Elizabeth May has said no. What about Jack? Some of his new Quebec MPs won't agree with another Yes. Its on Tuesday. Any predictions ?
Will the NDP support extending Canada's bombing of Libya ?
Sat, 2011-06-11 10:29
#1
Will the NDP support extending Canada's bombing of Libya ?
Sat, 2011-06-11 10:33
#2
The NDP will probably support it. That's shameful. Gadhafi's peace soldiers are defending their homelands from NATO agressors and western-backed agitators.
Sat, 2011-06-11 10:46
#3
Latest I've seen is that the caucus hasn't decided yet. If that's accurate, it shows a discouraging lack of consensus for an unequivocal No. (I expect Dewar is leading the "Yes, but" side.) Though on the other hand, I suppose I'm also heartened by evidence of caucus debate, rather than a top-down order as to how it's going to be. I hope the voices from Quebec are heard loud and clear on this.
I think it will be a No. But this is a very important test, at least in my estimation, and at least for maintaining my level of enthusiasm for the Official Opposition.
Sat, 2011-06-11 10:50
#4
Why wouldn't the NDP support it? They already supported it when it was underway, in a unanimous House vote. How would they explain a change of course now?
I'm very pessimistic. If they vote "yes", it will be the start of crushing the spirit of the new young MPs.
I'm saying this because I don't want to jinx the chances of things going right. 
Trying to fool fate.
Sat, 2011-06-11 11:48
#5
Well, perhaps I was being [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-politicians-prepar... optimistic[/url]:
The NDP says it hasn’t decided on its vote. It clearly wants to offer support, but also wants concessions, including a statement that Canada will step up humanitarian and diplomatic efforts and aid Libya after the conflict ends, foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said. Although the government is talking about regime change they oppose, he said what matters is that the resolution's language backs the limited mission of protecting civilians.
I suppose reappointing Dewar to foreign affairs was a strong signal a Yes could be expected. But dammit, if it is Yes, what a dispiriting signal to send.
Sat, 2011-06-11 12:15
#6
Glenn Greenwald's latest column shows the smoking gun for the Libya war. It seems diplomatic cables released by wikileaks show that Gaddafi had been giving the big oil companies such a hard time over the last few years that some were even considering pulling out of Libya. Of course, that won't be necessary, now that the Empire's military might is being used to replace Gaddafi with someone more "friendly to the West". http://salon.com/a/sszkfAA This should make it easier for the NDP to do the right thing and oppose this aggressive war.
Sat, 2011-06-11 13:53
#7
Northern Shoveler
I think the fix is in and the tell was Dewar's appointment. I hope with every fibre of my being that I am wrong. This is a litmus test that must be passed or they will never be able to speak again on any foreign relations matters. I am also worried about the "humanitarian" aid ideal. Does that mean that the NDP can be expected to push for more tied aid projects that help Canadian businesses and screw local economies?
I think the NDP should demand that a proportional share of the oil be sent to our refineries. We need the oil to keep our refineries going full tilt bogey. There are a lot of union jobs at stake in refining and we are spending money so we should get a cut of the spoils. If all our parties are down with this imperial project then Canadians need to demand their share.
US officials said meanwhile that a Liberian-flagged tanker was scheduled to arrive Wednesday at Barbers Point, Hawaii, with 1.2 million barrels of Libyan crude sold by the NTC, apparently the first such oil delivery by the opposition.
It was not immediately clear how much the NTC would earn from the sale.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gLZMG6uPkMxSS3vrI0_Ba...
Sun, 2011-06-12 00:10
#8
It should be obvious to all that doing the right thing demands that the NDP vote against the extension of this NATO gangster-grab Libya operation under the command of Canucklhead General Charles 'the Butcher' Bouchard. To vote FOR is to loudly and clearly announce that ndp really does stand for no difference party.
Sun, 2011-06-12 00:29
#9
laine lowe
I'm not holding my breath. Layton and Dewar suck on foreign policy. They are the equivalent of what Ignatieff and Cotler were to the Liberal Party.
Sun, 2011-06-12 00:39
#10
It should be obvious to all that doing the right thing demands that the NDP vote against the extension of this NATO gangster-grab Libya operation under the command of Canucklhead General Charles 'the Butcher' Bouchard. To vote FOR is to loudly and clearly announce that ndp really does stand for no difference party.
The difference between the NDP and the Liberals, Tories same old stories is about 140 year's worth of record in federal government.
