# Response to the Ruxted rebuttal of Jack Layton in the Toronto Star



## ruxted (27 Sep 2006)

Please post your replies to the Rebuttal to Jack Layton’s article in the Toronto Star here.

To further the debate here is the origional Jack Layton article, reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Why Canada must review mission
> Sep. 26, 2006. 01:00 AM
> *JACK LAYTON*
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (27 Sep 2006)

Ruxted Editor said:
			
		

> Mr Layton tells Canadians that we should return to our "traditional role of peacekeeping", yet his use of the term suggests that he is likely ignorant of what this means.


Too bad he has fooled a lot of Canadian's into believing him.  



			
				Ruxted Editor said:
			
		

> Mr Layton continually insists that the mission is “unbalanced” but he does not suggest what a balanced mission would look like.


I guess he does not subscribe to the "don't bring problems, bring solutions" kind of thinking.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (27 Sep 2006)

I honestly think at this point it must be clear to even Mr. Layton why we need to provide security before reconstruction in Afghanistan, but he's gone so far down that rhetorical path he can't turn around now. It's a shame so many Canadians are falling for his strategy in the mean time.


----------



## Slim (27 Sep 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> I honestly think at this point it must be clear to even Mr. Layton why we need to provide security before reconstruction in Afghanistan, but he's gone so far down that rhetorical path he can't turn around now. It's a shame so many Canadians are falling for his strategy in the mean time.



Are we sure that the majority of Canadians are falling for his crap and not just the vocal few...?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (27 Sep 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> Are we sure that the majority of Canadians are falling for his crap and not just the vocal few...?



It isn't about getting most of the people to believe something.  It is about getting a "key demographic".  For example left leaning people who aren't traditional ndp supporters but despise the war in Iraq. (annoying yes, but a frighteningly large number of Canadians can't tell the issues apart) This could cut into Liberal support and yank out a few seats from the grits.  This particular form is called division politics. "We're the moral ones, who really care about our fellow Canadians where as you get government kickbacks from your military contracts as you assign our troops to missions that are needlessly dangerous - taking on more than our share to suck up to Bush and support his illegal war of aggression".  I've heard four or five different tendentious arguments to support the NDP's viewpoint.  It didn't convince me,  but their message isn't targeted at me,  it is targeted at people who will give them the anti-war vote.  This kind of politics is sadly effective.


----------



## pronto (27 Sep 2006)

I am almost sure the majority of Canadians are NOT falling for his rhetoric. My team at work is universally in favour of what we're doing in Afghanistan. As are the other teams. As are almost 100% of the others I have spoken with over the past few months. I think my sample size (at least 500 people, mixed gender, mixed background, mixed ethnicity, mixed income, etc. etc. - a pretty good population pool) is sufficient to allow me to say that the VAST majority of Canadians do not support Mr. Layton.

In fact, the "fervent" NDP party-follower has been dropping in influence steadily since the Broadbent days. They are less and less relevant. I know a few NDP-ers who are actually ashamed of ol' Jackie  right about now. As usual we hear about the vocal few because they make good press, and the media can actually get a story without working overhard. 

If there is not a story, the media will look for one, and frankly, I think in some cases, they will even make one. Remember William Randolph Hearst and the Spanish war? totally manufactured to sell papers... I am not saying they've gone that far since, but hey, precedent was set.

The media will also subtly threaten. Ever hear the expression "Don't argue with people who buy their ink by the gallon"? That comes out whenever someone points out the bias or the poor job the media does. In other words, shut up or we will bury you. Nowadays that is a very frightening threat.

So - upshot... The Canadian population supports the forces overwhelmingly. The NDP are becoming less relevant than even THEY feared. The media manufactures an "opinion" on behalf of the population to make headlines and look like they are "reporting" real stories. 

...just my opinion and observations...


...Edited because I cannot spell "relevant"...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (27 Sep 2006)

(*Personal venting Responses to The Afghanistan Debate – this is tendentious*)

After 15 years of doing my fair share for the political left in this country I have to stop and walk away. I can’t support the NDP anymore, not because my values have changed, but because they’ve changed. The breaking point for me was the way they’ve dealt with the Afghanistan issue.

I’ve been … I had been a steadfast NDP supporter since I was 12- I am now 27.  I’d wear orange with pride as I protested with my fellow NDPers in my small-hometown-Alberta.  I’ve volunteered with them; I’ve debated many people quite successfully key points of the NDP platform.  One of my prouder moments is when I got a graduate from the University of Calgary to admit that demand side economics has traditionally developed economies faster and with a higher standard of living for the majority of people. And I regret it all.

