# NDP calls for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan



## probum non poenitet (31 Aug 2006)

Interesting development, to put it mildly:

_Reproduced here from the NDP Website under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act._
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4117

Wrong mission for Canada: Layton calls for troop withdrawal
Thu 31 Aug 2006 | Printer friendly 


OTTAWA – NDP Leader Jack Layton today called for withdrawal of Canadian troops from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. Troop withdrawal should begin as soon as possible and be complete by February 2007.

“This is not the right mission for Canada. It is not clearly defined, there is no exit strategy and it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping,” said Layton. 

“New Democrats support our Canadian Forces,” said Layton. “We grieve with each family that loses a loved one in this and all conflicts, or sees a loved one injured in the line of duty. It is precisely because of this deep respect for our soldiers that we have consistently asked tough questions of the Harper government—a government which is keeping Canadians in harms’ way without clearly-articulated objectives, timelines, or criteria for success.” 

“New Democrats understand the need to send troops into combat and the risks involved. We support and have supported appropriate missions. Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success. This is not such a mission,” said Layton. 

Layton said, “New Democrats have a clear, comprehensive vision that moves Canada in the right direction - where our role in Afghanistan is through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process - not a George Bush style counter-insurgency war.”

“We must continue to work multilaterally to get tough on terrorism,” said Layton. “But, we also understand that making the world a safer place requires us to go much further. Issues like combating global poverty, international development assistance, reforming international institutions, peace building and securing human rights are all part of the solution.”

Statement by NDP Leader Jack Layton


----------



## HDE (31 Aug 2006)

"New Democrats support our Canadian Forces"   That pretty much flies in the face of all evidence; no doubt the MSM will ask him for some background to support his claim.


----------



## on guard for thee (31 Aug 2006)

Ahhhhh.

All is becoming clear to me now....

We are engaged in "The "humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and  comprehensive peace process" against terror".

Why didn't I get this sooner????


----------



## Zarathustra (31 Aug 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> securing human rights are all part of the solution.



Securing human rights by letting the Taliban win ? 

I don't understand his position. Sure you can be worried about the outcome of this conflict, but the Talibans are so opposed to everything the NDP wants.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2006)

I am sure that the Taliban fundraisers in his riding have given him a whole different perspective.   ;D


----------



## probum non poenitet (31 Aug 2006)

> We have consistently asked tough questions of the Harper government—a government which is keeping Canadians in harms’ way without clearly-articulated objectives, timelines, or criteria for success.
> Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success.



I think this opens a pretty important chapter in what will happen politically in Canada ... it's "Game on" for all parties now.

I see two general directions this could take us - one terrible, and one not completely terrible.

In the not completely terrible option, the NDPs calls for a clear position from the government forces debate in the Commons, and gives the Conservatives (and pro-mission Liberals) a chance to outline and enunciate clearly *what it is we want to achieve  * and *how we are moving towards that goal*.
If the government puts forth a coherent, defendable position, it may acutally strengthen the mission and public support for it. So democracy functions like it's supposed to ... the opposition forces the sitting government to be better, stronger faster ...
Of course, if the government does not make its case clearly, or Canadians don't agree with its case, the mission might end after the next election.  

But what I fear is that the conflict may now be _politicized_. If politicans take the *low road*, and put the interests of their party before the interests of the nation, we may have a new cross to bear.
Anti-war politicans will benefit politically from military failure ... you can connect the dots on that one.
Pro-war politicans may be tempted to conduct the mission with more eyes on domestic politics than on the needs of the mission.
I dearly, dearly hope that politicans do not use the sacrifices of our soldiers to gain political advantage.

If a pro-war anti-war Parliament is our new political reality (has it ever been so in Canadian history?) - I hope our politicans mature in one heck of a hurry, and return to civilized, meaningful debate. Because demagoguery at this time would be in the poorest taste.
Watch and shoot.


----------



## Magravan (31 Aug 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> I think this opens a pretty important chapter in what will happen politically in Canada ... it's "Game on" for all parties now.
> 
> I see two general directions this could take us - one terrible, and one not completely terrible.
> 
> ...



+1 ... I think that choosing a battle with no understanding of how to effectively leave the country, we are setting ourselves up for failure. The NDP aren't going to remove the troops from Afghanistan on their own. IF the Harper government cannot give Canadians a valid reason for our troops to be in Afghanistan, how can it be said that he really understands anything about what is going on? It isn't hard to sell a good product, even if the price is high. If Harper doesn't believe in this mission enough to give a good, solid speech to the populace, then I am forced to question if he is wrong to have our troops there.

Personally, in my opinion, this is exactly the kind of thing that the Harper government should want.. A chance to continue to reassure Canadians why were are asking our troops to battle these people. The public already has doubts, regardless of what the Opposition government states... Better to utilize a chance to speak to Canadians about why the minority government believes we should be there. If they can't handle a few questions and suggestions to specify what we are doing there, are Canadians really going to trust them with a majority?


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> “... there is no exit strategy ...” said Layton.


This is either misguiding fear mongering or Jack Layton needs to do his homework.  The leader of a federal political party should understand how the mission is working toward an already defined exit strategy.  Part of reconstruction includes building the capacity of the Afghani security forces.  As they grow and develop competency they take over an increasingly larger proportion of the nation's security requirements (replacing international forces that are currently doing this on behalf of the Afghani government).  Eventually, they can run the show & we can go home.



			
				probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> “... it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peacekeeping,” said Layton.


What does he believe "peacekeeping" is?  We have dozens of threads on this site that discuss the topic, and they all seem to agree that "peacekeeping" does need to include combat operations against those who break the peace.



			
				probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Layton said, “New Democrats have a clear, comprehensive vision that moves Canada in the right direction - where our role in Afghanistan is through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process - not a George Bush style counter-insurgency war.”


So, our role will be to do all the things that the TB will use force to prevent us from doing.  Good thing there is that UN approved multinational force in the country.  Maybe we should also send the Army as an enabler . . . oh, wait . . . that is what we’re being told to bring home.



			
				probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> In the not completely terrible option, the NDPs calls for a clear position from the government forces debate in the Commons, and gives the Conservatives (and pro-mission Liberals) a chance to outline and enunciate clearly what it is we want to achieve and how we are moving towards that goal.


Was this not done during any of the previous Commons debates?



			
				Magravan said:
			
		

> +1 ... I think that choosing a battle with no understanding of how to effectively leave the country, we are setting ourselves up for failure.


Good thing there has always been a plan (at least, a plan far better than any peacekeeping mission has ever had).  Don’t be fooled on this.


----------



## probum non poenitet (31 Aug 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Was this not done during any of the previous Commons debates?



Yes ... I think the Conservatives have been clear and consistent in what they want to achieve. Hats off.
Their positions are available to the public, and I think the military who are enacting those policies by and large have a good understanding of them.

Buuutttt ..... just over half of Parliament bought in on the May 17 debate, and though polls are fickle things, they have consitently shown a significant number of Canadians are unsure of what our mission is.

I think the 'truth will out.' Militarily, the Conservatives are realists (in my opinion), the Liberals are adrift, and the NDP are Utopians.
So the more this issue is debated, the more that divide will become apparent to the public... *in theory*. (cue organ music and thunder)


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2006)

If the public opinion/understanding is the problem, then the PM should just make use of that air time he has the power to get on all television channels.  With nothing else to watch, people can listen to the facts (and so stop getting sold on fallacies that the NDP & certain Liberals are selling).


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> NDP Leader Jack Layton said the troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan by February because the mission "lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance."


Maybe the solution is more development assistance & not fewer soldiers.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Maybe the solution is more development assistance & not fewer soldiers.



And I think that it should fall on the NDP minded, and similar ilk, to volunteer for such jobs.  Like the Medicines San Frontiers, they can go forth and build 'Habitates for Humanity' to their hearts content, and in the meantime find out what the situation is really like over there..........OK..........Sorry.  We have already trashed those Christian Groups who have done this already and become hostages of the various terrorist organizations.  Silly idea.  I take it back.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Sep 2006)

And it only gets better.....

*Layton suggests talks with Taliban*
Bill Curry, Globe & Mail, 1 Sept 06
permalink - http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/20071

''OTTAWA — Canada should withdraw its troops from the current mission in southern Afghanistan and invite Taliban fighters to peace talks, NDP Leader Jack Layton said yesterday.

"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said.

After listening to Canadians across the country this summer, Mr. Layton said, he has come to the conclusion that the current mission is too focused on fighting insurgents at the expense of development and diplomacy.

"Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper need only look at the experience in Iraq to conclude that ill-conceived and unbalanced missions do not create the conditions for long-term peace," the New Democratic Party Leader said . . . . ''

The Globe's editorial sums it up well....
permalink - http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/61334

''And what does he imagine that the Taliban -- oppressors of girls and women, scourge of those it considers heretics, agents of suicide bombs in crowded marketplaces, destroyers of historic Buddhist carvings -- might seek at such a table? A cabinet post? A payment in return for respecting a multi-party government, not burning schools because girls attend them, not killing people it disagrees with and not providing a haven for al-Qaeda?''


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> *"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said.*


Just as we said to Herr Hitler: NOTHING.  Words don't work with fanatics.  Deeds do.  

Having said that, the sort of reconciliation mentioned by the tribal leaders may go a ways, but that should NOT be confused with "sitting at a table and discussing".  Deeds not words, JL, deed not words.


----------



## Etienne (1 Sep 2006)

Although I have absolutely nothing against the NDP or their views, I sometimes wonder why we give all that attention to someone like Mr Layton. Clearly he is misinformed and disconnect from the world. Lester Pearsons idea was good...but died 20 years ago. Opening discusion with the Taliban ? come on ...get real..they tried that with a certain Adolph Hitler some 60 years ago.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Sep 2006)

“This is not the right mission for Canada. It is not clearly defined, there is no exit strategy and it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping,” said Layton. 

Save that somewhere for the next time Layton extrudes an idea of his own as to where we should be sending troops.  Ask him whether his proposed mission is clearly defined, has an exit strategy, and is balanced.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Sep 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> “This is not the right mission for Canada. It is not clearly defined, there is no exit strategy and it* is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping*,” said Layton.


Why does focusing on counter insurgency during an insurgency unbalance a mission?  How would focusing on "peace keeping" [sic] during an insurgency balance a mission?  THERE IS NO FRICKIN' PEACE TO KEEP!  EARTH TO JACK!  COME IN JACK!!!!!!


I don't think he's listening


OK, no matter.  Shall we sing "Kumbaya?"


----------



## paracowboy (1 Sep 2006)

paracowboy calls for immediate NDP withdrawal from Parliament.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> paracowboy calls for immediate NDP withdrawal from Parliament.


von Garvin seconds that motion


----------



## Reccesoldier (1 Sep 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Buuutttt ..... just over half of Parliament bought in on the May 17 debate, and though polls are fickle things, they have consitently shown a significant number of Canadians are unsure of what our mission is.



If only just over half of Parliament was present for the debate then the question to be asked is how many of those absent parliamentarians are now asking stupid questions or slinging this crap for public consumption through the media.  

Once we determine that, then we will know who is actualy interested and who is playing politics.  

Laton is even more controled by the media and immediate public opinion than even Mr. Dithers was.  USELESS.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2006)

Just saw in the Maritime News (ASN) where Jack Layton is upset that Cpl Paul Davis' father disagrees with the NDP platform to pull Canadian Troops out of Afghanistan and bring the Taliban in to negotiations.   :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Sep 2006)

Who would have thought that the military which has gone far too long and forgotten may now decide the next government.


----------



## warspite (2 Sep 2006)

What Jack in the box doesn't understand is that when someone is shooting at you, they don't want to talk, they don't want a peaceful resolution to the conflict, they want to force us out and kill anyone who stands between them and power.

What Jack in the box doesn't understand is when some Taliban insurgent shoots at a Canadian there had better be some bullets, artillery shells and maybe a missile or two heading in his direction not harsh words.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (2 Sep 2006)

Well I have to admit,  I agree with large areas of the NDP policy.  I think that more resources should go into public healthcare, transit, education and affordable housing. I honestly see the benefits to demand side economics (obviously not the only solution, but moving on).  However I just can't agree with the NDP on their foreign policy.  

We went in there because they did pose a real threat to us at the time.  They were actively supporting and protecting groups who had hostile intentions. They threatened us,  we couldn't ignore the threat. And not to overplay the point,  this was just after September 11.  There was no doubt at the time that it was the right thing to do.  Even then though I remember talk that this would be a long struggle and we'll be tempted to pull out.

If we pull out of Afghanistan,  the Taliban will take over again,  there is no doubt of that.  There is no doubt that they will take our retreat as a victory and resume their horrible practices all over again.  Sometimes giving into an aggressor only inspires them to do worse.  I think we need to be there until there is a stable country,  out of our our intrest.

I'm also hearing talk that Mr. Layton's statements are encouraging the Taliban. http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/09/02/1795140-sun.html  I do have to say that I believe this to be true.  If we disagree with what Mr. Layton is saying,  your voice is as free as his his let him know Layton.J@parl.gc.ca 

Now,  remember democracy depends on free and open dialogue.  If he is wrong,  you can bring up facts to prove it.  Don't let this issue be boiled down to "support our government's decisions without question or be a traitor"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0isbNpCLodQ&mode=related&search=


----------



## larry Strong (2 Sep 2006)

Done. Sent to the Smartypants from Toronto:



Sir

When people have no clue what they are talking about, it's best to remain  silent.

Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove to the world you are one.


Sincerely

Laurence A Strong CD


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Sep 2006)

More on some who think Jack Layton is helping the Taliban....

*Fallen soldier's father slams Layton's call for troop pullout*
Toronto Star, 2 Sept 06
http://tinyurl.com/k76m4

An NDP call for Canada's military to pull out of Afghanistan isn't sitting well with the father of a soldier killed there.

Jim Davis of Bridgewater, N.S., lost his son six months ago and is critical of NDP Leader Jack Layton's demand for an end to the military mission.

Davis said yesterday that Layton has not only insulted the memory of the dead and injured, but endangered the lives of those still fighting.

"I mean, that's ridiculous and I can't believe he would do that, endanger the lives of our soldiers by saying such a thing," Davis told CTV News.

Cpl. Paul Davis, 28, died in March when the vehicle he was in rolled over while on patrol in Kandahar.

On Thursday, Layton said Canada's Afghan mission had gone astray, with no clear goals or exit strategy. "This is not the right mission for Canada. ... In particular, it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance," he said.

Davis said statements like that encourage the Taliban to keep fighting. "Playing politics with the lives of our soldiers is despicable," he said. *"We made a decision to go after the Taliban, trying to get Afghanistan back on its feet, so it doesn't make sense for us to call it quits." * . . . .


----------



## HDE (2 Sep 2006)

Apparently the "far left" tend to dominate at NDP conventions, one of which is happening early in September,  so Jack is busily trying to cobble together a more "moderate" policy than they'd push for.  Can't be a good sign when GI Jack is seen as one of  the more rational types the NDP attract


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (2 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Now,  remember democracy depends on free and open dialogue.  If he is wrong,  you can bring up facts to prove it.  Don't let this issue be boiled down to "support our government's decisions without question or be a traitor"
> 
> thanks for keeping us all in line.



lol,   I'm sorry if I came across in a bad way.  I guess I am venting my frustrations about how we're starting to let rhetoric take the place of real debate. "Support our troops. Bring 'em home" or "The world changed on 9/11" or "Talk of retreat emboldens our enemy"  I'm tired of complex political arguments being boiled down to 30 second soundbites so that people can feel they understand the topic without actually knowing the details.

I have spoken with several NDPers,  and a few NDP candidates in the last election, and I can honestly say they have a very different perception on the situation.  They all told me that Afghanistan was a civil war in which we had no right to interfear in. They don't believe that the Taliban government did us any wrong - seeing a distinction between the taliban and Al-quida. They dismiss out of hand that if we left the Taliban would take over and be allot worse than before. They also believe that this current administration has deliberately taken on more dangerous roles for our troops to put itself in the good graces of our trading partners, one in particular, and so businesses that they hold intrest in would prosper.   (Basically the argument I heard was they're putting our soldiers on more dangerous postings so America will like us more and let businesses owned by Conservatives make more money in the states.  I asked them for evidence of that motivation... I received none.)  Also that by increasing our presence there we freed up American resources so they can declare their illegal war of aggression in Iraq. Also I heard that by having such a high profile role we increase our likelyhood of being attacked at home. (Which seems funny because we were on Al-quida's hit list for a long time anyways.  We were going to be attacked a few times in this country but our Muslim community stopped them, turning them into the authorities.)

I feel that the NDPers I spoke with are good people,  many were smart, educated and they all mean well.  I just disagree with their interpretations. I think, as hard and painfull as it is, that we are doing the right thing.   I however do find it contradictory to argue against being in Afghanistan and then advocate going to Darfur.... a mission with no clear mandate,  end date or exit strategy... I want to know how they can be against Afghanistan but for Darfur.  Do they think we should only do good in places where we know we can kick ass without getting hurt?

But I said before I'll say it again,  it is hard to sit there and listen politely when someone is standing up there advocating something you'd die to prevent.  That's the fun side of Democracy,  the one with the most gibbled up perceptions still gets to speak. All he is doing is showing why the NDP continually flop on the national stage.  Doing things that make the partents of fallen soldiers publicly denounce you.... bad PR epically for the swing voters.  (I want to make a happy face here,  but honestly I just feel sad)


----------



## HDE (2 Sep 2006)

The NDP seem dead keen on sending our "peacekeepers" into Darfur and/or south Lebanon.  Apparently these aren't inherently "dangerous"?  Sorry, the reality is that the NDP have a miserable history of supporting the Canadian military and their sudden concern for our soldiers reeks of hypocrisy.


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/03/afghanistan-taliban.html


> *4 Canadians killed, 9 injured in Afghan battle*
> Last Updated Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:39:17 EDT
> CBC News
> 
> ...


Looks like he's found his favorite sound bite because he has pulled it out again.