It would take 14 decades in a row of federal NDP government for us to even be able to make an honest, issue-by-issue comparison with the two dirty old line parties.
Sun, 2011-06-12 00:41
#11
laine lowe
Sorry, but so far Layton and Dewar are not differentiating themselves much from the Conservatives/Tories/Liberals.
Sun, 2011-06-12 01:21
#12
NATO's Terror Bombing Of Libya - by Bill Van Auken
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_63175.shtml
"...The relentless bombardment of Tripoli over the past 48 hours represents a new stage in one of the most naked acts of imperialist aggression since the wars of conquest launched by Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s. In an earlier period, such air attacks were described as 'terror bombings' - with the aim of annihilating the targeted country's armed forces, destroying its state and breaking the morale of all those opposed to the foreign occupation.
In North Africa, similar campaigns of aggression and terror were waged by Mussolini's fascist regime against Ethiopia and - then, as now - Libya. There is little to distinguish these earlier acts of aggression - for which leaders of the third Reich were prosecuted at Nuremberg - from the present UN-NATO war. In both their aims and methods, they are largely similar.
The real aim of this war, like those waged in the 1930, is imperialist conquest. The US, Britain, France and Italy [and Canada!] are all openly pursuing 'regime change' in Libya seeking to topple the existing government of Muammar Gaddafi and impose a new client state that will work as the puppet of the major powers and the Western energy conglomerates...
They have likewise jettisoned the essential contents of the UN's founding charter, which outlawed wars of aggression. Those responsible for these acts are guilty of warcrimes.."
Should the NDP vote to extend, there should be no confusion as to the serious crimes being extended. Either they vote against or they vote for, in effect, their own indictments and inclusion as criminal accomplices to this outrageous imperialism. If ever there was a time to stand up for principle and vote NO this is one of those times. We will see what they do.
Sun, 2011-06-12 01:41
#13
N.Beltov
Bombing Libya and taking over that country's oil industry is also a blow against China as that country depends heavily on Libyan oil. China is an economic rival of the NATO countries and if there is one thing - other than war itself - that is inevitable under late capitalism, it's rivalry among the big powers over economic dominance.
Sun, 2011-06-12 06:19
#14
Sorry, but so far Layton and Dewar are not differentiating themselves much from the Conservatives/Tories/Liberals.
It's almost as if the NDP are trying to appeal to some phony-baloney majority of Canadians doing the actual voting on worst-past-the-post election day once every four years. I guess our obsolete electoral system invented before electricity kinda forces them to pursue votes where they can be had.
Sun, 2011-06-12 11:37
#15
Northern Shoveler
Sorry, but so far Layton and Dewar are not differentiating themselves much from the Conservatives/Tories/Liberals.
It's almost as if the NDP are trying to appeal to some phony-baloney majority of Canadians doing the actual voting on worst-past-the-post election day once every four years. I guess our obsolete electoral system invented before electricity kinda forces them to pursue votes where they can be had.
Great explanation on why the NDP is selling out its principles. Thanks for the clarity, well said.
Sun, 2011-06-12 13:07
#16
I think the fix is in and the tell was Dewar's appointment. I hope with every fibre of my being that I am wrong.
It was not immediately clear how much the NTC would earn from the sale.
Actually, I was told that Dewar was one of the most outspoken "pacifists" in the NDP caucus and was always against any involvement in the war in Afghanistan even when his predecessor as foreign affairs critic Alexa MacDonough was still a bit wishy-washy. In the end the caucus will decide on what to do about Libya, but I don't read much into him being the foreign affairs critic. If he wasn't in that role, it would probably be Jack Harris or Pat Martin - would that make you any more "optimistic"? I wonder who you would like to see as foreign affairs critic who has experience in parliament and expertise on the topic. Hopefully once she gets more experienced, someone like Helene Laverdiere would be a good fit. She was a career foreign service officer who quit to run for the NDP because she didn't like the direction Canadian foreign policy was taking under Harper and she did us all a favour by eliminating Gilles Duceppe in Laurier-Ste. Marie.
Sun, 2011-06-12 13:19
#17
M. Spector
Actually, I was told that Dewar was one of the most outspoken "pacifists" in the NDP caucus and was always against any involvement in the war in Afghanistan even when his predecessor as foreign affairs critic Alexa MacDonough was still a bit wishy-washy. In the end the caucus will decide on what to do about Libya, but I don't read much into him being the foreign affairs critic. If he wasn't in that role, it would probably be Jack Harris or Pat Martin - would that make you any more "optimistic"? I wonder who you would like to see as foreign affairs critic who has experience in parliament and expertise on the topic. Hopefully once she gets more experienced, someone like Helene Laverdiere would be a good fit.