Honestly this is not the party I knew growing up; this is not a party I could ever support. I was attracted to the NDP because they said what they meant, meant what they said and were happy to hash over the issues intelligently. There have been so many internal changes, both subtle and overt.  Maybe I’ve just began to notice them now.  The NDP has begun to compromise on its values in order to attain power.  Bev Desjardins voted against a platform issue in the House of Commons and she wasn’t kicked out of the party.  It was left to her Churchill riding association, whom she has shamed, to pull her.  Why did she not get the boot later that day as promised in the election campaign?  Jack needed her vote to push through that budget.  

Compromising values for power is a slippery slope.  Now with Layton using division politics to capture and secure key demographics, I see that the NDP aren’t just flirting with the edge, they are tumbling down so fast it could only be described as a free fall with an occasional bump. When he does to the NDP what Mulroney did to the Progressive-conservatives, I wonder how the political left will survive. Although, right now, I’m doing what I can to stop the NDP’s “support the troops” campaign.  (I’m up to 5 card carrying NDPers now begrudgingly admitting that their party is wrong on this issue) 

I only wish I had the time to mount a proper grassroots revolt.


----------



## patrick666 (27 Sep 2006)

> The more we learn, the more it becomes clear that this mission is ill-defined, unbalanced and that Canada has no exit strategy.



Ill-defined? Provide security, reconstruction and humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan.

Unbalanced? You bet - we have the trained troops, the big guns and state-of-the-art technology. 

Exit Strategy? Has their been a war, or "state of armed conflict", that has *ever* had an exit strategy, from the beginning years? 

I don't understand his logic - he wants the troops gone but the reconsctruction workers to stay, so who is going to protect them? The Taliban, once it sees our troops withdraw, will simply roll over everything we've done so far and destroy it and not too mention most likely kill anybody who was helping the coalition in any way. 

I like how Jack twists Karzai's words almost against him to promote his own looney-tune policy. He needs to get it in his head that is NOT the Prime Minister and that, Stephen Harper, as the Prime Minister is in charge.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (27 Sep 2006)

Zell,

Do you mind if ask you a follow-up question?

Many of my friends who are very well-intentioned people came out of the last election thinking Harper was the son-of-Satan and the Conservative Party was going to ruin everything good about the country.  However, in the last 3 or 4 months in particular, there's a new respect for the guy because at the very least he does what he promises.

I'm not sure they're going to vote CPC at this point because a lot of them just can't in any way conceptualize "the opportunity cost of inaction" as it relates to military affairs and as such still point to deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as being 100% of the fault of the Western Powers (especially the girls for whatever reason - with the guys as soon as I explain the 1938 Munich Agreement, they usually catch on very quickly)....but on everything else there is a growing trust.

Coming from where you were, I'm curious as to your perspective....


Matthew.


----------



## cplcaldwell (27 Sep 2006)

Zell

I'm about as Tory as they get. Mind you that's a long way from Republican though. 

The NDP has made a bad choice with Layton, you know it, I know it, a lot of people know it. 

_Don't walk away_, somewhere, in behind all the baggage that Jack brings along with his silly Tronna City Council 'carry on', is the party of Douglas, Knowles, Woodsworth, Coldwell, Lewis and Broadbent.(and  a dozen others...)

I may never vote for it; but it's a useful and (IMHO) necessary part of the political landscape. 

Don't forget, us Torys spent nigh on fifteen years in the wilderness. Before that eight or nine years of Mulroney (maybe I'll be able to attach a value to that before I die, not, sure). And before that, hmm... Clark, Stanfield, Diefenbaker...It's a long story.

The politics of division is Layton. The politics of the NDP, no matter how left, is or at least, in its best days, was not. 

Carry on....


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Sep 2006)

Shorter Jack Layton: Fvck this hard sh!t.  We want the easy missions so we can preen and parade our moral sanctity on the international stage without getting our hands dirty.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Sep 2006)

There is a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) at Kandahar, established in the summer of 2005 and of a size that Martin's government approved.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/archer/index_e.asp#athena



> Since August 2005, a Canadian PRT has operated in Kandahar, where it is expected to remain until February 2009. The PRT brings together elements from the Canadian Forces (CF), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and civilian police led by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in an integrated Canadian effort known as the “All of Government” approach. Approximately 220 personnel are based at the PRT site at Camp Nathan Smith in Kandahar City.



