Things the US Congress debates that are too left wing for Canadian discourse.

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture
Things the US Congress debates that are too left wing for Canadian discourse.
Issues Pages: 
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

 

Quote:

H.CON.RES.51 
Latest Title: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Libya. 
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 5/23/2011)      Cosponsors (11) 
Related Bills: H.CON.RES.57H.RES.294 
Latest Major Action: 6/3/2011 Failed of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 148 - 265 (Roll no. 412)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:51:./list/bss/d112HC.lst::

Quote:

PLAN WITH TIMEFRAME FOR ACCELERATED TRANSITION OF U.S. FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress a plan with a timeframe and completion date for the accelerated transition of United States military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan (includ- ing operations involving military and security-related con- tractors).

(b) PLAN WITH TIMEFRAME FOR ACCELERATED TALKS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress a plan with a timeframe to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to a political settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan. Such negotiations will include the Government of Afghanistan, all interested parties within Afghanistan, and with the observance and support of representatives of donor nations active in Afghanistan.

http://www.rules.house.gov/amendments/jpm523111043254325.pdf

 

These votes did not pass however these were bi-partisan efforts to pull America out of its foreign adventures.  

Why is it too whacko for the NDP to call for pulling out of Libya when it was okay for 148 Congressional representative from both the Democratic and Republican parities can? It is not even seen as a left right issue in the States. People on all sides of the political spectrum have awoken to the fact that foreign wars are unaffordable.  Maybe the NDP can quote some of the tea baggers who voted with the left democrats if they don't want to be seen as too left wing.

It is time that Taliban Jack renewed his calls for immediate withdrawal from our occupation of Afghanistan and negotiations with all parties to end the fighting.  The American politicians form both the right and left can do that.  Why is it taboo in this country.  Aren't they the war mongers and we the peace makers? 

 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm not so sure I want to see Jack Layton and the NDP taking a Ron-Paul-type, right-wing libertarian approach to Canada's involvement in foreign wars - which is precisely what you are seeing taking place in the US House of Representatives with 148 Republicrats.

There's a big difference between "these foreign wars cost us too much money / kill too many of our brave troops" and "these foreign wars are a direct means of maintaining imperialist hegemony over foreign lands and perpetuating the oppression of their people," even though both lead to calls for troop withdrawal.

Layton already exhibits dangerous tendencies towards the former approach rather than the latter, because fundamentally he does not challenge the hegemonic agenda. For him, it's not so much that the goals of the wars in Libya and Afghanistan - the [i]real[/i] goals - are objectionable; it's just that we're not attaining those goals, despite the best efforts of our heroic boys and girls in uniform, and the war just costs too much money (the principal objection to the F-35 fighter purchase, for example) and the lives of too many of our heroes (lives of residents of the attacked nations don't figure in the balance sheet).

And I certainly don't call for Layton to advocate "negotiations with all parties to end the fighting". Canada has no right to negotiate anything over the future of Libya or Afghanistan, and it certainly has no right to tell the countries who are under attack that they must negotiate peace terms that are satisfactory to their foreign aggressors. Unconditional withdrawal of all foreign armed forces is the only principled demand.

Frmrsldr

There is a rich antiwar/anti-interventionist tradition among Tories and Whigs to Democrats and Republicans that goes back to the founding of America.

War is seen as a threat to liberty, democracy and to the existence of a republic. War takes away people's civil liberties. Corrupts democracy into a despotism: See the Patriot Act, warantless wiretapping, Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, GTMO and military court tribunals for those accused of having committed acts of terrorism, among other things. An Empire is in a constant state of war.

Antiwar/anti-interventionists believe that what goes on in Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya (or anywhere) is nobody's business but the Afghans, the Iraqis or Libyans (or whoever.)

The Founders did not want the republic to become an Empire, have a President who was an Imperial despot, have a permanent presence of a large standing army and to be in a constant state of war.

Here is a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Does Canada too have a rich tradition of antiwar/anti-intervention?

Did Canada's Founders have similar ideals that modern antiwar/anti-interventionists of both the right and left can be inspired by?

Other possible sources:

Quebeckers?

During the 1898-1902 Boer War, was there an Anti Imperialist League or other similar organizations?

During World War I, was there widespread opposition to Canadian involvement?

