NDP calls for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan

[Trinity]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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;
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

Dont you mean....UN ?    ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

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]

cdnaviator: Aaarrrgh!  Changed.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[rmacqueen]

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

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

Sir,

Michael Portillo, in his excellent article "No offence, imam, but we
must  call it Islamic terror" (July 9), writes of "The allied invasion of
Afghanistan..."  But there was no invasion of Afghanistan.

Before the fall of Kabul, and of most of the rest of Afghanistan, to the
insurgent Afghan Northern Alliance in November 2001--and the consequent
collapse of the Taliban regime--there were no foreign regular combat
formations in Afghanistan.  The Northern Alliance did receive air
support and assistance from special forces (both US and British); that however
is not an invasion.  Substantial foreign ground combat forces--including
Canadian--only entered the country after the Taliban had been deposed by
indigenous Afghan forces, and those foreign troops entered with the
agreement of the Northern Alliance.

This is no mere semantic quibble.  Describing what the US and UK did in
Afghanistan as an "invasion" tends to equate those actions in people's
minds with the real invasion of Iraq.  That equation implicitly and wrongly
calls into question the legitimacy of  NATO and Coalition actions in
Afghanistan, which have been authorised unanimously by the UN Security Council.

It is most unfortunate that the mythical "invasion" of Afghanistan has
become common currency amongst journalists and commentators.  This
misnomer can only help increase extremism amongst susceptible Muslims, the very
thing Mr Portillo wishes to combat.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Matt_S]

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.