Perhaps the PRT is not as effective as it might be. A main reason may be that the Taliban insurgency is stronger than expected in 2005 when Mr Martin's government approved the overall new mission in the south. Strange to say such unanticipated things happen in war. That is why there is now quite a lot of combat--without the success of which development, as demanded by Mr Martin and all those others, will not be possible. Easy to understand, is it not?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## wildman0101 (27 Sep 2006)

what is this guy f****** smoking
did he not support support the troops in peacekeeping and fully supported the mission in a-stan 
during the last federal election in jan 2006
why is he doing a turn around now
oh ya "hes cutting an running"
just my thoughts,,
i stand corrected my info is incorrect and im outta line but sheesh
                                                                 best regards,,
                                                                         sccoty


----------



## Love793 (27 Sep 2006)

Bottom line.  The Jack Layton Fan Club can spout all they want.  For them to win a federal election, they have to win the majority of seats in Ont.  That's not going to happen, as Ont is still very angered over paying off a debt from Bob Rae (Then Premier of Ont).  This the same reason why the liberals will not vote Rae in as their new leader.

As for the majority of Canadians believing the communist, I mean NDP propaganda.  I just completed a Recruiting Event in the most Union of all cities (Windsor Ont) and can attest that the majority are in support of us.  For every 1 "We should pull out..." statement, we received 20 "Keep up the good work..." statements.


----------



## GMan87 (28 Sep 2006)

Hi, this is my first post here. I'm a university student with some interest in possibly becoming an engineering officer (this would still be a few years down the road), just looking at my options after graduation. Anyways I've looked around these forums a fair bit just to find out more about a career in the military, and I have learned a lot. 

As a "lefty" who voted for Layton last election, I felt this was a good time to finally register.

Well I'll be blunt: I am downright embaressed that with the NDP's direction. It's not so much even that they're against the war (which I'm not), as it is admitadely a questionable war. However, what I really don't like is their demand that Canada immediately pull its troops. The fact is Canada signed on to this mission, and for us to break that commitment, there would have to be a very, very good reason to do so. Some soldiers dying, as tragic as it is, isn't a reason to abort the mission. If Canada left now, then their deaths truly would have been for no reason; finsih the mission and let the deaths of these brave young soldiers mean something.

This mission seems to frighten people because it is Canada's biggest military operation since Korea, but honestly I think this is a very good thing for Canada's military. The mission has exposed some of the problems with our military and allowed them to be fixed (or at least noticed by government), I think its also good for soldiers to get some experience in an actual combat zone. The mission will also hopefully mean that Afghanistan can be a better country for everyone to live in. As well, in the long run, having an anti terrorist government is good for Canada. The Taliban will never really be defeated by NATO, but if they can cripple the Taliban enough and improve the Afghan army enough to defend themselves and their government, it will be better for us in the long run The fact that most military members seem to support the mission is truly what makes me support it. If you guys didn't want to be there, I would feel very out of place supporting you being there.

Anyways, this is a reply about the article, so I should probably mention it. Very good article. I think the sad thing with the NDP situation is that they probably have some good points in criticizing the mission; I'm sure there's some ways things could be done better. But instead of offering suggestions on how this mission could be improved, they just say we should abandon it.  And I think that fits in with the article saying how humanitarian aid needs military support.

One more thing, can the politicians stop using the term "support our troops". Layton says bringing them home is supporting them, which would be fine if you guys wanted to come home, which it doesn't seem like you do. Harper says that to support the troops you have to support the mission, which is completely ridiculous since it is up to the people of a country to question their government's decisions. Military personnel can't pick and choose their wars, that is up to the government, who is a representation of the people. You can support our troops without supporting the government chosen war.  I guess what I'm trying to say, is Layton doesn't care about you, Harper doesn't care about you, the Liberals don't care about you, its all politics to them. At least when people oppose the war who have nothing to gain from oposing it, even if you feel they are misinformed, they are doing what they feel is right.

And one last thing: Great Job! Keep It Up!. Seeing Canada actually have an important role in this mission has made me feel proud as a Canadian and will hopefully make Afghanistan a better place.  Oh and this is the last straw with me and the federal NDP, I'm voting Liberal or Green next election. In Ontario, I am still NDP though.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (28 Sep 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Zell,
> 
> Do you mind if ask you a follow-up question?
> 
> ...



