babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Afghan mission faces vote next week

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Afghan mission faces vote next week
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 18 April 2007 12:28 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Liberal Motion to Withdraw

"The federal Liberals today announced that they're putting forward a motion demanding the withdrawal of Canada's 2,500 troops from Kandahar by February, 2009."

I think this will be the end of the Afghan mission.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 18 April 2007 12:33 PM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting!
There is little doubt that Harper will seize on this as a confidence motion.
The Liberals have miscalculated if they think that a majority of Canadians will rally behind this issue, on their side.

From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 April 2007 12:40 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now the question ius, will the NDP vote no because the NDP wants to withdraw NOW and not in two years.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 01:03 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Now the question ius, will the NDP vote no because the NDP wants to withdraw NOW and not in two years.

[Edited because I foolishly didn't read the whole Star article:]

They have to vote "NO". Here's the motion:

quote:
..."this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada's existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February, 2009, at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude; and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately."

Voting "YES" is abandoning the call for immediate withdrawal.

This is a no-brainer.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 18 April 2007 01:48 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
momentum.

who's hand is forced and who gets to wear it?

The best Dion can hope for is to not LOSE votes over a non-confidence vote. He picked the right horse.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 18 April 2007 01:56 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

...
Voting "YES" is abandoning the call for immediate withdrawal.
...

No its not. but voting "NO" is passing on a chance to see light at the end of the tunnel. Jack can't afford to wear that.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 18 April 2007 02:08 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
besides

It wasn't a call for an immediate withdrawal. it was a call to take immediate action to ensure the safe withdrawal of troops by February 2007.

Its time for an update anyways and our troops are more entrenched than ever. I'm not even sure if proposing an amendment is worth the bother.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 April 2007 02:11 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Voting "YES" is abandoning the call for immediate withdrawal.


Since no one (other than maybe the BQ) is paying any attention to the NDP's call for immediate withdrawal, voting "Yes" to the motion allows the NDP to come out of this smelling like roses. Not what the NDP wants, but better than nothing, and considering that the current "mission" to Feb 2009 was authorised by the House.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 18 April 2007 03:06 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper might make it a confidence motion, but I doubt it. He'd have to admit to planning a longer deployment if he did, and he could always introduce another motion later on that changes things.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 April 2007 03:52 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
Harper might make it a confidence motion, but I doubt it. He'd have to admit to planning a longer deployment if he did, and he could always introduce another motion later on that changes things.

Agreed. But Harper is very set in his ways, and he really believes he's doing the right thing, and, most importantly, he really bristles when anyone (such as the Opposition) tells him what he must do. I think he'll make it a vote of confidence, and let the chips fall where they may. Liberal support in the latest Decima poll may indeed be soft, as I think Stockholm suggested, and Harper might be thinking he can get his majority - maybe he thinks the voters are so sick and tired of elections that they'll give him a majority with the guarantee there will not be another federal election for at least four years. Or, he might be thinking the country is sick and tired of the Liberals. Then Harper can do whatever he wants.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 18 April 2007 03:57 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey

I hope he doesn't call confidence. Really. I'd love to see him stew in his own juices.

This isn't about polls. This is the single most important ethical issue Canadians face today whether they choose to do so consciously or not. If Harper chooses to not only defy the will of the Commons on this but lose it at the same time (and lose one of his favorite go to defenses on the issue to boot) all the power to him.

I may be a cynic but my faith in democracy hasn't thinned so much as to think his not respecting this motion isn't going to cost him.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 05:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you folks kindly read what the motion says?!

1. "confirm that Canada's existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February, 2009..."

By voting in favour, not only will the NDP abandon its call to "Bring 'Em Home" (if they haven't already abandoned that), they will be "confirming" that the "existing military deployment" will continue till Feb. 2009 - i.e., no changes even to the "nature of the mission". That's betrayal.

2. "... at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude..."

Meaning several possible things: A. Canadian troops can be re-deployed anywhere else in a combat role - e.g. Helmand (and then Parliament can debate whether it's in "Southern" or "South-Western" Afghanistan); OR B. The combat operations in the south will cease, but it doesn't say they can't re-start under a newly assigned mission! In other words, it says nothing at all.

To suggest (as BitWhys does) that this is remotely in accord with the convention decision and the big announcement by Layton in September - none of which rates front-page coverage any more on the NDP website - is downright cynical.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 18 April 2007 05:29 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another Canadian soldier dies in accident in Afghanistan

"The soldier fell from a communication tower somewhere within Kandahar City on Wednesday, Col. Mike Cessford, deputy Canadian commander in Afghanistan, told reporters in Kandahar early Thursday."


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brendan Stone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6257

posted 18 April 2007 05:33 PM      Profile for Brendan Stone   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dallaire weighs in: Support the Afghan mission (French)

http://www2.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2007/04/20070410-155235.html


From: Hamilton | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 18 April 2007 05:35 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think any of the parties would want an electin based on the war. If there is one thing more unpredictable than an election campaign, it's war.

Combining the two would be the nightmare scenario for any political advisor.

There will be noise, but the leaders will do whatever has to be done to make sure the motion does not pass.

Even the Liberals, if it came down to it.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 18 April 2007 05:40 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
...
To suggest (as BitWhys does) that this is remotely in accord with the convention decision and the big announcement by Layton in September - none of which rates front-page coverage any more on the NDP website - is downright cynical.

oh bullshit. its not in discord with it, particularly since its past its due date.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 18 April 2007 05:43 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
but go ahead and demand Jack take another impossible position so you can come back and bitch about how the public is too stupid to embrace it later on. I'm sure it makes for a damn fine hobby.
From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 05:45 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:

oh bullshit. its not in discord with it, particularly since its past its due date.


So because the NDP convention and party demanded withdrawal by Feb. 2007 - and it didn't happen - the troops are now free to stay forever - on a Roberts' Rules of Order technicality?

"Bring 'em home" has been replaced by "Whoops, too late, leave 'em there?"

