continuing what came before
Deal to extend Afghanistan mission without vote. part IV
Wed, 2010-11-24 05:49
#1
Deal to extend Afghanistan mission without vote. part IV
Wed, 2010-11-24 05:52
#2
Part of the ships passing in the night thing in this discussion is because from long established practice, the content of the demands made is not just central to the movement.
It is EVERYTHING. And the corollary: dilution of the demands is the paramount danger to the movement.
There is NOTHING about moving the people whose support we need from point A to point B. Nothing.
Even when we are obviously stuck. Either does not compute, or dont want to talk about it, or both.
Wed, 2010-11-24 11:56
#3
The movement is in serious crisis, but what are you saying? You want to suggest ways to spark it into action right now? Go ahead.
At least we agree the movement is in serious crisis.
If I knew what the solution was, or even a part of it, I wouldnt be just asking questions.
I think I have an idea of where to start. And some of what follows. But I'm open even on the where to start.
The discussion has to be collective. If people think that is some elaborate rationalization [of mine] for making the NDP look better, think again. I've been asking these questions for more than 20 years before I went anywhere near the NDP. And going on 40 all told, a sobering thought that I am still asking them.
I started with perhaps as much as I know of where to start here. Starting with looking at the antiwar movement in the US seems like a good place.
The linked thread being: The politics Of Getting Canadians Out Of Afghanistan.
If I thought that was the greatest way to start a discussion, I would say so. It might be good. All I know is that its what I came up with, and I dont see any other attempts or offerings.
Wed, 2010-11-24 13:30
#4
Recent crank calls to military families claiming a family member had been killed in Afghanistan are "insensitive, amoral and disgusting," Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday.
MacKay made the comments after at least three military families at CFB Valcartier were targeted, with one wife being told her husband had been killed by a roadside bomb.
Military police are looking for the person responsible and say he or she could face jail time if caught.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/24/prank-calls-military.html#ixzz16E4UIYmu
Wed, 2010-11-24 14:14
#5
M. Spector
Toronto Liberal MP Maria Minna told The National Post's John Ivison she was deluged with critical letters and emails from furious constituents, one of whom called the Liberals "Harper lite."Adding to the irony is that until the Ignatieff-Rae intervention, Harper had never wavered from his commitment that the troops would come home by the 2011 deadline set by Parliament. Indeed, Harper has been the only major party leader to be honest about the Afghan War. He has stated publicly that it is unwinnable.
The rug began to move when Rae went to Afghanistan last June and came home to propose Canada prolong its tour of Afghan duty, supposedly not in combat, but to train the Afghan army and police. Within days, Ignatieff echoed Rae. On Remembrance Day, Harper, under relentless pressure from the U.S., grabbed the Liberals' lifeline and climbed on board.
It's now clear Canada's Afghan commitment -- already the longest military engagement in Canadian history -- has no fixed end date.
[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/canada-stuck-in-quag... Free Press[/url]
Wed, 2010-11-24 14:17
#6
Cueball
Recent crank calls to military families claiming a family member had been killed in Afghanistan are "insensitive, amoral and disgusting," Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday.
MacKay made the comments after at least three military families at CFB Valcartier were targeted, with one wife being told her husband had been killed by a roadside bomb.
Military police are looking for the person responsible and say he or she could face jail time if caught.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/24/prank-calls-military.html#ixzz16E4UIYmu
Are you comfortable with the idea of Canadian Military Police investigating civilian misdemeanors?
Wed, 2010-11-24 14:30
#7
M. Spector
I'm still trying to figure out what criminal charges a prank caller could face that would lead to jail time.
Wed, 2010-11-24 14:41
#8
I'm just reporting the news. The misdemeanour may have been committed by members of the military, Cueball. M. Spector I wonder as well. Any resident lawyers at Babble or was Jeff House the last one?
Wed, 2010-11-24 15:32
#9
M. Spector
I used to be a resident and I used to be a lawyer, and I can't figure it out.
Wed, 2010-11-24 15:40
#10
Are you comfortable with the idea of Canadian Military Police investigating civilian misdemeanors?