My thoughts,  if Harper does what Ralph Klein did,  he'll be fine.  Ralph Klein stood up,  said exactly what he was going to do and then when elected did it.  Scandals, photo ops and internal party strife comes and goes,  but people remember that you kept your word.  I disagreed with a lot of what Klein did,  but he was doing exactly what he said he would do when he campained. (The downside of Democracy - sometimes most people disagree with you :-D )

     Now contrast that with Jack Layton,  who campains and promises one set of ideals and rules and then willy-nilly does something else because he sees a short term possibility.  I've met him in person on a few occasions,  I kind of liked him as a person,  but his actions have left me disappointed and (I'll be honest) a little angry.  I remember when that riding association made that insulting 'terrorist comment' ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060906.wndp0906/BNStory/National/ )  I wanted the party leader to come out and apologise,  denounce the comment and reprimand the people who wrote it.  If he did... I didn't see it.

     I don't give up easily,  but I know when something is on meltdown.  You can't get a drunk to stop drinking,  don't even try.  I think the NDP are on full self destruct mode, nothing I can do will help.  So I'll just relax and do my part to try and minimise the damage they'll do.


----------



## R@chel (1 Oct 2006)

I'm a conservative through and through.  Always have been and well, probably always will be.

That being said, I found it personally disgusting how Layton pounced on the deaths of our fallen soldier as a good time to table his new "anit-war in Afghanistan" platform.  Way to honour the sacrifice these brave troops made and respect the grieving families.  Politics... it's all about the vote.

As for Layton's "pull the troops out" stance and "returning to a peace keeping force", well I am a firm believer that there needs to be peace to be kept.  Let's be honest.  This isn't just about Afghanistan.  All be it, we owe it to the Afghanistan people to hold up our end of the bargain and sitck it out till the end.  I'm not sure what Layton is thinking.  What should we just abandon Afghanistan like so may countries before us?  I always consider Canada a get the job done kind of nation.  Apparently Layton see us differently.  

The simple fact is, that while the war in Afghanistan will help the Afghan people and afford them the rights and liberties we (sort of) share, it is also about terrorism.  Canandians need to face the fact that terrorism is everyones problem and well I am quite proud of the Canadian Service Members who are willing to take the fight to them rather than having it the other way around.

The only thing that drives me really batty of Layton and his unbelievable comments, is that there are people out there that take what he says on face value.  Harper needs to keep at it in terms of educating Canadians on the mission and the media needs to balance it's coverage (like that's gonna happen).

Oh and Layton's "we need to talk with the Taliban" bit... Yeah okay Jack, you be the first one off the plane.

That's just my two cents... for what it's worth.


----------



## GMan87 (1 Oct 2006)

RachelMCF said:
			
		

> That being said, I found it personally disgusting how Layton pounced on the deaths of our fallen soldier as a good time to table his new "anit-war in Afghanistan" platform.  Way to honour the sacrifice these brave troops made and respect the grieving families.  Politics... it's all about the vote.


Ya, but the same could be said about the Conservatives, or any other party for that matter. Next election, Haper will use the war in any way he can to show he is a good prime minsiter. Whether its a photo op with the troops or how his leadership has made Canadians safer, etc.. I'm not defending Layton, but he is really no different than the rest of the politicians who will gladly use the death of Canadians to their own advantage. We saw it with the Dawson College shooting, both sides immediately using it to either defend or oppose the gun registry. 



> Oh and Layton's "we need to talk with the Taliban" bit... Yeah okay Jack, you be the first one off the plane.


Did he ever actually say we should talk with the Taliban? The only thing I heard close to that was that he supported talking to Hezbollah, although that recommendation sort of makes sense, since Hezbollah are a political force in Labeanon and seem to know how to show SOME restraint and morals. But Al Quaida and the Taliban would be impossible to negotiate with, as they don't really want anything except to see the West suffer.

Otherwise I agree with you


----------



## RangerRay (1 Oct 2006)

GMan87 said:
			
		

> Did he ever actually say we should talk with the Taliban?



Yes.  I heard Taliban Jack on the radio, and he said that there has to be "peace talks" with the Taliban.

He makes me sick!   :rage:

Edited for clarity.