You are helping me to graphically illustrate the meaning of the word "cynical". Woe betide the party that entertains such double-talk on issues so grave as Canadian aggression abroad. I can only continue to hope that Jack Layton is more principled than you - and I believe he is.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 18 April 2007 05:47 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

So because the NDP convention and party demanded withdrawal by Feb. 2007 - and it didn't happen - the troops are now free to stay forever - on a Roberts' Rules of Order technicality?...


oh fuck. and here I'm supporting him voting to lock on 2009 withdrawal.

you're an idiot.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 05:50 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:
but go ahead and demand Jack take another impossible position so you can come back and bitch about how the public is too stupid to embrace it later on. I'm sure it makes for a damn fine hobby.

You didn't care much for the "Bring 'em home" turn of events, did you? You thought, "Oh my God, how did we end up in this quagmire of demanding something that will never happen".

Now - the Liberals have rescued you! With their contemptible support for extending the "mission" - and now with this contemptible motion that the NDP (according to you and others here) can vote "yes" to while still spinning it as a "withdrawal" motion - they have save you from a fate worse than death: Adherence to principle and (always, the worst) loss of votes from (what you consider as) stupid right-wing Canadians!

False friends, advocating betrayal for a mess of pottage. I hope, wish, the NDP does not listen to you.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 05:54 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:

and here I'm supporting him voting to lock on 2009 withdrawal.


As I mentioned above, you apparently can't even read a one-sentence motion without getting confused. Read the motion. There's no withdrawal. There's no lock. Whom are you trying to kid and why?

Oh, I get it, this motion is even better than I thought. Whether it passes, or fails - We can stop talking about Afghanistan for the next two years!!! We don't have to make it an election issue at all!!! Thank God, we're out of the muck!!!

It works for both the Liberals and the NDP. And the BQ, for that matter.

We'll be back to the pre-September 2006 situation, where no party in the House is calling for withdrawal of the troops - if you and your like have your way.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 18 April 2007 05:56 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oddly enough, I think the Liberals and Conservatives can BOTH get what they want out of this vote.

The Conservatives don't need to play chicken and call it a confidence vote. If the motion passes they will just hold it in reserve as a major reason they can no longer govern with a minority.

The opposition is obliging them in a number of ways, by forcing votes on them. This will make it easy for them to at some point- the time of their choosing and on the 'last straw' of their choosing- to say enough, we can't govern like this.

So in a lot of ways this motion gives them the best of both worlds: another good reason an election is 'needed'... at the time of their choosing.

For the Liberals it fits in with Dions posturing and bluffing, more or less on the left side of things, substance to be provided later. [Maybe.]

Shameless plug for the thread I started on the Liberals:

here

[Should have worked 'Green' or 'May' into the title. Would have had 50 comments by now.]

I largely agree with unionist that the motion is not good for the NDP.

Unlike unionist, I agree with the others that voting the motion down is going to look pretty stupid. People just won't get it- even most of the political junkies. "You what?"

Until unionist focused attention on the exact wording of the motion I didn't see that it was a big deal to take the half a loaf. Practically speaking, by the time things wind their way, a definite withdrawl in Feb 09 is only months different than what an 'immediate withdrawl' really is on the ground.

The wording is precisely worded to make mischief for the NDP. The fucking cynics. It's a gratuitous validation of the Liberal stand, and poke in the eye for the NDP.

Rock and hard place I say.

The motion and its motivation confirms my argument about the Liberals. The motion makes no problem for Harper. The motion is all about positioning competition over the converted. It is NOT crafted as a wdege to work on the mass of undecideds that the Liberals need to beat Harper.

But they aren't interested in beating Harper now. Dion and his idiot brain trust want to piss around like the next election is all about competing with the NDP for seats in the Tornoto core.

[You really do need to check out that thread on the Liberals. here

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 18 April 2007 06:00 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
UNICEF

"We should not be looking for the exit. We need to set our sights with the Afghan people firmly on the future, and accelerate our work to build the road ahead. Afghanistan may be a conservative society, but the majority of Afghans are not extremists. Afghans need our help, but they are not beggars – they want to stand on their own feet. They merit our support and it is in our interest to support them."


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 18 April 2007 06:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Unlike unionist, I agree with the others that voting the motion down is going to look pretty stupid. People just won't get it- even most of the political junkies. "You what?"

Q: Why did you vote no?

A: Because the motion supported the current exact mission until Feb. 2009 and did not require withdrawal afterward - not even stopping the combat role.

KenS, why would that be so difficult for people to grasp? Because Liberals are better at spinning than NDP? If so, how about just winding up the party and stop pretending there's a difference?

Am I hallucinating... don't a majority of Canadians, despite all the war propaganda machine, still tell pollsters that they don't support the "mission"? It's the "political junkies" who are too nervous for their own good.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 April 2007 06:34 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Susan Ormiston was there in Afghanistan recently and enjoyed a lunch of lamb cutlets. She says Afghan locals are overly generous to a fault. Something she did say on The Hour last night struck me as not surprising: NATO forces probably create 30 Taliban for every Afghan person killed in the crossfire and "friendly fire." And she said something about the Taliban are increasingly viewed by locals as the home team.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 18 April 2007 07:05 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Human Rights Watch Report

This report explains that 2006 was the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001. Overall, at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects. An additional 52 civilians were killed in insurgent attacks in the first two months of 2007.

Increasingly, the Taliban has been targeting certain groups of civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, journalists, doctors, religious leaders, and civilian government employees, condemning them as spies or collaborators. In 2006, at least 177 civilians were killed in assassinations, and similar ambushes and attacks have continued in 2007. A recent and horrific example was the Taliban’s summary execution of Afghan journalist Ajmal Naqshbandi and his driver, Sayed Agha, in violation of the laws of war.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 18 April 2007 07:42 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
...This report explains that 2006 was the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001. Overall, at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects. An additional 52 civilians were killed in insurgent attacks in the first two months of 2007.

So, far in 2007, the Nato forces killed at least 669 civilians in 350 pre-meditated attacks. This is shameful and our news should be reporting it as travesty, they are culpable IMV.