Thanks for the perspective, Stockholm. When Paul Dewar is the best the party can come up with, they're in pretty big trouble.
Sun, 2011-06-12 13:41
#18
From [url=http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110612/canada-libya-mission-debat...
Baird's "loose talk" on the mission did little to convince NDP defence critic Jack Harris, as he explained that his party initially supported UN resolution 1973 and its mandate to establish a no-fly zone over the restive North African nation.
With air control long since established, however, Harris questions what comes next.
"No one is in love with Mr. Gadhafi and at the end of the day when this ceasefire is achieved and we have to have a new situation in Libya there's going to be significant change," he said.
"But it's not from our point of view to have a mission designed to effect regime change by force. That's totally inconsistent in our view with (resolution) 1973 and we want to be sure that Canada's not signing on to that."
Liberal MP John McKay agreed, going a step farther in his criticism.
"It's not at all clear to me what Mr. Baird or Mr. Harper have in mind with respect to where do we go from here," he said. "We have a collection of jihadists and thugs that appear to have achieved some level of control in various parts of the country, but that doesn't seem to be a very appetizing alternative to the current form of government."
It will be a disgrace if the Liberals outflank the NDP on Libya. But with the party's foreign policy in such timorous straights, I'd say it's just possible.
Sun, 2011-06-12 13:45
#19
Great explanation on why the NDP is selling out its principles. Thanks for the clarity, well said.
"Well said" - perhaps. Oft-repeated - doubtless.
Sun, 2011-06-12 14:51
#20
Sorry, but so far Layton and Dewar are not differentiating themselves much from the Conservatives/Tories/Liberals.
It's almost as if the NDP are trying to appeal to some phony-baloney majority of Canadians doing the actual voting on worst-past-the-post election day once every four years. I guess our obsolete electoral system invented before electricity kinda forces them to pursue votes where they can be had.
Great explanation on why the NDP is selling out its principles. Thanks for the clarity, well said.
How many confidence votes in a row did the Liberals gift wrap for the Harpers?
There used to be 220 Harper MPs in Ottawa. They are down to 201 now.
Sun, 2011-06-12 15:11
#21
NDPPFrom [url=http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110612/canada-libya-mission-debat...
Baird's "loose talk" on the mission did little to convince NDP defence critic Jack Harris, as he explained that his party initially supported UN resolution 1973 and its mandate to establish a no-fly zone over the restive North African nation.
With air control long since established, however, Harris questions what comes next.
"No one is in love with Mr. Gadhafi and at the end of the day when this ceasefire is achieved and we have to have a new situation in Libya there's going to be significant change," he said.
"But it's not from our point of view to have a mission designed to effect regime change by force. That's totally inconsistent in our view with (resolution) 1973 and we want to be sure that Canada's not signing on to that."
Liberal MP John McKay agreed, going a step farther in his criticism.
"It's not at all clear to me what Mr. Baird or Mr. Harper have in mind with respect to where do we go from here," he said. "We have a collection of jihadists and thugs that appear to have achieved some level of control in various parts of the country, but that doesn't seem to be a very appetizing alternative to the current form of government."
It will be a disgrace if the Liberals outflank the NDP on Libya. But with the party's foreign policy in such timorous straights, I'd say it's just possible.
Liberal MP John McKay's remarks are the closest to approaching reality so far...
Sun, 2011-06-12 15:24
#22
The LIBERALS? lol! I think they handed the Harpers something like 80 coincidence votes in a row. Or something.
And now they are third.
Sun, 2011-06-12 15:44
#23
Northern Shoveler
I would go with an MP from southern BC. He seems to have a handle on the foreign affairs file.
Of course there is always Libby or even Don Davies would bring a clearer perspective.
If the NDP is not going to use their new pulpit to change the discourse on issues then what was the point? Lots of coverage, lots of time to educate the public and start to get a focus on the real world of global politics. Apparently there is never a good time to take on the neo conservative global agenda.
Sun, 2011-06-12 16:13
#24
Well the reason the Liberals are out is because they were indistinguishable from the Tories who are, in turn, indistinguishable from Warshington on Warshington's foreign policies. As in all of them.
What people in this forum are really saying is that they loathe our worst-past-the-post electoral system and what some large minority of Canadian voters think foreign policies should be. And unlike the former second party in lapdog service to our current vicious toadies to US power, the NDP does have a number of excellent fixes for our dysfunctional electoral and Parliamentary systems.