----------



## GMan87 (1 Oct 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Yes.  I heard Taliban Jack on the radio, and he said that there has to be "peace talks" with the Taliban.
> 
> He makes me sick!   :rage:
> 
> Edited for clarity.


Okay, I didn't hear that, I stand corrected. In that case, I completely disagree with him. Like I said, negotiating could work with Hamas/Hezbolah in the Isreal situation, if people go about it right; but negotiating with the Taliban (aka Al Quaida) is not a realistic option.


----------



## RangerRay (1 Oct 2006)

How can you negotiate with Hezbollah or Hamas?  Both have the destruction of the Jewish State in their founding documents.  Pushing the Jews into the Mediterranean is the _raison d'etre_ of their existence.  Anything less than the destruction of Israel would be a huge defeat for these organisations.  The reason why the Palestinian Authority is receiving no aid from the western world (lead by PM Harper of Canada) is because Hamas refuses to withdraw it's goal of the destruction of the State of Israel from its constitution.

Just because these groups have elected members of legislative assemblies and hand out counterfeit American currency to rebuild homes, does not make them legitimate combatants to negotiate with.

Edited for clarity.


----------



## GMan87 (1 Oct 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> How can you negotiate with Hezbollah or Hamas?  Both have the destruction of the Jewish State in their founding documents.  Pushing the Jews into the Mediterranean is the _raison d'etre_ of their existence.  Anything less than the destruction of Israel would be a huge defeat for these organisations.  The reason why the Palestinian Authority is receiving no aid from the western world (lead by PM Harper of Canada) is because Hamas refuses to withdraw it's goal of the destruction of the State of Israel from its constitution.
> 
> Just because these groups have elected members of legislative assemblies and hand out counterfeit American currency to rebuild homes, does not make them legitimate combatants to negotiate with.
> 
> Edited for clarity.


Well to a point I agree. The thing is as Hezbollah showed by agreeing to a ceasefire, they are capable of showing retreat. Now you make a good point, but if we refuse to talk to them, what options does that leave us with? When the organizations are so supported by the citizens of their countries, there is only so much military action can do. Like for the Isreal - Palestine situation, if anythings ever going to get solved, Isreal has two options: nuke them off the face of the planet or talk to the "bad guys". Miltiary action can only go so far when the majority of a country supports the terrorist groups. At least in Afghanistan, it seems like the average citizen is opposed to the Taliban.


----------



## R@chel (1 Oct 2006)

From my understanding of Hezbollah, there are the average citizen Hezbollah and the militant Hezbollah.  I agree if the majorty of the population supports that organization then there is really no other choice than to try and negotiate.  Whether or not that works, well it hasn't in the past but I guess time will tell.  They at least have to try to talk, but peace talks in the middle east have never been a successful route.

In terms of the Taliban, well again from my understanding they are purely a militant group and the average citizen does not support them, so I struggle with the idea of sitting down with these terrorists and talking it out.  How do you negotiate with someone willing to die for their cause.  Again I say to Jack... by all means give it a shot, but you be the first one through the door and we'l see how long you last.  (not quite what I wanted to say, but I curbed my anger).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Oct 2006)

There are threads-o-plenty for Hamas/Hezbollah debate.  Lets stick to Mr. Ruxpins intent.   
Boy, and I thought the Ex-Charging Bison thread drew out a bunch.   :