Has anyone shown him the lunacy of his argument: We are not providing enough humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, so we should remove our military effort.  The fact is, if we are not providing enough humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, then we should increase our humanitarian effort in Afghanistan.  We do not need to reduce our military footprint to increase our humanitarian footprint (in fact the opposite is likely true).


----------



## warspite (3 Sep 2006)

I say Jack in the box should travel over there himself and see whats going on...then again he would probably get lost by not following the clear logical instructions and directions handed to him... or maybe he might learn something .


----------



## TCBF (3 Sep 2006)

They won't relate.  They are tribal warriors who want to deal with other warriors.  Some arseclown starts spouting his UN/NGO/Pol weasel-worded soliloquy, the whole meeting goes down the toilet.


----------



## orange.paint (4 Sep 2006)

Scary part is I found my past 6 weeks in disturbing civilianland ,most people will agree with the NDP stance.I find they love the troops but don't quite support harper/mission, and a total lack of education on their part.

4 more weeks....


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2006)

Here is an important piece from our friend, and I think she is a friend – not an uninformed _cheerleader_, *Christie Blatchford* in today’s _Globe and Mail_ – reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060904.wxblatchford04/BNStory/National/home 


> Love the soldiers? Love the soldiering
> *Sad faces and peace talk aside, the new NDP line is a fraud, Christie Blatchford writes*
> 
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
> ...



I agree.

I’ve met Jack Layton a couple of times; he is a pleasant, likable fellow (ditto his wife), reminds me of Brian Mulroney in some ways: a quick, _*real*_ smile, a firm handshake, attention focused on you (for a few moments) while he registers who/what you are – I suppose that helps in working politicians.  He is, no doubt, an intelligent man.

I think he is also a terrible cynic: he is off to Québec next week for his Party’s convention and he is running scared because the delegates are, so I read/hear, far to the left of the Party’s leadership and way too far left for the Canadian voters.  Layton desperately wants (needs, if he likes his job) to increase his seat _take_ which must happen, mostly, at the expense of the Liberals and he even more desperately wants at least one seat in Québec so that the NDP can, finally, claim to be a real, national Party.  His crocodile tears and _cut and run_ position is, he thinks, a vote-getter amongst some (enough?) traditionally isolationist Québecers.

Blatchford is right: Layton does not, *cannot* respect soldiers because he hates the business of soldiering.


----------



## GAP (4 Sep 2006)

Did not Jack Layton enspouse the ideal that we should be in Darfur?

Well, Jack baby, here's where your vaulted Darfur mission is heading......

Sudan orders peacekeepers to leave Darfur by Sept. 30
MOHAMED SAEED Associated Press Globe & Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060904.wdarfur0904/BNStory/International/home

KHARTOUM — Sudan said Monday that the African Union has no right to transfer its peacekeeping mission in Darfur to the United Nations and must withdraw its troops from the western region by month's end.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jamal Ibrahim said that the AU had indicated that it could not continue its presence in Darfur beyond Sept. 30.

“If they are unable to continue with their assignment in Darfur beyond Sept. 30, then they have to leave before that date. At the same time, they have no right to transfer this assignment to the UN or any other body. This right rests only with the government of the Sudan,” he said.

The government on Thursday rejected a UN Security Council resolution for the deployment of a 20,000-strong UN force in Darfur.
More on link


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Sep 2006)

Isn't there a law against people giving comfort to the enemy? Is it only during declared war or can it apply to this time of fighting an enemy who is like a Medusa? ie a many headed bag of snakes.

I believe that Layton and his ilk are giving comfort to the enemy. The Taliban and Al Queda are internet savvy and they read all this blather and hoist it aboard. It makes them want to further divide our resolve by sowing seeds of discord and mis-information. 

During the Vietnam era I thought people like Jane Fonda and her ilk should have been prosecuted for their visits to North Vietnam and bashing of US Forces and US Foreign Policy. Jack Layton is doing the same as she did, although he doesn't have "a pair" large enough to venture a visit to the Taliban or say....Osama himself...somewhere in Pakistan. :rage:


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2006)

> Is it only during declared war or can it apply to this time of fighting



I remember a line from a recent article that comes to mind here. It was from a British officer in Iraq:  "The Americans are at war.  We are on operations."

Some nations can't see the validity in using deadly force except in time of war.  Other nations apply deadly force as an operational requirement regardless of whether or not a state of war exists.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Sep 2006)

Ok, I've cleaned this thread up now.  This is a serious political discussion that is becoming an issue in Canada and we need to tackle the issue on the level here.  This isn't a "slander Jack Layton" or a "bash the NDP" thread, so keep the noise level down.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Sep 2006)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Warmington_Joe/2006/09/05/1803054.html

Do we have the guts to hang in? 
By Joe Warmington
  
TRENTON -- The airstrip here is from where they head to war. 
It is also where they return. Too many times in boxes. 
There will be more this week. Although five more Canadians were killed in Afghanistan, there was no sign here that anything significant had happened. 

In fact, the Canadian flag at 8-Wing was not at half-mast since, it seems, these deaths don't fit the criteria for such an honour. 
But there's nothing routine about dead Canadian soldiers -- even though they are getting used to it here. 
The flag may not be lowered but not everybody has accepted it as regular course. Mike Swayze sets his own protocol at his tiny wooden bungalow, nearby on Hwy. 2. 

Drive by and you'll see a Canadian flag, awkwardly attached to his shed, flying at half-mast. But the honour is there and the intent noted by everybody travelling by. 
He said he has been doing it "ever since" Ottawa's decision not to lower flags on federal buildings every time a Canadian is killed. 
"I think it should be down each time," he said. "That's why I lower mine." 
He wants the men and women to know he cares and that people care. The poor soldiers must wonder about the pitiful performance of NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for their pullout. 

"This is the wrong mission for Canada," said Layton, just days after sick musings about having a dialogue with the Taliban. 
He did all of this on a day when, while we lost soldiers, we were also part of a hugely successful NATO mission in which up to 200 enemy fighters were killed. 
Soldiers die in war. These people are trained and understand that. Their deaths are a heroic sacrifice for the country and for freedom and not a tragic car accident on Hwy. 401. It's already a difficult enough task to stabilize Afghanistan without Layton undermining them. 

"It's more than disgusting, it's improper," John Oakley morning show host on AM 640 in Toronto, said as his phone lines lit up. "It's almost ghoulish." 
There certainly is a time for debate and Layton will be buoyed by the fact many agree with him. 
"We are putting our nose where it doesn't belong," truck driver Frederick Stockli said just east of here. "We should have never been there in the first place. What are we doing there? Do we have the means to fight a lost cause?" 

A horrible insult 

Imagine if our men and women of such valour in the two world wars had taken that attitude on the very worst days? It's a matter of your will. Do we have the will? 
Talking about pulling out and saying we can't win is gutless, cowardly and unfair to the people fighting for us. It is also a horrible insult to all those who have already died. 
And what a morale boost for the Taliban! 

It would be nice if we could live a free life with no sacrifice and if no one had to die. Layton lives in dreamland! 
Would you like this kind of person in your slit trench? Of course he or she wouldn't be there anyway, because it takes a special courage -- courage like the heroes have over there. 
There are a lot of Canadians buried around the world so we can enjoy our SUVs and The Sopranos on TV. They are not lost causes. 

Pro-troop rally? 

Sadly, in war, it's us against them. It turns out the us are in our own country. We'll find out what this country is really made of. The prime minister's longevity depends on how he steers this but so far he seems strong in his resolve. 
What can we do to support our troops? Can we do some support of pro-troop rally? Any ideas? Anybody with me? 

Mike Swayze is. 
"I hope the (soldiers overseas) know (of the support)," he said. "I am hoping some of the guys flying helicopters around here will see that my flag is at half-mast." 

Perhaps so will the next pilot flying into that Trenton airstrip with the latest Canadian casualties of war. 

joe.warmington@tor.sunpub.com 

• You can call Joe Warmington at (416) 947-2392 or e-mail at joe.warmington@tor.sunpub.com


----------



## Tolstoyevsky (5 Sep 2006)

Lost cause? That's a very bizarre statement. Anyway, defeatism not only sucks as a general attitude, but it also sabotages our efforts in Afghanistan. 

I was reading Giap's (commie Vietnamese general) memoirs and he mentioned the fact that although the Tet offensive was a total failure for the Viet Cong and NVA, the American media and the left wingers in the States turned it into a victory. In a liberal democracy, media-shaped perception is almost as important as reality.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Sep 2006)

Tolstoyevsky said:
			
		

> Lost cause? That's a very bizarre statement. Anyway, defeatism not only sucks as a general attitude, but it also sabotages our efforts in Afghanistan.
> 
> I was reading Giap's (commie Vietnamese general) memoirs and he mentioned the fact that although the Tet offensive was a total failure for the Viet Cong and NVA, the American media and the left wingers in the States turned it into a victory. In a liberal democracy, media-shaped perception is almost as important as reality.



Exactly...what Layton has done is almost treasonous in my estimation...giving comfort to the enemy.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2006)

Tonight:      CBC News, at 20 minutes past the hour, Jack Layton vs Peter MacKay, moderated by Peter Mansbridge.  Peter MacKay makes a good stand.

Followed by a Documentary on "911 - 5 years later" with Brian Stewart.


----------



## GAP (5 Sep 2006)

Even Mansbridge had trouble unstanding Layton when he asked who you negotiate with. Mackay simply spouted the party line...it's true, but guys get creative here...this is not going to work if all they are going to do is insist that it is the right mission. They need to do a PR campaign on everything else that is going on, not just the firefights.  :


----------



## mdh (5 Sep 2006)

> They need to do a PR campaign on everything else that is going on, not just the firefights.



It may be time for Harper to speak directly to the Canadian people on national TV to explain the Afghanistan mission; if Martin could preempt primetime to deliver an "apology" to the country for adscam, then Harper should be able to do it for something as serious as war...


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Sep 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> It may be time for Harper to speak directly to the Canadian people on national TV to explain the Afghanistan mission;



 All he knows is that it would be wrong to leave, but I strongly suspect he really doesn't know why ... I actually think Harper doesn't really know what to say and neither do his advisors.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Sep 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> It may be time for Harper to speak directly to the Canadian people on national TV to explain the Afghanistan mission; if Martin could preempt primetime to deliver an "apology" to the country for adscam, then Harper should be able to do it for something as serious as war...



Outstanding idea.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2006)

More voices in the "development & diplomacy, but no defence" chorus (highlights mine - note the comment from everyone's favourite "think tank" the Polaris Institute), shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Danger: rhetoric ahead*
Susan Riley, Ottawa Citizen, 6 Sept 06
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=127404d0-75a6-4d1b-9936-5423291d4311

It didn't take long for critics to accuse Jack Layton of playing footsie with the Taliban after he called last week for a speedy withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in favour of urgent peace negotiations.

The debate about this war, and its terrible complications, has sharpened again with the deaths in Afghanistan on the weekend. It will only intensify in coming weeks as Parliament resumes. It will get nasty, too: There are too many political ambitions involved to hope for a respectful exchange.

What Canada should be doing in Afghanistan (if anything), what we owe the world, what we owe our troops, whether the war is winnable -- these are questions for ethicists and on-the-ground reporters. Unfortunately, they will fall to politicians to resolve and pundits to ponder.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper can be counted on not to waver, to insist, Bush-like, on the transcendent evil of the enemy and the righteousness of Canada's mission -- to cast the campaign in a moral-religious light. Liberals will squirm uncomfortably: They launched the Afghan mission, but are nervously watching it unravel, uncertain where to turn.

This confusion is reflected in the leadership race, as the candidates embrace varying positions -- tracking casualties, polls and Harper's numbers. And the early ambivalence of the Bloc Quebecois is turning to outright opposition now that Gilles Duceppe sees a chance to undermine Tory strength in Quebec.

As for the New Democrats, Layton's claim -- that the military campaign is unwinnable, so international efforts should be directed to diplomacy -- isn't new, although he is the first major leader with the courage to advance it.

Nor is his proposal that the Taliban be included in any talks all that provocative. The hawkish U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the same point two years ago: "(Afghan) President Hamid Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban. He's not reaching out to the people with blood on their hands, but he's reaching out to other Taliban and trying to encourage them to come back into the society, be a participant and support the government."

Within recent weeks, too, there have been reports of NATO officials negotiating a possible ceasefire with some Taliban factions.

*The point is that the Taliban is a political, religious and cultural fact of Afghan society that contains, within its ranks, moderate elements -- moderate, comparatively speaking. It ran a viciously oppressive government; no one wants that regime to return. But the real world is not a cartoon, where the bad guys are instantly identifiable by the colour of their hats.*

The Karzai cabinet, for instance, includes former war lords, drug kingpins and Taliban sympathizers, along with western-educated professionals and a couple of brave women. All the country's factions will have to be reflected in that government if it is to survive after the West leaves.

On one another point, however, Layton is vulnerable -- not just to partisan abuse, but to widespread doubt. If we pull out of Afghanistan next February, two years ahead of schedule, will we look like cowards -- running out on allies and betraying our promises?

This prospect troubles even Canadians who are ambivalent about, or opposed to, the military campaign. *"No one is saying abandon Afghanistan," says Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute, a leading skeptic. The challenge, he says, is to move from a futile military campaign to development and diplomacy. "Canadians want to help ... but they've been told the only way to help is combat. They've only reluctantly accepted that."*

*The challenge, for opponents of the war, is to convince Canadians that we can play a useful diplomatic role -- in concert with other NATO nations -- that more hospitals and schools can be built despite the ongoing war, that changing focus doesn't mean cutting and running.*

It is easier to prove that the current approach isn't working. The Taliban is stronger than ever. The inevitable civilian deaths are undermining support for the allied effort and for Karzai's government. That government is riddled with corruption. The opium trade has rebounded. And now we're told that the only way to pacify the southern part of the country (scene of the recent casualties) is to leave Canadian troops behind. But for how long and at what cost?

*The prime minister seems determined to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2009 -- but how many lives will be lost and what happens when we leave? In the U.S., George Bush is orchestrating the return of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, dressing defeat in the rhetoric of victory. Are we in the first act of the same play?*

Susan Riley's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

E-mail: sriley@thecitizen.canwest.com


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2006)

So it goes: from tragedy to comedy and now to farce.  Here is the latest, reproduced (with my *emphasis* added) under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2d1586cd-646f-4358-93e5-567e77d87b59&k=31590


> Troops acting 'like terrorists?'
> *Draft resolution to go before NDP committee*
> 
> John Ivison
> ...



This sort of thing is a problem for all parties: the delegates, the ultra-faithful, are _more_ everything than the parliamentary caucus and the party’s policy staff.  The NDP (and Liberal) grassroots are more loony-left, the Conservative grassroots are much more _socially conservative_ and even the Bloc grassroots are more _militantly separatist_ than the party, proper.

While it might make Layton uncomfortable, for a wee while, if Brickler/_Ipsos Reid_ is correct he will happily trade the temporary discomfort for a couple of Liberal seats in Toronto, Vancouver and, above all, Montreal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2006)

Good point - the role of party leader as wrangler....


----------



## McG (6 Sep 2006)

Troops acting 'like terrorists?' 
See the thread here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49833.0.htm


----------



## MPIKE (6 Sep 2006)

Although, I can't find it , I'm sure Jacko joined a legion branch in a political move awhile back.   Maybe that membership should ask for the withdrawal of Layton et al as members of the Legion.  Especially, if his party's vote on Troop Terrorism is adopted and that should be grounds for him to be ejected.? (would his branch have the stones to try it?)

This NDP platform is utterly hypocritical of the beliefs of that insitution and they should not be allowed to associate further given their recent comments.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Sep 2006)

>Scary part is I found my past 6 weeks in disturbing civilianland ,most people will agree with the NDP stance.I find they love the troops but don't quite support harper/mission, and a total lack of education on their part.

Those who claim to support the troops but not support the mission are deluding themselves.  You can't support the troops without supporting the mission.  The national popular and political will to fight and determination to see the mission through to success is part of the package.  If you erode that resolve, you are not supporting the troops.  You are supporting the enemy.  You are supporting his aims, to remove our influence from his selected area of operations.  You are the enemy of his enemy, if not his ally.  The only proper way to object to the mission is to do so before it begins.  Once the decision is taken to build the dam, you should have the good sense to simply stand aside if you aren't willing to throw your effort into the construction instead of sawing at the beams.

When we send our armed forces instead of simply funding NGOs to do work abroad, presumably it's because we think some of the locals might object forcefully to our aims.  It does no good whatsoever to demonstrate that all the locals have to do is kill a platoon's worth of Canadians to rid themselves of our interference, each time and every time.  If we won't follow through, then what business have we risking people in harm's way, ever?  We might as well never go in the first place, avoiding the expenditure of any blood or treasure to what must inevitably be of no account because there are people opposed to us who will not flinch at the cost.

There may be reasons to drop the mission in Afghanistan - for example, what happens if Pakistan becomes irretrievably hostile - but casualties at the rate currently being sustained are not one of them.  Since I've never been in harm's way and am likely never to be so, call me a chickenhawk if you wish; you'll still have to address the substance because my personal failings and underachievements are irrelevant.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Sep 2006)

Brad,

+2.  Well said.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2006)

> Wednesday, Sep 06, 2006
> *Warnings about tough Afghan mission were there a year ago; did anyone listen?*
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - Recent combat deaths in Afghanistan have shocked many Canadians, but analysts say the country was warned a year ago that this could happen.
> ...



http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2375236

Reprinted under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (6 Sep 2006)

Toronto Sun today

September 6, 2006 

EDITORIAL: We cannot betray our soldiers now  

With 32 soldiers and a diplomat already having made the ultimate sacrifice for us in Afghanistan, it's time for an honest discussion about why we sent them there in the first place. 

We'd like to say it was because Canadians understood that Afghanistan under the Taliban had become a failed state, providing a safe harbour for terrorists like Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 and countless other atrocities. 

We'd like to say it was because Canadians recognized that we needed to prevent that from happening again -- both for our own safety and for the sake of the people of Afghanistan. 

But we can't say that because a year after Paul Martin and the Liberals first chose the dangerous mission in Kandahar for our soldiers, it's apparent that far too many Canadians simply weren't paying attention when that decision was made. 