Sun, 2011-06-12 16:27
#25
That fact is John McKay's remarks are the best I've seen so far on this NOT the NDP's.
Sun, 2011-06-12 16:34
#26
Ah yes, the Liberal Party.
Sun, 2011-06-12 16:48
#27
It's you who still believe in all this bourgeois parliamentary nonsense, the merits and demerits of various hustlers and the importance of voting for coke over pepsi cola, not I. I'm merely pointing out the obvious, that the remarks of John McKay are the best on Libya I've seen out of that pestilential Ottawa dungheap. NOT those of the no difference party.
Sun, 2011-06-12 16:53
#28
I can remember when the NDP were grilling Martin and Manley as to why they suddenly decided to move Canadian troops from Kabul to Kandahar by 2005. They did more humina humina humina'ing than Ralph Kramden under a hot lamp with Alice interrogating him. Too funny. Warshington's foreign policy has always-always bin Lib-Tory foreign policy the same.
Sun, 2011-06-12 17:05
#29
If the NDP is not going to use their new pulpit to change the discourse on issues then what was the point? Lots of coverage, lots of time to educate the public and start to get a focus on the real world of global politics. Apparently there is never a good time to take on the neo conservative global agenda.
The "public" doesn't even need to be "educated" on the Libya question because there is already a large proportion of the public that is naturally uneasy about military aggression in any circumstances. You'd think a party would speak to that constituency, if for no other reason than to give that section of the public a voice.
Mind you, the response of the left in general on Libya is disheartening, as even the Greens in Australia have apparently signed on. Are there any parties anywhere in the world opposed to this mission?
Sun, 2011-06-12 17:06
#30
clearly the choir has been expanded and these new, no difference parts and voices now sing from the same songbook
Sun, 2011-06-12 17:14
#31
Fidel
There was an article last week from either the Globe or the Post talking about how the move from Kabul to Kandahar was decide by Foreign Affairs and not the military. I will try and link the article when I find it again.
Edit: Sorry, it was a CBC article. Here is the link.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/08/f-vp-stewart.html
I wonder if this applies to Libya.
Sun, 2011-06-12 17:51
#32
Our military decides nothing. They are full of yes-men the same as Liberal and ReformaTory parties alike.
At the same time, our close allies in the U.S. military certainly were hearing reports from the field that the Taliban were "playing possum" in 2005, waiting quietly for those early American forces to leave Kandahar so they could take on a weaker NATO partner.The Americans may well have known of this ruse on the part of the Taliban and chosen to leave us with the false impression of a safer Kandahar so they could pull their troops out faster and send them to Iraq.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.
Our soldiers and top military officers are just errand boys sent by grocery clerks(our corrupt stooges in government) to collect a bill(for Uncle Sam).
Sun, 2011-06-12 17:58
#33
If the NDP is not going to use their new pulpit to change the discourse on issues then what was the point? Lots of coverage, lots of time to educate the public and start to get a focus on the real world of global politics. Apparently there is never a good time to take on the neo conservative global agenda.
Spot on.
You know, the biggest cheer May 2nd in Layton's speech was for his acknowledgement that the night was 50 years in the making, and the party stood on the shoulders of the many thousands who didn't live to see it. And I sincerely hope Jack thinks long about that legacy, and his responsibility to it, before deciding whether to make the same mistake worse.
Sun, 2011-06-12 18:02
#34
Fidel
It appears the NDP now falls under the job category of "errand boys" also.
Sun, 2011-06-12 18:19
#35
Fidel
It appears the NDP now falls under the job category of "errand boys" also.
The left is actually split when it comes to Qadaffi and Libya. The NDP are actually in-line with The Socialist International on Libya. Qadaffi's quasi-socialist rhetoric has convinced some of us that he is genuine. Even Chavez and Fidel have teetered on Qadaffi at various times, but they also know that the gladio gang do not have democracy in mind for Libya. And the victims of his torture chambers and other obviously anti-socialist policies are protesting for democratization of the country. They are in addition to the western-backed al-Qaeda in Libya who may or may not be receiving aid and weapons from the CIA and Brits, Egypt etc. I think they probably will be.
And what we have in this thread is a lot of anti-NDP rhetoric as usual. It's okay by me though. This is an incident which our vicious toadies in government have embroiled us in as usual and on the exact same side as Warshington as per usual. The NDP will be playing this one tight to their chests and demand transparency and accountability from the toadies as always. But the toadies won't want to abide by such democratic policies as usual, and I think the NDP can make them look bad for it as much as possible.
