Tom Mulcair came out totally unequivically against Canada being involved in any US led war in Iraq and said that an NDP government would bring troops home immediately.
The Liberals are still confused and trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing on thsi issue (as usual)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mulcair-on-iraq-we-think-it-s-wrong-for-c...
I don't know what "U.S. led war" means - are Canadian troops currently under U.S. command there? - but I do know that Mulcair said the NDP would be fine with a "NATO-led war", as they were in the case of Libya.
So I dearly wish the thread title were true. In the meantime, could some mod please edit it to make it accurate?
Mulcair is opposed to Canadian involvement in Iraq outside NATO or the UN. So if NATO wanted to jump into the swamp as it did in Libya, which the NDP under the sainted Jack Layton supported, that's okay with the NDP leader. Why? The only obligation Canada has to NATO is to act if a member nation is attacked. How would that apply in Iraq? It shouldn't have in Libya's case, where the NDP joined in the destruction of the country. Still, it's a start. Now when will the NDP leader urge the PM to reopen our embassy in Tehran?
Everything cassius just said.
The involvement being discussed in Iraq is a US led one. Mulcair says he is against it. I think he should get credit for opposing this particular engagfement. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for people who want him to rule every conceivable hypthetical conflict that could occur in the world over the next 100 years.
If the NDP wins in October - troopps come home. If the Conservatives or liberals win, we will end up in another war that will cost tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. The choice is clear.
The involvement being discussed in Iraq is a US led one. Mulcair says he is against it. I think he should get credit for opposing this particular engagfement. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for people who want him to rule every conceivable hypthetical conflict that could occur in the world over the next 100 years.
If the NDP wins in October - troopps come home. If the Conservatives or liberals win, we will end up in another war that will cost tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. The choice is clear.
You summed up it up perfectly.
If the NDP wins in October - troopps come home. If the Conservatives or liberals win, we will end up in another war that will cost tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. The choice is clear.
I love your optimism.
Mulcair is opposed to Canadian involvement in Iraq outside NATO or the UN. So if NATO wanted to jump into the swamp as it did in Libya, which the NDP under the sainted Jack Layton supported, that's okay with the NDP leader. Why? The only obligation Canada has to NATO is to act if a member nation is attacked. How would that apply in Iraq? It shouldn't have in Libya's case, where the NDP joined in the destruction of the country. Still, it's a start. Now when will the NDP leader urge the PM to reopen our embassy in Tehran?
What does opening an emabssy in Tehran have to do with this thread? Its amazing how things get twisted and bent almost out of shape to justify another attack on Mulcair. Seriously, these attacks are becoming seriously boring.
As to Canadian involvement in conflict, as a retired 20 year plus Vet, with real experience in this, Mulcair's postion is far from perfect, but I'm perfectly willing to give him credit for having a better position on this then either of the dweedle-dum-tweedle-dee clowns leading the old line parties. Trudeau is just as willing to go Ready, Aye, Ready as Harper. He is in no way appreciably different from Harper. To attack Mulcair like what has been occurring in this thread is absurd, and transparent, partisan, smearing, as far as I am concerned.
You want war, fine, lets have a draft, and everyone goes, inlcuding prince pretty hair.
The involvement being discussed in Iraq is a US led one. Mulcair says he is against it. I think he should get credit for opposing this particular engagfement.
He does get credit for opposing this particular engagement.
I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for people who want him to rule every conceivable hypthetical conflict that could occur in the world over the next 100 years.
I listen to Mulcair. You don't. He's the one who raised the hypothetical U.N. or NATO led intervention. Why did he do that? Why couldn't he just say he's opposed to the only particular engagement that exists - just as you said?
I can only see one reason why he raised those conceivable hypothetical conflicts. Let me know if you have a difficult time coming up with the correct answer. I'll give you just one hint, again:
Libya.
The involvement being discussed in Iraq is a US led one. Mulcair says he is against it. I think he should get credit for opposing this particular engagfement.
He does get credit for opposing this particular engagement.
I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for people who want him to rule every conceivable hypthetical conflict that could occur in the world over the next 100 years.I listen to Mulcair. You don't. He's the one who raised the hypothetical U.N. or NATO led intervention. Why did he do that? Why couldn't he just say he's opposed to the only particular engagement that exists - just as you said?