I cannot get my head around anyone who is saying that Layton and Mr. Harper are cut from the same cloth?   ???  I can understand being cynical with all government, but the two individuals are at two ends of a spectrum.  
Layton is using fear mongering tactics for no other reason than to play up to what he perceives as Canadians lack of fortitude for a shooting war.  In doing so, he can try to discredit Mr. Harper's government and thus try to rob a few seats away from the Lieberals next time around.  It is that simple.  Self serving, BS politics.  Where he is running into trouble is that he is dead wrong, but if he backs down now he looks like an even bigger tool.  He had his opportunity to bow out gracefully when Pres. Karzai was here.  He could have had a big "I've seen the light" revelation, then still tried to get in his two cents.  But he appears to be sticking to his rhetoric just for the sheer pettiness of it.  Which is all well and good, if you are arguing about GST or health care.  Snipe away.  
But Layton is playing with peoples lives.  At the best of times, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are focused zealots who are willing to die for what they believe in.  They view us as weak, decadent and sub human.  As such, they are probably somewhat baffled that we have the resolve that we do.  So now we have a "leader" that routinely gets on the television and is going on at length about wanting us to pull out.  Does he thing that doesn't get back to them?  So any moral erosion that the soldiers over there have caused the Taliban gets shot to crap.  Now, all they have to do is hang in there and keep trying, since one idiot mouth continues to advocate our withdrawl like it is a foregone conclusion.  Now, all they need to do is throw out the odd reminder to the citizens that "Hey, we are still here, and we can reach out and touch you whenever we want.  And when the infidels are gone, you are gonna get it *so* much worse than before".  Thanks Jack.  No doubt your flagging career is more important than our soldiers lives.  
But we have hung in, and we do continue to stand up to them.  It is that demonstrated fortitude that has gotten us local cooperation and paved the way for some decisive victories.  The Afghan people respect strength and conviction.  If we pull out now, not only do we tell the Taliban that killing westerners is a good way to get them to leave, we will also be telling Joe and Jane Afghanistan "good luck, it was fun while it lasted".  So do you really think these people will get too ramped up when a terrorist camp opens up next door to go after westerners?  Terrorists have money to buy supplies and patronize the local economy.  The Afghans need to make a living just like anyone else does, and they don't have the luxury that we do to take time to be morally righteous.  
Layton knows damn well that we are not going anywhere.  He also knows that it would be a human rights disaster if we left, and likely in reality doesn't want it to happen.  However, it is the only thing he can pick at with Mr. Harper's government since things are going so well.  

I might suggest that history will remember Ojacka Bin Layton the same way as Neville Chamberlain; a weak appeaser that lacked the moral fibre to do what had to be done.  But that would be entertaining the idea that he will be remembered in history, and I just don't think that will be the case.







(I can't take credit for the picture.  It came from another thread)


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Oct 2006)

I hate to admit it but I agree with Jack on this one!
Spending so much money on the military over humanitarian stuff is just dumb! 

We should just do what they did in Somalia and Africa.  Drive up trucks loaded with food and water and building supplies and drop it off to the locals. We don't need security, I'm sure no one will be bold enough to mess with the relief convoys or interdict the food stuffs and then sell it back to the people, or keep it.

Lets give the Taliban and drug lords some food to sell fo the locals so they can line their pockets, whos with me?


----------



## pronto (3 Oct 2006)

Ummmm, Flawed Design... That will NOT work.

... you have to give the warlords some munitions and explosives too... Otherwise those pesky locals can actually get to the food without paying.

All joshing aside... Jack's hyperbole and rhetoric are just about as silly. Your point is eloquently made!

Pronto


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2006)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I hate to admit it but I agree with Jack on this one!
> Spending so much money on the military over humanitarian stuff is just dumb!
> 
> We should just do what they did in Somalia and Africa.  Drive up trucks loaded with food and water and building supplies and drop it off to the locals.  or interdict the food stuffsWe don't need security, I'm sure no one will be bold enough to mess with the relief convoys and then sell it back to the people, or keep it.
> ...




I guess no one reads the News.  Cpl Arnold was killed, along with three others, handing out food and other relief supplies.  Whenever a relief convoy goes into any area, it is "mobbed" by the locals.  Relief supplies have been stolen by War Lords in other nations and used in corrupt schemes for profiteering.  Why yes, the NDP have the correct solution, don't they.

Flawed Design

Your sarcasm was great.    ;D


----------



## Signalman150 (3 Oct 2006)

Holy Crap Flawed...

I had the ol' reliable M60 out, was already donning my Sylvester Stallone Muscle vest, and tying on my fashionable Rambo sweat band to come looking for you....and I suddenly realized it was sarcasm.  Yeah, I'm getting older and not as sharp as I used to be.

In reality, your post is excellent: it perfectly illustrates the stupidity behind Taliban Jack's "cut and run" mentality.  Now, ya wanna help me get this stupid muscle vest off?


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Oct 2006)

From today's sad news about our two latest killed in Afghanistan:
_PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan -- Two Canadian soldiers were killed Tuesday in southern Afghanistan as they worked to clear a route for a future road construction project, the deputy commander of Task Force Afghanistan reported_

THERE IS reconstruction, it's dangerous work, yet you wish us to "relocate" and say that this mission is "unbalanced".

Shame on you


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Oct 2006)

Here is another good article on that point:

Lawmakers urge NATO to boost Afghanistan troops
Tue 3 Oct 2006 5:03 AM ET

BRUSSELS, Oct 3 (Reuters) - NATO must send more troops to south Afghanistan to kickstart reconstruction which has been hampered by an upsurge in violence there, lawmakers from alliance nations urged on Tuesday.