The alternatives now relegated to third place would have basically been rubberstamps of approval for the ReformaTories on everything from Afghanistan to toadying on Libya. The NDP will do a much better job of opposing overall.
Sun, 2011-06-12 18:29
#36
I am sure the NDP will be just as supportive as the Liberals were to the Conservatives.
Sun, 2011-06-12 19:02
#37
dacckon
Just because Chavez and Gaddafi have reduced poverty and improved economic conditions doesn't mean that we should believe them on their foreign policies. I mean cmon on, here's some quotes from the wise Gaddafi...
"Their ages are 17. They give them pills at night, they put hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafe." (lol)
"People in front of tanks were crushed. The unity of China was more important than those people on Tiananmen Square. When Tiananmen Square happened, tanks were sent in to deal with them. It's not a joke. I will do whatever it takes to make sure part of the country isn't taken away."
“They have been brainwashing the kids in this area and telling them to misbehave. These are the one who are under Bin Laden’s influence and authority, under the influence of drugs.”
Sun, 2011-06-12 19:20
#38
I am sure the NDP will be just as supportive as the Liberals were to the Conservatives.
And we'll see you in those threads ta?
Sun, 2011-06-12 19:26
#39
It is okay Fidel, you were tricked like many NDP supporters. We were hoping for change, and it looks like we are not getting the change we had hoped for.
Sun, 2011-06-12 19:36
#40
Right. I have no real idea why the Socialist International and NDP are not supporting Qadaffi. Do you?
And what's the F-35 aye-aye uncle Sam Liberal Party's position on Afghanistan? Pardon who?
Sun, 2011-06-12 20:11
#41
Right. I have no real idea why the Socialist International and NDP are not supporting Qadaffi. Do you?
And what's the F-35 aye-aye uncle Sam Liberal Party's position on Afghanistan? Pardon who?
Fidel, you know perfectly well that most of us here who think the NDP should oppose the Libyan war of aggression being currently waged by the U.S. Empire and its "allies" do not support Gaddafi at all. The war is wrong not because Gaddafi is good, it is wrong because it is forbidden by the U.N. charter, and the Nuremburg principles. To start or participate in such a war is a war crime. Gaddafi is a horrible, cruel, destructive man, but those facts do not justify an aggressive war against Libya. I strongly suggest you listen to this interview from CBC radio one. It is with a 92 year old American man named Benjamin Ferencz who was a soldier in World War 2 and a prosecutor at Nuremburg. He reminds us what those principles are, and what they mean.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=1921021571
Excerpt:
I'm afraid most of the lessons of Nuremberg have passed, unfortunately. The world has accepted them, but the U.S. seems reluctant to do so. The principal lesson we learned from Nuremberg is that a war of aggression -- that means, a war in violation of international law, in violation of the UN charter, and not in self-defense -- is the supreme international crime, because all the other crimes happen in war. And every leader who is responsible for planning and perpetrating that crime should be held to account in a court of law, and the law applies equally to everyone.
These lessons were hailed throughout the world -- I hailed them, I was involved in them -- and it saddens me to no end when Americans are asked: why don't you support the Nuremberg principles on aggression? And the response is: Nuremberg? That was then, this is now. Forget it.
Sun, 2011-06-12 20:35
#42
Just because Chavez and Gaddafi have reduced poverty and improved economic conditions doesn't mean that we should believe them on their foreign policies. I mean cmon on, here's some quotes from the wise Gaddafi...
...
"People in front of tanks were crushed. The unity of China was more important than those people on Tiananmen Square. When Tiananmen Square happened, tanks were sent in to deal with them. It's not a joke. I will do whatever it takes to make sure part of the country isn't taken away."
Well, that is interesting, isn't it? how one agent of atrocity is a favoured trading partner, and the other is the latest Hitler. If that doesn't speak to the hypocritical hunt-and-peck method of global policing, I don't know what does.
Another thing: I was actually an early advocate of a no-fly zone and thought the world was dragging its feet. Then I was reminded what "no-fly" meant to NATO, and was surprised by my naivite. So I can understand and forgive the NDP their original support. But recommitting? I'll understand what that means, and I won't like it.
Sun, 2011-06-12 20:55
#43
dacckon
As Nato goes beyond their mandate, I'm sure Russia's anger will flair. And yes, the world favors removing Gaddafi while ignoring Bahrain. Yes, the world intervenes only when it is convenient and well in their interests. It has always been like this.