I can only see one reason why he raised those conceivable hypothetical conflicts. Let me know if you have a difficult time coming up with the correct answer. I'll give you just one hint, again:
Libya.
The involvement being discussed in Iraq is a US led one. Mulcair says he is against it. I think he should get credit for opposing this particular engagfement.
He does get credit for opposing this particular engagement.
I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for people who want him to rule every conceivable hypthetical conflict that could occur in the world over the next 100 years.I listen to Mulcair. You don't. He's the one who raised the hypothetical U.N. or NATO led intervention. Why did he do that? Why couldn't he just say he's opposed to the only particular engagement that exists - just as you said?
I can only see one reason why he raised those conceivable hypothetical conflicts. Let me know if you have a difficult time coming up with the correct answer. I'll give you just one hint, again:
Libya.
Snarky as always, why can't you put a fucking sock in it for once. Mulcair did the right thing, but you still manage to come in and say he is a piece of shit. YOUR WELCOME
+1,000,000 Its not enough for Unionist to get his way, you need idealogical purity as well.
I listen to Mulcair. You don't. He's the one who raised the hypothetical U.N. or NATO led intervention. Why did he do that? Why couldn't he just say he's opposed to the only particular engagement that exists - just as you said?
I can only see one reason why he raised those conceivable hypothetical conflicts. Let me know if you have a difficult time coming up with the correct answer. I'll give you just one hint, again:
Libya.
You may well be right. I could see another reason though.
It could be a political calculation. By opposing this engagement, Mulcair risks being seen as "soft on terror". By mentioning that he may judge a NATO or UN mission differently, he could be defending himself against the "soft on terror" charge. I think a UN-led military excursion should be judged differently than one that is NATO-led, but as the NDP is no longer against our membership in NATO they end up being the same from Mulcair's perspective.
Like you, I would prefer that Mulcair would be willing to call out the war of terror as a big sham. It's too bad that the NDP seems to be so worried about being seen as "soft on terror", but that seems to be the status quo at this point. I'm happy that Mulcair is willing to say that troops come home from Iraq if the NDP becomes the government. If he feels he needs to comment on other hypotheticals in order to make that position more defensible in our right wing media sphere, I can understand it.
Or you could be right about Libya, I don't know.
Snarky as always, why can't you put a fucking sock in it for once. Mulcair did the right thing, but you still manage to come in and say he is a piece of shit. YOUR WELCOME
+1,000,000 Its not enough for Unionist to get his way, you need idealogical purity as well.
Weak posts.
Actually Mulcair is strengthening his position on safe ground by saying that since we are members of an alliance and a global organization, categorically we should never be involved in a military action outside our borders that does not come from these.
That said, he did not say he would automatically agree to every mission that came from them. Those should be considered individually.
What I hear him saying is that the minimum criteria for consideration of any mission is that it be led by our defence alliance or the UN.
I agree with this position. While I may oppose most NATO missions, I do agree that as a member of NATO we are obliged to at least consider them at least as long as we are in NATO. There is no justification to go along with any mission not sanctioned by either. This point Mulcair is making is a line where many foreign adventures do not have to be addressed individually-- they are automatically excluded.
As far as NATO is concerned, Canada could withdraw from NATO and require UN sanction for any mission -- this is reasonable but we cannot take that position categorically unless we have already withdrawn from NATO. For now we can take NATO missions one by one and reject anything that is neither NATO or UN.
I did not support the Libya mission but I do agree with the basic premise for consideration that Mulcair is laying out. In fact it is the only coherent position available.
I'm surprised Unionist didn't condemn Mulcair for the fact that in a statement saying the NDP would bring home any troops from Iraq, he failed to also express his commitment to the Kyoto Accord!
I'm surprised Unionist didn't condemn Mulcair for the fact that in a statement saying the NDP would bring home any troops from Iraq, he failed to also express his commitment to the Kyoto Accord!
not mention he didn't even say that he'd put those troops he brings back into manning new daycare spaces, what about the children Mulcair, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?! :-)
Snarky as always, why can't you put a fucking sock in it for once. Mulcair did the right thing, but you still manage to come in and say he is a piece of shit. YOUR WELCOME
+1,000,000 Its not enough for Unionist to get his way, you need idealogical purity as well.
Weak posts.