Whilst the insurgents have killed 52, and another 177, in 2006, who they think are collaborators with NATO.

And I watched Ms Ormiston last evening in the The Hour interview that Fidel noted, when she said for every Afghan murdered by NATO, 30 Taliban are created.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 19 April 2007 12:31 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Q: Why did you vote no?

A: Because the motion supported the current exact mission until Feb. 2009 and did not require withdrawal afterward - not even stopping the combat role.

KenS, why would that be so difficult for people to grasp? Because Liberals are better at spinning than NDP? If so, how about just winding up the party and stop pretending there's a difference?

Am I hallucinating... don't a majority of Canadians, despite all the war propaganda machine, still tell pollsters that they don't support the "mission"?


Just to be clear, how many Canadians don't support the mission is not an issue. We're only talking about the ones who don't- however many there are- and that the NDP supports withdrawl unequivocally.

The answer to your question is that it depends on how equivocal or not the motion is about continuing an active combat role.

I frankly haven't had time to digest that. And I'll have to leave it to later. but there is a little warning light there that it is not straightorward.

If it was just the issue of the Feb 09 deadline I doubt that it could make sense- PRINCIPLE WISE [not pragmatics]- to vote the motion down on that account.

Yes, the motion is very mischievously designed. And that's very cynical of the Liberals. But most people don't care about that, even if they see it and think it sucks.

What matters to people is results. And for those who don't support the mission what they see is "quagmire", in which we are getting in deeper by the day.... where all the signs are that we plan for being there longer and longer and longer.

If they see a light in the tunnel that says February 09- finished. Out. ... They want that. They aren't going to argue that it could have been, should have been 12 months sooner. If the stars align to get us out, and the alternative was endless engagement, then go for it.

Far and away, most people would see holding out for immediate withdrawal as foolishness, and if the NDP advocated it, even most core supporters would see it as an abberation that must have been motivated by misguided partisan pride.

That wouldn't look like 'principle' at all.

So, back to the part of the motion that adresses southern Afghanistan and the combat role: same dynamic and 'test' applies. What looks like principle to unionist and maybe 1,000 other people is not necessarily going to look like that to most people, or be credibly argued as such.

Same test- if it looks like an out to most people, then voting down will look like partsan snit if you cannot make a convincing case- to other people- that it is really just a smokescreen.

Like I said, I don't have time to digest the wording of that section- and that is really not something for one person to do in isolation.

But even if the wording allows for the government to do nothing or simply change the boilerplate mission statement while doing nothing, there is a lot of sense for voting for the motion and saying very clearly 'not good enough'.... we will be continuing to press on this.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 19 April 2007 02:04 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's written in the motion is the best that can be hoped for. There's no way it can name the NATO mission more directly than it does because that would be a diplomatic disaster. What's made of the motion is the responsibility of the government of the day. They don't need this motion to pass to play a shell if that's what they're going to do anyways.

then again, I'm not a member of the "get out and stay out" crowd.

give them something to answer for now. you can't pound nails without a hammer.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 April 2007 03:11 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Layton just said on the news:

"The Liberal motion supports two more years of fighting - and that's just not acceptable."

Bravo! (if not totally accurate).

Let's hope he refines and sticks to that message.

Better get on the phone and email.

The report sort of said (inaccurately) the motion calls for withdrawal of the troops in Feb. 09. When they interviewed Dion, he was very clear. He said (not exact quote): Feb 09, that's enough, after that, no more combat role in Kandahar.

So, the wording is deliberate, careful, and Lib-hypocritical.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 19 April 2007 03:14 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

So, far in 2007, the Nato forces killed at least 669 civilians in 350 pre-meditated attacks. This is shameful and our news should be reporting it as travesty, they are culpable IMV.

Whilst the insurgents have killed 52, and another 177, in 2006, who they think are collaborators with NATO.

And I watched Ms Ormiston last evening in the The Hour interview that Fidel noted, when she said for every Afghan murdered by NATO, 30 Taliban are created.


Your post misrepresents what Human Rights Watch has said.

The report is called "The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan". It does not attribute the 669 killings to NATO attacks. Those killings happened in 2006, and the report attributes them to the Taliban and like groups. The 177 assassinations are only a subset of killings attributed to the Taliban and like groups.

This report addresses war crimes committed by insurgents in Afghanistan. Other reports by Human Rights Watch have addressed the conduct of foreign and Afghanistan national forces.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 19 April 2007 04:14 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Dismissing the motion, NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party wants an immediate withdrawal of the troops."

that's a damn shame. so much for carrying a card.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 April 2007 04:21 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:

that's a damn shame.

Sure it's a damn shame, for those who don't care whether Canada stays or leaves:

quote:
I'm not a member of the "get out and stay out" crowd

Congratulations Jack, and I repeat:

quote:
False friends, advocating betrayal for a mess of pottage. I hope, wish, the NDP does not listen to you.

From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 19 April 2007 04:31 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Sure it's a damn shame, for those who don't care whether Canada stays or leaves:

What I do care about it what Canada does while its there. My world has more than two dimensions.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Red T-shirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5872

posted 19 April 2007 05:28 AM      Profile for Red T-shirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberal motion is mealy-mouthed and deceiptful at best. It does not demand the withdrawl of troops that they are claiming it does and Jack needs to point that out very clearly. I'm also glad he stated that 2 more years of combat is unacceptable.
The NDP should now offer up a couple of amendments to the motion to clearly demonstrate that the Liberals are just full of shit.
1-amend it to clearly state that a complete withdrawl from Afghanistan must be accomplished by Feb. 1, 09 with the winding down of operations proceeding in an orderly way prior to that date. The Liberals will never accept that and it puts the lie to what they are currently claiming.
2-amend it to the end in Feb. 08, rather than 09. As it would likely take that long to engineer an orderly withdrawl anyway, the NDP can stick to their principle of getting troops out ASAP and show that they are willing to compromise and meet the Liberals half way. Again, Libs won't accept this and so they come off looking like they can't compromise. Plus they are jointly responsible (with Harper) for keeping the troops fighting for 2 more years.