The UN mandate does allow member states to take all neccesary measures and the rebels are still begging for more support. I think eventually this conflict will simply lead to a peace deal of sorts that may split Libya into two. If this does occur, It'll be interesting to see whether or not the split reflects which side the populace favours or natural resources. meh
Mon, 2011-06-13 00:28
#44
NDPPOur military decides nothing. They are full of yes-men the same as Liberal and ReformaTory parties alike.
At the same time, our close allies in the U.S. military certainly were hearing reports from the field that the Taliban were "playing possum" in 2005, waiting quietly for those early American forces to leave Kandahar so they could take on a weaker NATO partner.The Americans may well have known of this ruse on the part of the Taliban and chosen to leave us with the false impression of a safer Kandahar so they could pull their troops out faster and send them to Iraq.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.Our soldiers and top military officers are just errand boys sent by grocery clerks(our corrupt stooges in government) to collect a bill(for Uncle Sam).
and along with NATO's Libya head Lt. Gen Charles 'the Butcher - bombs away' Bouchard, the new Army Chief, Peter Devlin is a perfect example of the new Canadian errand boy military leadership.
http://rabble.ca/comment/1188929
http://rabble.ca/comment/1137604
ps errand boy 'bombs away' Bouchard's latest fine mass murdering work saving the people of Libya from the evil dictator:
Deadly NATO Raid Hits Libya University
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/184425.html
'More Libyan civilians have reportedly been killed and injured after a NATO airstrike hit a university in the capital, Tripoli." (their education was free)
Mon, 2011-06-13 00:55
#45
Libyan Teen Tries to Take Own Life To Escape NATO Bombs (and vid)
http://rt.com/news/libyan-teen-suicide-attempt/
"The conflict in Libya has no end in sight, as NATO intensifies airstrikes and increases what it calls 'efforts to protect people'. It is those efforts that made a Libyan teenager choose death over life in a war-torn country.."
Mon, 2011-06-13 01:04
#46
I'm sure Libya will come up in a resolution next weekend.
Mon, 2011-06-13 01:13
#47
Northern Shoveler
Just because Chavez and Gaddafi have reduced poverty and improved economic conditions doesn't mean that we should believe them on their foreign policies. I mean cmon on, here's some quotes from the wise Gaddafi...
Why do you put a democratically elected socialist leader in the same sentence as a dictator with blood on his hands? Why the fuck should we believe Chavez any less than Obama or Harper or any of our other NATO war mongers.
Mon, 2011-06-13 01:39
#48
Breaking News: Photographic Evidence NATO Bombed Libya's Nasser University
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25221
'The NATO war against Libya is not a humanitarian endeavour. It is a blatant war of aggression and a violation of international law. Hospitals and universities have been bombed. Civilian infrastructure has been brutally destroyed. Recently, Tripoli's Nasser University was bombed. University staff were injured and killed. There is no justification for this. READERS ARE INFORMED IN ADVANCE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT FOLLOWS IS DISTURBING.."
Your tax dollars help pay Lt Gen Charles 'the Butcher' Bouchard to do this...
Mon, 2011-06-13 01:46
#49
laine lowe
I have no idea why Chavez was brought into the discussion. For sure he is further left than Layton and has stood against this NATO incursion. If anything, I'd say it's a welcomed change to see someone stand against the western powers and ask about international laws.
Mon, 2011-06-13 02:31
#50
I have no idea why Chavez was brought into the discussion. For sure he is further left than Layton and has stood against this NATO incursion. If anything, I'd say it's a welcomed change to see someone stand against the western powers and ask about international laws.
You'd have to ask Fidel why he brought up Chavez.
Keep in mind that Chavez is close to Ghadaffi, so he's not necessarily the best person to be mediating or otherwise involved in the process either.
Mon, 2011-06-13 02:45
#51
Empire Games: Who Writes The Rules? - by William Bowles
http://williambowles.info/2011/06/11/empire-games-but-who-writes-the-rul...
"The Western left's abdication, nay abandonment of principles that go to the heart of the socialist liberation project has been long in the making, centuries even and made all the more obvious by the left's take on events in Libya and now Syria...
Why is there no real opposition to the by now 'normal' actions of our governments, that bomb at will anywhere, all the time, with total impunity, using increasingly flimsy pretexts ('humanitarian intervention')?
Because they know that there will be no real opposition from the citizens.."
ESPECIALLY in Canada