NDP."

Some are assiduously re-working their position by day and night, Winston.

It is not so much from ideology but from a blinkered morality. And I guess the physical position you pose them in would have a blinkering effect. Just be prepared for what follows the offer to "talk."

remind wrote:

So he has not even been on the ship yet then slumberjack?

With the crew aboard HMCS Halifax

Slumberjack wrote:

The point is that complete military withdrawal from all aspects of NATO alliance involvement in the country is not readily apparent within the NDP statement.  It leaves room for some other arrangement which is less 'combat' intense, but still within the range, and in keeping with the overall NATO committment, as other countries do without getting into the worst of it.  But I'll let you tell me if I'm wrong in seeing it that way, because as you would know, the word which best describes any sort of armed cooperation with the US installed regime in Kabul is collaboration, isn't it?

Only the Liberals would know the answer to why they switched missions from peacekeeping and security in and around Kabul to taking over the combat role in Southern Afghanistan at the start of 2006. Because from 2002 to end of 2005, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan#2... total of eight Canadian troops were killed[/url] in Afghanistan and some by friendly fire from the US Air Force. The Liberals lied to Canadian parliament as to what new role Canadian troops would be accepting in Kandahar. They lied to Canadian parliament and the NDP as to what was happening with captured Afghans handed over to the Americans to be tortured. The Liberals had to lie because they knew then that joining a US-led war of aggression would be unpopular with Canadians.

The record in Ottawa clearly says that electing another phony majority old line party government of Liberals, Tories, or the two in any combination would surely result in Ottawa continuing to serve as an instrument for US foreign policy in Afghanistan

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/fact-check-liberals-have-no-credibility-on-afgha... Check:[/url] It's the two old line parties in power and sharing power who have no credibility on Afghanistan

Winston wrote:

I don't really understand why elements of the Canadian Left have such a difficulty in realizing that the World can rarely be adequately understood in black and white terms.  The European Left did not come to power (greatly improving people's quality of life in the process) by passing all of their leaders through some sort of unpassable Socialist Truth Litmus Test.  Nor did they convince their electorates to vote for them by offering staid, ideologically pure solutions.  No one wants to see civilian and soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and the Military Industrial Complex is problematic in a whole number of ways, but far from making the World a better place, the angry denunciations of the Canadian Forces, the calls for their disbandment, and the pillorying Jack Layton for taking a tour of a ship makes the Canadian Left look ridiculous and unfit to govern.

That is sad, because Canada truly needs a social democratic government.

Ah, so we need to discard any leftist ideology, and wind up like New Labour.  That will prevent soldiers from being killed in foreign war zones.  And while we're at it, we should start pushing neoliberal policies just like the Euro left has been doing almost wherever they take power - after all, left policies are ideological and black and white and right-wing policies are perfectly normal and nuanced.  Last I checked, a lot of these former left parties are facing electoral problems because they have failed to offer alternatives (eg: UK Labour is absolutely fucked next election), and fascist parties are growing.

Personally, I would rather look ridiculous than support Canadian imperialism and the militarization of society.

What Canada does not need is a social democratic government that governes in a manner exactly the same as the Liberals.

NorthReport wrote:

Thats a great pic of Jack with our sailors. 

Don't you mean the troops?

Fidel wrote:

genstrike wrote:

If you are referring to me, rest assured that I do not have my head up my ass and I have no influence on NDP policy (if I did, I wouldn't be angry at them all the time)

As in 98% of your posts? When do you ever have time to criticize the top-down old line party neoliberal voodoo in this Northern Puerto Rico?

I leave that to you, between the two of us we're fair and balanced.

Fidel wrote:

I've picked one of 20 some odd registered political parties in Canada and advocate for them openly and overtly here. Where does that leave you? :winkyface:

Not a supporter of the Liberals or Conservatives, if that is what you're trying to imply.

Yeah right, you aren't implying anything at all.  I call bullshit on that.

You mean my apparent lack of interest in supporting The Party?  I do not recall saying much about the CAP, CPC, CPC-ML, etc., on this board.

And, like you said, this is a progressive board, not an NDP board (although some NDPers think they own the place with their demands of strict party loyalty).  So why all the interest in my political affiliations anyways?

I think he's goading me into calling him some kind of [url=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=internet+concern+troll&meta=]internet concern troll[/url], or something. Anyway, I think youre just overly sensitive, genstrike.  If "progressive" for you means bashing the NDP in 98% of your posts with spurious claims and errors of fact, then have at it. There are no trolls in this thread, and genstrike is adhering perfectly with [url=http://www.rabble.ca/about/babblepolicy]babble policy[/url], paragraph one where it mentions the word progressive three times.

That big as life photo is a distraction and typical troll tactic in derailing thread discussions.

genstrike wrote:

And I think you're just overly annoying as fuck.

Not the first time youve used filthy language either. Trolls often use filthy language when attacking others on progressive forums.

In genstrike's post#20, he goes on the offensive with curse words and mention of Rick Hillier, commander of the Canadian army and nothing to do with the Navy. And nothing much to do with this thread discussion either. Typical anti-NDP rhetoric and trolling as usual

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_Maritime_Command#Senior_lea... Forces Martime Command[/url]

If someone starts a part 2 try to be respectful, which includes no name-caling.

Closing.