It's not as if we weren't warned. A year ago, then Liberal defence minister Bill Graham repeatedly told Canadians about how deadly Kandahar would be for our troops. So did Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. But judging from the deeply divided opinion polls now, many of us weren't even listening. 

We naively assumed that Kandahar was another "peacekeeping" mission of the kind our governments -- both Liberal and Conservative -- have been bragging about for 50 years. 

Now, to their horror, many Canadians are finally realizing that Kandahar isn't a "peacekeeping" mission at all. That before there can be any peace, and for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to do any good, the Taliban must be defeated. 

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who a year ago supported this mission, now says we should pull out. He won't be the last Canadian politician to take the same appalling stand. 

We have never doubted that our soldiers are up to this task. The question now is, are the rest of us up to it? Because if the death of 32 soldiers is enough to sap our national will, we should never have sent any of them to Kandahar. We support this mission under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, just as we did when the Liberals were in charge. 

But the more important question now is whether Canadians, having sent our soldiers into harm's way, are prepared to back them until they finish the job. Because if we are not, we should never have sent them to Kandahar in the first place, and we will have betrayed them in the worst possible way.


----------



## Teflon (7 Sep 2006)

Letter to Editor - National Post 07 Sept 06:

'Each time he opens his mouth, Canadian soldiers are put in danger'

Every time Jack Layton muses that Canadian troops should prematurely withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban listens. They think that, with enough Canadian blood spilled, our Parliament will recall our soldiers and leave Afghanistan to its fate. Each time Mr. Layton calls for withdrawal, the Taliban gets what they believe to be a progress report on their insurgency. This perception of progress tells them that there is no reason to participate in the demobilization and disarmament programs of the Afghan government, and it encourages them to spill more Canadian blood, to build Canadian public support for Mr. Layton's call to retreat.


----------



## McG (7 Sep 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Those who claim to support the troops but not support the mission are deluding themselves.


I think there is scope for someone to support the troops without supporting the mission, and I've outlined where that line gets crossed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49827/post-439504.html#msg439504

It is when our bodies become the political ammunition of the anti-war movements or it is when we become the target of the anti-war rhetoric.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2006)

There's a difference between "opposing" the mission in the sense of adapting it to changing reality on the ground - no plan survives contact with the enemy, etc - and "opposing" the missing by abdicating it.


----------



## gaspasser (7 Sep 2006)

If my problem solving skills are up to scratch here: 
If we send in peaceful unarmed construction people to build houses and infrastructure, the bad guys will kill or kidnap them all.  Therefore, we need to send in troops to eliminate the treat THEN build.  Maybe the NDP can decide when to send in the unarmed personal?  And then cry over coffins and scream, "where's the troops to defend that'll defend us?"
My .02


----------



## probum non poenitet (7 Sep 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There's a difference between "opposing" the mission in the sense of adapting it to changing reality on the ground - no plan survives contact with the enemy, etc - and "opposing" the missing by abdicating it.



The more I think about this, the more I wonder what Jack Layton was thinking.

Most politicians know that getting what you want is by compromising and making deals. So if the NDP wanted more development, etc. etc. they might have conceivably said "If we don't revisit our plan for redevelopment, THEN we will withdraw support." "Or ... here was OUR great plan for the Afghan people ... OUR plan could have worked, but nobody would listen."

I don't follow the NDP especially closely, but wasn't his announcement a bit sudden?
The extreme position of "complete withdrawal, now!" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. Any negotiation will make Jack look like he's losing face.
So even if Harper presented the World's Most Cunning Plan that would have an NDP dream-list of incentives, it would be almost impossible for Layton to accept it.  You can't back off from "complete withdrawal, now!" with subtlety.

So if Layton was actually leaning on the government for more CIDA or DFAIT or whatever in Kandahar, he's blown it. And since Layton is an old-hat politician he surely knows what he was doing.

In fact, by taking this stand, he has effectively removed himself and his party from any influence of what is actually happening in Afghanistan.
The more I think about this, this is actually a golden opportunity for the Liberals to takes seats from the NDP, and not the other way around.

If the Liberals come forth as 'all things to all people' as they always do, they can say, "We support the mission, not like those cowardly NDP, but we care about a balanced approach, not like those blood-crazed Conservatives."
And if Harper comes up with The World's Most Cunning Plan, the Liberals can leap on board ... and if Harper doesn't, the Liberals can opt out. Soulless and leaderless they often are, but the Liberals are awfully good at playing politics.

So, if there's any fricking justice, Jack's version of "supporting the troops" may have marginalized him further.
Watch and shoot.


----------



## cplcaldwell (7 Sep 2006)

Probum's point is an interesting one. 

On one level Jack Layton is a product of Toronto civic politics, one of the most dysfunctional implementations of democracy on the planet.

On another level he is a smart guy, is he pandering to his core constituency with such polemics? 

Or does he know he'll never be PM and is betting on another gov't where he can appear to have held the 'hammer' and influenced the government on this or a related issue?

Could he morph the "complete withdrawal now" shrill now to more CIDA money in the future and come out looking the winner?

*Has he already thought this through ?*, _realized that the battle will be won_, decided to bypass the 'nasty war' part of the debate and go right to the palatable part. Of course once the situation on the ground actually gets to the palatable "passing out teddy bears" part, (in the near future), he can claim that was his idea all along.....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Sep 2006)

Here's the reply that I got from a strongly worded email to Sue Creba last night

"You should know that our riding association has formally requested that the
pre-amble from the motion on Afghanistan submitted to the 22nd Federal
Convention of the New Democratic Party in Quebec City be removed.

We in no way intended to suggest that our Canadian Forces personnel were in
any way associated with terrorism.

The very intent of the motion was the protection and safety of our Canadian
Forces and we regret that the words chosen in the preamble have changed the
focus away from why the current mission in Afghanistan is the wrong mission
for Canada.

This resolution was proposed out of concern that the combat situation in
Afghanistan puts our soldiers in such a dangerous position and has resulted
in so many deaths and injuries to Canadians and to innocent civilians."

Sue Creba,  President Nanaimo-Cowichan Federal NDP Association


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2006)

Deja Vu!.........Where have I seen that before?..........Oh! Yea!



			
				mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Below is my reply from Sue Creba of the riding association that drafted the offensive proposal.
> All I can say is a shovelful of this is good for the garden.......
> 
> "You should know that our riding association has formally requested that the
> ...


----------



## Jungle (7 Sep 2006)

Here's the solution: next time, we go to a war that does not kill people. Maybe some peacekeeping in Norway ?? Or a humanitarian mission to support vacationners on a beach in Cuba ??


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2006)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Here's the solution: next time, we go to a war that does not kill people. Maybe some peacekeeping in Norway ?? Or a humanitarian mission to support vacationners on a beach in Cuba ??



You haven't heard?  Our Ambassador to the US, Michael Wilson, has made statements to the effect that Canada will support the reconstruction of Cuba.


----------



## armyvern (7 Sep 2006)

Well I certainly wouldn't mind the NDP deploying me to do some for some kind of shelter construction operation. I suggest they consider placing me in Paris constructing walkways with overhead shelter from the elements from shop to shop. This would also serve their purpose of boosting the economy. They'll also have to supply me with a couple of new kit bags to put the theatre-souveniers in.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Sep 2006)

Jungle said:
			
		

> *Maybe some peacekeeping in Norway ?? Or a humanitarian mission to support vacationners on a beach in Cuba ??*


Nope. Despite Norway's 1939 declared neutrality (and negotiated trade agreements with both Germany and Great Britain  ??? ), lots of folks died in the years following Germany's invasion.

As for Cuba's beaches, does the Bay of Pigs ring any bells?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Sep 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Deja Vu!.........Where have I seen that before?..........Oh! Yea!



I'm betting she got flooded with email protesting this. No wonder she had to come up with a canned reply. I didn't email Layton but I'm thinking he had a pretty good flood too. Shoulda crashed his service provider with the deluge if you ask me :rage:


----------



## ammo618 (10 Sep 2006)

Hmmmmm....Last November the MCC were encouraging their members to support the NDP...I wonder what Jack will have to say about this?

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2006/10/c4502.html



> Muslim group calls Layton's demand for immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, 'reckless' and opportunistic
> TORONTO, Sept. 10 /CNW/ - The Muslim Canadian Congress has slammed NDP
> leader Jack Layton for playing politics with the lives of Afghan civilians and
> Canadian troops.
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Sep 2006)

Holy Crap, the MCC is against the NDP and supporting the CF?  Did Hell just forget to fill their oil tank?


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Sep 2006)

Maybe they know something we don't.


----------



## military granny (10 Sep 2006)

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Robinson_Ian/2006/09/10/pf-1821911.html

What are you thoughts on this?


----------



## old medic (10 Sep 2006)

Already posted here MG:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49833/post-441911.html#msg441911


----------



## military granny (10 Sep 2006)

Sorry OM I didn't see that.


----------



## Chimo (10 Sep 2006)

I just emailed all the members of the NDP and asked for a fully explanation. The I sent another email to Mr Layton and Mr Stoffer, the Defence Critic with pictures of the FBIs most wanted terrorist, I explained to them their party seemed confused on the definition, I stated these are terrorist... and then with a picture of several flag draped coffins, I added and these are heroes.

I also added, I am burying one of these heroes, Sgt Shane Stachnik, tomorrow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2006)

Chimo said:
			
		

> I just emailed all the members of the NDP and asked for a fully explanation. The I sent another email to Mr Layton and Mr Stoffer, the Defence Critic with pictures of the FBIs most wanted terrorist, I explained to them their party seemed confused on the definition, I stated these are terrorist... and then with a picture of several flag draped coffins, I added and these are heroes.
> 
> I also added, I am burying one of these heroes, Sgt Shane Stachnik, tomorrow.



I hope you went easy on Peter Stiffer: he's on our side.  He, and Gary Doer, maybe, were, as far as I heard, the only two voices of reason.  Stiffer criticized Layton and his stupid policy quite harshly.  Stoffer is a smart fellow, knowledgeable on defence matters and, I think a pretty _straight up_ guy.  Of course, being NDP, he is an economic illiterate but you can't have everything.


----------



## Chimo (10 Sep 2006)

I did in another email mention to Mr Stoffer that I realized that he took a stand in support of the CF and the Afghanistan mission. He needs to make a moral judgement whether or not to support a party that is so far removed from his views.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Sep 2006)

Chimo said:
			
		

> I did in another email mention to Mr Stoffer that I realized that he took a stand in support of the CF and the Afghanistan mission. He needs to make a moral judgement whether or not to support a party that is so far removed from his views.



It didn't seem to me that Alexa McDonagh was doing much to distance herself. In her riding is CFB Halifax, the largest military base in Canada...hello!?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> It didn't seem to me that Alexa McDonagh was doing much to distance herself. In her riding is CFB Halifax, the largest military base in Canada...hello!?


It would appear that You have a problem.  How many Sailors are NDP (Not Docked Properly)?   ;D


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2006)

"...would appear that You have a problem.  How many Sailors are NDP (Not Docked Properly)?"

- And: what riding do they VOTE in?  Being in the CF, we don't all cast our federal votes where we live, do we?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "...would appear that You have a problem.  How many Sailors are NDP (Not Docked Properly)?"
> 
> - And: what riding do they VOTE in?  Being in the CF, we don't all cast our federal votes where we live, do we?



But she comes to a lot of the stuff on the Base (high profile stuff).


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2006)

Of course she does.  Photo ops.  Free finger foods.  Perhaps an afternoon schmoozing in the Wardroom over drinks (free).  Perhaps a dinner or more finger foods.  An afternoon on the water in a Government 'yacht' with Duty Free Booze and more finger foods.  More Photo ops.  Did I mention free food?


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2006)

And really, an older woman can't have TOO many men fawning over her, now can she?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (10 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> And really, an older woman can't have TOO many men fawning over her, now can she?



Well I haven't seen too many fawning over her...now the ex-Lt Governor....yep lots of fawning...but then she is a beautiful person, in all senses of the word and she's staying on as our Honorary Captain (N).

Stoffer, McDonagh, the mayor Peter Kelly and the Senator there....the one who's head of the Senate Defence Committee were all down here for the JTFA Ch of Command ceremony in August and butter wasn't melting in any of their mouths...but come to think of it a lot of the free rations were!!


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2006)

"she is a beautiful person, in all senses of the word and she's staying on as our Honorary Captain (N)."

- So, you have an Honourary Captain who would shut you all down or dragoon you into enforcing the collectivization of Alberta in a minute if she had the power.   Huh?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (11 Sep 2006)

I ran into a hard core NDP supporter this weekend, (friend of a friend)  there was a blurb on the TV about the war in Afghanistan and he started on about how we should support the troops and bring them home.  I did more than my fair share to not start it up (being a guest in my friend's home) but when he said that the Canadian troops were propping up an illegitimate corrupt government just so we can take their oil I couldn't take any more.

     After 5 minutes I got him to understand that we are not in Iraq.  (It was hard,  and I almost had to bring out a map,  but he clearly had mentally linked the two) I then explained how Canada exports more oil than we produce (we are the largest supplier of oil to America - he was shocked) Then I asked him to speak up if he disagreed with any of the following points:

* The taliban has openly supported/aided terrorist organisations that have attacked us
* The taliban has openly supported/aided terrorist groups that have both the means and the intention to attack us
* Those terrorist groups said they would attack again,  they didn't single out only America, Canada was on their hitlist too.

Me" So you agree with all of the above"?  He said begrudgingly" yes". Me "So they posed a real threat to the safety of our people, yes?"  Him "Yes"

Okay now  ( http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/active-role-en.asp )

* Canada has gone in and has cleared farmers fields of Mines,  allowing people a better standard of living
* Canada has delivered food aid and started several programs to kick start the economy and infrastructural development in Afghanistan

(His eyes were glazed over after I mentioned only three of them)

Now if we left
*It is extremely likely that the Taliban would swiftly take over.
* if they gained controll again,  they would be emboldened and be even more aggressive towards is and even more horrible to their population (epically the women)
*If we pull out before Afghanistan can keep itself stable we would definitely suffer horrible consequences

  He then coincided that I was right.  

     I hear NDPers say all the time "It isn't balanced,  it isn't Canadian"  If you simply list other aspects of what is going on they kinda get overwhelmed and realised they're not as well informed as they ought to be.   I think they only are "kind of" paying attention and they think we're in Iraq and they only think about it when they hear of a loss on our side or of civilian deaths.   If that is all you understand of the situation,  you'd want to pull out too; you wouldn't see any value in staying.

     This issue is quite painfull for me,  I agree with the NDP on so many other issues,  but this simply is a veto issue for me.  I can't stand soundbite politics and policy dictated by opinion polls insted of reasoned INFORMED debates.  I think we should demand a higher standard.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Sep 2006)

Zell- that's too much time and effort for one person, especially when a throat punch would do nicely.


----------



## paracowboy (11 Sep 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Canadian troops were propping up an illegitimate corrupt government just so we can take their oil


did you ask him "Why would anyone be in *Afghanistan* for oil?"


----------



## scoutfinch (11 Sep 2006)

Maybe they meant natural gas  (reserves of 99.96 billion cu m as of 1 January 2002 according to the CIA World Factbook)??? But even then...???

With respect to petropolitics, I was of the impression that the only real value Afghanistan held was as a base for a pipeline?


----------



## scoutfinch (11 Sep 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Zell- that's too much time and effort for one person, especially when a throat punch would do nicely.



Tee hee... too funny for words, Whiskey! :argument:


----------



## probum non poenitet (11 Sep 2006)

Since these oil pipeline conspiracies are so prevalent, maybe it's time Jack Layton and the gang answered this simple question:

*"Do you believe the U.S. Government planned and executed the attacks of September 11 in order to provide a premise for an invasion of Afghanistan?"*

I would have been morbidly curious to have seen that question put forward at the NDP convention. I really don't know how many people believe that, but I'm guessing it's a few.

I think it's the philosophy which drives a lot of the 'Stop the war' crowd ... what interesting times these are ...  :brickwall:


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Well I haven't seen too many fawning over her...now the ex-Lt Governor....yep lots of fawning...but then she is a beautiful person, in all senses of the word and she's staying on as our Honorary Captain (N).
> 
> Stoffer, McDonagh, the mayor Peter Kelly and the Senator there....the one who's head of the Senate Defence Committee were all down here for the JTFA Ch of Command ceremony in August and butter wasn't melting in any of their mouths...but come to think of it a lot of the free rations were!!



You misread my post. Alexa is not the Honarary Capt (N). The former Lt Gov, is our Honorary Capt (N)...you are right I would have difficulty with someone who doesn't support us being a Honorary Capt (N)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Sep 2006)

I'm appalled that anyone thought I was saying that Alexa McDonagh was our Honorary Capt (N) please see this to clarify the Distinguished Person who is:

http://lt.gov.ns.ca/inner/frames/honourable/content/bio.html

This lady is a class act....so TCBH...sorry if you misread my post.


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2006)

"This lady is a class act....so TCBH...sorry if you misread my post."

- That darn TCBH is such a doofus!

 ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "This lady is a class act....so TCBH...sorry if you misread my post."
> 
> - That darn TCBH is such a doofus!
> 
> ;D



ha ha...you see Im getting old and I can't even remember your initials...lol...what was i talking about again??


----------



## EXMPptbo (11 Sep 2006)

Every member of the NDP must oppose "the war" If they do not they will be hounded until they do or made to leave. This is the politically correct stance within the party and the only one accepted. Funny....where is the "democratic' part or the tolerant point of view. Should be called the No Divergence Party.
Seriously, the leftist statist point of view is the same no matter what the country it is in. Pro life...BAD, Traditional marriage....BAD, Capitalism...BAD, George Bush ....VERY VERY BAD. The leftists ALWAYS side with anyone who doesn't side with either the US or Israel. I saw a line in the newspapers describing the stance as anti anti Islamofacist. 
Why would this be? Because leftists are against order. The more chaotic, the better. Then they can present themselves as the solution to the problem. It happened in Russia and China. It happened in Cuba and is happening before our eyes in Venezuela.
The leftist philosophy in a nutshell is that everyone who doesn't think their way isn't fit to look after themselves and must be cared for by the "state" until they are "reeducated" in the socialist manner. Once everyone thinks their way, the state is no longer needed and all are equal.
In practice it never seems to get beyond the police state phase because those in control of everything like it that way. 
Anyway, for us to leave Afghanistan at the NDP's request would soon turn into Harper's fault and who pushed for us to leave would be lost in the smoke.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (12 Sep 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Zell- that's too much time and effort for one person, especially when a throat punch would do nicely.