During January to August 1939 was there widespread opposition to Canadian involvement in another possible European conflict? By September, did Canada enter the war because you were attacked by Germany?

http://www.comehomeamerica.us/

voice of the damned

frmsldr:

I think it probably depends which wars we're talking about, and maybe even what is defined as a war.

You're right that there was never widespread opposition to participating in Britain's wars among English-Canadians. But quite a bit among French Canadians, as you know.

I know there was substantial opposition to the War Of 1812 in the US. I've never really heard much about anyone opposing the conquest of Indian territory(and attendant massacres), however. Well, except the conquered, obviously.

And of course the US Civil War was, well, pretty unparalled for the scale of carnage and destruction.

I will say for the Americans that there was far more opposition to the war in Vietnam than there ever was among Brits to the UK's vicious colonial endgames around the same time. Though of course America having a draft probably played a big role in that. The possibility of actually having to fight in a war kinda drives home the reality of it.

  

 

 

 

voice of the damned

Another thing that's interesting to note is that there was probably more public opposition to the Boer War in England than there ever was in English Canada. I know Lloyd George, the future Prime Minister, was a vocal opponent of it, and was other Liberals. I think this tied into "Little England" sentiment, which is basically the late Victorian equivalent of American isolationism.

Frmrsldr

voice of the damned wrote:

frmsldr:

I think it probably depends which wars we're talking about, and maybe even what is defined as a war.

... I've never really heard much about anyone opposing the conquest of Indian territory(attendant massacres), however.

And of course the US Civil War was, well, pretty unparalled for the scale of carnage and destruction.

You are absolutely right.

Anti-interventionism is opposition to foreign wars and intervention.

Largely there wasn't much opposition to the "Indian Wars." However the Sand Creek Massacre crossed the line of all decency to the point that there was an official Congressional Investigation into it.

The U.S. Civil War was seen by many good people as a necessary evil to end the evil of slavery. However there were the "Copperheads" and other groups that opposed the war. Starting in 1863 and to the end of the Civil War, there were massive riots in major Northern cities against the war.

As the new Republican party was Lincoln's party, it was mainly a few Northern Democrats who opposed the war.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Just because google only highlights US history unless you dig does not mean it is the only country with history.  Many thing remain the same in Canada including a remarkably similar view of the British and imperial war.  I will place a wreath on Ginger's grave again this year because some of us refuse to forget Canada's long and proud history of fighting for peace and workers rights.

[quote]

The memory of the Great War for Canadians, at least those born since 1945, has been irrevocably shaded by popular conceptions of the Second World War. World War II has become, through films like The Great Escape and Saving Private Ryan , and through annual Remembrance Day events, a war of justice, which saved the world from a scourge that threatened the very foundations of democratic society. Perhaps because it featured largely the same collection of European combatants, or perhaps because it shares the majority of its name with the Second World War, the First World War is often addressed in popular circles today as a sort of prequel to WWII. When Canada's involvement in the war began, however, with reports of a German invasion of Belgium, the popular perception of the war was far more complex. Probably the majority of Canadians supported what they took to be a righteous war of defense on behalf of the British Empire against German aggressors.

Some, though, recognized it for what it was, a war between a would-be colonial power in Germany and an established Empire in the Commonwealth. These opponents of the war, many of whom resided in Vancouver throughout its duration, immediately joined their voices to an international tide of protest in demanding an end to the conflict. The anti-war movement in Vancouver in 1914 was small, but diverse. It featured prominently the Socialist Party of Canada (SPC) and its voice, the Western Clarion. Also involved at the time was the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council, along with its parent organization, the fledgling BC Federation of Labour. All three of these organizations, to some extent, argued against the war on the basis of international class solidarity. As one critic, who bore membership cards for all of them, put it, the thieves of Europe, arriving at that point in the history of their development where it became almost impossible for them to carry on trade without trouble, had thrown off the mask, and had launched into bloody conflict thousands of working men, --in order that their respective property holdings, especially in the East, should not be further imperilled (sic).1

This sort of perspective emphasized the role that capitalism played in bringing about the war in Europe. A second strand of protest in Canada applied less analysis to the issue, but appealed instead to a more moralistic, often a very Christian-Progressive, sort of perspective. This was the pacifist resistance, perhaps most famously represented by J. S. Woodsworth, sometime Methodist Preacher, longshore worker during the war, founder of the CCF, and avowed pacifist. He refused to serve in the war, judging it immoral, and joined more notable (at the time) Canadian voices like that of suffragette Nellie McClung in protesting against it on the basis of pacifism.