What we really need now is a lot of public protest about the war and a strong demand from canadians to bring our troops home. The public does not support this war, but they are also not saying a damn thing about it. the "support our troops" campaign has done its work very well and people are afraid to speak out for fear of being branded unpatriotic and/or unconcerned about our soldiers.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
zak4amnesty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10981

posted 19 April 2007 01:53 PM      Profile for zak4amnesty   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Human Rights Watch usually doesn't surprise me with their reports. The Afghan report has surprised me. I have a hard time believing it. And just because they say it is so, well.......

TIme for more research.


From: Chemical Valley | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 19 April 2007 02:01 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
zak4amnesty

What do you mean? What do you not believe?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 19 April 2007 02:37 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why should the public protest against Canadian involvement in the Afghan war, since there's realistically nothing at stake for them? It's other peoples sons and daughters getting killed. We haven't reached that critical mass of bodies yet like they have in the US, where enough people are just now tuned in to the lies about spreading freedom around at gunpoint in Iraq. Many Canadians still think we're involved in a noble cause. When our time comes to contemplate a pull out in defeat, and that day will certainly arrive, the Afghans themselves will be portrayed as the scapegoat for failure, just as the Iraqis are blamed for the debacle in the American mind. The stupidity of the 'war on terror' from the start will never be acknowledged, the absurdity will just continue in other locations. People like Hillier will never fathom the reality, that a people who firmly believe with absolute certainty in their religion, to the point where dying is the sought after ultimate act of faith, can never be subdued, no matter what their losses. Coexistance and perhaps containment is the only long term answer. Let the taliban live and revel in their isolation, because they will never develop beyond what they are now. Provide avenues and the means of escape for those who do not wish to dwell in their madness.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 April 2007 02:53 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How refreshing, to benefit from the lofty wisdom of one so superior both to Canadians and to Afghans!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 19 April 2007 02:54 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP CANNOT vote for this. It would be a direct violation of internal party democracy, and I cannot stomach the idea of seeing the leadership of the party go so blatantly against our policy which so many people are proud of. It would be like a spit in the face to the base of the party.

The best thing the NDP can do is to have someone like Jack Layton and Dawn Black come out right now and explain to people that the wording of this bill is designed to look tough on the situation in Afghanistan, when in fact, it is nothing more than cowardice and a retreat from dealing with the actual issues.

The Liberal Party is doing the same thing that the Conservatives do with their "support the troops" hogwash whereby they use the soldiers to further themselves politically, except this time, their actions are not aimed at the Conservatives. They're aimed at the NDP in an attempt to outflank them by faking left and going right.

Perhaps a good way to counter this is to have the NDP federal caucus out amongst the people explaining to everyone that the Liberals are condemning more soldiers to death for needless reasons in Afghanistan just like the Conservatives. The only difference between the two is that one party at least has the decency to be honest about their intention about Afghanistan, while the other one is playing both sides of the fence.

If my crackpot analysis is correct, we should be able to force the nationalism card out from the Liberals and Conservatives where they'll start talking about the nobility of our war in Afghanistan.

This would be a good time for civil society groups to be out and hounding the media with every dirty deed that's been done in Afghanistan so that people understand that this is a war and people are dying and we're contributing to that needless death because the politicians are trying to get themselves re-elected and the military is doing exactly what it's designed to do: kill.

You don't believe me that the military is designed to kill, how about you go ask Gen. Hillier about that. He made no bones about it when he assumed the chief of staff position a few years back.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 19 April 2007 03:13 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red T-shirt:
The Liberal motion is mealy-mouthed and deceiptful at best. It does not demand the withdrawl of troops that they are claiming it does and Jack needs to point that out very clearly. I'm also glad he stated that 2 more years of combat is unacceptable.
The NDP should now offer up a couple of amendments to the motion to clearly demonstrate that the Liberals are just full of shit.
1-amend it to clearly state that a complete withdrawl from Afghanistan must be accomplished by Feb. 1, 09 with the winding down of operations proceeding in an orderly way prior to that date. The Liberals will never accept that and it puts the lie to what they are currently claiming.
2-amend it to the end in Feb. 08, rather than 09. As it would likely take that long to engineer an orderly withdrawl anyway, the NDP can stick to their principle of getting troops out ASAP and show that they are willing to compromise and meet the Liberals half way. Again, Libs won't accept this and so they come off looking like they can't compromise. Plus they are jointly responsible (with Harper) for keeping the troops fighting for 2 more years.

Actually, I quite like this approach as well. I would quibble with the details a bit and what constitutes a "realistic" withdrawal date, but I actually think that this would be a good strategy to smoke the Liberals out of their "we're tough on the Conservatives on the Afghan issue" faking. It would also shift media attention away from staying in Afghanistan to "when are we going to withdrawal from Afghanistan?"

Does parliamentary procedure allow for us to ask the Liberals to hold off on the motion so that the NDP and the Liberals can get together and attempt to hammer out a deal for withdrawal of Canadian troops?

The optics would be really good, I think.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 April 2007 05:07 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:
The NDP CANNOT vote for this. It would be a direct violation of internal party democracy, and I cannot stomach the idea of seeing the leadership of the party go so blatantly against our policy which so many people are proud of. It would be like a spit in the face to the base of the party.

Hold that thought.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 19 April 2007 05:19 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't seen that this motion has got any attention.

Don't watch television. But very little in any print media [even buried in the Globe]. And nothing on CBC Radio.

Not sure exactly what that means- in practical terms? Media weariness with things that supposedly may trigger an election? [Pendulum the other way after them jumping on every possibility that says Election! (maybe)...]

Not taking Liberals and/or Dion seriously?

Not that it likely means anything definite [enough] in particular, but puzzling.

Not that the motion deserves attention- but that never stopped the media.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 April 2007 06:16 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Globe & Mail:

quote:
[T]he wording, which commits to keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan for another two years, suggests that the Liberals did not particularly care if they had the support of the New Democrats.