Well,  I get a different kind of satisfaction from making a person not just see that they were wrong,  but that they should be embarrassed they were so wrong.  I think I'll start up a new personal mission - every NDPer I come across I will calmly and politely explaining a few facts that I think they might not know and clear up some hasy issues like Afghanistan is not Iraq.  I know we can't publicly express our views as members of the CF,  but we certainly can have a few knock down, drag em out debates. Remember, annoying things like "facts" can screw up a really fun opinion. :warstory:

     This New mission will, of course, be in addition to my current mission to stop people using Good as an adverb.

Me: "How did your date go?"  Friend: "Oh it went good"  

(Now that gets a throat punch, Unless if you're ESL, then you get calmly corrected)


----------



## TCBF (12 Sep 2006)

So, are your corrections going WELL?

 ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (12 Sep 2006)

I'm batting 3 out of four.  I run into allot of NDPers (I live downtown Toronto)  the only one that got away I couldn't clear up more fundamental issues like "why we went to Afghanistan in the first place" and he couldn't see the inherent hypocrisy in wanting to send troops to Darfur while still wanting to pull out of Afghanistan.   He told me that Afghanistan was a civil war we had no right to get involved in and then things kinda went down hill when I thought he implied I wanted to be 'inappropriate' with Afghan women....   He said some other things I wont repeat here,  I'll wait a bit and then confirm that it is really what he meant... then I'll be happy to post his URL,  he is a former candidate for the NDP.

     Anyone else have interesting conversations with NDPers regarding their "support the troops" campaign?


----------



## larry Strong (12 Sep 2006)

Haven't run into too many of them out here in central Alberta ;D


----------



## paracowboy (12 Sep 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I'm batting 3 out of four.  I run into allot of NDPers (I live downtown Toronto)  the only one that got away I couldn't clear up more fundamental issues like "why we went to Afghanistan in the first place" and he couldn't see the inherent hypocrisy in wanting to send troops to Darfur while still wanting to pull out of Afghanistan.   He told me that Afghanistan was a civil war we had no right to get involved in and then things kinda went down hill when I thought he implied I wanted to be 'inappropriate' with Afghan women....   He said some other things I wont repeat here,  I'll wait a bit and then confirm that it is really what he meant... then I'll be happy to post his URL,  he is a former candidate for the NDP.


Afghanistan is a civil war, but Sudan isn't? Never mind clarification on the insult. Just take it at face-value and gouge out his left eye. Then push him in front of a bus. He's too stupid to be allowed to continue to breathe. He's polluting the gene pool.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Afghanistan is a civil war, but Sudan isn't? Never mind clarification on the insult. Just take it at face-value and gouge out his left eye. Then push him in front of a bus. He's too stupid to be allowed to continue to breathe. He's polluting the gene pool.



I see Paracowboy is preparing to enter politics at the Federal level. I look forward to watching the all candidates debate (on television, and sitting well back from the screen......) >


----------



## GUNS (12 Sep 2006)

I am Taliban, I see  Jack Layton win 92% support to take Canadian soldiers out of Afghanistan.

Taliban thinks to himself, if I kill more Canadian soldiers, there is a good chance that the Canadian military will be shipped back to Canada.

Memo to fellow Taliban's, Kill more Canadian soldiers and send thank you letter to Jack Layton.

Point of story: any Taliban with an IQ larger than his shoe size will see an opportunity here to exploit Jack Layton's position on Afghanistan.

All the Taliban have to do is focus their attention on the Canadian soldiers more than usual and let Jack Layton do the rest.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (12 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Afghanistan is a civil war, but Sudan isn't? Never mind clarification on the insult. Just take it at face-value and gouge out his left eye. Then push him in front of a bus. He's too stupid to be allowed to continue to breathe. He's polluting the gene pool.


Well shortly after I started to get "shaky" angry ( before you see red but after you stop listening with full comprehension ) I realised I had to get out of there.  I honestly hope that he thought he was just being cute and clever and didn't understand just how deeply offensive his comments were.  

And as for the Taliban increasing the attacks on Canadians because of the increased possibility it will be effective -I have to agree fully.  However, I think the Taliban are attacking as often and as well as they can.  They would attack whenever or whatever they could anyways.  But if they had a choice American troops or Canadian troops, I think they'd hit us because of the increased effect.  

I do have an unrelated question.  How are these guys affording the arms?  How understand they can "invite themselves" into a family's home and eat there for food/rent. But they can't just threaten to rape someone's daughter to get rockets guns, C4 and other explosives with timing devices.  I know it just flowes over that basicaly ungurded border with all the new 'forign insurgents'.  But who is paying for their wepons?   We would have worn out any lone private sources by now.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Sep 2006)

their funding flows in from several sources: narco-types buy arms for their 'employees'; various Muslim 'charities' siphon off funds for Taliban, Hezbollah, HAMAS, etc; private funds come from Saudi millionaires and like-minded in other nations; Pak ISI channels arms; untold thousands of small arms were left over from beating off the Soviets; tiny villages like Dara in the Peshawar valley can make you an AK in about a week using a foot-powered grindstone; Iran is a big supplier of arms; entire armouries were left behind when the Soviets pulled out; and on and on. Getting weapons is not difficult in that part of the world. Or, anywhere, aside from some areas in Europe, really.


----------



## manhole (12 Sep 2006)

I would vote for paracowboy if he was in my riding!  ;D


----------



## Blakey (12 Sep 2006)

> Re: Canadians will soon be on the Knee
> « Reply #69 on: Sep 1st, 2006, 11:38am »  Quote  Modify
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


http://www.afghan-web.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1153776143;start=35


----------



## Danjanou (12 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Afghanistan is a civil war, but Sudan isn't? Never mind clarification on the insult. Just take it at face-value and gouge out his left eye. Then push him in front of a bus. He's too stupid to be allowed to continue to breathe. He's polluting the gene pool.



No worries Para, if it's who I think it is Zell was talking too, that self rightous mouth breather would have difficulty with the act of procreation, even witha picture book of instructions.  8)

Hey Zell I'll see ya and raise. I live and work in downtown TO. I get it 24/7.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Sep 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> No worries Para, if it's who I think it is Zell was talking too, that self rightous mouth breather would have difficulty with the act of procreation, even witha picture book of instructions.  8)
> 
> Hey Zell I'll see ya and raise. I live and work in downtown TO. I get it 24/7.



Well I don't think we know the same person then.  The guy I was talking about is not the 'procreating-inclined' type.  (I want to be clear I in no way wish to imply disparaging thoughts towards that group) And he ran as a candidate for the NDP.  (I wont publicly slag him for what he said to me and then post his website,  that's bad etiquette)

I do however wish to highlight common points that he said I've heard from more than one NDPer.   (These are copied from my msn history)

"it's more to take control of a country whose government was impeding western economic interests.   which includes resource interests. "

It is extremely common for ill-informed people to think that we need oil from Muslim countries.  I think they might be either misinformed or racist assuming every country where men where beards and women wear Hag's simply have oil that we are drooling over.  They often will site a oil pipeline that would make big money for a company that was owned by several American Generals and members of the American cabinet.  Now,  ask how logical it is that out of this limited economic interest would inspire those in power to fake 9-11 and then devote all that money to an invasion, and reconstruction efforts.  (I’m sure there are better arguments than what I quickly put here) 

"Western intervention in Afghanistan has made the country (and region) more unstable than it has been in decades, and is making its citizens and our own country less safe.   it has accomplished absolutely nothing. "

Two points here,  we aren’t doing good there and we are making things less stable. I think we can easily bring up several areas where we are improving the lives.  Here is one
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n12se06b.htm   Notice how she is a women.  She says there “The situation has changed for only 1% of Afghan women; 99% still live under oppression, lawlessness and poor health conditions”  Am I mistaken in thinking that you need to start at 1% then move on to 2% … then 3… ?  Isn’t slow progression still progress?   Now for the “destabilizing the region” argument-  How safe were we with that existing ‘stability’.  

“progressive Afghans are demanding an immediate withdrawal. in the current context, there is no constructive way for Canadian troops to contribute to rebuilding Afghanistan.”
I don’t really have a counter point to this.  All I can do is point out success stories that can easily be torn to shreds as propaganda.

“even Médecins Sans Frontières, the group that usually stays through thick and thin in wartorn countries, has pulled out of Afghanistan. there is no room for constructive rebuilding"
He is referring to:
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/ideas/oneyear.cfm

If there is no possibility of constructive rebuilding,  what hope is there for Afghanistan?  Call me naïve,  but I believe there is always hope.   I can’t see how if we pull out the Taliban wouldn’t take over and make things far worse for everyone.

Oh now this is a nice read. This is basically what the party is saying.
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4119


----------



## ClaytonD (13 Sep 2006)

This may be a bit off topic but:

I notice that whenever I argue the issue (Although the legitimacy of the war isn't an issue with me), I have to repeat at least five times that Afghanistan is not Iraq. I usually just tell them that there is almost no good arguments against the war in Afghanistan. 

I had one friend tell me that we should just open our borders so that people who don't like living in Afghanistan can just immigrate here. (He was arguing that people wouldn't know better and would probably not mind the oppression of the Taliban, therefore we should do nothing about them) I got rather annoyed and said that that would be impossible. So he said. Get this. He said, "Then send a boat there to pick up people against the Taliban."

Now I don't think it takes a geography major to figure out what A-Stan is surrounded by on the world map. 

I looked away for a sec, but did a double take right into his face and proceeded to give him a dragon kick to the femurs, and destroyed his left cornea with my thumb.


True Story.



Edited for making sense. (It probably still doesn't =D)


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2006)

Jack would never step one foot in Afghanistan, because he knows that by doing so he would then be forced to change his thought process on the whole Mission.

That and of course he hasn't the stones to do it!


----------



## rmacqueen (16 Sep 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Jack would never step one foot in Afghanistan, because he knows that by doing so he would then be forced to change his thought process on the whole Mission.
> 
> That and of course he hasn't the stones to do it!



Now, now, I have to stand up for Jack, if the polls showed that 90% of Canadians are in support of the mission Jack would be the first person to stand up for our troops.  Heck, I can see him now riding his bike on the streets of Kandahar, rainbow flag flying in the wind, Olivia behind him telling him how fast to peddle, which way to turn....


----------



## warspite (16 Sep 2006)

Time to press gang the yuppies and send them over to Afghanistan. Lets see how quick they are to criticise the military once they are forced to leave their yuppie dream world with it's bunnies, magic rainbows, singing birdies where everyone gets along beaus int heir world everyone means to do good and violence is only a tragic mistake...........
You know it's probably best not to send them over as they would probably get run over by a tank. ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Time to press gang the *yuppies* and send them over to Afghanistan.


Lad, do you even know what a yuppie is?   There is no need for you to respond.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuppie
Common traits for Yuppie would include the following:


*Expensive car* such as BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Porsche, etc 
An expensive condo, townhouse or apartment in a "trendy" building or neighborhood 
*Trendy* interior design and decorating
*Expensive haircuts* at salons 
Manicures, designer stubble, hair streaking or other *grooming habits* associated with metrosexuals 
*Hobbies or activities that are generally not embraced by rural or suburban people* 
Membership at exclusive gyms 
*Engaging in conspicuous consumption* (such as wearing big expensive watches) 
*Elitism*, even from those with humble beginnings 
Sounds like some neighours I had in both Ottawa and Baden as well as a couple of classmates on course in Toronto.  Oh, now I get it, you want to send fighter jocks and CF118's.


_Sorry to the rest of you for posting off the topic but I couldn't resist._


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (17 Sep 2006)

And they are ratcheting up the rhetoric this morning with this published by the MP for Halifax

NDP in tune with Canadians on Afghanistan    Chronicle Herald Sunday Sept 17. 2006

By ALEXA MCDONOUGH

CANADIANS want us to support our troops by sending them on the right missions with the right mandates. The Harper Conservatives don’t understand that. They are too preoccupied with doing political favours for the U.S. president. The government has consistently failed to answer legitimate questions about the Kandahar mission in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the gap widens between what the Harper government is telling Canadians about the mission and what is actually occurring on the ground.

We are told that we are improving the lives of Afghans, but aid groups and Afghans in the south say otherwise. We are told that the Taliban are on the run, but they continue to inflict casualties on NATO forces and harass ordinary Afghans. We are told that negotiating with the insurgents is irresponsible, but more and more people are saying a negotiated solution is, in fact, the only way to end an unbalanced, ill-defined and unwinnable conflict.

Last week, we witnessed a spectacular flip-flop by the Conservatives, who are now sending tanks to Afghanistan, only weeks after they insisted there was no need to do so.

New Democrats are in the vanguard of the growing numbers who are highly critical of the search-and-kill combat mission in southern Afghanistan. CARE Canada’s president has asserted that "this war is unwinnable if we keep concentrating on the military/technological side without undercutting the world view that motivates our enemies. Any long-term deployment of Western troops in Muslim countries will only make matters worse."

A former aide-de-camp to a British forces commander, Captain Leo Docherty, charged that the NATO-led mission had been "grotesquely clumsy" and "sucked [NATO] into a problem unsolvable by military means." In the London Telegraph, he condemned the mission as "a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency … we’ve lost the hearts and minds before we’ve even begun."

Malalai Joya, youngest member of the post-Taliban Afghan parliament, is conveniently ignored by the proponents of war. Why? Because Joya courageously speaks, despite all the inherent risks to her safety, about the escalating violence against women, about suppression of freedom of the press, and about the ugly truth that the Northern Alliance warlords, at least as repressive as the Taliban, have effectively replaced them in the Karzai government. 

Pre-Taliban foreign affairs minister Najibullah Lafraie has bluntly asserted that "if the international community wants to deny the Taliban and their allies an important recruiting tool, it must withdraw Western troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible." This harsh reality poses a serious credibility problem for the Harper government and underscores the desperate need for an alternative approach. If the Taliban threat is to be eliminated and the legitimacy of a democratic Afghan government is to be established, a comprehensive peace process, putting dialogue and reconstruction ahead of blind militarism, must be launched.

What Jack Layton and the NDP know is that conflicts never really end with the total extermination of the enemy, even one as offensive as the Taliban. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the IRA and the Ulster Unionists in Ireland, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda are but a few examples. Afghan President Hamid Karzai himself has repeatedly engaged in negotiations with the Taliban, the first such occasion being the Taliban’s surrender of Kandahar in November 2001.

Is anyone accusing Karzai of appeasing the Taliban? No, because as Greg Mills, former adviser to International Stabilization Force in Afghanistan, argued this week, no amount of firepower will defeat the Taliban and their allies. The Soviets’ bloody experience in Afghanistan attests to that. "Ultimately, the key to defeating [the counter-insurgency] is political accommodation. In Afghanistan, that means talking to the Taliban," Mills wrote.

Even Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor admitted as much recently in a moment of uncharacteristic candour: "We cannot eliminate the Taliban, not militarily anyway."

Lafraie, the former Afghan foreign minister, has called for the formation of a Muslim international peacekeeping force under UN command; a stronger focus on training the Afghan national army and police; a new intra-Afghan dialogue that includes all parties to the conflict; and a fresh focus on human development. If the Conservative government won’t listen to the NDP, then maybe it should listen to Lafraie’s constructive ideas.

The Conservatives need to be honest with Canadians. This is not the Second World War. This is not what Canadians think of as a traditional peacekeeping mission. Stephen Harper has manoeuvred Canada into a shooting war with no measures for progress, no plan for victory, and no exit strategy. It’s a mission that Canada continues to escalate while more and more NATO "allies" are refusing requests for the counter-insurgency mission. Harper would do well to understand the reasons why.

Jack Layton and the NDP are providing the critical leadership so glaringly absent from the Harper government to reach the logical conclusion: Our Canadian Forces deserve to be sent only on missions consistent with Canadian values, where the objectives are clear and where victory is attainable. This southern Afghanistan mission, begun by Paul Martin and extended by Stephen Harper, fails on all of these measures.

Alexa McDonough is MP for Halifax and foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Alexa McDonough is MP for Halifax and foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party.


Alexa McDonough is also an idiot.  
See my line about stupid people in large groups.


----------



## patrick666 (17 Sep 2006)

> Our Canadian Forces deserve to be sent only on missions consistent with Canadian values, where the objectives are clear and where victory is attainable. This southern Afghanistan mission, begun by Paul Martin and extended by Stephen Harper, fails on all of these measures.



Where's the fighting spirit?

It's a defeatist attitude like that which insults the work of our soldiers.


----------



## Mike Baker (17 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> The Conservatives need to be honest with Canadians. This is not the Second World War.


If the Conservatives are not honest with Canadians, why do they keep recruiting people? Why do they make it easier for us to be recruited? Didn't the CONSERVATIVES win the election, not the NDP? As I said before, if Jack Layton was in power, would we have such a sisable force, which is growing stronger? Would we have such well trained soldiers who put their life on the line for Canada? Would we even have the Canada we know and love? I don't think so. I love Canada and our way of life, don't let Mr.Layton take it away from us, saying that Mr.Harper is not telling the truth to all of us.


----------



## rmacqueen (17 Sep 2006)

ClaytonD said:
			
		

> I notice that whenever I argue the issue (Although the legitimacy of the war isn't an issue with me), I have to repeat at least five times that Afghanistan is not Iraq. I usually just tell them that there is almost no good arguments against the war in Afghanistan.



I have noticed this same thing and it infuriates me :rage:  I have heard radio interviews with university students who complain about our involvement in Iraq and numerous time I have heard supposedly intelligent people make this comment.  To that I usually say" WE ARE NOT IN IRAQ"  Is it any wonder that Canadian opinion on Afghanistan is all over the place when they can't even get this basic precept correct?