WOW What added content you just provided. My post wasn't weak because Unionist isn't about discussion it is NDP bashing non stop, even when the proper thing is done he manages to turn it into a True Scotsman scenario. And someone agreeing with that clearly make it a weak post eh. I get tired of his constant "true lefty" trolling, and if you don't know what it is go look it up.
You do know the NDP has to seem electable to form a government right? If he said we will never be in any militay action that even to me who was very much against Libya, Syria, Haiti, and Egypt(overt and covert war support) would have a hard time taking that as a real statement. Might as well be the Doug Henning Yogic Flyers while we are at it.
OH yeah Mulaciar also forgot to mention Nationalizing cell phones, cables, electricity, steel and oil too!
I responded to Unionist's post in a substantive way. You are a caricature of a cheerleader, ajaykumar for the NDP.
No I am often critical of the NDP, but if your sole purpose is to come in and just bash them without giving them credit when its due then you are a nihilist or a troll. Go check my posts if you think I don't have thoughtful posts, but this place is awful at time because the True Lefty types or the Liberals that just come in to run down the NDP warranted or not. AT least Slumberjack will say if it is a good policy without pointing to stuff they haven't accomplished as a reason to not like what they did good.
That was a low blow Wage Zombie, the criticism against Unionist is valid and has nothing to do with being an NDP supporter, I've been critical of NDP positions at times myself, such as on genetic GMOs. And "True Lefty" snobbery is not unique to unionist, Slumberjack and NNDP are also servely guilty of this as is Walkom at the Star.
Don't lump me in with Unionist. He can be downright reasonable toward the NDP at times. We'll soon get a chance to see Mulcair spring into inaction once again with the Invasion of Syria vote that will come soon enough. Some of you liberals should really prepare Trudeau for that by letting him know what is going on.
So, while I may have some differences with the way wage zombie and Sean in Ottawa have set out their view, I appreciate the thoughtful apporach, and at least they will both agree that the thread title here - "Mulcair rejects any Canadian military role in Iraq" - might be a bit misleading.
It would be quite tragic if NATO, in the days to come, blesses some form of military operation there, as is very much possible given the discussions taking place right now. It will be small consolation to watch the cheerleaders jump, contort, and somersault to explain away that which they are incapable of thinking through on their own.
That is called "innoculation" on an issue: taking a position, but 'innoculating' yourself where possible against the downsides.
Inooculation can even extend to protecting you standing with voters who see you favourably, but you know disagree with a stand you will take. A sort of sugar coating for them that softens the blow....ote so that it does not become so decisive an issue for them that it leads to abandoning you.
but this place is awful at time because the True Lefty types or the Liberals that just come in to run down the NDP warranted or not.
I don't know about 'true', but lefty types and liberals would have different reasons entirely to criticize the NDP, as you must admit.
No I am often critical of the NDP, but if your sole purpose is to come in and just bash them without giving them credit when its due then you are a nihilist or a troll. Go check my posts if you think I don't have thoughtful posts, but this place is awful at time because the True Lefty types or the Liberals that just come in to run down the NDP warranted or not. AT least Slumberjack will say if it is a good policy without pointing to stuff they haven't accomplished as a reason to not like what they did good.
I know you write posts with content and have been critical of the NDP. I don't doubt that at all. But your schoolyard style comment at #9 is aggressive and pissy. Unionist's observations are fair and poltely stated. And while he might not think the NDP earns approval as much as you or I might, when he does, he is vocally supportive.
You are a caricature of a cheerleader, ajaykumar for the NDP.
That was a low blow Wage Zombie
Hey that's just how I see it. If there's anyone on babble that fits that description, IMHO, it's you.
So, while I may have some differences with the way wage zombie and Sean in Ottawa have set out their view, I appreciate the thoughtful apporach, and at least they will both agree that the thread title here - "Mulcair rejects any Canadian military role in Iraq" - might be a bit misleading.
I don't think I would agree there. From the article:
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair says his party would pull Canadian troops out of Iraq if elected, as the party does not think Canada should be involved in a U.S.-led war.
While the NDP has opposed the current Canadian mission in Iraq, Mulcair clarified the party's plans for the mission should it form government on CTV's Question Period.
"If they (the government) extend (the mission) for a year, despite our opposition to it, yes, when we form government on October 19, we would bring our troops back home," Mulcair said.