"More boots on the ground are needed in the southern part of Afghanistan to provide sufficient stability for sustained reconstruction," said the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a grouping of parliamentarians from across the alliance.

"The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in recent months. The increasing cost in human lives ... demonstrates that this war is not yet won," it said in a statement, adding that "a failed Afghanistan will also be a failed NATO".

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly describes itself as a forum for building public and parliamentary support for NATO. Its recommendations to the alliance are not formally binding.

The 26-member military alliance has acknowledged it underestimated Taliban resistance in the south, where British, Dutch and Canadian soldiers have taken heavy casualties in what has been the toughest ground combat in NATO's 57-year history.

NATO countries have yet to plug troop shortfalls identified by commanders in its 20,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), due on Thursday to complete its plan to take control of peacekeeping across all of Afghanistan.

The move into east Afghanistan, the only area not already covered by ISAF, is only possible because the United States agreed to transfer 12,000 of its troops from the separate U.S.-led coalition there to NATO command.

"In view of NATO's commitment to extend security throughout the country...member countries must decide to redouble their efforts to provide the assets required to achieve this goal," the lawmakers said.

Poland, Bulgaria and Romania have indicated in recent weeks that they will send some more troops to the mission, but others such as Spain, Italy, France and Germany have declined to deploy troops to the south.
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L03605392

Of course, it is all just us Bush puppets trying to get more troops into the "occupied" country in order to make it more secure for the Trans Afghan Pipeline that Haliburton wants to build.   :
Oh, how complicated life is as an inbred killbot.   :'(


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Oct 2006)

zipperhead_cop:  On the oil pipeline conspiracy theory:

Pipe Dreams: The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2059487

There is no need for an oil pipeline through Afstan now that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is open:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline



> The government of Kazakhstan announced that it would seek to build a trans-Caspian oil pipeline from the Kazakhstani port of Aktau to Baku in Azerbaijan, connecting with the BTC pipeline, to transport oil from the major Kazakhstani oilfield at Kashagan as well as points further afield in central Asia.



The Great Energy Game
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060903/11game_2.htm



> ...the $4 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which opened with much fanfare in July and links Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. At the ribbon-cutting, the 1,109-mile pipeline was hailed as "the Silk Road of the 21st century," bypassing Russia to bring oil from the world's third-largest reserves in the Caspian to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean, where it can be loaded onto tankers to supply global markets.
> 
> Kazakhstan, the largest country in central Asia, has three of the world's richest hydrocarbon fields. One of them, Kashagan, was discovered in the Caspian five years ago. It is believed to rank among the five largest fields on Earth and is expected to start producing in the next few years. Kazakhstan produced 1.2 million barrels a day last year, but it is expected to pump 3 million barrels a day by 2015-almost as much as Iran. Chevron is spending over $5 billion to expand production there, its largest project anywhere. "There are very few places in the world that have still untapped reserves and the openness in the business environment," says Roman Vassilenko, a Kazakh government spokesman. He says 70 percent of Kazakh oil production is owned by foreign companies...
> 
> But still, as more oil is pumped out, Kazakhstan must choose between exporting it north through Russia, east through China, or west through an expanded BTC pipeline. The United States is gearing up to make its pitch. Later this month, Nazarbayev will come to the United States for the first time since 2001, visiting the White House and the Bush family compound in Maine. Energy, obviously, will top the agenda...



There is however a long-standing plan for a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Aftan to Pakistan and (maybe) India.  But that is hardly a vital US national security or capitalist interest.

Turkmenistan: A Pipeline Long In The Pipeline
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/b8cadc86-b102-44ea-bce5-6d68c87b6ec9.html

And not likely to be built for a while.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2006)

Of course Tally jack fails to mention that Australia pulled it’s SF to give them a rest, not because they are pissed about the way things are going.

I also noticed that he is silent on the subject of western nation neglecting to follow through with their promises, something that lead to this particular situation.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Oct 2006)

GMan87: A truly intelligent comment, good logic and good argument.

Might I suggest you edit it and sent as a letter to the _Toronto Star/i]?

Would be happy to help with editing (not much).


Mark 
Ottawa_


----------



## Boxkicker (6 Oct 2006)

I sent Layton this from the Ruxton group along with this letter I hope I get a reply this time.