----------



## warspite (17 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> The Conservatives need to be honest with Canadians. This is not the Second World War


Thanks tips.


			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> This is not what Canadians think of as a traditional peacekeeping mission


Peace keeping.... _peace keeping_..... what the heck is this guy smoking. Peace keeping is where two people are hitting each other and you step into the middle and tell them to stop(correct me if I'm wrong but that has always been my impression).
What we're doing is *hunting* down an organization who is hostlie to us i.e. taliban, terrorists and terrorist supporters.
OF course it's not a traditional peacekeeping mission... *It's a war * and maybe if these fools could open their eyes and leave their little dream world they could see that.


			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Jack Layton and the NDP are providing the critical leadership so glaringly absent from the Harper government.


I call b.s.... they're providing the whiny... unthoughtout... selfserving... crack smoking... little NDP dream world where bunnies and foxes live in Harmony and sing kumbya... rhetoric that they always do while telling us it's the only way and that it's the right way... despite elementry logic defying them.


			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> NDP in tune with Canadians on Afghanistan


Oh I beg to differ...


----------



## Mike Baker (17 Sep 2006)

"I notice that whenever I argue the issue (Although the legitimacy of the war isn't an issue with me), I have to repeat at least five times that Afghanistan is not Iraq. I usually just tell them that there is almost no good arguments against the war in Afghanistan."

I find myself doing the same thing. So people even say that were in Afghanistan for all their oil! What!? They are stupid and don't know what we are doing there, so they shouldn't say things that are false, like Afghan oil, or nice Taliban, or that there are no more Taliban in A-Stan.  : Crazy.


----------



## Mike Baker (17 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Thanks tips.Peace keeping.... _peace keeping_..... what the heck is this guy smoking. Peace keeping is where two people are hitting each other and you step into the middle and tell them to stop(correct me if I'm wrong but that has always been my impression).
> What we're doing is *hunting* down an organization who is hostlie to us i.e. taliban, terrorists and terrorist supporters.
> OF course it's not a traditional peacekeeping mission... *It's a war * and maybe if these fools could open their eyes and leave their little dream world they could see that.


+1


----------



## warspite (17 Sep 2006)

Any ideas about how best to educate them about the truth and replace the *NDP* (see I didn't use yuppie) B.S. that seems to be floating around?


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Sep 2006)

Mike_Baker said:
			
		

> If the Conservatives are not honest with Canadians, why do they keep recruiting people? Why do they make it easier for us to be recruited? Didn't the CONSERVATIVES win the election, not the NDP? As I said before, if Jack Layton was in power, would we have such a sisable force, which is growing stronger? Would we have such well trained soldiers who put their life on the line for Canada? Would we even have the Canada we know and love? I don't think so. I love Canada and our way of life, don't let Mr.Layton take it away from us, saying that Mr.Harper is not telling the truth to all of us.



That's the point, Mike.  The NDP doesn't WANT to make recruiting easier. They don't WANT us to have a sizeable force.  What they want is for us to beat our swords into plowshares, and be renamed the Canadian Unarmed Tree Planting and Forest Fire Fighters.


----------



## warspite (17 Sep 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That's the point, Mike.  The NDP doesn't WANT to make recruiting easier. They don't WANT us to have a sizeable force.  What they want is for us to beat our swords into plowshares, and be renamed the Canadian Unarmed Tree Planting and Forest Fire Fighters.


What drives me nut's is how they *pretend* to support the armed forces right now... fooling no one... 
*While* at the same time they spend their days whining about the war in Afghanistan and how it isn't peacekeeping and requires killing and that we should be bringing the troops home.
                    NDP=Anti-military
War in Afghanistan= proof of the need for the armed forces
Anyone see a connection or am I just being paranoid?



			
				Mike_Baker said:
			
		

> All who votes for Paracowboy or Trinity and againts Jack Layton say I. I.


                                       *I*


----------



## karl28 (17 Sep 2006)

Civilian public at large doesn't have any resources to find out whats really going on over there  . I am very lucky that my three best friends are all in the CF.  I learn from them Plus the information on this site is very helpfully . But for Joe ordinary the only source he/she has is the media and we all know how they are on the opinion of the war with the exception of few .  
      I think what the people in the military can do for civvies is if they ask what's going on over there inform them its better than the information that there getting from the media


----------



## rmacqueen (17 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Any ideas about how best to educate them about the truth and replace the *NDP* (see I didn't use yuppie) B.S. that seems to be floating around?


We just have to keep plugging away at it or what would officially be called "educating the public".  I will be posting a new article on my blog tonight that partially addresses the issue and am also working on a series of articles for publication as well (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50171.0.html).  If others do the same then maybe we can slowly change attitudes.  Of course, there are those that will refuse to accept anything other than their own narrow points of view but you do what you can and accept what you can't change.

As for a rebuttal to the Afghanistan oil/pipeline argument here are a couple of links 

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/afghanistan.html


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Sep 2006)

Do you know what I find interesting?  The NDP is contradicting their usual allies in not supporting the mission.  Aside from the UN resolution I posted some time ago, here's what the Non-aligned Movement had to say last week on Afghanistan.



> Afghanistan
> 
> 166. The Heads of State or Government reiterated their commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan. They recognised that the challenges faced by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its people are enormous. Recognising the interconnected nature of the challenges in Afghanistan, they noted that sustainable progress on development, security and governance was mutually reinforcing. They further recognised that the establishment of peace and security was essential for the reconstruction, rehabilitation and humanitarian relief efforts to be successful in that country.
> 
> ...



Now, for those not completely familiar with the NAM, it is a US/West-bashing group of "neither East nor West" countries left over from the Cold War.  It includes members like Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan, and is currently chaired by Cuba...  What shocks me is that the NDP cannot even bring itself to agree with these paragons of Socialist enlightenment.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Sep 2006)

So, if Stephen Harper is "Bush's Cheerleader", would that not make Jack Layton "Stalin's waterboy"?

Just wondering...


----------



## warspite (17 Sep 2006)

The NDP just keeps on digging itself a hole with it's anti-war comments and policies... they started out with a little garden shovel... moved on to a spade... right now they got the backhoe doing double shifts ;D


----------



## rmacqueen (17 Sep 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> The NDP just keeps on digging itself a hole with it's anti-war comments and policies... they started out with a little garden shovel... moved on to a spade... right now they got the backhoe doing double shifts ;D


More like a whole squadron of backhoes.


----------



## Blakey (17 Sep 2006)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Civilian public at large doesn't have any resources to find out whats really going on over there.


If that's the case, then it is by their own neglect.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/archer/index_e.asp
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050804/afghanistan_timeline_050804/20060807/
Etc...


----------



## McG (17 Sep 2006)

. . . and
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49909.0.html
or even just
http://forums.army.ca/


----------



## HDE (17 Sep 2006)

Apparently Jack hasn't heard that various NATO countries, like Germany and France, also have forces in Afghanistan.  Do they also qualify as "Bush's Cheerleader" ?  Maybe Jack is simply saying that Canada is incapable of acting as an independent nation!?  Jack Layton should have settled for being a "big fish" in Toronto; he's out of his league on the national stage.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Sep 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Now, now, I have to stand up for Jack, if the polls showed that 90% of Canadians are in support of the mission Jack would be the first person to stand up for our troops.  Heck, I can see him now riding his bike on the streets of Kandahar, rainbow flag flying in the wind, Olivia behind him telling him how fast to peddle, which way to turn....



I can see Jack going there as well ... when the first pride parade is held in Kandahar.


----------



## probum non poenitet (18 Sep 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> What Jack Layton and the NDP know is that conflicts never really end with the total extermination of the enemy, even one as offensive as the Taliban. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the IRA and the Ulster Unionists in Ireland ...



Interesting examples she uses.

When the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam and Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge took over and annihilated almost half of their population. Not exactly a strong argument for reckless withdrawal and 'giving peace a chance.'

In Northern Ireland, the British Government refused to withdraw its military until the situation was stable enough that civil government would have a chance for normal operation. Any thought of withdrawal was seen as rewarding terrorists, despite a decades-long mandate and many losses. Rather a good argument for attempting the same thing in Afghanistan, since peace has finally taken hold.

I know there are about a zillion differences between Cambodia, Ireland, and Afghanistan. But even these bizarre comparisions seem to teach exactly the opposite of what the NDP is trying to say.
Wow. I'm no foreign affairs expert, but in all seriousness I wonder, who is writing her speeches?


----------



## warspite (18 Sep 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> I know there are about a zillion differences between Cambodia, Ireland, and Afghanistan. But even these bizarre comparisions *seem to teach exactly the opposite of what the NDP is trying to say*.


Reality and logic are usually the opposite of what the NDP says. ;D

I agree though, your two example about Cambodia and Northern Ireland do seem to make a lot of sense... perhaps it is time the NDP started studying their history?


----------



## HDE (18 Sep 2006)

Can't be a good sign when the leader of the NDP has so little knowledge of party history!  If he did he'd know that the "the NDP support our soldiers" routine is making him look like the town idiot.  No doubt some intrepid reporter in the MSM will point out that his claims are "historically incorrect" >


----------



## odin (18 Sep 2006)

ok , we all know what we're doing in afganistan is right and justified, right ? Now on the political stage, just say the cry babies in the NDP get their way ( like that would ever happen ). What message would that send to the world stage? The terrorist would laugh and say let's just push Canada's political button's for a few month's and they will retreat because in my book if you leave a combat situation without  a win or a loss it's retreating also what message would we be sending the other nation's who are sending troops over to hostile area's . Don't count on Canada ? Bu@# SH@# on that. I served with the West Nova Scotia Regiment for year's and i was taught their moto during the big 1 and 2 was first to go in and the last to come out. Also a noble Canadian Forces moto.

                                                                                         Odin


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2006)

If we want to continue with the name calling of anyone on the site, we should of course refer back to our Rules of Conduct for the site and reflect on what we are posting.

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

Time for us to rise above the easy targets whom we so easily condemn, not lower ourselves to their level of intellect.


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Sep 2006)

Take a look at the NDP's policy.  It can be best described as isolationist.  If elected to a majority government (very unlikely, but lets use our imaginations here) the NDP would:

 Withdraw from the WTO
 Withdraw from NATO
 Withdraw from NORAD
 Withdraw from NAFTA

The only historical correlation I can think of (and it shouldn't surprise most of you) is that of Russia under Lenin.  His isolation of Russia did manage to turn a largely agrarian nation into an economic and industrial power but Canada is those things already.

Just two of these policies would ruin our country. The Canada we know would not survive an NDP federal government implementing a withdrawl from the WTO or NAFTA.  I think Alberta would be the first to go, then Ontario or Quebec which do something like 85% of their business with the US.  BC likewise relies on US trade but also needs to trade with Asian nations all of which are members or seeking membership in the WTO.  In short just the proposal to withdraw from the WTO/NAFTA would kill our economy if implemented as most of Canada's trade is aligned not East to West as it was 50 or so years ago but North to South.

The isolation caused by an NDP government would not stop there though.  Just think of how the US (our largest trading partner) would view a nation that not only withdrew from the world economic community but the defense community as well.  We would end up as Cuba North not just to the Republicans on Capital Hill but the Democrats as well.

NDP government = National suicide


----------



## Echo9 (19 Sep 2006)

Here's a question to ask anyone who uses the expression "We support our troops- bring them home":

Would you support additional funding for military spending, even if it results in sacrifices being required in social spending?


If the answer to that question is no, then the person in question simply does not "support the troops", but is looking for a dodge from the charge of disloyalty to the country and its causes.  I'd love to see someone ask that question to smilin' Jack.


As a sideline, did anyone read the letter to the National Post from the President of the NDP?  Indication that the party is just as shallow and dimwitted as its leader...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2006)

And Jack jumped the gun anyway, as here is the sitrep on who is withdrawing......

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/articles/20060921.aspx



> *Taliban Announce a Retreat *
> 
> September 21, 2006: So far this month, NATO forces in the south have killed over a thousand Taliban gunmen, wounded more than that, overrun several Taliban camps, captured over a hundred Taliban and seized large quantities of documents and equipment. The Taliban have used large units in this area to scare off the police and enable terror teams to work on the civilians. In one case, a force of 400 Taliban crossed the Pakistan border and tried to take control of a district. But the swift appearance of NATO troops forced the Taliban to disperse and flee.
> 
> ...



The best way to support the troops is to *reinforce success*, which a squadron of tanks, a company from R22er and maybe a six pack of CF-18s would do nicely.


----------



## rmacqueen (23 Sep 2006)

You will also notice the Jack has over looked the fact that Karzai has asked the US ambassador to investigate whether Karzai's brother is involved in the drug trade.  Karzai is trying to get that side of things under control as well but the NDP don't mention it because it goes against what they are saying.


----------



## warspite (23 Sep 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> You will also notice the Jack has over looked the fact that Karzai has asked the US ambassador to investigate whether Karzai's brother is involved in the drug trade.  Karzai is trying to get that side of things under control as well but the NDP don't mention it because it goes against what they are saying.


Hopefully then the NDP will just shut their traps because they never know what they are saying. ;D

But really the NDP should just shut up with their yuppie blabbering and go sit in a corner. Maybe it's just my reading of the signs but it does look like their anti-war support the troops blabber has begun to backfire... very badly. Ten thousand supporters at the wear red fridays rally, a visit from the Afghan president supporting the war, and according to the article a_majoor posted the taliban is on the run.... Wow it almost seems like what the NDP has been saying has been completely discredited and that the NDP have been proven as the yuppie fools that they are.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Sep 2006)

Smilin' Jack Layton changes his tune!  Remember his site?  "Support our troops: bring them home"?  Now he is saying "No, that's not what I meant, what I meant was to go elsewhere in Afghanistan".  What a putz!


I think Jack just blinked!

(insert "throat punch" smiley here)


----------



## Trinity (24 Sep 2006)

That's funny...

Cause his site has a petition to bring *HOME *the soldiers.

What does HOME mean to Jack?!


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Sep 2006)

In case people some day forget, this is what the image with the hyperlink looks like:


And the text of the petition:
"Support our troops. Bring 'em home.
_Petition to the House of Commons

WHEREAS: 

The Government of Canada has committed Canadian Forces to an unbalanced counter-insurgent (sic) mission in southern Afghanistan that has no clear objectives, criteria for progress, definition of success or exit strategy. 
Jack Layton, leader of the NDP has called for the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from this mission. 
We support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces. 
We, call upon Government of Canada to begin the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan._


----------



## paracowboy (24 Sep 2006)

what a repulsive excuse for a human  : Someone print out the definition of the word "Honour" and deliver to that shmuck. Then, throat-punch.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Sep 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> We, call upon Government of Canada to begin the *withdrawal* of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.[/i]


,
For the spin doctors who would argue that the petition doesn't call for the CF to come home (read: OC or JL), note that the petition calls for "withdrawal" not "redeployment" of the CF.

Putzes


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Sep 2006)

And let's not forget the resolution, which states, in part:
The resolution called on Harper to begin "*the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan*" and "support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building." 



(this is from their website: see my sig line below)


----------



## reilly (25 Sep 2006)

What can be expected from the NDP (No downpayment party). Never forget the NDP riding association pushed resolution 1 B4 stating that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are “acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people”. 

Now what the hell kind of political party is going to brand its own soldiers terrorists? It was these soldiers that made freedom of speech possible. Does anyone know whether the leader of that party agrees or disagrees with that sentiment?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Sep 2006)

I wonder if things in OrangeLand are not well?  Layton's stoic adherence to being wrong is starting to seem odd, even by their standards.  Most politicians in the face of being crushed by reality would have started to distance themselves and back down a bit.  We have seen what the party sentiment of their membership is.  Could it be that there is unrest within, and perhaps his leadership position is in jeopardy?


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (26 Sep 2006)

I wonder if the NDP has laid in a supply of butter and syrup.





This may be a little obscure, search on " Movement for an Independent Socialist Canada".


----------



## warspite (26 Sep 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I wonder if things in OrangeLand are not well?  Layton's stoic adherence to being wrong is starting to seem odd, even by their standards.  Most politicians in the face of being crushed by reality would have started to distance themselves and back down a bit.  We have seen what the party sentiment of their membership is.  Could it be that there is unrest within, and perhaps his leadership position is in jeopardy?


Your right. It really doesn't make sense to keep digging when you've already dug yourself into a hole that could prove to be your grave. Makes you wonder what the heck the idea behind it is... I mean logic and realism is considered to be a bad trait in the NDP but like you said this is unusual for even for them.


----------



## TCBF (26 Sep 2006)

"... I mean logic and realism is considered to be a bad trait in the NDP but like you said this is unusual for even for them."

- All of the parties have suffered their own gaps in logic over the last few years.  The old guard is dying off.  The old guard had some grounding in logic because they survived the Great Depression, fought WW2, led us through the early (scary) cold war, and generally spoiled their kids (us) to the point where much of our generation has no idea what they are tinkering with.

They do not understand that freedom is rented, not bought.  The rent must be paid every one or two generations, and the only legal tender for payment is the blood of patriots.


----------



## warspite (27 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "... I mean logic and realism is considered to be a bad trait in the NDP but like you said this is unusual for even for them."
> 
> - All of the parties have suffered their own gaps in logic over the last few years.  The old guard is dying off.  The old guard had some grounding in logic because they survived the Great Depression, fought WW2, led us through the early (scary) cold war, and generally spoiled their kids (us) to the point where much of our generation has no idea what they are tinkering with.
> 
> They do not understand that freedom is rented, not bought.  The rent must be paid every one or two generations, and the only legal tender for payment is the blood of patriots.


All very true, especially that last part.


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Sep 2006)

To all on this site, from now on please refrain from using the words "logic", "realism", and "New Democratic Party" in the same sentence, as it is interfering with me digesting my lunch! ;D


----------



## HDE (28 Sep 2006)

I believe a large part of being the leader of the NDP is keeping the lunatic fringe under control.  From our perspective Jack doesn't make much sense, however he looks like an elder statesman in comparison to some elements on the far left in the NDP.  Zipperhead-cop may well be right when he suggest a power struggle within the NDP and I'd imagine it'll get worse as the big unions increasingly distance themselves
from the party.