Sure I am - it's a guarantee no one will get caught.
Wed, 2010-11-24 15:42
#11
I used to be a resident and I used to be a lawyer, and I can't figure it out.
Me neither. I did take a quick peek at the National Defence Act index and saw nothing. Maybe the calls were made to families living on base and that provides the linkage for an investigation.
Thu, 2010-11-25 01:41
#12
I'm almost inclined to believ its a smokescreen or come from within the department. If they are so diligent and trying to find the answer all they have to do is call bell and see who made the call and from where? Given call display and internal data logs for even blocked numbers they should be able with a warrant to find the answer in as little as a 5 minute call to bell.
Something stinks about this given the timing.
Thu, 2010-11-25 02:38
#13
I'm still trying to figure out what criminal charges a prank caller could face that would lead to jail time.
Harrasment?
[Conspiracy to cause] Cruel and unusual punishment due to the amount of emotional pain, suffering and anxiety caused?
Thu, 2010-11-25 02:44
#14
It sounds like the government and military are crapping their pants.
It seems this is an indication to them of the level of antiwar sentiment.
They are using this heavy handed approach and statement releases as PR and an attemp to "nip this thing in the bud."
Thu, 2010-11-25 07:46
#15
If I had my wish, the authorities would hunt down and detain those who call families to tell them their loved ones are dead - when it's the truth.
Thu, 2010-11-25 07:59
#16
I think it's not very good PR for the anti-war movement. It's mean spirited and petty imo.
Thu, 2010-11-25 08:54
#17
Gee, Fidel, you think it's the "anti-war movement" pulling this stunt?
Thu, 2010-11-25 08:57
#18
Now that you mention it, no. They are likely false flaggers trying to smear the left. For sure for-sure
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:03
#19
If Layton and Duceppe follow the wishes of the babble fishbowl and say "we want a vote and we will be voting against the extension.".... then the reporing will only be of the latter point. Which is already most of it. So you dont waste the opportunity of the leader speaking to get that dig in.
Communications 101
Well, one day later, Jack Layton flunked your version of Communications 101. He finally told the House, the media, and the world, that the NDP stands for bringing the troops home. Vote or no vote. Debate or no debate.
Bravo, Jack! I was confident that the tide would turn this way - this is the way the rank and file of the party, and of Canadians, wanted it to go! Let the pundits ponder and tut-tut.
Now it's Gilles Duceppe's turn. But I have far less confidence that he will abandon his pro-war rhetoric any time soon. The pressure in Québec is huge, but the man has stubbornly resisted it for years.
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:20
#20
Well, one day later, Jack Layton flunked your version of Communications 101. He finally told the House, the media, and the world, that the NDP stands for bringing the troops home. Vote or no vote. Debate or no debate.
Well thanks for reminding us of exactly what we've been telling you all along. I sometimes find it difficult to keep up with your false and often wild assumptions regarding the NDP.
And if and when there is a vote, I'll wager the farm that the NDP votes no to extending the imperial occupation of Afghanistan following what was a CIA-US Military black operation on 9/11/01.
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:26
#21
Oh my god Unionist.
"If Layton and Duceppe follow the wishes of the babble fishbowl and say "we want a vote and we will be voting against the extension.".... then the reporting will only be of the latter point. Which is already most of it."
I'm sorry I did not explicitly add a statement that is not the case for all time. Unfortunately, it wouldnt occur to me that it was necessary.
Especially since I have said MANY times that the emphasis on trust and confidence issues only stays for a period of time.... only COULD stay for a limited time, even if the plan was not to move away from it.
In that light, read the parallel discussion here, posts 29-33 [so far].
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:26
#22
Well, one day later, Jack Layton flunked your version of Communications 101. He finally told the House, the media, and the world, that the NDP stands for bringing the troops home. Vote or no vote. Debate or no debate.Well thanks for reminding us of exactly what we've been telling you all along. I sometimes find it difficult to keep up with your false and often wild assumptions regarding the NDP.
I try not to be a wild-eyed cheerleader for the NDP, where I jump up and down screaming their praises without even being able to read and understand what they're saying.