  Mr. Layton I have sent several message’s to your constituency office with NO reply. I feel that you should know that we the soldiers of this country support the current mission in Afghanistan, it is a mission that we can be proud of un-like any UN missions. In my and many of my friend’s opinions the comments you make are a complete morale breaker. To hear you say that we are peacekeepers is actually insulting to a great many of us and find completely derogatory, we are soldiers proud professionals. No matter what branch of the service Army, Navy of Air Force this is a mission that we can be proud of.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Oct 2006)

I think at this point it would be safe to assume that Layton could care less about what soldiers think.  He probably has the hippie mindset that we just aren't happy unless we are fighting somewhere.  Probably listened to this song in the 80's too much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCW6Kte2o1A&mode=related&search=

I think Ojacka Bin Layton is trying to consolidate the soft, pacifist element within Canada.  If he can seize on peoples dissatisfaction with the Lieberals (agree with previous comment about Layton predicting an Ignatieff win for that party) and play up fears with regards to the "OOOO Scary Conservatives!!" he may figure that it will draw him some votes.  What he is also counting on is that people are uninformed cattle and will not take any steps to educate themselves beyond his "pearls of wisdom".  
Hopefully, by continuing with this sustained vein of foolishness, people will be driven to ask themselves "what is the real story here?" and do the looking on their own.  
Political hell hath no fury like a socialist duped.  Watch and shoot.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Oct 2006)

Just saw O'Connor and Kenney on CTV Question Period.  O'Connor about the best I've seen him--pointing out his efforts in Slovenia to get NATO members (i.e. Germany, Italy, France and Spain) to get rid of caveats-- and Craig Oliver not too awful.  Kenney made a point--which the government should have been doing months ago--of emphasizing that ISAF is a UN Security Council mandated operation.  He's sharp; no wonder the PM gives him such exposure.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PattiM (8 Oct 2006)

Layton showed me his attitude towards our military past and present when I watched him at the national ceremonies commemorating the end of WW2 held in 2005. The other political leaders picked up the wreath they were to lay and did so with some pride and reverence. Layton had a cadet carry it up to the cenotaph and looked like he was picking up some dirty diaper when he did take it to lay it. 

I would never support the NDP with the likes of Layton as the leader and when 92% of their delegates vote to support his hair brain demands, I'm even less likely to waver. I don't support Harper either but I sure can respect that he 'gets it' that we have to stay the course in Afghanistan. I come from a long line of war veterans and have learned that Canadian troops have often prevailed and succeeded through persistence and ingenuity.

Always caring ... always Canadian... never defeated.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2006)

A superb and comprehensive article by Jack Granatstein; a taste (shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act):
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=bfb37125-4437-4095-9f4d-31e916700ca0&p=1



> ...the NDP would far prefer Canada's troops be deployed to Darfur in Sudan than to Kandahar. There, the UN would be in charge, or so Layton appears to believe.
> 
> There are, of course, a few practical problems with a Darfur operation. The Khartoum government refuses entry to UN troops and threatens a jihad against them if they dare to come. Moreover, Canada has no way to get troops to Darfur (even if it had the troops to send), no way to support them logistically in a barren area of the world, and no way to get them out in an emergency. Finally, the casualties in Darfur might be far higher than in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, because the U.S. is (relatively) uninvolved and because women and children are being brutalized, Darfur is the NDP's preferred operation...
> 
> ...


----------



## 2 Cdo (13 Oct 2006)

Agree 100% with Mr. Granatstein. Time for the PM to maybe re-iterate the reasons why, and who actually mandated the mission. Some folks might be converted to understand but I think it is too late for "Osama bin Layton".


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (13 Oct 2006)

Excellent article mate, thanks for sharing. I know with the right facts presented, many people in the middle can/will change their minds about the war there, as several of my own friends have.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2006)

But the argument is not getting out effectively. Once an impression is made on people, they resist change unless it is overwhelming, and at the moment, IMHO, the arguments for the mission are made in fits and starts. Probably the most effective to date, is Red Fridays.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2006)

+1 to Jack and to you Mark.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> +1 to *Jack * and to you Mark.


I hope you mean Granatstein and not bin Layton


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2006)

Error. Error. Error.

For purposes of clarification I ain't talking about Taliban Jack. ;D

Thanks for picking me up before I fell down.   

Cheers.


----------