That's as strong a statement as we're going to get. I think SiO's post was clearer than mine, and I agree with KenS that talking about the UN and NATO is innoculation.
You are correct that if somehow NATO or the UN stamps the whole thing with approval, then Mulcair's "rejection" becomes null and void. But that's a hypothetical, and I think objecting to it as a US-led mission gives him a stronger position given the current electorate. The way I'd read it, rejecting "any" role means that he wouldn't leave troops there in some kind of "non-combat" or advisory capacity.
The involvement being discussed in Iraq is a US led one. Mulcair says he is against it. I think he should get credit for opposing this particular engagfement.
He does get credit for opposing this particular engagement.
Just repeating it in case anyone can't read or doesn't do so very well.
As was mentioned above by Slumberjack, Syria, as much or more than Iraq, should be a concern. It is this 'unfinished business' of the evil empire, to which all our pols are subservient, which should now be equally the focus of attention.
For Mulcair the 'mission' must at least bring with it the political cover of NATO's nod in the affirmative. We've heard correct 'mission' statements from the NDP before when Layton urged that Canada accept a new, non-combat role in Afghanistan instead of the type of work it was doing in and around Khandahar. People should be looking for emphatic statements, and not slippery, ambiguous ones. It should be no problem to oppose Harper's latest plan to invade another country with airpower, unless of course it has NATO's blessing, then all bets are off.
The other political calculation not already mentioned is that there is no chance of a NATO blessing of this, let alone the UN. So Mulcair can sound "reasonable" to the people that have strong reservations about this venture, but also are eaasily subject to the buffeting winds of mainstream media and ideology. Which is always a big section of voters on any issue like this.
ED TO ADD: just in case I need to be more explicit- Mulcair can afford to offer that it would (maybe) be different if this had NATO blessing, when there is virtually no chance of that happening.
Thanks for posting the Conservative point of view (per usual), North Report.
Glad to see Justin Trudeau & the Liberals are following Jéan Chrétien's advice and are voting against Harper's attempt to bog Canada down in a long, drawn-out conflict in the Middle East for the benefit of the military-industrial complex.
Speaking from the US right now: it is not just people opposed to intervention who fear the bottomless pit of endless war.
Harper and his Cons are not unique, but 'in the vanguard' of imperialist spear carriers at the moment. [Other prospects would be one of the East European countries at the moment government by exttremist bootlickers.... I forget who at the moment.]
And Trudeau is so habitually honed already to ALWAYS playing 'the middle'.... even if he is particularly pushed on polarized issues to search under mushrooms for something that passes for 'middle ground'. So he wouldn't dare come out against this venture.
#LPC will not support the government’s efforts to deepen the Iraq combat mission and expand it into Syria.
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/580411976544845826
---
#Trudeau: Cda can't get 'bogged down' in anti-#ISIS mission, calls for well-funded, well-planned #Syrian humanitarian effort.
https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/580380972748836864
I respectuffly repeat a post I made[previously
I agree this topic calls fo activism. I respectfully urge all,Babblers,socialist, progressives whomsoeversl to provide suport, critical support if need be, but supprrt, to Thomas Mulciar and his statement. on Uraq
WATCHED9:25 Tom Mulcair - Iraq combat mission // Thomas Mulcair - Mission de combat en Irak
- by Canada's New Democrats / Le NPD du Canada
- 11 hours ago
- 171 views
Tom Mulcair's speech at the House of Commons outlines the NDP's position on the combat mission Iraq. // Le discours de Thomas ...
- New
And Trudeau is so habitually honed already to ALWAYS playing 'the middle'.... even if he is particularly pushed on polarized issues to search under mushrooms for something that passes for 'middle ground'. So he wouldn't dare come out against this venture.
???????
I praise Mulcair for opposing this military operation - even though he left the door wide open.
Justin Trudeau deserves the same praise - even though we know his true nature.
And so does [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/24/elizabeth-may-isil-mission-conse... May[/url].
The more Canadians speak out against this foreign warmongering, no matter what their motives, the better.
I agree. It's not only right, but it's simple. JUST SAY NO. Period.
i may have missed exactly what trudeau said. did he say he would not vote for continuing the mission for iraq?
???????
I praise Mulcair for opposing this military operation - even though he left the door wide open.
Justin Trudeau deserves the same praise - even though we know his true nature.