----------



## TCBF (29 Sep 2006)

Which brings us back to an interview of Preston Manning done by the CBC a decade or so ago.  They said Reform would attract the right-wing wackos.  He said perhaps, just as the NDP and the Liberals attracted the left wing wackos.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Sep 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Which brings us back to an interview of Preston Manning done by the CBC a decade or so ago.  They said Reform would attract the right-wing wackos.  He said perhaps, just as the NDP and the Liberals attracted the left wing wackos.



The NDP attract the left wing, but I thought the Liberals had the market sewn up for members of organized crime?


----------



## Shadowolf (29 Sep 2006)

Nope, sorry zipperhead.   The unions love the NDP, not the lieberals.


----------



## riot (29 Sep 2006)

Hey All, I'm new here, been in a while, love this site, KICKASS. anyhow, I was readin about our recovering brothers and had to write to 'ole Taliban Jack himelf. (their offices were closed by this time) I wouldn't mind some thoughts on my letter, PEACE!

I've noticed that you still have the "Support our troops, bring them home" label on your website. Would you please be so kind as to take it down? I know of no troops who did not volunteer for the Afghanistan mission. ALL of the soldiers there are there by choice and are doing a crucial job. I know that most of my friends are begging to be given the chance to go back.  I have been to Afghanistan, I have lost friends there, both military and local civilian. I assure you that in order for a functioning society to be rebuilt there, security must be established first. You flout “peacekeeping”, there is limited peace in Afghanistan today to be kept. The only peace that is there, exists because we created it. If we were to bring our troops home, who would maintain that peace? A power vacuum would be created, and who would fill it? You claim that women have no rights or superficial rights at best. How long did it take for women to gain equal rights in Canada? These are processes that will take time to develop, we cannot impose a western style liberal democracy on these people. That change must come from within. This change will only come with education, to educate you need schools that teach more than fundamentalist Islamic thought. To maintain schools, they must be protected so as not to be destroyed by people that would rather an uneducated mass that they could more easily control. These are not only my own thoughts, but those of the Afghanis that shared their tears with me as they both thanked me for being there and apologized for the death of our comrades. They would tell me that the people responsible do not care about Afghanistan and are not true Afghanis. They told me that they had never had anyone give up as much security and luxury as we had in Canada and travel halfway around the world to risk our lives to help someone we didn’t know, for no personal gain. Whenever I meet Canadian Afghanis, they thank me for going there, and doing what I did. Afghanistan had a beautiful culture before war and ignorance destroyed it. The world has abandoned Afghanistan for the past thirty years and this is our chance to do something really good, regardless of politics. The average Afghani just wants enough security to enjoy what little he or she has. As someone who voted for the NDP last election because I support your social endeavors, I am DISGUSTED at your stance on this issue. Not only will I NEVER vote NDP until you get rid of “Taliban Jack” and come up with some REALISTIC solutions to some hard problems, I will be actively campaigning against your specific breed of ignorance. Above all else, I demand to know what troops you claim to be supporting by bringing them home. I have recently volunteered to go back to Afghanistan, because I for one, WILL NOT ABANDON THOSE PEOPLE.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Sep 2006)

Pretty good letter overall.  Although I think if we keep harping on the women's rights aspect of this it will give them ammo to pick on us.  I don't think you are going to see anything that resembles a burka burning ring any time soon.  What you might see is a "women are tolerated" state, like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.  It's going to be a long time before a woman will be able to b*tch out her husband in public for not getting her to a nail appointment on time.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Sep 2006)

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> Nope, sorry zipperhead.   The unions love the NDP, not the lieberals.



Nope, sorry Shadowolf. Have a look at the Canadian Auto Workers' website
http://www.caw.ca/news/contactnewsletter/showissue.asp?name=issue&IssueID=568


> The NDP resolution urges CAW local leadership, staff, members and local unions affiliated to the NDP to *withdraw all support and affiliations from the NDP*.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2006)

http://www.opseu.org/politicalaction/NDPpub1.pdf

Unfortunately my union is still being led by the "old guard" of idiots who bleed NDP.

Whats so funny is that they[NDP] were the only party to break that paper which is supposed to be sacred to unions, the collective agreement,[Rae Days] but hey, don't let reality get in the way.   Hmmmm, sounds like a certain party leader we know......


----------



## Trinity (30 Sep 2006)

> ·  Our shared values: The values and objectives of our union
> are shared by the NDP. We’ve been fighting together for
> generations for a healthier, clean environment, women’s
> equity, human rights at home and around the world, and for
> peace.




From the link provided by Bruce...


Uh huh... women's equity, human rights at home *and around the world*?

Except Afghanistan where we shouldn't be protecting anyone's rights if it means we
have to risk ourselves in any way.

Hypocrite.


----------



## gnplummer421 (1 Oct 2006)

It has become quite clear to me that the NDP waffles so much they even confuse each other. Their public statements and policies seem to contradict from one day to the next. Obviously they couldn't give a rat's @$s about our troops, only political gain. I started to steam when I was reading an article on C-net (or C-news)  today (Canoe.ca) about yet another poll that states that the majority of Canadians think A-stan is a lost cause.

First of all, 2000 people polled, not enough for an accurate count. Second, I was contacted on the phone by people doing a similar poll and asked about our mission, and to no surprise, the conversation did not last long after I stated that I supported the mission fully. These polls are extremely biased, and I can only hope and pray that people do not take these things seriously. 

I am starting to think that the NDP are paying these clowns to do their polls, and to make sure a negative percentage is achieved. What crap!

I am convinced another letter to the editor of the Ottawa Sun is in order regarding these biased polls.

Gnplummer421


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> First of all, 2000 people polled, not enough for an accurate count. Second, I was contacted on the phone by people doing a similar poll and asked about our mission, and to no surprise, the conversation did not last long after I stated that I supported the mission fully. These polls are extremely biased, and I can only hope and pray that people do not take these things seriously.
> 
> Gnplummer421



Funny.  You are the second person in a month to make a statement like this.  Zipperhead Cop made the same claim last month.  Looks like our Pollsters may be being paid big bucks by someone to skew their Polls.


----------



## gnplummer421 (1 Oct 2006)

George,

My house seems to be a magnet for pollsters and telemarketers. Luckily I have dial-up and a teenager that uses MSN chat, the combination of which reduces the amount of fluff that gets through to me. Although no one else gets a hold of me either.... no Hi speed in Addison...yet :

Gnplummer421


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Oct 2006)

...but it does have "Calamity Janes".


----------



## gnplummer421 (1 Oct 2006)

Which is for sale by the way...three hundred and something K.  Comes with living space..any takers?

Gnplummer421


----------



## Journeyman (1 Oct 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> My house seems to be a magnet for pollsters and telemarketers.


One advantage of the death of "conventional, church-sanctioned families" is that there are three last-names in our household. So anyone addressing me by my g/f or her daughter's last name obviously doesn't know me/us, and gets a "sorry, you must have the wrong number."

GP421....for that price, you're obviously not throwing in the teenager. The care & feeding of those things costs a _whole lot_ more than that.


----------



## riot (2 Oct 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Pretty good letter overall.  Although I think if we keep harping on the women's rights aspect of this it will give them ammo to pick on us.  I don't think you are going to see anything that resembles a burka burning ring any time soon.  What you might see is a "women are tolerated" state, like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.  It's going to be a long time before a woman will be able to b*tch out her husband in public for not getting her to a nail appointment on time.



Awesome, I couldn't agree with you more. My whole point was that in the society it takes baby steps, especially on that front. PEACE


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (2 Oct 2006)

The NDP is holding a panel discussion in Ottawa on Canada's role in Afghanistan

When: 7:00 pm Thursday, October 5, 2006
Where: St. Paul's University Amphitheatre in Ottawa (wheelchair-accessible) 

http://www.ndp.ca/files/06-09-stpaulspanel.pdf

I have class Friday,  and no mode of transportation.... otherwise I'd avail myself of the chance to openly question the fundamental underpinnings of their position on this issue.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> The NDP is holding a panel discussion in Ottawa on Canada's role in Afghanistan
> 
> When: 7:00 pm Thursday, October 5, 2006
> Where: St. Paul's University Amphitheatre in Ottawa (wheelchair-accessible)
> ...



Having been to one of these things myself in the past I can tell you that you would be wasting your time. The moment you start to express your "alternative view" the lefty crowd will start booing until you sit down or another wooly head jumps up and starts to say something they like the sound of. During the last election here in Dartmouth the Conservative Candidate was asked about Harper's position on same sex marriage. The lefties had packed the hall and as soon as the candidate began to answer the question they began booing so loudly that you couldn't hear his response. He finally shut up and the NDP candidate waded in with his party line....to which they all cheered loudly. This is the democracy that they prefer...mob rule.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (2 Oct 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Having been to one of these things myself in the past I can tell you that you would be wasting your time. The moment you start to express your "alternative view" the lefty crowd will start booing until you sit down or another wooly head jumps up and starts to say something they like the sound of. During the last election here in Dartmouth the Conservative Candidate was asked about Harper's position on same sex marriage. The lefties had packed the hall and as soon as the candidate began to answer the question they began booing so loudly that you couldn't hear his response. He finally shut up and the NDP candidate waded in with his party line....to which they all cheered loudly. This is the democracy that they prefer...mob rule.



I am not saying stand in front of the crowd,  I'm saying pick up on the stragglers,  getting a muffin,  standing in line, outside for a smoke.  Smile, be friendly,  simply ask why they believe certain things.  My experience is that 90% of NDPers can be converted in 1 hour or less. (I have had people who told me afterwards that they wanted to disagree with me but can not because the evidence/logical argument I provided was so sound)  You can't stop a stampede by standing in front of it and yelling,  but if you get some to turn into the heard,  it comes to a halt fast.  I'm not the type to stand in front of a crowd,  I perfer persuading small groups; that way I know I at least convinced a few of them.


----------



## TCBF (2 Oct 2006)

"I perfer persuading small groups; that way I know I at least convinced a few of them."

- Excellent Cattledriving Tactics!  Cut one from the herd and it's yours!  Nibble away at the flanks!

- Well done!  You should start scrapbooking your converts...


----------



## medicineman (2 Oct 2006)

Here is the e-mail my  MP finally sent back to me.

Thank you for your recent e-mail.

The question of what role Canada should play in Afghanistan has been a
difficult one for me to resolve. It is a complex, multi-layered, and
deeply important issue to all Canadians. I have received letters from
hundreds of well-informed Canadians offering a range of perspectives and
asking thoughtful questions.  

In light of the highly emotional and controversial debate surrounding
the role of our Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan, I would first
like to take the opportunity to address recent criticism regarding the
content of a resolution proposed by an individual riding association
prior to the NDP Convention in Quebec City. The resolution in question
was quickly revoked and in no way represented the Federal NDP's
position. (For the sake of clarity, the full text of the resolution
adopted at our Convention is copied below.)

I join the NDP in calling for the rebalancing and refocusing of the
Canadian operation in Afghanistan, because the mission as it currently
stands is misguided and cannot lead to sustainable peace. It lacks clear
measures of success, and it contains no exit strategy. Given these
conditions, I think we can best support our troops by removing them from
this combat-oriented operation in Afghanistan's southern region.

Increasingly credible sources are stating publicly that we cannot defeat
terrorism through military means alone. For example, Captain Leo
Docherty, a former aide-de-camp to the commander of British forces in
Helmand Province, recently said the NATO-led mission had been
"grotesquely clumsy" and has "sucked [NATO] into a problem unsolvable by
military means." Even Gordon O'Connor, the Minister of National Defence,
has admitted that: "we cannot eliminate the Taliban, not militarily
anyway." 

In his recent meeting with the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, Afghan
President Karzai has said," Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to
the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages."  Malalai
Joya, a member of Afghanistan's Parliament, has urged Canada to adopt an
alternative role in Afghanistan, one that is independent of US
operations. 

Canada initially entered Afghanistan as part of the UN-sanctioned
International Stabilization Force (ISAF), which was created in 2001 to
provide security to Afghanistan's capital region of Kabul. Canada's
original role consisted of providing stability and security for the new
government, assisting with reconstruction, and supporting humanitarian
aid efforts. 

Our mission has since changed dramatically - with virtually no public
debate or consultation. Canadian soldiers now operate under NATO
command, as part of a counterinsurgency campaign in the Kandahar region.
For every ten dollars Canada spends on the Afghan mission, nine dollars
go to military operations, and one dollar goes to aid.

This approach has allowed extremist groups to garner increasing support
throughout Afghanistan. A growing body of evidence shows that the
current basis of the Canadian mission to Afghanistan breeds more far
more radicalism than it eliminates, and makes our world a far more
dangerous place. As one Afghan commander in Kandahar told UK researchers
at the Senlis Council, "The foreigners came here and said they would
help the poor people and improve the economic situation, but they only
spend money on their military operations. The poor people are poorer now
than when the Taliban were the government....We would be fools to
believe their lies." 

We also have much to learn by listening to the humanitarian actors in
Afghanistan. As CARE Canada's president has asserted, "[the war in
Afghanistan] is unwinnable if we keep concentrating on the
military/technological side without undercutting the world view that
motivates our enemies." 

What we can and should do is actively encourage a political peace
process among the key players in the conflict - including Pakistan where
the porous border has made the containment of extremist forces
impossible. While some say it is unrealistic or undesirable to negotiate
with the enemy, nearly all lasting resolutions to modern-day wars have
come through negotiated peace settlements. 

It is essential that we redefine the terms of our military mission to
focus on reconstruction and renewal. This is not happening now; our
current mission is devoid of both a comprehensive rebuilding plan and
adequate development assistance. By working toward these goals, Canada
would be pursuing an independent foreign policy - one that is more in
more likely to contribute to genuine peace and democracy in Afghanistan.


Until our government is prepared to seriously re-examine the terms of
the Canadian mission and answer some tough questions, I support the
NDP's demand to bring home the Canadians currently serving in southern
Afghanistan. It is out of a deep respect for these individuals and their
families that I oppose the unwarranted risk to their lives. 

Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. I hope my
message has sufficiently addressed your concerns and served to clarify
my position on the question of Afghanistan.

Sincerely yours,

Denise Savoie

***

BE IT RESOLVED that the New Democratic Party of Canada urge the
government to: 

- Take the necessary measures to ensure the safe and immediate
withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan;
- Increase significantly our resource and financial commitments to
United Nations led multilateral Peacekeeping and humanitarian
initiatives such as in Darfur;
- Support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and
democratic peace building in that country so that reconstruction efforts
and good governance are achieved; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Democratic Party of Canada supports
unequivocally the individual women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces
and that the New Democratic Party of Canada urge the government to
ensure that any future deployment of Canadian troops is debated and
voted on by the representatives of the citizens of Canada in the House
of Commons.

***

I'm now formulating my response to this drivel.

MM


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Oct 2006)

Her reply's so full of holes that it's pathetic... 



> *Captain* Leo Docherty, a former *aide-de-camp* to the commander of British forces in Helmand Province, recently said the NATO-led mission had been "grotesquely clumsy" and has "sucked [NATO] into a problem unsolvable by military means."



Is that the best they can do?


----------



## TCBF (2 Oct 2006)

" While some say it is unrealistic or undesirable to negotiate with the enemy, nearly all lasting resolutions to modern-day wars have come through negotiated peace settlements."

- Well, it is true both Germany and Japan negotiated peace settlements after they surrendered.  Is that what she means?

"What we can and should do is actively encourage a political peace process among the key players in the conflict - including Pakistan where the porous border has made the containment of extremist forces
impossible."

- So, would she advocate that we re-deploy to and secure the Pak border?  If not us, who?  If not now, when?

Tom


----------



## foerestedwarrior (2 Oct 2006)

> Canada initially entered Afghanistan as part of the UN-sanctioned
> International Stabilization Force (ISAF), which was created in 2001 to
> provide security to Afghanistan's capital region of Kabul. Canada's
> original role consisted of providing stability and security for the new
> ...



Ok so maby its just the crazy in me talking, but I geuse I was brainwashed by George W. into beleiving that we actually went in, in 2002. INTO Kandahar, not Kabul initially. Oh, and all that debating on moving, and debating AND voting that went on with the mission extension(which apparently the NDP were in BC sittin on their keisters for) was all a dream......

Also, where does this 9-1 ratio come from? Can someone who represents a national political party just make up facts, or is there some ground to this. I am not judging how the money is allocated for assets in country, just wondering if this is a acurate representaion of spending.

Unless I was lied to, my understanding of the mission currently, is everything that he described we where doing in Kabul, yet because we are engaged in "counter-insurgency" we are not providing stability and security for the new
government, assisting with reconstruction, or supporting humanitarian aid efforts?


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Canada initially entered Afghanistan as part of the UN-sanctioned
> International Stabilization Force (ISAF), which was created in 2001 to
> provide security to Afghanistan's capital region of Kabul. Canada's
> original role consisted of providing stability and security for the new
> ...


What an idiot!  Not only was this three times a topic in the House of Commons, but ISAF is the NATO commanded operation.


----------



## TCBF (2 Oct 2006)

The guys who should be going door to door winninng the hearts and minds are the ANA themselves.  If the people won't support them, then they won't trust us.  Ever.  We should do the hi-tech direct action, they should win the moral war and secure the hopes of the people.

NDP has it backwards.  Go figure.

"For every ten dollars Canada spends on the Afghan mission, nine dollars go to military operations, and one dollar goes to aid."

- I suppose we could start cost accounting LAV 3s carrying blankets to villages as an aide project.  I handed out pencils to kids from beside my Coyote once.  We were escorting 3 VP Recce as they brought aide to a village in '02.  I guess we could cost-account that whole mission to aide.

- Maybe we could rent B52s to drop Aid related leaflets to the locals, and pad the cost onto some Aid IO.

Am I helping?

Tom


----------



## medicineman (2 Oct 2006)

The clowns live in their own little world.  I was on the TAT into Kabul in 03 - strange how none of us were under any illusion about what we were going there for, and really, the rest of the litterate people of the country who read a paper or McLean's knew damn well what we were there for too.  The government was pretty clear about that and the risks that we'd be facing.  But, as with all other apethetics, they have conveniently forgotten that Security and Force part of International Security Assistance Force.  I'm taking the evening to formulate my reply - I think I'll be more blunt this time about how they either can't get the rose coloured glasses off or how they should in fact be checked for alzheimer's.