In Vancouver, these disparate groups united around the issue of conscription. While there was little sympathy for those opposed to the war in the first two years, as the war dragged on interest in fighting decreased rapidly. By 1916, enlistment had slowed to a trickle, both in Canada and in other allied countries. Robert Borden, Prime Minister at the time, indulged a strong anti-Quebecois streak, and declared his continued support for the British Empire's struggles, when he instituted the Compulsory Military Service Act in 1917. The act began the process of conscripting young men who, to that point, had refused to volunteer. The dawning of the act was met in BC with a considerable surge in anti-war rhetoric, and a unification of sorts for the anti-war movement under the banner of the SPC. When some other major left wing organizations were made illegal in the fall of 1917, the SPC became the only widely available voice of protest against the war, especially as the labour movement had largely swallowed its earlier complaints. Under the SPC banner people like Ginger Goodwin and Helena Gutteridge ran for office on an openly anti-conscription platform. When Goodwin himself was conscripted in 1918, the SPC led the BC Left in denouncing the government's tyranny. When he was killed, they joined the reinvigorated BC Federation of Labour in calling for a one-day general strike to protest his murder, and to demand a rapid end to the war and fair treaty conditions for Germany.

[/quote[

http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/27_war.html

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

The tea baggers are right that foreign wars are harmful to their democracy.  It is about the only thing I agree with them on. I was pointing out that in the US opposing war can be a bi-partisan motion,

It seems the Canadian political class is so far up America's ass they, like the Canadian elite in WWI, are more gung ho than people in the imperial homeland.  Being for peace is not a left versus right issue.  Lets not forget the lessons of history.  Borden won a majority in 1917 and in 1921 Canada got its first minority government under the Liberals.  Opposing imperial wars is a good long term electoral strategy for the NDP.  Getting in line to explain how NATO has to become the new world government will destroy the NDP federally after two more elections.  If they go into the next election as a imperial toady party they will lose many seats and then in the election after they will find the dustheap of history.

But I am sure their are MP's who don't buy into Dewar's view that we have a moral responsibility to save lesser people from themselves. I hope over the next short while we see a peace caucus arise amongst the NDP MP's.  If they all spew the war is good for Libyan's and maybe Syrians bullshit then I think they will lose a lot of votes.  I don't know but I suspect that many Quebec seats will be lost over just this one issue if the Ottawa brain trust fucks it up.

George Victor

And I'm afraid that to protect jobs in Quebec - and the rest of Canada - New Democrats will have to mention the foreign concept  (foreign hereabouts) 'economics', from time to time .  It's going to invoke all sorts of invective. Quite a few folks fortunate enough to have jobs will even be evaluating their chance for fun in the weak, northern sun upon retirement at 70 as a result of certain economic imperatives. 

Doug Woodard

Frmrsldr wrote:
The Founders did not want the republic to become an Empire, have a President who was an Imperial despot, have a permanent presence of a large standing army and to be in a constant state of war. Here is a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Not to mention James Madison: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

Doug Woodard, St. Catharines, Ontario

Doug Woodard

voice of the damned wrote:

Another thing that's interesting to note is that there was probably more public opposition to the Boer War in England than there ever was in English Canada. I know Lloyd George, the future Prime Minister, was a vocal opponent of it, and was other Liberals. 

Not only Lloyd George. Winston Churchill remarked: "If I were a Boer fighting in the field - and if I were a Boer I hope I should be fighting in the field..." to the outrage of the more enthusiastically pro-war people.

Doug Woodard, St. Catharines, Ontario

Frmrsldr

Northern Shoveler wrote:

The tea baggers are right that foreign wars are harmful to their democracy.  It is about the only thing I agree with them on. I was pointing out that in the US opposing war can be a bi-partisan motion,
It seems the Canadian political class is so far up America's ass they, like the Canadian elite in WWI, are more gung ho than people in the imperial homeland. Being for peace is not a left versus right issue.

You are absolutely right.

Check out John V. Walsh's article "The Book Has Been Written on the Right/Left Antiwar Alliance" at
http://www.comehomeamerica.us/
You might find it interesting.