Ottawaobserver was the first on this board to find a statement by Jack Layton to the media calling for the troops to be brought home. I then found it in clear unequivocal terms in Hansard.
For that, I praise Jack. And you, in turn, condemn me. You should spend a lot more time observing reality rather than defending your sacred icons.
And if and when there is a vote, I'll wager the farm that the NDP votes no to extending the imperial occupation of Afghanistan following what was a CIA-US Military black operation on 9/11/01.
You're way way behind the times. Jack has already declared where the party stands. It's a done deal. No need to put your farm at risk.
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:30
#23
Darn! I was looking forward to putting my money where my cheerleading for the NDP mouth is.
No bets on the war though.
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:41
#24
Bravo, Jack! I was confident that the tide would turn this way - this is the way the rank and file of the party, and of Canadians, wanted it to go! Let the pundits ponder and tut-tut.
How about you at least lay off foolishly speaking for the rank and file of the NDP. We werent worried.
And I'm not sure if there are even ANY pundits anywhere, who will tut-tut. [About what: they arent going to see that Layton cahnged anything.] But I'll bet you meant to include me- which is funny.
I got what I wanted, which is also what I talked about here.
You got what you wanted too Unionist. Let alone that you have nothing to gloat about, what purpose is served by gloating?
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:46
#25
How about you at least lay off foolishly speaking for the rank and file of the NDP. We werent worried.
I don't speak for the rank and file. [b]The convention does.[/b] And I'm quite pleased as punch that Jack decided to follow their advice, rather than those who were advising him to lay off the "bring 'em home" line in order to not divert attention from the "trust" issues.
And I'm also happy that [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/canadian-troops-out-afghanista... confidence was not misplaced[/url]:
Find me a quote from Layton - in the street, the pub, the radio. And if you can't, write to him (as I have done again) and ask him to tell Canadians that the NDP wants our troops to come home.I'm hoping and confident he will take this position, but I can guarantee you he won't if activists spend more time whitewashing than painting placards.
[center]
[size=30]Bravo, Jack![/size][/center]
You got what you wanted too Unionist. Let alone that you have nothing to gloat about, what purpose is served by gloating?
Gloating is good. Praising the right things and condemning the wrong things is good. It helps guide us in future difficult situations.
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:54
#26
Hmmm...Ignatieff says that the ENTIRE Liberal caucus will vote with him and Harper to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. But here I see that just yesterday Stephane Dion gave a bilstering speech where he stated that Afghans need no "training" from canadians etc...
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Afghans+need+training+Dion/3882173/s...
Could it be that by the time the vote takes place Stephane Dion will no longer be a Liberal?
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:57
#27
Gloating is good.
And even better when you have nothing to gloat about.
Thu, 2010-11-25 09:58
#28
I don't speak for the rank and file. [b]The convention does.[/b] And I'm quite pleased as punch that Jack decided to follow their advice, rather than those who were advising him to lay off the "bring 'em home" line in order to not divert attention from the "trust" issues.
You can be SO thick when it suits your purpose. Though like I said already, god knows why you even want to gloat.
But as to the 'substance'- such as it is- for your gloating, find me where anyone was giving advice to to lay off the "bring 'em home" line. Anywhere.
What was consistently argued was that Jack could not then present the formulation in the way you wanted and felt absolutely nothing else would do.
And dont try to dodge appropriating the voice of the NDP rank and file. Unlike you, before your conversion today or last night or whatever it was, we were already getting what wewanted from Jack Layton.
Thu, 2010-11-25 10:03
#29
Hmmm...Ignatieff says that the ENTIRE Liberal caucus will vote with him and Harper to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. But here I see that just yesterday Stephane Dion gave a bilstering speech where he stated that Afghans need no "training" from canadians etc...
Did Iggy say that all Liberals will vote with him? [Leaving aside that even if he did, that leaves open the door for a lot of absences.]
But when I linked to this in the other thread I noted that Dion saying this in committee hearing does not mean that he is willing to be very public about it. So I wouldnt predict whether he is going to vote against the Bloc motion.