----------



## HDE (3 Oct 2006)

I thought the NDP plan was to "bring the troops home" just long enough to load them onto flights to south Lebanon and/or Darfur.  The issue appears less about bringing them home and more about sending them to the "right" really dangerous place.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

> - Take the necessary measures to ensure the safe and immediate
> withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan;





> Given these
> conditions, I think we can best support our troops by removing them from
> this combat-oriented operation in Afghanistan's southern region.



So how exactly does the resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan square with rebalancing the mission by withdrawing them from the south?

Simple.  Idiot Jack stepped on his short and skinny.  

Edited for excessive intemperance (Thanks Tom).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Oct 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Increasingly credible sources are stating publicly that we cannot defeat
> terrorism through military means alone. For example, Captain Leo
> Docherty, a former aide-de-camp to the commander of British forces in
> Helmand Province, recently said the NATO-led mission had been
> ...



There exists somewhere an augulet that is lost in a dark place, and if recovered will never be servicable again.  
Nice that a dime-a-dozen Captain who is for some reason disgruntled is considered a "reliable source".  Not even from Canada, no less.   



			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> In his recent meeting with the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, Afghan
> President Karzai has said," Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to
> the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages."



I have tried like crazy to find a transcript of that meeting, or some sort of record to see what the context of the comments were.  If anyone has located it, I would appreciate the link.


----------



## warspite (3 Oct 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I join the NDP in calling for the rebalancing and refocusing of the
> Canadian operation in Afghanistan, because the mission as it currently
> stands is misguided and cannot lead to sustainable peace.* It lacks clear
> measures of success, and it contains no exit strategy*. Given these
> ...


What war has had an exit strategy? I was under the impression that you went to a war to win. Not to visit.


> ."  Malalai Joya, a member of Afghanistan's Parliament, has urged Canada to adopt an
> alternative role in Afghanistan, *one that is independent of US
> operations. *


I was under the impression that this was a U.N. sanctioned mission, not an American war. What is the problem then if they are there.


> For every ten dollars Canada spends on the Afghan mission, nine dollars
> go to military operations, and one dollar goes to aid.


WOW... who would have thought fighting a war would cost a bit of money. ???


> As CARE Canada's president has asserted


Who the heck are these guys cause I've never heard of them.


> While some say it is unrealistic or undesirable to negotiate
> with the enemy, nearly all lasting resolutions to modern-day wars have
> come through negotiated peace settlements.


Seeing as the NDP is still living in its little dream world I'll give them a heads up. *It is unrealistic and undesirable to negotiate
with the enemy unless they are defeated.*


> By working toward these goals, Canada
> would be pursuing an independent foreign policy


Well who control our foreign policy now? Mother Brittian?


> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Democratic Party of Canada supports
> unequivocally the individual women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces


I call B.S.

Well we have another addition to the yuppie high leadership:
Congratulations Denise Savoie you are now a Hippie high ambassador.

Lets check the ranks so far:
Chief superleader of the Hippies:Vacant (Taliban Jack nominated)
Chief Plenipotentiary of the Hippies: Taliban Jack
Chief Ambassador of the Hippies: The NDP
High Ambassador of the Hippies: John Dugard, *Denise Savoie  * (further high ambassador nominations pending)
Ambassador of the Hippies: A-channel "girl on the street" (further ambassador nominations pending)
*list is a work in progress

Edit: have changed the word YUPPIE to HIPPIE.... Still have my own definition of yuppie in my head but don't want to insult any past or present yuppies(actual definition not my own) on this site. Happy now zipperhead_cop  ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Oct 2006)

> There exists somewhere an augulet that is lost in a dark place, and if recovered will never be servicable again.
> Nice that a dime-a-dozen Captain who is for some reason disgruntled is considered a "reliable source".  Not even from Canada, no less.



This bag-carrier is described in countless articles as a "top soldier"... :  Similar to the failed-Reservist turned "war resister" that briefly made the press a few weeks ago, the NDP and their fellow travellers are desperate to have a soldier support their morally bankrupt and profoundly misleading position.  A "retired" A de C is the best they can do...

I'm not normally overly partisan, but I'm beginning to _loathe_ Taliban Jack and his worthless party.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Oct 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Chief superleader of the *yuppies*:Vacant (Taliban Jack nominated)
> Chief Plenipotentiary of the *yuppies*: Taliban Jack
> Chief Ambassador of the *Yuppies*: The NDP
> High Ambassador of the *Yuppies*: John Dugard, *Denise Savoie  * (further high ambassador nominations pending)
> ...



I thought we sorted out the "yuppie" issue?   ???  "Hippies" and "Yuppies" are two ends of a spectrum.  Hell, if I was younger* I* think I might be a "yuppie".    (although I will never and have never owned a BMW)


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> What war has had an exit strategy?


It's usually expressed as "Bring the boys home by Christmas" - - it's seldom worked.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> This bag-carrier is described in countless articles as a "top soldier"... :  Similar to the failed-Reservist turned "war resister" that briefly made the press


....or a former Cpl who's an "Expert Defence Analyst"


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's usually expressed as "Bring the boys home by Christmas" - - it's seldom worked.


Sure it works.  Just that they get home on the NEXT Christmas, or the one after that, or the one after that....


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> ....or a former Cpl who's an "Expert Defence Analyst"


...Or a former Cpl who's a Minister of National Defence, or Fuehrer.......


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> > ....or a former Cpl who's an "Expert Defence Analyst"
> 
> 
> Or a former Cpl who's a Minister of National Defence, or Fuehrer.......



Oh great.....who knows how far he can go


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Oct 2006)

One wishes this Conservative MP had been right

Skelton admits error in column slamming NDP
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2006/10/03/skelton-error.html



> Conservative MP Carol Skelton admits her recent newspaper column contains an "incorrect line" concerning the NDP's support of the Afghanistan mission.
> 
> Skelton, Saskatchewan's sole representative in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet, wrote in her most recent newsletter, published Sept. 25 in the Rosetown Eagle, that last spring the *NDP voted in favour* [my emphasis - MC] of extending Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to 2009.
> 
> In fact, the New Democrats voted unanimously against the two-year extension...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## riot (3 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Similar to the failed-Reservist turned "war resister" that briefly made the press a few weeks ago



Some more info, but also a site worth writing to.

http://theproles.blogspot.com/2006/09/canadas-first-afghanistan-war-resister.html


----------



## medicineman (3 Oct 2006)

I expected a few laughs, but not a whole shite storm over my long winded MP's letter.  When I read it through (eventually - it got a little tiring), I just laughed and shook my head.  I'm going to write back and point out some convenient factual errors and discrepancies, then ask for the name and address of the party crack dealer - seems they sell some pretty good stuff.

She's the MP for Victoria for those who care - incidentally the first one I can remember being NDP in an awful long time.

Cheers for now folks.

MM


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Oct 2006)

>Her reply's so full of holes that it's pathetic... 

>Quote
Captain Leo Docherty, a former aide-de-camp to the commander of British forces in Helmand Province, recently said the NATO-led mission had been "grotesquely clumsy" and has "sucked [NATO] into a problem unsolvable by military means."

>Is that the best they can do?

Everytime I see that guy's name in print I have to suppress a fit of giggles.  Does the NDP realize that repeatedly and solemnly quoting the opinion of one gentleman who managed to rise to the dizzying rank of Captain isn't exactly helping them build a credible case or burnishing their reputation among informed observers?


----------



## medicineman (3 Oct 2006)

All they need to impress are the people that really couldn't be bother to read a news paper or have lapsed into apathy.  Unfortunately, alot of those clowns are out there.  I really wouldn't mind some of the stuff they're saying, but it's all taken out of context to let them hear what they wan to hear or is history rewritten in their own image - like how we went from apparent UN control in Kabul to NATO control in K'har.  I read McLean's and the papers and watched the news from the time we were told this was going to happen, through my time there and after, and I feel that people were fairly well warned to expect that we weren't there to look like pretty targets for peace in blue hats and that combat might in fact have been a distinct possibility.  How soon we forget though.

MM


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

Remember that up until now their chief anti-Iraq spokesmen were a couple of wandering privates from the US Army.

They know how to work with what's available.


----------



## medicineman (3 Oct 2006)

Pity they think alot of us are stupid and don't actually look at the sources - well ok, alot of the country does, but there are some that are somewhat skeptical of what comes out of their mouths... ;D

MM


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Oct 2006)

Some have said that the NDP support for pulling our troops out and focusing on reconstruction would be tantamount to Canada withdrawing from WW2. But the result would be much worse than that, it would be more akin to abandoning the Jews to the Nazis while at the same time building the Nazis a new road from Warsaw to Auschwitz.


----------



## Bigmac (5 Oct 2006)

September 10, 2006 

By ALEXANDER PANETTA

NDP Leader Jack Layton. (CP/Jacques Boissinot) 
QUEBEC (CP) - NDP Leader Jack Layton urged his troops to prepare Sunday for an election campaign he seems determined to fight against U.S. President George W. Bush. 

He mentioned the U.S. president at least five times in a closing address to his party's convention and accused the Tory government of being his servant. 

On climate change, on the softwood-lumber deal and on the Afghan conflict, Layton accused the Tories of selling out Canadian interests to satisfy Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of being a lackey of the Republican White House. 

"He's become a cheerleader for President George Bush and he's leading Canada down the wrong track on every issue that matters to ordinary people," Layton said. 

Layton's anti-war, anti-Bush message appeared to delight the party masses, who showered him with a 92-per-cent approval rating in a leadership vote. 

He ended his speech by telling 1,500 delegates that the weekend gathering was the start of a months-long election campaign. 

Layton lauded the NDP's decision over the weekend to become Canada's first political party to officially call for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. 

"Canadians are not war-mongers," Layton said. 

"Canada doesn't send its soldiers to the front lines just because our prime minister wants to remain in Washington's good graces." 

On climate change, Layton derided Harper on the Kyoto accord. 

"Stephen Harper wants to follow George Bush in reneging on Canada's international commitments," he said. 

And on the recent softwood lumber deal with the U.S., Layton said Harper should be ashamed. 

"For Stephen Harper it was more important to be George Bush's buddy," he told delegates. "It's more important to follow him than to fight for Canadian workers." 


The last attempt by a Canadian political party to stake its electoral fortunes on the unpopular U.S. president met with spectacular failure. 

The Paul Martin Liberals tried much the same strategy in the most recent campaign, which resulted in a minority Conservative government. 

New Democrats are betting the message will play better for them because, unlike Martin, they were not in power when Canada failed to meet climate-change targets, stalled in softwood negotiations and sent troops to Afghanistan. 

Layton took the helm of the party in January 2003 and has seen the NDP's seat count in the House of Commons rise significantly in two consecutive elections. 

He unveiled the party's five priorities for the next federal election, mimicking the Tories keep-it-simple strategy from the last election. 

Layton said the NDP will focus on affordable housing, quality education, helping seniors, protecting the environment, and withdrawing from Afghanistan. 

The NDP leader said there is a time and place for Canadians to fight but Afghanistan is not that time or place. 

"There is no plan for victory. There is no exit strategy. There is no sign that it is making the Taliban weaker or the world safer...," Layton said. 

"So here is what we're going to commit to do. We are going to support our troops. We are going to support them in the best way we can. We're going to bring our troops home." 

The Muslim Canadian Congress accused the NDP and Layton of playing politics with the lives of Afghan citizens and Canadian troops. 

"By asking for an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops, Mr. Layton demonstrates a naivete about the situation in Afghanistan," Farzana Hassan, congress president, said in a statement. 

Withdrawing now would amount to handing the country back to the Taliban and al-Qaida, she said.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (5 Oct 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49583.0.html


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2006)

Jacks racking them up i'nt he?

He's offside with the government, the Liberals, the Bloc, some members of his own caucus, NATO, the UN, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Muslim Canadian Congress.  

Keep it up Jack. You're doing fine.


----------



## Milhouser911 (5 Oct 2006)

Is it just me, or does Layton's rhetoric really sound like he sees the problems with what he says, yet continues to say it?  This "unbalanced, no exit strategy" claim has been disproven time and time again, yet he doesn't even change his wording.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (5 Oct 2006)

Wow.  What a tool.  But you know what?  It will probably work.  He is trying to scare the living sh*t out of Canadians right now.  He knows that Bush is not too popular in this country, so the more he fear mongers Canadians into thinking that the PC are just another branch of GW's Republican party, the more they will lean away from the current party in power.

From the article:


> On climate change, on the softwood-lumber deal and on the Afghan conflict, Layton accused the Tories of selling out Canadian interests to satisfy Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of being a lackey of the Republican White House.



1) Canada's climate change policy was a joke.  Paying "emission dollars" to Russia is not what I call an effective way of fighting global warming.  The ironic thing is, since Kyoto, Canada's emissions have * gone up * while US emissions have * gone down *.   Maybe following the US instead of the sinking money pit known as Kyoto is not such a bad thing after all?   

2) The softwood companies are behind the current softwood deal.  Why is taliban jack and his thugs so against it?  The people who's lives it is affecting, support it.  

3) The current Afghan conflict has nothing to do with the Tories.  It was the Liberals who committed the troops.

How anyone takes this guy seriously is beyond me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

If there's any justice, Canada will punish Jack Layton by delivering only the NDP's hard core of votes, thereby reminding Jack and the NDP that the non-NDP-aligned voters who occasionally support the NDP do so when the NDP tries to represent the interests of Canadians by using the interests of Canadians as a yardstick rather than the US presidential administration.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (5 Oct 2006)

Wow.  What a tool.  But you know what?  It will probably work.  He is trying to scare the living **** out of Canadians right now.  He knows that Bush is not too popular in this country, so the more he fear mongers Canadians into thinking that the PC are just another branch of GW's Republican party, the more they will lean away from the current party in power.

From the article:


> On climate change, on the softwood-lumber deal and on the Afghan conflict, Layton accused the Tories of selling out Canadian interests to satisfy Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of being a lackey of the Republican White House.



1) Canada's climate change policy was a joke.  Paying "emission dollars" to Russia is not what I call an effective way of fighting global warming.  The ironic thing is, since Kyoto, Canada's emissions have gone up while US emissions have gone down .   Maybe following the US instead of the sinking money pit known as Kyoto is not such a bad thing after all?   

2) The softwood companies are behind the current softwood deal.  Why is taliban jack and his thugs so against it?  The people who's lives it is affecting, support it. 

3) The current Afghan conflict has nothing to do with the Tories.  It was the Liberals who committed the troops.

How anyone takes this guy seriously is beyond me.


----------



## warspite (5 Oct 2006)

Milhouser911 said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does Layton's rhetoric really sound like he sees the problems with what he says, yet continues to say it?  This "unbalanced, no exit strategy" claim has been disproven time and time again, yet he doesn't even change his wording.


No it's not just you.
I have been trying to figure out why he won't shut up or change his tone and have only come up with two solutions:
1- He is truly an idiot beyond all imagination
2- He realizes he's on the way out and is determined to run his party completely into the ground beyond any hope of recovery for whatever reason.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (5 Oct 2006)

It would be nice to see Jack put his money where his mouth is.....

Perhaps he can lead negotiations/talks with the Taliban......


----------



## Trinity (5 Oct 2006)

Jack HAS to take a stance opposite of the current Government.

Well he doesn't, but he is.  Agreeing with the government on
issues is like saying you support them.  Heaven forbid the opposition
think any current government is doing anything correct.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

I wonder if Layton is betting all his chips that Ignatieff is going to win the Liberal leadership, and staking out an early position to grab Liberal voters who aren't happy with "obligation to protect".


----------



## Jed (6 Oct 2006)

Say something loud enough and often enough the undiscriminating masses will take it as gospel. This man has no integrity and is wasting good oxygen, IMO.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Oct 2006)

I tend more to think that Canada will not listen to such an idiot wanker. If there is any punishing, it will be the Jack and the NDP to cop it sweet. 


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## GDawg (6 Oct 2006)

riot said:
			
		

> Some more info, but also a site worth writing to.
> 
> http://theproles.blogspot.com/2006/09/canadas-first-afghanistan-war-resister.html



I just wrote to the dofus who runs that blog. Feel free to check it out and correct me, if required.
I am up way past my bed time and I would have done some research at the office but I've got a plane to catch in a few hours.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2006)

Good on the NDP, always ready to dance to Mullah Omar's tune. "Taliban Jack" is obviously just a puppet and comitted to fighting for the Caliphate.

http://www.beloblog.com/KGW_Blogs/afghanistan/2006/07/



> Villagers usually know when the Taliban and insurgents are in the area. They also know when to flee, as the try to avoid the misfortune that will ultimately befall as the insurgents are rooted out. It is a fine line of survival for them. Being essentially powerless in this war, the villagers are placed in the middle having to choose sides between a force that lives among them and a force that has come from afar. For many, the choice is on par with rolling the dice on the table of craps. Choosing one side over the other is too often a gamble for their life as they make a choice of sides, of who will win and of who will be part their future. The insurgents know this, and use the current climate of political uncertainty in both the United States and that of the countries involved with the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) as an active part of their information and propaganda. The end result is that the insurgents too often end up winning the information campaign, swaying villagers by fear or threat of reprisal to their side. Support is given, places of refuge are taken and the insurgents gain a foothold with a malignancy of a cancer.


----------



## Dan Gerous (9 Oct 2006)

Jack Layton is coming to Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo Ontario on Wednesday, Oct. 11 for a talk at 1130.  My friends and I are planning a little demonstration to show our displeasure at his current policy.  Any suggestions on posters we should make?  Remember we want to make a point, not get arrested so keep these appropriate.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

Nate M said:
			
		

> Jack Layton is coming to Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo Ontario on Wednesday, Oct. 11 for a talk at 1130.  My friends and I are planning a little demonstration to show our displeasure at his current policy.  Any suggestions on posters we should make?  Remember we want to make a point, not get arrested so keep these appropriate.



