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

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

Cleaning this up. I'm out of these threads

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

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Layton wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad huminous al strawman.

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

Who do you got U?

Cueball wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ETA following your edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KenS wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the umpteenth time:

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

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

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

KenS wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

KenS wrote:

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

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

remind wrote:

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

Here's what I was responding to:

remind wrote:

... you have carried on ad naseum...

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

... Making more stuff up unionist?

Remember saying those things - exactly one hour ago?

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

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

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

KenS wrote:

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

Unionist wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

remind wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KenS wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extension of Afghan Mission Result of Rare Bipartisan Effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

remind wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polunatic2 wrote:

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

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

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

Why not Pogo?