Thu, 2010-11-25 11:46
#30
How about you at least lay off foolishly speaking for the rank and file of the NDP. We werent worried.
How about you give up your delusion that all the rank and file share your views on issues? Neither you nor Unionist has any authority to speak for others in the party.
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:19
#31
Neither you nor Unionist has any authority to speak for others in the party.
Hey, bro, leave me out of that sentence - all I did was quote a convention decision. Surely convention has the "authority to speak for others in the party".
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:22
#32
Nobody has any authority.
Its my opinion, backed up by people I know in the party who are no few, that the rank and file is at least in the main satisfied with what the party and Jack Layton has been saying about the issue over the last week or two.
Do you disagree?
Unionist contends that not until Jack said what he did in the last 24 hours was what the NDP said in line with what the rank and file wishes to hear.
Do you think that is the case?
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:22
#33
I wasn't worried either. In fact, no one was interested in my wager on how the NDP would vote if the Harpers and Harper-led Liberals would agree to a vote on the matter.
Because they knew that if democracy hadn't been crushed in Ottawa by the Liberals, Tories same old stories, the NDP would vote no to extending "the mission", which is a mission to shine Uncle Sam's boots in Afghanistan.
Canadian in the Stan: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.
We're a nation of dupes lead by errand boys in Ottawa.
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:26
#34
KenS I do not claim to channel the thoughts of the rank and file of the NDP. I have no idea and even if I had the money I would spend it on something other than polls to find out. I know that every time Bill Siksay makes a courageous statement in the House on peace and security issues he gets tones of e-mails and calls from supporters across the country. But I have no clue whether that means the majority of the rank and file want the party to take a firmer stance on the issue or that the anti-war crowd understands that its allies need support.
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:34
#35
Apparently Unionist is both Claire and voyant. He knows what Jack will say even before he says it.
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:38
#36
Kropotkin, I take that as a good faith difference of opinion about what the NDP should and should have been doing. Ditto for the suggestion that I go too far in sounding like I'm speaking for the rank and file, whatever my intentions.
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:40
#37
Fidel I object to your calling Jack Unionist's sock puppet. Please show some respect for Mr Layton.
Thu, 2010-11-25 12:44
#38
Hey, bro, leave me out of that sentence - all I did was quote a convention decision. Surely convention has the "authority to speak for others in the party".
First I thought you were being disingenuous. Maybe you are only mistaken.
What was passed at Convention 3 or 4 years ago does not speak to what the rank and file believes, wants, or accepts down the road.
Convention does not meet anywhere near enough to take the pulse.
You can argue if you like that not until 24 hours ago did Jack Layton come out with a statement in keeping with the Convention resolution, but you have no basis for saying or implying that is the consensus of the rank and file.
Fri, 2010-11-26 02:47
#39
NDPPToronto Liberal MP Maria Minna told The National Post's John Ivison she was deluged with critical letters and emails from furious constituents, one of whom called the Liberals "Harper lite."Adding to the irony is that until the Ignatieff-Rae intervention, Harper had never wavered from his commitment that the troops would come home by the 2011 deadline set by Parliament. Indeed, Harper has been the only major party leader to be honest about the Afghan War. He has stated publicly that it is unwinnable.
The rug began to move when Rae went to Afghanistan last June and came home to propose Canada prolong its tour of Afghan duty, supposedly not in combat, but to train the Afghan army and police. Within days, Ignatieff echoed Rae. On Remembrance Day, Harper, under relentless pressure from the U.S., grabbed the Liberals' lifeline and climbed on board.
It's now clear Canada's Afghan commitment -- already the longest military engagement in Canadian history -- has no fixed end date.
[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/canada-stuck-in-quag... Free Press[/url]
also in June:
Kissinger Calls Into Question the Afghanistan Pullout
http://www.voltairenet.org/article166130.html
"Doctor Henry Kissinger suggested that the calendar should be reviewed in accordance with the reality on the ground and that public opinion should be prepared to face a much longer war.."
all the connected international types began to peddle the new news about the same time..
Fri, 2010-11-26 03:39
#40
What Herr Harper said concerning Canada's escalated military presence in Afghanistan isn't anything new.