And so does [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/24/elizabeth-may-isil-mission-conse... May[/url].
The more Canadians speak out against this foreign warmongering, no matter what their motives, the better.
Do we? What is Justin Trudeau's 'true nature'?
What is Tom Mulcair's? As you said yourself, Mulcair "left the door wide open".
None of these leaders are perfect or are Saints. Let's not pretend otherwise. But let's also not pretend that we can peer into their souls and divine their "true nature".
And yes, the Conservatives as usual showed how nasty & petty they are by preventing Elizabeth May from speaking.
Justin Trudeau defended her right to do so :
Petty and disrespectful that #CPC would not allow @ElizabethMay to speak to their motion on expanding the Iraq combat mission.
i may have missed exactly what trudeau said. did he say he would not vote for continuing the mission for iraq?
Yes.
I posted Trudeau's statement and the CBC story above.
Justin Trudeau:
#LPC will not support the government’s efforts to deepen the Iraq combat mission and expand it into Syria.
Liberals support C51 but oppose our mission in Iraq.
Liberal internal polls probably show them bleeding support to the NDP so good on them for supporting the NDP here but the Liberals had no choice.
What is Justin Trudeau's 'true nature'?
He'd send Canadian troops to slaughter and be slaughtered abroad in a heartbeat, as long as the polls and the pretext were benign. Just as Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did.
What is Tom Mulcair's? As you said yourself, Mulcair "left the door wide open".
Yes, I said it myself. Because I'm not a craven cowardly slave of Trudeau or Mulcair or anyone, I can assess their actions from some standpoint other than brainless cheering, lying, and covering up. That's why "I myself" am the one who highlighted Mulcair's exit strategy - which will be to join another mission as long as the pretext is right. Just as the NDP and Liberals brutally cheered on the bombing of innocent civilians in Libya and the savage regime change there, for which of course they take no responsibility today.
That's why I can praise both Mulcair and Trudeau when they take a positive stand, however briefly they may do so. I'm not beholden to them.
None of these leaders are perfect or are Saints. Let's not pretend otherwise. But let's also not pretend that we can peer into their souls and divine their "true nature".
I don't ever do so. I judge them by what must embarrass you the most: THEIR DEEDS. That's what their "true nature" is. Can't run away from that. The rest is mealymouthed rhetorical bullshit, of the sort that inundates this place whenever certain cheerleaders start their rhythmic chants.
You see, I have my own opinions about things. My most fervent wish is that others should do likewise. And I have never been disappointed yet.
The above is gobbledygook. It is crucial that 'the game' is understood. This should help...
US 'Easing' into War with Syria Using ISIS Boogeyman
http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/21/us-easing-into-war-with-syria-using-is...
"Indeed, Al Qaeda's (and ISIS') current presence in Iraq and SYria, and their leading role in the fight against the Iranian-leaning governments of Damascus, Baghdad and Hezbollah in Lebanon, are the present day manifestation of a Western criminal conspiracy exposed as early as 2007.
Recalled by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his article, 'The Redirection: Is the Adminisration's new policies benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?' it was stated explicitly that 'The US has taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria...'
As early as June of last year it was reported that ISIS would be used to incrementally draw in US forces in preparation for a direct military intervention aimed at Damascus itself. Unable to trigger that conflict using the canard of 'WMD's', ISIS has provided a series of increasingly more horrific provocations to help gather backing behind direct US military intervention in Syria.."
Syria is now being spun as an "Iranian Ally". The US has been supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) with money and arms, which is opposed to Damascus. ISIL has been buying arms from the FSA. So here we see indirect American support of ISIL. ISIL is generally at war with various states in the region. Who knows what role Israel is playing.
If you don't really understand something, why would you go to war there?
Israel instigates and their minions in Washington,Ottawa and the EU fight their battles.
This has been going on for many many years.
Netanyahoo sits back and laughs at how easy it is to manipulate these governments.
Is Trudeau speaking for the Liberal Party or just for himself?
One Liberal, who did not want to be quoted, told The Hill Times the vacant Liberal seats were signs of division over the anti-terrorism legislation.
https://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2015/03/24/opposition-blame-gove...
Liberals echo NDP position on Harper's war plan
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/03/liberals-echo-ndp...
That shows that Justin Trudeau has principles. He took the correct position even at the cost of being criticized by blue Liberals in his own party.