“The NDP opposes this motion. Why? Because it prolongs a George Bush style combat mission in Afghanistan,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

His party proposed an amendment that called for a withdrawal to begin immediately — a revision that the Liberals rejected.


Well done, Jack!

By the way, Canada's New Government has already indicated it does not consider this as a confidence vote.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 April 2007 07:14 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The motion comes from Denis Coderre, someone I don't have much use for.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 April 2007 07:27 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The motion comes from Denis Coderre, someone I don't have much use for.

He voted in favour of the anti-scab bill. But this motion is crap.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 19 April 2007 07:51 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper actually had the audacity to say that this criticism is undermining "support" for the war "among Canadians". Unbelievabl, does he really think GW Bush is a man to emulate still? Asides here, but one form of political reform that should be considered now is the almost complete freedom the PM enjoys to declare votes "confidence" bills or not. Harper has completely abused that privilege, should only be for money bills and throne speeches as tradition maintains, though declarations of war should be considered as a third possibility. What's a money bill should also be redefined more carefully.

And here's earlier polling figures for support for Afghanistan among Canadians, just in case anyone thinks it really as solid as reported.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12756

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=12488§ionID=40


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 19 April 2007 08:26 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Harper actually had the audacity to say that this criticism is undermining "support" for the war "among Canadians". Unbelievabl, does he really think GW Bush is a man to emulate still? ....

That reminds me -- where is ex Bush speechwriter David Frum? Did he come home to roost? Can't imagine Harper and Kenney not putting out feelers for him. More feely on Kenney's part, of course.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 20 April 2007 12:55 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper wouldn't let Frum and his public baggage anywhere near them. And his rants have never been their style of mostly sweet reason sprinkled with short and quick pokes that are below the radar of what bothers Canadians.

And Frum probably expects too much money, and is too intoxicated with the REALLY centre of the universe consciousness of being inside the Washington Beltway.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 20 April 2007 01:55 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excerpt from Globe article on Baird's scaremongering yesterday:

quote:
Those bleak predictions, endorsed by some of the country's leading economists, were aimed at discrediting a Liberal-sponsored bill that would force Ottawa to abide by its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The report was also designed to prepare voters for the Tories' announcement of their own greenhouse-gas reduction initiatives next week.

I see this frequently: C-30 has become "the Liberal sponsored bill."

I'm leaving aside totally the real substantive point that overall credit for the rewritten C-30 goes to the NDP- the Liberals came in reluctantly and only at the last minute.

C-30 is in the end the product of what the parties [except the government] could agree on, and what the Liberals wanted is to bring in their baggage with the absolutely predictable and now unfolding consequence of being the big soft target for scaremongering.

Fitting that they get to wear it. But no solace for getting things done- because everyone gets to wear the problems, not just the Liberals.

This certainly poses a challenge for the NDP. I knew it wasn’t going to be easy, but watching it unfold is even more daunting.

Defending the 2012 targets to the letter is very difficult. And it WAS unnecessary for getting what we MUST have, and was difficult enough already: getting hard caps on GHG emissions.

If the Liberals cared about getting results they would have agreed to steer around the 2012 targets. You don’t disown them, but you don’t make them the featured issue either.

Pontificating and merely saying the right thing just isn’t going to cut it now. Beating back the assault on hard caps is going to take well executed politics. The NDP will deserve big time kudos if they help pull it off.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 20 April 2007 01:59 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry about putting that comment in the wrong thread.

Belonged here:

John Baird Scaremongering on Climate Change


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 20 April 2007 06:29 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
How refreshing, to benefit from the lofty wisdom of one so superior both to Canadians and to Afghans!

It doesn't take a superiority complex to state the obvious.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 20 April 2007 09:16 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's also obvious is the people pulling Jack's strings would rather wallow in their own self-righteousness than face reality.
From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 20 April 2007 09:27 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BitWhys, at least to some extent I share your skepticism about what kind of program 'just get out of combat' is.

But you need to explain the nature of these strings on Jack Layton and who is pulling them.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 20 April 2007 09:30 AM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Does anybody know what Jack's exit plan other than bringing the troops home is - how would be view the fall of the government and a return of the Taliban to power - how would he handle reports of human rights being trampled on - how would he handle the raping of Afghan women and children - how would he handle a request by international aid organizations for protection of their workers.

While I would like to see the troops come home as soon as possible I am very disappointed in the left's lack of clarity on a post NATO Afghanistan.

These are issues that I feel that are being ignored by the left and for which in the long run they are going to have to confront.

Over to you dippers.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Politics101
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8962

posted 20 April 2007 09:34 AM      Profile for Politics101   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps we should poll Canadians on this question

Would you still favor the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan if it meant the return of the Taliban to power?

Yes or No


From: Vancouver | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 20 April 2007 09:37 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
...But you need to explain the nature of these strings on Jack Layton and who is pulling them.

fair question. in this thread you'll find remarks to the effect that accepting the Liberal motion denies what was passed in convention (ergo the strings remark) and others that insist doing so validates the mission as it is currently configured.

I think both contentions and the catch-all "I don't trust Liberals" are reason enough to vote the motion down are pure hogwash but so be it.

I'm only one vote anyways. I'm sure they won't miss it.

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 20 April 2007 09:37 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
grr. wrong button

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 20 April 2007 09:40 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Politics101: Perhaps we should poll Canadians on this question

Would you still favor the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan if it meant the return of the Taliban to power?

Yes or No


Better questions:

(1) Do you favour sending more Canadians to their death in Afghanistan?

Yes or No?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 20 April 2007 09:52 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Harper actually had the audacity to say that this criticism is undermining "support" for the war "among Canadians". Unbelievabl, does he really think GW Bush is a man to emulate still?

Is he emulating President Bush, or Liberal MP Keith Martin?

quote:
If the public is having difficulty with this, it is because of particular questions and doubts that have been foisted on them by the NDP and perhaps by the Bloc Quebecois, about falsehoods they are portraying and complete mythologies they are putting out about this particular intervention. I am sure the public will listen to the very eloquent comments that have been made by members across the House [Conservatives] about the truth of the matter.