He plagiarized it from others.
This 2014 being the new 2011 is now the flavor of the month among the Western "movers and shakers" (those who think they are in control of the war) on the Afghan war.
Fri, 2010-11-26 04:17
#41
If there is a debate/vote in the House, the issues of war crimes, NATO, detainees, torture and 'improper killings' of Afghans by Canadians, such as JTF2 should be raised. We should assume JTF2 is employed in ways similar to the Australians...
Afghanistan: Australian Troops Involved in Covert and Deadly Operations for the US
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/22/elite-oz-soldiers-in-covert-operatio...
"Elite Australian soldiers are involved in covert operations for the Americans in the 'war on terror', co-ordinated through the top-secret Paris based Alliance Base. There has been no public discussion about their mission, but Crikey understands the soldiers are involved in targeting, interrogation and asassinations in Afghanistan and elsewhere..."
JTF2 'Improper killing' focus of Probe
http://mostlywater.org/jtf2_improper_killing_afghan_deaths_focus_special...
why are such important matters being kept under a dome of silence by our representatives and media?
Fri, 2010-11-26 09:48
#42
Absolutely.
Joint Task Force 2 derives its name from its American parent, Joint Task Force.
Command is JSOC: Joint Special Operations Command.
JTF2 is a little tool of the Pentagon and U.S. military, just like CSIS.
Fri, 2010-11-26 11:47
#43
Saying the combat mission will end is like saying no Canadian troops served in Iraq. The only question is how many troops and officers will be there working within the integrated command structure that is the imperial armed forces.
My WW II vet Dad is turning in his grave thinking about the fact that Canada has again given up operational control of its military to another country. He was very, very proud of the fact that unlike WW I our troops fought as an independent force. We have gone back to our status at the start of the First World war as a minor player in an imperial military system certainly not an independent middle power.
Fri, 2010-11-26 12:27
#44
Q. - What's the difference between Omar Khadr and the Cdn troops in Afghanistan?
A. - Omar Khadr is coming home.
Fri, 2010-11-26 15:34
#45
Ouch.
Sat, 2010-11-27 04:17
#46
Yeah aint that interesting.
I think if they come home they may be redeployed to our new more eastern front called Korea Mark II....Can americans keep a lid on their colonial impulses for more than a few weeks ata time. Is that too much to ask. Iran and now Korea..Oh I forgot about the axis of stupid. US UK and us
Mon, 2010-11-29 10:52
#47
Debate continues in the House. Vote tommorow.
I hear and see nothing reported.
I'd appreciate reporting here of any media mention- not just statements yo approve of or do not.
Mon, 2010-11-29 12:42
#48
Kady O'Malleys usually very thorough blogging of the day's House business includes everything but the Bloc vote. So maybe it doesn not come up until the vote tommorow. [And for the same reason did not come up Friday?]
But the bottom line is how much talk there is about the issue, not whether it came up in Parliament. And even last Thursday's lauunch was only noted by Spector as to how it was not reported at all. Versus considerbale talk and reporting in the aftermath of the government's announcement or the extension, and the revelation that the Liberals were not merely complicit by positioning, etc.
Wed, 2010-12-01 09:22
#49
So the House vote on the Bloc motion came and went. there was the blog by Spector last Thursday mentioned above, which called attention to some good content in the deate, but equally to the fact that it was not being reported in the media at all.
Since then, nothing I have seen or heard except a couple buried 'inside baseball' stories solely about the partisan dimensions of the vote.
And not just that vote. The issue has right now at least plain fallen off the radar.
Not good.
Wed, 2010-12-01 13:02
#50
Whether anything is showing up in the MSM is not the be all and end all.
But if we are not hearing of stirrings from any other sources, and nothing shows up in the MSM even during debate in the House....
Wed, 2010-12-01 13:30
#51
It wasn't news to the gallery because the Liberals didn't split. It's been put to me since then, though, that the wording of the Bloc motion gave the Libs a way out of it, since the motion was about the process of committing with or without a parliamentary vote. Still not really voted on is the new mission itself.