Wear red "Support our Troops" T-shirts.


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2006)

For ideas, try here: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/23-Rebuttal-to-Jack-Laytons-article-in-the-Toronto-Star.html


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wear red "Support our Troops" T-shirts.



How about a version of the good old leftie chant
"Hey Hey Ho Ho...Jack Layton has got to go!"


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Oct 2006)

Nate M: 

"Are Alexa McDonough, Dawn Black and Olivia Chow ready to go to Afghanistan, find the Taliban, and start negotiating" 

"When Alexa, Dawn and Olivia go to Afghanistan will they dare show their faces?"
http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen1.htm

"Jack: Why don't you support a mission unanimously madated by the United Nations Security Council?"

"NDP social policy: No school for Afghan girls and women"

"NDP justice policy for Afghanistan: Public capital punishment for women in stadiums"
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/10/02/fatima/

Etc.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## karl28 (9 Oct 2006)

[quote"Hey Hey Ho Ho...Jack Layton has got to go!"

][/quote]

    Now that made my day  ;D


----------



## patrick666 (9 Oct 2006)

Jack knows jack.


----------



## Dan Gerous (9 Oct 2006)

So far we have;

"Mr. Layton, You don't know Jack"
"Support the Taliban: Down with Women's Rights"
and
"Negotiate With the Taliban, It Worked With the Nazis"


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (9 Oct 2006)

Nate M said:
			
		

> So far we have;
> 
> "Mr. Layton, You don't know Jack"
> "Support the Taliban: Down with Women's Rights"
> ...



 :rofl:

I love em!!


----------



## canadianblue (9 Oct 2006)

Does anybody even really pay attention to the NDP anymore, hell even Peter Stoffer disagrees with his leader on Afganistan. The NDP has gone from the party of hard working people to a bunch of snobbish radicals who know nothing of the world other then the United States is evil, and we are responsible for all of the worlds problems. I can't wait till they get wiped in an election.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (10 Oct 2006)

Nate M said:
			
		

> So far we have;
> 
> "Mr. Layton, You don't know Jack"
> "Support the Taliban: Down with Women's Rights"
> ...


I'd be looking for something short and to the point that media can take a snapshot of....

I honestly would try to say something that relies less on history (because neither journalists nor viewers have the attention span to remember back to 1945), and something more inflammatory, specific and target Jack Layton personally.

"Jack Layton believes Afghan Girls don't deserve to go to school."
"Jack Layton, for women's rights and gay rights....except in Afghanistan."
"Jack Layton, there are 3.5 million women students in Afghanistan that think you're wrong!"

Anything that highlights his hypocrisy in really stark terms like that.  Of note, if you can pull it off, try to print a bunch 1-pagers and start distributing them tomorrow that the student body starts asking themselves these hard questions rather than falling on back on the traditional hippie "We won't fight George Bush's war." nonsense.


Matthew.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (10 Oct 2006)

lol,  
(Below are a few one liners - these are to be taken lightly with all the seriousness of "this hour has 22 minutes" after so many humourless posts,  I'm going to try to not be such a sourpuss)
     "Our of Afghanistan and into Darfur",   "When the going gets tough,  we wanted to quit a long time ago", "We have no problems calling our own soldiers terrorists,  yup we feel that safe",  "Vote for the NDP,  we promise to say anything to get the next vote no matter how offensive",  "NDP Because doing the right thing should be easy",  "NDP Dissidents without an oppressor".  "NDP nouveau dissident party - we want to stand up against oppression,  and we don't care who we step on to do it" 

     I've listened to many many NDPers give their opinion on Afghanistan,  "Brutal imperialist occupation" came up a few times.  "We're just in it for the Oil" more often than not. I understand why they believe what they do,  and 95% of the time if I simply remind them of the underlying facts they begrudgingly accept what we're there for and that we need to tough it out.

     Although,  it would be nice if some of our other Nato members would kick in a little more, (you're not in Jr high,  you can stay out after dark) and it would have been extremely helpfull if certain other NATO members didn't start a whole new project for no good reason ... but whats in the past is the past.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

Sorry there NDP, it looks like the Taliban don't want to talk.



> Taliban refuses Afghan president's offer of talks
> Fisnik Abrashi, Associated Press
> Published: Saturday, October 28, 2006
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=5b45d626-b905-4e3a-894f-c6947ab164aa&k=15170


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

> Protesters demand withdrawal from Afghanistan
> Updated Sat. Oct. 28 2006 2:37 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


Mr Layton, constructive criticism involves offering opinions one what the correct action is.  When will you recommend what should be done in Afghanistan?

Oh, yes.  You do discourage the troops.  Nothing was more discouraging that being over there and seeing people like yourself postulating that my friends & coworkers were dieing for a frivolous & unappreciated cause (especially groups the CPA that goes so far as to call us war criminals; why is it you are willing to speak for thier events?).


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Oct 2006)

I just want to know what he wants us to do...just run?


----------



## patrick666 (28 Oct 2006)

> We are raising these questions to support our troops," Layton said. "Our job as citizens is to make sure we're asking them to do the right thing in the world...there is a sense that this mission is the wrong mission for Canada and that it is not helping to achieve the goals we all have in mind for Afghanistan."



Why is it not the right mission for Canada? Have any reasons been put forth?

What is not helping Canada to achieve its goals is uh.. THE TALIBAN.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (28 Oct 2006)

Hey Jack

Is that you in the picture?


----------



## Jed (28 Oct 2006)

Every time Talban Jack jumps to support a wing nut cause that is contrary to the well thought out position of the government and of the CF, it makes the country's job of winning the war that much harder. And this is all aided by the unethical, sensationalist journalism we see in Canada.  Don't these people see that this just provides more fuel to the enemy and more troops coming home via a ramp ceremony ? My Gosh, we do not even expect the police to sort out the Mafia or Hell's Angels in our own country over night, how can you ask us to deal with the Taliban in a few months ?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Oct 2006)

Thats a good question...where would jack like us? Im sure if we went where he wanted us...he'd still bitch about it.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Oct 2006)

Jack wants us on a UN mandated mission to a third world nation.

Oh, wait, I think maybe he doesn't.  Or does he?  I'm confused...


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I'm confused...


so are his sheeple.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Oct 2006)

von Juarez said:
			
		

> Jack wants us on a UN mandated mission to a third world nation.
> 
> Oh, wait, I think maybe he doesn't.  Or does he?  I'm confused...


Well,  I think he wants a UN mandated mission to a third world nation where there are no difficulties or risks. If we went to Darfur... no UN mandate, no clear definition victory and choosing sides unilaterally.. but apparently that is something we should do...


----------



## Bobbyoreo (29 Oct 2006)

I think if he knew about Darfur....and the years of war there...and the fact that once again..we would be shot at...he would pull us out of there as well.


----------



## Trinity (29 Oct 2006)

How about the fact that Darfur has child soldiers... and lots of them

Shooting and killing 12 year olds holding AK47's isn't going to look
good on the news because ... they're 12.

Canada will not wrap their head around that... but that is the
reality of Darfur.   You think there's a media firestorm now???  : :


----------



## gnplummer421 (29 Oct 2006)

The thing that bothers me most about Taliban Jack is that he actually believes that by calling for us to leave Afghanistan, he is supporting the troops...what a Dufus. Many have said that he does not speak for the Military, well he certainly doesn't speak for me! He will cause more trouble for us over there. He undermines the mission, which increases the risks for our soldiers. Should he not be charged with treason?

Jack and him merry band of no-minds have their heads so far in the sand, it is choking off their common sense.

Gnplummer421


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2006)

You can probably make a similar argument that the upsurge in violence in Iraq is related to the current US elections.  The only greater spike was prior to the 2004 presidential elections.   Check yesterday's National Post - a nice graph demonstrates the point.

These guys are fully aware that the greatest weapons they have are not bombs or bullets but the ballots of their enemy.  It is all about public opinion.

The US lost Vietnam because of public opinion. The French lost Vietnam and Algeria because of public opinion.  The Brits lost their empire when public opinion demanded cradle to grave welfare at home.  I think you can even make a strong case that the Communist empire collapsed because of public opinion.

They will continue to exploit our need for debate while they vigorously control the message from the pulpit with the promise of paradise and the threat of hellfire.


----------



## Trinity (29 Oct 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> The thing that bothers me most about Taliban Jack is that he actually believes that by calling for us to leave Afghanistan, he is supporting the troops...what a Dufus.



no.. Jack doesn't believe it

Jack believes that anything that will get him on television and more press is a good thing.
Anything that can promote the NDP (i should say anything that can be exploited for the ndp)
is a good thing.


----------



## HDE (29 Oct 2006)

You've gotta love the "Support the troops being them home" placards.  Jack appears more inclined to support the troops by sending them off to the really trendy dangerous places- Darfur, Lebanon...  Surprisingly the MSM haven't raised that point with him


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Oct 2006)

I respectfully submitt that there is no correlation between the upswing in violence against our troops and the increased activity of the anti-war crowd.  I don't think the Taliban were feeling demoralised until a third rate politician stood up and said that we should leave.   I have a hard time imagining the Taliban giving eachother high fives because suddenly there is hope that the will of the "occupiers" is starting to slip.  

The upswing in violence is because we are now in a more dangerous region doing more dangerous things. I think the Taliban will gleefully kill any NATO troop that the can,  although I can't argue that they would strategically target our troops (If given an either or situation) because of the possibility it will lead to a large withdrawl of troops. Also it does undermine our negotiating position,  if we do get the taliban to the Table,  they'll just say 'thanks we'll wait you out,  we know you want to leave'.  Also the locals wont want to choose the side that is going to be pulling out.  

I don't believe that every NDPer is spouting things that they simply believe will get them elected.  I'd say that a vast majority of then truly believe in what they are saying and doing.  I do think that some of them regret that they missed out on the 60s and want to live the anti-war lifestyle.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2006)

Don't underestimate the Forces of Evil tm Zell.  Look what they did to the Spanish Elections with their well-timed bombings.  The incumbent government was on the easy road to victory at the polls, so the Forces of Evil tm "rigged" the outcome by setting off bombs and killing dozens upon dozens of innocent Spaniards whose only crimes were trying to live their lives.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2006)

Zell:


> I respectfully submitt that there is no correlation between the upswing in violence against our troops and the increased activity of the anti-war crowd.  I don't think the Taliban were feeling demoralised until a third rate politician stood up and said that we should leave.   I have a hard time imagining the Taliban giving eachother high fives because suddenly there is hope that the will of the "occupiers" is starting to slip.



von Garvin:


> Don't underestimate the Forces of Evil tm Zell.  Look what they did to the Spanish Elections with their well-timed bombings.  The incumbent government was on the easy road to victory at the polls, so the Forces of Evil tm "rigged" the outcome by setting off bombs and killing dozens upon dozens of innocent Spaniards whose only crimes were trying to live their lives.



Needless to say I disagree with you, Zell, and agree with von Garvin on this one.

As to this one:



> I don't believe that every NDPer is spouting things that they simply believe will get them elected.  I'd say that a vast majority of then truly believe in what they are saying and doing.  I do think that some of them regret that they missed out on the 60s and want to live the anti-war lifestyle.



I agree entirely. Once upon a time people of that mind set were referred to as "Fellow travelers and useful idiots".  People who, as you note, "want to live the life-style".  I don't doubt their sincerity, their belief in the cause, or even their motivation.  They wish to do good.  Strangely that puts them into exactly the same category as most soldiers deployed to Afghanistan.

They have just flat got it wrong and their actions can be exploited to hurt the cause.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Once upon a time people of that mind set were referred to as "Fellow travelers and useful idiots".


also Quislings, Fifth Columnists and traitors.


----------



## McG (29 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I respectfully submitt that there is no correlation between the upswing in violence against our troops and the increased activity of the anti-war crowd.
> 
> The upswing in violence is because we are now in a more dangerous region doing more dangerous things.





			
				von Garvin said:
			
		

> Don't underestimate the Forces of Evil tm Zell.  Look what they did to the Spanish Elections with their well-timed bombings.


I think the truth lies somewhere in between and is compounded by other factors (such as foreign fighters increasingly choosing to fight in Afghanistan over Iraq).


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Oct 2006)

von Garvin,  If you wanted to look at it that way you could say that Al-quida has also affected American elections with their well timed release of the videotape of BinLaden. But you could also say that Al-quida has gained support because of America's invasion of Iraq. One could make the argument that one radical group is causing actions that benefit another radical group.  This will polerise the two groups and can only lead to large scale war.

All that aside,   I think it is dangerous to stifle debate on the issue.  There are legitimate concerns, or there may be more in the future.  We need to be able to keep those in power in check - or we risk becoming what we went to Afghanistan to fight. :warstory:  I see it as a sign of the strength of our culture that we can have people who disagree with us and not become disagreeable.  I know it is am obtuse point,  but I think this is a core issue.  We need to preserve the ability to dissent in a civil manner in our society.

edited for spelling


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2006)

MCG, I admit that the truth is in the middle somewhere and that there are reasons beyond the political for actions on the ground.  

Zell, your point about the Iraq invasion is also well-founded.  

However it doesn't serve the issue well to deny the fact that public opinion is  the crux of modern war.  Perhaps it always has been.  The battle for "Hearts and Minds" is played out on both sides as attempts are made to separate leaders from followers.

While my gut reaction to "stifling debate" is the same as yours Zell, it is hard not to appreciate the advantage possessed by an enemy that doesn't have to engage in that debate.  The left wing cry of education being the solution to everything actually resonates with me.  Unfortunately it also resonates with the Taliban hence blowing up schools and limiting education to the right kind of thinking to the right kind of people.  

I say this knowing it is a contentious issue but we have a domestic example here in Canada as attested by the book "Young Trudeau" by the Nemni's.  The Catholic Church of Trudeau's youth actively controlled what was to be known and limited education to restrict who was to know it.  Fortunately Quebec and the Church have moved on, much to the perceived disadvantage of both institutions perhaps.  Islam and the Taliban have no desire to repeat what they see as the mistakes of "the enlightened" west and lose control over the message.

Unfortunately for us, most of the people involved in our internal debates either don't perceive the harm that they cause, or perhaps they do.  I have less of a problem though with those that engage in prolonging the debate, even if they wish to do harm, than those that prolong the debate simply to gain power and sell papers.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2006)

Zell:
I'm not advocating debate at all.  I do, however, find it repulsive that certain members of our society will use misinformation to gain politicaal points (eg: lie).
I also am not saying that everything that the Forces of Evil tm do is successful.  There have been attempts by them to make great gains at our expense by using assymetrical attacks.
Their attack on 9/11 was NOT an attempt to bring us over there to fight them.  In fact, given the prior reprisals by the previous US administration, the most they feared was a few cruise missiles hurling over the skies of Afghanistan.  They underestimated the response of Dubya et al.  I mean, they attacked the USS Cole and killed how many in the embassy attacks?  I also doubt that they thought that they could bring down the Twin Towers on 9/11.  I mean, mostly they were meant to be symbolic attacks.  The Pentagon now looks as it did at 9 am on 9/11.  The WTC is a different matter altogether, but I think Penn and Teller had it right: build it as it was as a big "one finger salute" to The Forces of Evil tm


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Oct 2006)

Most Dippers and protesters, esp. the young ones, are simply ignorant of most basic facts.  I would wager that at max 5% know these things:

1) Our first mission in Afstan was a combat one (not peacekeeping) in 2002, sent by the Chretien government;
2) The NATO ISAF mission has the unanimous authorization of the UN Security Council;
3) Over half the US troops in Afstan are now under ISAF, currently commanded  by a British general;
4) Canadian troops in Regional Command (South) will come under command of a Dutch general on Nov. 1.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081 (30 Oct 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Most Dippers and protesters, esp. the young ones, are simply ignorant of most basic facts.  I would wager that at max 5% know these things:
> 
> 1) Our first mission in Afstan was a combat one (not peacekeeping) in 2002, sent by the Chretien government;
> 2) The NATO ISAF mission has the unanimous authorization of the *US* Security Council;
> ...



Dont you mean....UN ?    ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> 1) Our first mission in Afstan was a combat one (not peacekeeping) in 2002, sent by the Chretien government;


I've heard the MSM misquote this.  They actually have said "we went in as Peacekeepers in 2002...."  Oh, how soon some have forgotten.  They also forget that JC was shamed into participating.  Remember his quote "Canadians don't want to get into a big fight".  Putz.  We already were in a big fight.  Also, the MSM forget to remind us that the Libs ALMOST took us to Iraq and that public opinion at the time (early 2003) was fairly split about go/no-go.  They also forget to remind us that the Libs suddenly (and without warning, I may add) announced participation in ISAF some 6 months after saying that we couldn't replace a single BG in Khandahar.  Oh, and not only did a BG go, but a Bde HQ and Sigs and all that (over 2000 IIRC).  They also forget to mention that the Libs deployed us from Kabul to Khandahar with the great support of the House.  I'll research those initial debates, but I think that there was even NDP support!


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Oct 2006)

cdnaviator: Aaarrrgh!  Changed. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## rmacqueen (30 Oct 2006)

Don't forget the fact that it was not an invasion as the MSM loves to call it


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Oct 2006)

rmacqueen: One example of my standard letter to the papers on the "invasion" misnomer; very rarely one gets printed (this one did not) :



> Sent: 10 July 2006 14:08
> 
> To: Sunday Times Letters
> Subject: No "Invasion" of Afghanistan
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Matt_S (30 Oct 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Don't forget the fact that it was not an invasion as the MSM loves to call it



Actually most of those flaming pinko marxists refer to it as an illegal occupation.Bear in mind that Taliban Jack and his caucus of mental midgets would have referred to D-Day as an illegal occupation of France by the Allies.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Nov 2006)

Well, you could send The Dippers a signal at this poll (open until 11 Nov):  http://www.timeoutcanada.org/


----------



## patrick666 (2 Nov 2006)

> Well, you could send The Dippers a signal at this poll (open until 11 Nov):  http://www.timeoutcanada.org/



Question:
Are you for or against the immediate withdrawal of The Canadian Armed Forces from Afghanistan?

FOR -  11%  
AGAINST -  88%


----------