That's from a year ago, when the Liberals were still admitting the Conservative mission was one and the same with the one they had launched the year before.

Link.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 April 2007 03:00 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada talks to UAE about joining Afghan fight

"Canadian diplomats and senior military commanders held high-level talks with the United Arab Emirates in January about joining the fight against the Taliban."


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 20 April 2007 05:16 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Politics101:
....how would be view the fall of the government and a return of the Taliban to power - how would he handle reports of human rights being trampled on - how would he handle the raping of Afghan women and children - how would he handle a request by international aid organizations for protection of their workers.

More of the alarmist and inaccurate manure.

Reality: the Taliban may return to power whether NATO pulls out now or ten years from now. The Taliban to be effectively defeated (without genocide on our part) will have to be done so by Afghans untainted by overt western support. Our presence probably strengthens the Taliban.

Reality: Both the Taliban and the current government trample on human rights. Human rights will continue to be trampled on in Afghanistan as long as it remains an Islamic government rather than a secular one.

Reality: The accusations of mass raping by the Taliban as opposed to the alternatives is propaganda. The warlords that we support are worse. One reason that the Taliban came to power is that they put an end to much of the disorder and violence.

Reality: International aid workers have to take responsibility for the risks that they encounter. It would be poor policy to allow NGOs to decide where troops are to be committed. Shades of the East India Company that a certain government bailed out a few centuries ago.

The Taliban have a despicable ideology, but even if this mission was about the Taliban, which it is not, it is not the way to deal with them.

I agree with N. Beltov with a modification:

Better questions:

(1) Do you favour sending more Canadians to their death in Afghanistan?

Yes or No?

(2) If yes, how many deaths are acceptable before we should leave?


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 April 2007 08:25 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:

That's from a year ago, when the Liberals were still admitting the Conservative mission was one and the same with the one they had launched the year before.


The Liberal and Conservative missions are indeed one and the same.

I take it then, sgm, that you support defeating this Liberal motion?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 20 April 2007 11:47 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What else?
From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 24 April 2007 01:04 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the Liberals' press release on their motion:
quote:
OTTAWA - The minority Conservative government must immediately confirm February 2009 as the end date of Canada's combat commitment in southern Afghanistan and inform our NATO allies of the decision, Liberal Defense Critic Denis Coderre said today.

"For months the Conservatives have given confused and often conflicting messages about the mission in southern Afghanistan," said Mr. Coderre. "The Opposition is demanding clarity for our Parliament, for Canadians, and most importantly, for our soldiers and their families."


It's a bit odd that the Liberals have become so adamant about immediately establishing a clear date for an end to the Afghanistan combat mission, when they so studiously avoided such clarity while in office.

Here's Bill Graham, during the take-note debate of November 2005:

quote:
I am not saying we are going to be in Afghanistan anything like 10 years, but I hope the hon. member would agree with me that we must remain there long enough at least allow President Karzai's government to have control over the situation in that own country. If we do not pacify that region and if we do not deal with that particular region, the chances of stabilization in Afghanistan will never take place. That is obviously the strategic reason that caused us to go there and we will discuss that further in the debate tonight.
Not till 2015 or 2016, to be sure, but at least until security was established in the country.

And yet the Liberals now feign shock that the Conservatives might contemplate extending the Liberal-launched mission for years yet on the grounds that security must be established before development can occur.

After all, the position Bill Graham took in 2005

quote:
In the area we are in, our main concern is security, because without it there would be neither development nor assistance. Without security, there would be no schools, hospitals or roads. There would be nothing. Security must be our first priority.
is identical with the position Stephen Harper articulated just four months ago:
quote:
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, NATO statements clearly indicate that there can be no security without development and no development without security. There is no separating the two.


Anyway, later in the November 2005 debate, challenged by a question from Gordon O'Connor (then in opposition) about whether Canada's commitment to Afghanistan had a firm end-date or not, Graham squirted out this reply:

quote:
What I would not be able to say to the House is that we would not know if in another year or some other time, depending if we were not to continue in Afghanistan, whether or not we would go back to Afghanistan to aid in the multinational efforts to bring Afghanistan to full peace and security. We know there is one important timeline we are facing. President Karzai's term will be up in three years. We will have a very good idea at that point just how successful the international community has been in Afghanistan and of course we are not going to irresponsibly place our troops. It is very clear that the present commitment is nine months and a year.
Very clear.

Clear as squid's ink.

By the way, the end of Karzai's first term, the point at which the Liberals suggested an evaluation of the success of their Liberal-launched mission might be in order, comes in 2009.

Odd, again, that the same Liberals who were willing in 2005 to leave the Afghanistan commitment open-ended, possibly to be reviewed some time in 2008 or 2009, now demand absolute clarity about the end-date of the unbalanced mission they launched two years ago.

[ 24 April 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 03:21 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
It's a bit odd that the Liberals have become so adamant about immediately establishing a clear date for an end to the Afghanistan combat mission, when they so studiously avoided such clarity while in office.

Agreed, except for a minor correction, repeating a point I've already made.

The Liberal motion does not declare "an end to the Afghanistan combat mission" in 2009 - not in the least. Nor does their press relase.

It declares an end to the combat mission in southern Afghanistan.

It in no way rules out continuing in a combat role elsewhere in the country.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 24 April 2007 05:01 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
and if and when a motion hits the floor demanding the government refuse to hand over prisoners unless their human rights are demonstrably guaranteed I can count on Jack to vote against it because by his reasoning it doesn't summarily extinguish Canada's combat role.

nice. in a Walt Disney sort of way. nice


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 April 2007 05:32 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Susan Bonner on 'Politics' last night gave us an idea on how this will be seen by the mostly non-sophisicated voting audience: "So, Mr. Layton will be voting with the Conservatives against the Liberal motion to withdrawl from Afganistan by 2009?"
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 24 April 2007 05:44 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the NDP is doing is maintaining the status quo so boo fucking hoo.
From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 05:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Susan Bonner on 'Politics' last night gave us an idea on how this will be seen by the mostly non-sophisicated voting audience: "So, Mr. Layton will be voting with the Conservatives against the Liberal motion to withdrawl from Afganistan by 2009?"

Sure, if the NDP runs about in wild confusion, changing its policy with the wind, terrified of its own shadow, trying to appeal to the most backward "voter" as reflected in the very latest poll - then it will end up being misunderstood, reviled, irrelevant.

On the other hand, if it sticks to its principled position and works hard at explaining it to people (starting with its own MPs and Premiers, of course), then it will earn respect and be seen as a leader on this front.

It takes exactly two seconds of effort to tell people this:

The Liberal motion means more combat and death in southern Afghanistan until Feb. 2009, after which the killing continues in a different region of Afghanistan. We will be introducing our own motion to start a phased withdrawal from all of Afghanistan right away.

Really subtle, really complex, really abstruse, too hard to grasp - yeah sure.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 24 April 2007 06:10 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not advocating doing anything different, but it is most definitely not anywhere near as straightforward to effectively deliver that clear message on an issue that has a lot of twist and turns [Afghan mission and climate change action to name two].

Jack Layton and Caucus will be maintaining the position despite that difficulty, not because it is a piece of cake.

Anybody can take the right position. It takes discipline and focus to have the best shot at also clearing all the traps.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 24 April 2007 06:10 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"We will be introducing our own motion to start a phased withdrawal from all of Afghanistan right away."

...just as soon we're finished making sure the government honours an international commitment we agree with.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 06:27 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

Anybody can take the right position. It takes discipline and focus to have the best shot at also clearing all the traps.

Exactly my point, I agree with you.

Assign one spokesperson to persuasively repeat, elaborate, deliver the message - by which I mean the message endorsed by the convention and publicly declared by Jack Layton afterwards.

Not Dawn Black, not Peter Stouffer, not Gary Doer (!), not a free-for-all creating total confusion and loss of credibility.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 06:31 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:
"We will be introducing our own motion to start a phased withdrawal from all of Afghanistan right away."

...just as soon we're finished making sure the government honours an international commitment we agree with.


I guess that so-called "international commitment" trumps Canada's obligation to not participate in aggression and occupation - or, as you described it a few posts earlier:

quote:
This is the single most important ethical issue Canadians face today whether they choose to do so consciously or not.

Do you have a copy of that "international commitment", by the way? Is it reduced to writing? Is it legally binding in a contractual sense? I'm just wondering, since you appear to think it's so important that it justifies continued slaughter of Afghans and of our own soldiers for another couple of years. I'm good at reading collective agreement language; maybe I can find a way out.

Awaiting your reply,
unionist


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633

posted 24 April 2007 06:40 AM      Profile for Free_Radical     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Canada talks to UAE about joining Afghan fight

So, there is an effort to bring Muslim forces into to Afghanistan. Granted that they're Arab and the people in Kandahar Pashtun, but they would represent forces which would be perhaps more culturally appropriate and sensitive to the Afghan people (such as if Turkey were to step up its NATO contribution). Moreover, bringing in partners from the Muslim world to assist in Afghanistan would also make an eventual Canadian (and even a complete NATO) withdrawal more realistic and possible.

How does the NDP respond to this development?

quote:
New Democrat MP Libby Davies accused the Conservatives of trying to create a "Bush-style troop surge" in Afghanistan, referring to U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to increase American troop strength in Iraq.

The fact Canada was in discussion with a country outside of NATO to commit militarily to the war in Afghanistan was both unusual and troubling, she said.



What foolishness. I guess the NDP's strategy, when left without anything sensible or coherent to contribute, is to just try and scare people with ramblings about the U.S.


From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 24 April 2007 06:41 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess that so-called "international commitment" trumps Canada's obligation to not participate in aggression and occupation

your description may be a tad overstated but nevertheless...

yeah

yeah it does

welcome to the real world


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 06:52 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:
welcome to the real world

In the real world, "international commitments" - especially the kind that involve sending our troops to kill and be killed - are reflected in written documents. Not a chat over brandy and cigars at the Ambassador's cocktail party.

So, would you happen to have a copy of this "international commitment" of which you speak with such authority?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 24 April 2007 06:54 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
...So, would you happen to have a copy of this "international commitment" of which you speak with such authority?

oh I'm sorry. after your little lecture about Robert's Rules I thought you were joking.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 07:00 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:

oh I'm sorry. after your little lecture about Robert's Rules I thought you were joking.


No I'm not joking. You're bluffing. You haven't got a clue whether Canada is bound by any agreement to remain in its current military role until February 2009. You just have an axe to grind about how the NDP should present itself, and you think that one-line insults and cracks is a very persuasive substitute for facts and reason.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Free_Radical
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12633

posted 24 April 2007 07:04 AM      Profile for Free_Radical     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
So, would you happen to have a copy of this "international commitment" of which you speak with such authority?

Easily found by anyone with a serious desire to do so:

Declaration by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

United Nations Resolution 1707


From: In between . . . | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 24 April 2007 07:06 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

No I'm not joking. You're bluffing. You haven't got a clue whether Canada is bound by any agreement to remain in its current military role until February 2009...


Yeah that's right. I don't have access to the paperwork out of the PMO or into NATO so Jack and yourself can run off at the mouth all you want.

as if someone in Ottawa didn't hit the "send" button the instant Milliken called it. dream on.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 07:14 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Easily found by anyone with a serious desire to do so:

Declaration by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

United Nations Resolution 1707


Hello!

Canada's treaty obligation to stay till February 2009.

You have a "serious desire" to find it? Then find it. Show it to me. Where is it? Stop throwing links around.

Hint: It will have to mention "Canada" and "February 2009" somewhere in the text.

By the way, I'm not talking about the motion in the House of Commons, because that's not a treaty obligation. That motion can be reversed.

Hint #2: "a 12-month period beyond 13 October 2006" does not reach to February 2009. Check your calendar. Nor does the S.C. resolution say that a country can't pull out of ISAF any old time it feels like it.

[ 24 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 24 April 2007 08:51 AM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP should vote no, 2 more years is way too long.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 09:08 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
The NDP should vote no, 2 more years is way too long.

1. Jack Layton already said this (see above):

quote:
"The Liberal motion supports two more years of fighting - and that's just not acceptable."

2. The motion doesn't call for an end to combat after two years - only an end to combat in the South.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 April 2007 02:12 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A Liberal motion to pull out Canadian troops from Afghanistan in February 2009 has failed to pass.

Tuesday's vote count was 150 against to 134 in favour.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 24 April 2007 02:29 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Voting "for" would have put the NDP in a position of enforced silence on Afghanistan troop deployment for the next 2 years.
If they objected to the combat role after voting "yes", they would be accused of going against their own vote, "flip-flopping" etc.
The Liberals put the motion forward with the mandated 2 year stipulation with the full knowledge (and with the cynical intention) of having it defeated.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 April 2007 02:33 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The UN Resolution cited above permits Canada and other members of the ISAF to remain in Afghanistan until October, 2007.

It does not require Canada to go there however, or remain there.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 02:58 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
The UN Resolution cited above permits Canada and other members of the ISAF to remain in Afghanistan until October, 2007.

It does not require Canada to go there however, or remain there.


Correct. But don't try to rely on logic and plain English with people who support the "mission". They're immune to it by now.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 24 April 2007 03:35 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Correct. But don't try to rely on logic and plain English with people who support the "mission". They're immune to it by now.


I don't want to make a big deal out of this, it's just that I hate it when people refer to the WAR as a "mission." It may seem like minor semantics to some, but to me, I've always felt like calling it a "mission" really denies the reality of what it really is... A WAR.

So, I guess from now on, if anyone catches me referring to the WAR as a "mission," please correct me from making this oversight.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eurynome
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9694

posted 24 April 2007 04:01 PM      Profile for Eurynome        Edit/Delete Post
For those of you who think the NDP made a good decision voting against the motion:

I am a left-center lapsed NDP member who for the most part has valued NDP contributions to the Canadian scene, but have been growing increasingly disillusioned with their strategies--especially when it was transparent that their insecurity at having the Liberals in opposition was leading them to make deals that buoy up the party on the opposite side of the spectrum from themselves--the CPC. This is *not* how Leftist politics should work--it is amateurish and unprincipled.

Again this has happened, and for now, I am finished with the NDP. They may have their policy reasons for not supporting the motion, but these only play to insiders and purists. They will make this deal with the devil to defeat the Liberal motion (CPC) thinking this allows them to remain distinct from the Liberals and thus relevant; all this shows is that for them, political considerations are more important than figuring out how to negotiate for real-world improvements that can actually be gained given the Canadian political spectrum. They actually make/prove themselves irrelevant.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 24 April 2007 04:25 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see it both ways. The immediate concern is to send the Conservative government a wake up call that parliament is active and ready to push back. The same could not be said to the South of us, until the 2006 congressional elections. However, when given the chance, the Democrats also flubbed it, extending funding for the Iraq war for at least two months.

As for the NDP, as long as the Afghanistan war remains a front and centre issue for the party, then I can abide them voting against the Liberal motion. If they let it slide in favour of their campaign on ATM fees or other such gimmicky foolishness, then they should be repudiated harshly.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 24 April 2007 04:34 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*And cue the propping up the Conservatives talk.

So basically what your saying is that the NDP should have voted in favour of this motion so that one brand of Conservatives could get their way instead of the other Conservatives getting their way?!

Besides, this was not even a confidence motion.

About the only thing I can see making this situation any easier to understand is if the NDP caucus just didn't vote on the measure.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 06:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:

About the only thing I can see making this situation any easier to understand is if the NDP caucus just didn't vote on the measure.

Interesting point - I'll bet they considered that. But they had to oppose the motion, not (as Euronyme inexplicably suggests) for some "political" motives, but because it supported the war and allowed it to continue even after 2009, albeit not in the South.

The NDP did the right thing. I've been worried for some time that their mind might start wandering. They need all the support, encouragement, and pressure they can get to stay on the right path. No one needs a political party which is just a "pressure group" adjunct to the Liberals.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 April 2007 06:51 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's interesting how SOME people will argue that the NDP should have voted for this Liberal joke resolution on the grounds that setting a firm 2009 deadline is better than having no deadline at all.

So, I wonder how the Liberals will vote when the Conservatives bring in a Clean Air Act that will do a few cosmetic things about the environment - but which will NOT set a firm plan to achieve Kyoto targets by 2012 - surely the Liberals have to vote YES, because "anything is better than nothing"


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 April 2007 07:01 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
If they let it slide in favour of their campaign on ATM fees or other such gimmicky foolishness, then they should be repudiated harshly.

Canadian taxpayers have bailed out banks more than once, and gouging Canadians with ATM fees amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars a year in bank revenues is unnecessary and and insulting to everyone who works for a living. Banking is not a luxury for tens of millions of Canadian citizens, it's an essential service for which profiteering has no place. They're already saving loads of money by closing down regular bank services in poor neighborhoods and replacing them with ABMs.

ABM fees were banned in Britain after public pressure persuaded them to. That's how democracy works, by not capitulating to big business and other non-elected special interest groups. The gun registry and metric system were political gimmicks. ABM fees affect all Canadians. Ask anyone if they would prefer not to give big, profitable, monopolizing banks free money if they don't have to.

And yes, we need a way out of this U.S. quagmire in Afghanistan ASAP.

[ 24 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 24 April 2007 09:36 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post
The NDP should have abstained form the vote...

But of course they did not because they have a different agenda... Taht none of you NDP supporters want to talk about...

The agenda of maintaining the current system...

They could of stayed away from the vote... it would have put them in a better place to explain the reasons why they wanted nothing to do with this bill..

Now they have to explain why they voted with the conservatives...


From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2007 07:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh damn. Actually, this one is too long to keep open. So I'm going to go open one of the ones I just closed now. Sigh.

People, PLEASE LOOK AROUND before starting a brand new thread on some hot topic. If it's about the NDP, there's a good chance there's already a thread going!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca