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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Urgent: NDP must support Lib./Bloc Afghanistan pullout motion

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Urgent: NDP must support Lib./Bloc Afghanistan pullout motion
Davis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13198

posted 24 April 2007 11:26 AM      Profile for Davis        Edit/Delete Post
Message from Davis Mirza

Dear NDP Leader Jack Layton,

After renewing my membership to the NDP this morning, I was disturbed to hear that the federal NDP, under your direction may be siding with Stephen Harper's Progressive Conservatives to defeat a Liberal Private member's bill that would limit Canada' military tour in Afghanistan to 2009. This would be a strategic mistake, as I believe that the latest scandal around the detainee transfer program of Afghani prisoners - in which Canada has been accused of war crimes - taints the very depths of the Tory ranks, particularly when the horrors of Abu Ghirab are fresh in the minds of Canadians.

Even though the NDP is calling for immediate withdrawal of Can. troops from Afghanistan (which I entirely support), backing a Liberal/Bloc 2009 pull-out from Afghanistan gives the Canadian government an ultimatum that these abuses/killings will stop in 18 months. It may certainly prolong abuses of Afghani detainees in the short-term and commit Can. troops to another year of horrible losses (both civilian and military), but by getting the majority of the House to confirm a pull-out date, it gives credence to pursue a war crimes investigation by a House/Senate Committee, similiar to the Somalia inquiry that ended Canada's mission in that war-torn country and exposed elements of racial supremacy within the Canadian Armed Forces that were eventually rooted out. (Could Canada's military complicity in covering up the torture/deaths of Afghan detainees be enough impetus to pull out of Afghanistan even earlier?? - only an inquiry into this matter will shed light on how Canada's military role in Afghanistan has become an abject failure ...and has been from day one!) This cannot be said if the NDP votes with Harper's Tories to prop up a military mission and federal government that has lost its moral authority in the minds many Canadians - myself included.

Though not what all war-resisters want, I would urge all NDPer's to vote with their Liberal and Bloc colleagues to enable a timetable for withdrawal which clearly sends a message to Canadians (and the rest of the world) that an anti-war opposition is alive and well among Canadian legislators, and that Canada's involvement in the US led War on Terror will end sooner than later... where Canada cannot duck from it's ethical commitment to guarantee human rights, peace, and justice to all the world's citizens not just Canadians. Thank you for your consideration.

Davis Mirza
Toronto, ON


From: Toronto, canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 11:30 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Davis:

Even though the NDP is calling for immediate withdrawal of Can. troops from Afghanistan (which I entirely support), backing a Liberal/Bloc 2009 pull-out from Afghanistan gives the Canadian government an ultimatum that these abuses/killings will stop in 18 months.

1. Are you too lazy to read the motion? It calls for ending the combat role in SOUTHERN Afghanistan only.

2. Have you no respect for this discussion board? There are two open threads on this same issue. You think your letter (based on a misreading of the Liberal motion) is so important that it justifies litter?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 April 2007 11:43 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meh. Liberals are in favour of the continuation of war crimes until 2009. I'm not surprised. That they would wish to draw attention away from themselves is perfectly understandable - given their role in the Afghan "mission" to begin with.

[ 24 April 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 24 April 2007 12:49 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Even though the NDP is calling for immediate withdrawal of Can. troops from Afghanistan (which I entirely support), backing a Liberal/Bloc 2009 pull-out from Afghanistan gives the Canadian government an ultimatum that these abuses/killings will stop in 18 months.

That's 18 months too long. In fact, we've already been there too long.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marg Bedore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9838

posted 24 April 2007 02:18 PM      Profile for Marg Bedore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP just supported Harper and Harper will continue to plan for extension of the mission. Partisanship trumped getting our soldiers out sooner than Harper intends.
From: Kingston | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 April 2007 02:25 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, the Liberal spin machine is doing a heavy load on this one.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 April 2007 02:47 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The pundits on "Politics with Don Newman" are saying the only way for the NDP to have credibility now is for them to introduce their own motion for Canada to withdrawl from combat in Afganistan, and to do this on the very next Opposition Day.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 02:53 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Marg Bedore:
The NDP just supported Harper and Harper will continue to plan for extension of the mission. Partisanship trumped getting our soldiers out sooner than Harper intends.

Here's a motion:

"Be it resolved that we should support child care and help the homeless and mercilessly ridicule Marg Bedore."

Yes or no?


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

posted 24 April 2007 02:54 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The pundits on "Politics with Don Newman" are saying the only way for the NDP to have credibility now is for them to introduce their own motion for Canada to withdrawl from combat in Afganistan, and to do this on the very next Opposition Day.

Well, I agree with the pundits.

Actually, I wonder why the NDP didn't do this long ago.


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

posted 24 April 2007 03:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well, I agree with the pundits.

Actually, I wonder why the NDP didn't do this long ago.


Didn't the NDP vote against the extension to 2009? That was a bold statement.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 24 April 2007 03:26 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The pundits are nuts. In a mult-party democracy, parties are going to vote one way or another, and with one another, for a variety of different reasons. The vote doesn't ask "Do you want a pullout by 2009 and if so why, and if not why not?"

It's ridiculous that the NDP should have to move a motion to retain credibility. Only an idiot thinks the NDP and the Cons voted for the same thing today.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 24 April 2007 03:42 PM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All I'm hearing from the mass media is "Cons and NDP cut down Lib bill for ending mission in 2009." Headline readers will fall for this hard.
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 24 April 2007 03:50 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand...?

It was a really simple motion. Let's withdrawal Canadian troops from Southern Afghanistan by 2009 so that we can continue the war in a safer zone of Afghanistan.

Why would the NDP support this?

The only reason I think I can see people from the NDP supporting this is because they've let the Liberal Party get in their heads again.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 April 2007 03:55 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Only an idiot thinks the NDP and the Cons voted for the same thing today.

As others on Babble have noted, the percentage of politically sophisicated voters is likely very small. All they will see are the images of the NDP voting with the Conservatives to preserve the Afganistan 'mission' through to 2009. That is why the pundits said the NDP must get ahead of this issue and show the voters that they are calling for withdrawl.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 24 April 2007 04:04 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What other bill has come this far to a house vote? Can the NDP even introduce a motion for a full pullout? Will there be other chances before 2009 or is this just shameless politicking, knowing full well that a full pullout will never pass even within the NDP caucus? Shades of ultra-left posturing sadly, even though the NDP is just a shade less neoliberal than the rest.

This is a dangerous game, voting with the Conservatives on matters of war and peace... It doesn't earn much street cred that's for sure.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 April 2007 04:15 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
This is a dangerous game, voting with the Conservatives on matters of war and peace... It doesn't earn much street cred that's for sure.

Absolutely. This could be a public relations disaster for the NDP unless they move to get ahead of it. The Liberals must be chuckling over this.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 April 2007 04:24 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Keep in mind that the mission only get extended to 2009 in the first place because the Liberals made sure that just enough of their members voted for it to make it pass.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 April 2007 04:29 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:

It was a really simple motion. Let's withdrawal Canadian troops from Southern Afghanistan by 2009 so that we can continue the war in a safer zone of Afghanistan.


To be honest the war is really only being fought in 5 provinces out of 34.

Three provinces in the south and two provinces in the east portion of the country is where the fighting is.

Other than that the rest of the country is very stable expect for the odd attack every year.

Many of the provinces have not seen fighting in several years.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
john
Citizen
Babbler # 47

posted 24 April 2007 04:44 PM      Profile for john     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Liberals must be chuckling over this.

Maybe, boom boom, but with nervous, false bravado, I bet, after treating war so trivially.

For me, even more neatly than their co-optation of the Greens via May, this O-Day motion exemplifies the bankruptcy of today's Liberal leadership. The moral, energetic and creative bankruptcy. And I say this with respect for progressive folks who still call that party home for a whole range of reasons.

We both know this motion, plus a full day of debate, was designed only to create this fake wedge against the NDP. After rejecting Layton's amendments out of hand, the Libs only had to bet he'd vote on principle -- pretty good bet, eh -- to trip their little trap.

This kind of positional politics happens too often. But what sets this ruse apart is that it depends so utterly on faith in people's imagined gullibility. On faith that Canadians will really buy this Alice-in-Wonderland message that the social democrats are backing the neocons.

The "cozying up to Conservatives" spin-pony hasn't raced well for 16 months, but unable to balance Harper himself, they're still betting everything on it. Now they've pushed it to an obscene new level -- extended it to war. It's like the ex-emperor is demanding to be seen in all his naked, bankrupt glory.


From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 April 2007 04:52 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Strange Bedfellows The Tyee: "Make no mistake, everyone is looking to score political points on this issue: The Conservatives by highlighting the split in the Liberal ranks, the NDP by solidifying the anti-war vote and the Liberals by doing what Liberals do best, camping out in the middle and stealing from the fringes of both sides."
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 24 April 2007 05:03 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm slightly confused. No majority can be formed between the 3 positions that can be taken on the issue:

1) Pull out now - NDP
2) Pull out by (or is it in?) '09 - Libs + Bloc
3) Pull out never - Cons

So what becomes the position of parliment? For that matter, what is the current position of parliment. They've voted for extending the mission to '09, but against limiting the mission to '09. But any bill sent by the Cons to extend the mission further would be voted down by the opposition, so at this point, we're in effect in until '09.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 24 April 2007 06:30 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The anti war position got nothing from the NDP on this one. I'm going to stop my monthly donation to the party and send them back my card.
Fooey on them. What does the party hope to gain by voting with Harper?

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 06:33 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Didn't the NDP vote against the extension to 2009? That was a bold statement.


No it wasn't. Stéphane Dion voted against it (!!). The only bold statement is to move for withdrawal and fight, work, persuade, lobby, agitate for it. The rest is spineless bullshit. The NDP wasn't even calling for withdrawal in May 2006 (when the extension was voted). They did that in September. Now is the time for the NDP to make its position crystal clear. Put a motion on the table that exactly reflects the convention's decision (updated to eliminate the Feb. 2007 deadline). Of course it won't pass, but that's hardly the point. It will show, in clear cut terms, that the NDP opposes this occupation and aggression, and that it has listened to Canadians.


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

posted 24 April 2007 06:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Liberals went out of their way to word the resolution in such a way that there was no way the NDP could support it. They voted down NDP amendments and let's not forget that the war in Afghanistan is a Liberal War to begin with.

Imagine if the NDP had voted for this toothless and meaningless resolution - there would have been a barrage of anti-war people denouncing the NDP for voting in favour of a resolution that STRONGLY supports Canada continuing to play a combat role for two more years. That would have been totally unacceptable.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 April 2007 06:40 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Liberals went out of their way to word the resolution in such a way that there was no way the NDP could support it. They voted down NDP amendments and let's not forget that the war in Afghanistan is a Liberal War to begin with.

Imagine if the NDP had voted for this toothless and meaningless resolution - there would have been a barrage of anti-war people denouncing the NDP for voting in favour of a resolution that STRONGLY supports Canada continuing to play a combat role for two more years. That would have been totally unacceptable.


I'm pleased to say I agree fully with Stockholm.

This was a Liberal trap - and a pretty desperate and stupid one at that. I predict that this motion and this vote will be forgotten by the end of the week. If Stéphane Dion tries to turn it into urban legend: "Ha ha, the NDP don't want to end the mission in 2009", there may be a few Canadians under the age of 2 that he fools. People are not idiots.

The NDP should be on the offensive on this issue (and a few other key ones) all the time. They have well-thought-out, principled, and popular positions to defend on Afghanistan and some other fronts. Only hesitancy, self-doubt, and listening to too many spin doctors will be their undoing. I was thrilled when Layton immediately, in one clear sentence, proclaimed what was wrong with the Liberal motion. More of that - in the face of Canadians - is what we need.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
trippie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12090

posted 24 April 2007 09:46 PM      Profile for trippie        Edit/Delete Post
How about this one....

Canada sees a vote this year and the Conservatives gain a majority.... Now the War goes on forever.....

The NDP should have abstained from voting... They have keep the status quo and nobody knows were things will go.. If the bill would have passed the NDP could have forces more specifics out of it....

Or if they abstained they could have bhad thier own bill in waiting and talked about all day on Wednesday....

But no . they will be on the defencive instead...

The NDP is an establishment party and will always keep things such one way or another...


From: essex county | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Davis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13198

posted 24 April 2007 10:50 PM      Profile for Davis        Edit/Delete Post
Message from Davis Mirza

Trippie writes: "The NDP should have abstained from voting... If the bill would have passed the NDP could have forced more specifics out of it...."

So the NDP looks bad for siding with the Tories...and another Afghan village is destroyed and 13 Afghani's (reported as Taliban) are killed and many more to be detained/torture and disappeared. But at least we are debating these war crimes in Canada and so will the Americans as they meet with Syria and Iran in talks about the future of Iraq, taking place in Egypt next week. It's time for Canada to get back to the diplomatic table...does anyone know how the Greens stand on the Lib./Bloc resolution that went down to defeat...maybe a promise from Elizabeth May not to run a Green candidate against an anti-war coaltion made up of greens, ndp'ers, lib's and blocer's...and vice versa will finally put to rest the Harper-Oil majority mythology. To defeat Harper's war machine (and Stockwell's torture lite stumping), we have to work for peace in Afghanistan while enabling Kyoto...if we're all 'idiots' for merely pointing out the obvious, who are our allies?...Considering how we keep slamming each other with historically denigrative labels that do a dis-service to the disabled community (who have been deemed 'idiots'/'imbeciles' and 'unfit'as a means of capitalist social control and institionalization) would it not make sense to build the coalition today(like Days of Action where artists/activists and politicians took the streets)where lesbian feminist disabled peace activists with their non-disabled bro's & sistas are welcomed, to strategically decide what inclusive-minded anti-war/pro-kyoto candidate will beat Harper, Day,McKay and Strahl et al. It has already started...which is why I renewed my membership.(see below)

Davenport Neighbours for Peace Presents

Out of Afghanistan/Into Kyoto
A panel discussion with:
Gord Perks, City Councillor, Ward 14, long-time environmental activist
Sid Lacombe, National Coordinator, Canadian Peace Alliance
and SPECIAL GUEST:
Cheri DiNovo, NDP MPP for Parkdale - High Park

MONDAY APRIL 30, 7:00 pm
Concord Café - 937 Bloor Street West

For more info: davenportn4p@yahoo.ca

Endorsed by Davenport NDP Riding Association


From: Toronto, canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076

posted 24 April 2007 11:04 PM      Profile for Steppenwolf Allende     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The anti war position got nothing from the NDP on this one. I'm going to stop my monthly donation to the party and send them back my card.

The anti-war position got exactly what it needs from the NDP: a strong resolve not to be tricked by sleazy fickle Liberal duplicity.

That resolution didn't call for complete withdrawal--even by 2009. All it did was specifically call for winding down the Kandahar mission by 2009 and leaving the government free to continue military operations elsewhere in Afghanistan.

That is a typical Liberal ruse and not a very smart one either. Did they actually expect any serious peace activist with a remotely functioning sense of comprehension to fall for this?

The NDP position is quite clear, unlike the other parties. It's to pull the troops out of combat in Afghanistan--not just pull out of Kandahar and still hang around the country side waiting for more trouble (or more accurately, waiting for President Dubya to get us into more trouble).

quote:
What does the party hope to gain by voting with Harper?

Nothing. What it obviously does hope to gain is more recognition of honesty and integrity by sticking by its principles and voting against a thinly disguised surrender to the dictates of the Bush Administration and its slaughter campaign, which is what that Liberal-sponsored resolution is.

If you want to send back your membership for that, well, too bad for you.


From: goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 April 2007 12:32 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP can fairly ask, why didn't the Liberals join THEM in supporting IMMEDIATE troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

And the NDP can fairly say, in the coming election "The blood of all Canadian troops killed in Afghanistan AFTER April 24th is on the hands of the Liberals".


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 25 April 2007 01:21 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pimji:

quote:
The anti war position got nothing from the NDP on this one. I'm going to stop my monthly donation to the party and send them back my card.
Fooey on them. What does the party hope to gain by voting with Harper?

At best, it is really not as clear cut as that what the NDP was supposed to do?

I ask that you also look at the arguments made in this other that considered the motion more thoroughly.
Afghan mission faces vote next week

It wasn't just that this is a cynical calculated move by the Liberals to portray themselves as doing something.

All the motion would have achieved is "the House indicates we want a withdrawl from southern Afghanistan sometime after the Feb 2009 timeline, and we'll talk abot the nature of the mission after that date."

You could hardly design the motion to be more open-ended to inaction.

If it is half a loaf, better then nothing, then a case can be made of voting for it.

But is inherent in the structure of the motion that it actually REQUIRES no action whatsoever, and would have been no more than a minor rhetorical irritant to Harper and Co.

I don't see how giving the Liberals a license to posture and do nothing advances an actual withdrawl.

The fact that peace activists think it would doesn't in itself mean we should follow their advice.

I can see that people would disagree even after considering all the arguments, but I haven't seen a compelling case yet.

On the other hand, you can bet the NDP Caucus has more of a plan than saying the motion wasn't good enough. So in terms of what the peace movement will get from the NDP, that is still to come.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2007 01:53 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Davis: We know it's a message from you. That's why your name is on the side of your posts. You don't need to announce in every post that it's a message from you, nor do you need to sign your posts.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 April 2007 03:27 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also: Could you maybe read what the other posters are writing about this? At least pretend to try to understand the issue? You are either an embarassment or a plant/stooge.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 25 April 2007 03:49 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really think that kind of language just used by Briguy, and by a number of others, is completely uncalled for.

How about just leaving it at asking that people read what other posters have written and show that they have?

[ 25 April 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 25 April 2007 04:18 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
I don't see how giving the Liberals a license to posture and do nothing advances an actual withdrawl.

This was the Globe's sub-title in their article last night: NDP sides with Tories to defeat Liberal motion for troop withdrawal . I'd say the NDP need to counter this kind of shit. Bring their own motion forward.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 25 April 2007 04:45 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
... the Liberals are only committed to withdrawing troops from the dangerous Kandahar region. Senior figures in the party admit privately that Canadian forces could still play a role elsewhere in the country. Mr. Coderre's posturing is an attempt to give the appearance of solidity to vapour.

Two parties, one exit strategy


quote:
The Liberals, perhaps embarrassed by their flip-flop on the Afghan deployment and determined not to be seen as anti-soldier, hemmed and hawed and hedged.

The resolution they introduced was non-binding. The government was free to ignore it and – if it had passed – would have done so.

Nor did the Liberals say they wanted to end all Canadian military operations in all of Afghanistan. Their motion spoke only to Canada's combat role in the lawless south.

As deputy leader Michael Ignatieff explained helpfully, a Liberal government "might well continue" Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan after the cut-off date of February 2009.

Denis Coderre, the Quebec Liberal MP who moved the pullout resolution, at times sounded as if he were supporting the other side.

Calling the mission "essential," he said that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are "fighting for democracy. ... A military operation is necessary if we wish to have development, diplomacy and geopolitical stability."

... As for the NDP, what is there to say? The party that was first out of the blocks in its opposition to the Afghan deployment chose to support Harper on this vote.

The reason, presumably, is that Layton's New Democrats don't want to be subsumed by the Liberals. To stay alive politically, they figure, they have to distinguish themselves from Dion – by demanding not just an end to Canada's combat deployment in Afghanistan, but an immediate end.

This is similar to the strategy the New Democrats employed in 1988, when they chose not to join the Liberals in their all-out opposition to the Canada-U.S. free-trade deal.

But, as with free trade in 1988, this logic may be hard to explain to voters. If the New Democrats want Canada's troops to leave the Kandahar danger zone, why would they oppose a motion that in effect proposes just that? Isn't a 2009 pullout date better than no pullout date?

I suspect a good many NDP voters will be horrified to find their party voting with Stephen Harper on Afghanistan.

MPs losing faith in the mission


quote:
The Tory MPs opposed the motion because they don't want to be tied to a firm exit date, having said troops should remain until the job is done. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vowed to seek parliamentary approval for any extension of the combat mission.

The NDP opposed it for very different reasons. They want Canadian soldiers to immediately cease combat duty in the increasingly bloody Kandahar province, where eight Canadian soldiers were killed by two massive roadside bombs this month.

MPs reject Afghan deadline


quote:
Bloc Quebecois MPs supported the motion to pull out in 2009, and Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre called the Conservatives and New Democrats "strange bedfellows."

But NDP defence critic Dawn Black said it would have been illogical for NDP MPs to support the motion after rejecting an extension to 2009 last year.

"We're opposed to the nature of this mission. It's a counter-insurgency, search-and-destroy mission and we think we should bring an end to it before February 2009," she said.

The NDP is expected to table a motion tomorrow calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops.

Grits' troop pullout bid fails


[ 25 April 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 April 2007 05:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dawn Black is pathetic.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
NDPundit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3847

posted 25 April 2007 05:31 AM      Profile for NDPundit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The anti war position got nothing from the NDP on this one. I'm going to stop my monthly donation to the party and send them back my card.
Fooey on them. What does the party hope to gain by voting with Harper?

My god, what unforgiving critics. The NDP has been the only party sticking its neck out with a clear anti-war position - and has done so in the fce of an a vicious onslaught from most media (Taliban Jack, anyone?). Now, the NDP continues with its clear and consistent stand, and critics want to dump on the NDP, but not the Liberals who put Canada in this mission and whose votes caused its extension.

Besides, as West Coast Greeny and other pointed out, this motion was meaningless to the anti-war position. Last year, the Conservatives and Liberals voted to extend the mission to 2009. The Liberal motion, which even if passed was non-binding, only confirmed the extension to 2009. It will inevitably take another vote to extend the mission, and it is pretty clear where the NDP will be on that one. If the Liberals and Bloc are on board then, all the better.


From: Green and Pleasant Land | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marg Bedore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9838

posted 25 April 2007 05:52 AM      Profile for Marg Bedore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the motion was "meaningless" why didn't Layton and the NDP simply abstain
From: Kingston | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 April 2007 06:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Marg Bedore:
If the motion was "meaningless" why didn't Layton and the NDP simply abstain

Either you haven't read all the posts from the last 24 hours - in which case please do so (because they answer your question) - including my direct answer to one of your questions. Or you have, in which case we'll just have to sigh and go on to another subject, won't we?


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

posted 25 April 2007 06:04 AM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NDPundit:
It will inevitably take another vote to extend the mission, and it is pretty clear where the NDP will be on that one. If the Liberals and Bloc are on board then, all the better.

This is actually a really good point. It WILL take another vote to extend the Afghanistan mission, and we will see what the Liberals are made of at that point. Until then, all of this is much ado about nothing aside from the fact that the Liberals got to use taxpayer dollars to engage in self-congratulatory NDP bashing.


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 25 April 2007 06:19 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When there is a vote on whether to extend the mission, I don't think it will tell us 'what the Liberals are made of'.

By that time the mission will AT BEST be at status quo, if it hasn't degenerated. Even status quo will increase the public misgivings about the mission.

And by then, the Liberals will have put out enough obfuscation and fog for long enough that people will have forgotten where they stood. [And the public can be excused for having basically never understood where the Liberals stood.]

THEN they will vote against extending.

[To understand you need to climb into the mind space of Posturing Is All.]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 25 April 2007 06:20 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What was Stéphane Dion thinking?

Liberals Rubber-Stamp the Afghan Troop Extension.

Afghan mission extension 'no surprise' to soldiers After the Conservative motion passed late Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper walked across the floor and shook hands with Liberal Opposition Leader Bill Graham, who voted in favour of the extension ... While Graham voted in favour, another former Liberal defence minister, John McCallum, voted against the motion. Leadership contender Michael Ignatieff voted for the extension, while rivals Stéphane Dion, Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe voted against ... NDP Leader Jack Layton said the mission would see Canada straying from its traditional role as peace keeper. Meanwhile, Graham allowed Liberal MPs a free vote and in the end Graham and 29 other Liberals supported the motion.

quote:
Liberal Leader Bill Graham said if time had been given, there would have been more support for the mission. "I think it's a lesson for us all. We have to treat each other with more respect in a minority Parliament," he said.

NDP Leader Jack Layton termed it a "disappointing night" -- and blamed the Liberals for it, saying a number of them "ensured Mr. Harper could have his way."

MPs narrowly vote to extend Afghanistan mission


[ 25 April 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084

posted 25 April 2007 07:38 AM      Profile for JimmyRiddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question people should be asking themselves today is why 66 Liberals--including Stephane Dion--have gone from opposing the 2009 extension last May, to finding it acceptable a year later.

Absolutely pathetic and spineless.

In the interests of offering a remedial recap of events for those suckered by Liberal spin, I highly recommend:
http://blogginghorse.blogspot.com/

Steven Staples over at the Rideau Institute has also seen through the Liberal smoke and mirrors to offer this:
http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/what-was-stephane-dion-thinking/

The NDP did the right thing yesterday and stayed resolute in its opposition to keeping our troops in an unbalanced and unwinnable war.

Yesterday's vote signals another chink in Dion's leadership. The Liberal caucus is clearly taking its direction from Michael Ignatieff.

[ 25 April 2007: Message edited by: JimmyRiddle ]


From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Davis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13198

posted 25 April 2007 08:31 AM      Profile for Davis        Edit/Delete Post
On CBC's 'Ontario Today' phone in show (April 25th,2007), the Mother Corp will be taking your phone calls after 12:30 PM...I urge one & all to listen and or phone in to keep this debate going until an election is called. Politicains will also be interviewed...time to put some hard questions to the ones that got us in this mess in the first place...and yes i'm a pacifist 'stooge' for peace but then someone has to be. (just call me the'moe' in the bunch)
peace~davis

From: Toronto, canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Red Partisan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13860

posted 25 April 2007 08:36 AM      Profile for Red Partisan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The NDP did the right thing yesterday and stayed resolute in its opposition to keeping our troops in an unbalanced and unwinnable war.

... By voting with the Tory Government who want to continue the war indefinitely.

Pure hypocrisy. And the voters will see through it, too.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Marg Bedore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9838

posted 25 April 2007 08:36 AM      Profile for Marg Bedore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Conservative spin - Jay Hill Ontario Today
From: Kingston | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 25 April 2007 08:50 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I will apologize for my rudeness as soon as I see evidence that Davis is reading other posts on this subject. Fair?
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084

posted 25 April 2007 11:06 AM      Profile for JimmyRiddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse me?

"... By voting with the Tory Government who want to continue the war indefinitely."

How does OPPOSING the mission's extension until 2009 translate into "continuing the war indefinitely?"

Which party just endorsed the Tories' "let's stay until 2009" date? That would be the Liberal Party of Canada (prop. Michael Ignatieff).

Which party just filed a motion (to be debated tomorrow) calling on Canada to give notice to its NATO partners that we should begin withdrawing from combat in the South? That would be the NDP.

Let's see if the Liberals have the courage of their convictions to endorse THAT motion. Doubt it.


From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 25 April 2007 11:22 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll be more interested in seeing what the Bloc does.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2007 07:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay. I guess THIS is the earliest thread that is in the correct forum. So I'm opening this one.

Good grief. Sorry for not catching this sooner.

[ 25 April 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 April 2007 07:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So...here's the thread!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 25 April 2007 08:01 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, so as I was saying ...

I believe mimeguy should be getting some kind of award for patience as he deals with fellow party members on the Green website.

Why?

Oh, discussions like this: What a sad alliance

Edited to add -

And now this: A Letter Addressed to No One

[ 26 April 2007: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Life, the universe, everything
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13982

posted 25 April 2007 08:44 PM      Profile for Life, the universe, everything     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm starting to get the impression that the Greens on that site, with the exception of Mimeguy never actually read the news, but just read the talking points.
It is truly scary how people can not see through the obvious fake piety of the Liberals on this. One more shameful episode of a Liberal party that has sold it's soul. And it seems we have a Green party willing to ante-up theirs.

From: a little to the left - a bit more-there perfect | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 26 April 2007 12:30 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some recent polling figures may be worth noting.

quote:
On Afghanistan, 36 per cent of respondents support the sending of troops, while 57 per cent are opposed. The 'opposition' respondents hold a majority in Ontario and the West, but opposition is particularly pronounced in Quebec. There, 72 per cent of respondents oppose sending troops.

[snip]

A substantial minority, 46 per cent, think the troops should be brought home now. Eighteen per cent think the troops should have been returned after the original February 2007 deadline, and eight per cent support the troops remaining until 2009.


I may be misreading these numbers, but it would seem from this story that more Canadians support the NDP's position on Afghanistan than support the Lib/Con/BQ position favouring at least two more years of counterinsurgency warfare in southern Afghanistan.


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

posted 26 April 2007 03:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Okay. I guess THIS is the earliest thread that is in the correct forum. So I'm opening this one.


I rarely criticize the moderators, because I'd never want to do their job, but this has gotta be the worst of the threads (besides being one of the latest - other than being in the "correct" forum). Just read the idiotic thread title.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Oppo-Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4159

posted 26 April 2007 08:25 AM      Profile for Oppo-Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amazing.

It looks like the Liberals - and even the Bloc -plan to vote against the NDP's motion to "immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan."

When the NDP and peace groups wanted the Liberals to amend their motion this week so it wasn't based on the Conservatives' 2009 timeline, the Liberals said 'no'.

Now that there is a motion to end the mission as soon as possible, the Liberals are selling out to the Conservatives.


From: here | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
JimmyRiddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13084

posted 26 April 2007 08:37 AM      Profile for JimmyRiddle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The vote is on Monday.
There is still time to tell Stephane Dion and the Liberals to end their support of the Conservatives' counter-insurgency mission, now, not in 2009 like Harper wants to.

So, fellow Babblers, drop Stephane a line (postage free):
121 East Block
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Call him at:
(613) 996-5789

Better yet, clog up his blackberry at:
dions@parl.gc.ca

[ 26 April 2007: Message edited by: JimmyRiddle ]


From: Soap box | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 April 2007 08:38 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Oppo-Guy:
Amazing.

It looks like the Liberals - and even the Bloc -plan to vote against the NDP's motion to "immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan."


It is anything but amazing.

Before September 2006, not one singe party in the House supported immediate withdrawal - and that was 5 years into the occupation.

The Canadian people are light years ahead of all the parties on this.

The NDP's position is correct, but fragile. The Dawn Blacks and Peter Stouffers and others will jump at any poll or pretext to urge copping out. We must take nothing for granted and have no illusions. The NDP needs every ounce of support it can get on this issue - and they will not get it from the other parties in the House!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 26 April 2007 08:40 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Geez. It's almost time for NDP MP Pat Martin to make some of his typical incendiary remarks. The NDP has to be made to look bad somehow. The good publicity on an anti-war motion will just KILL their "also ran" quality.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 26 April 2007 08:48 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...Last week I rose in this House to oppose the Liberal motion which confirmed the Conservative extension of two more years...

atta boy Jack! Nothing like a little refusal to accept reality to further the cause.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 April 2007 09:09 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:
atta boy Jack! Nothing like a little refusal to accept reality to further the cause.

Do not think that Jack is the one that has the problem with accepting reality here.

Just why is it that you refuse to do so?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 26 April 2007 09:41 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the Liberals can't confirm what isn't already there and what's already there doesn't go away just because Jack and the pack refuse to admit it.

its a pity when his defenders need resort to personal attack but that's obviously all they have left to go one.


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

posted 26 April 2007 09:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Do not think that Jack is the one that has the problem with accepting reality here.

Just why is it that you refuse to do so?


Don't rule out the possibility that BitWhys is among the 1/4 of Canadians polled that think the "mission" should carry on until it achieves its "aims". I'm having trouble identifying any other explanation for the poor advice he's offering to the NDP.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 26 April 2007 09:52 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jack Layton’s speech on the NDP’s Opposition Day Motion on Afghanistan
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 April 2007 10:07 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Don't rule out the possibility that BitWhys is among the 1/4 of Canadians polled that think the "mission" should carry on until it achieves its "aims". I'm having trouble identifying any other explanation for the poor advice he's offering to the NDP.

Was that advice, it was so 'nuanced' that one cannot make sense of it. Just what after all does this mean?

quote:
the Liberals can't confirm what isn't already there and what's already there doesn't go away just because Jack and the pack refuse to admit it.

It makes no more sense than first post I responded to.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 26 April 2007 10:10 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
...poor advice he's offering to the NDP.

LOL!

so THAT'S what this place is about. No wonder the party is so fucked up.


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

posted 26 April 2007 11:19 AM      Profile for Red T-shirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by JimmyRiddle:
The vote is on Monday.
There is still time to tell Stephane Dion and the Liberals to end their support of the Conservatives' counter-insurgency mission, now, not in 2009 like Harper wants to.

So, fellow Babblers, drop Stephane a line (postage free):
121 East Block
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Call him at:
(613) 996-5789

Better yet, clog up his blackberry at:
dions@parl.gc.ca

[ 26 April 2007: Message edited by: JimmyRiddle ]


Hey thanks for the information JR. I've sent my email and I really hope all others here will do the same.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
redflag
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12372

posted 26 April 2007 03:07 PM      Profile for redflag     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
atamaa@parl.gc.ca; mcdonough.a@parl.gc.ca; blaikb@parl.gc.ca; siksab@parl.gc.ca; masse.b@parl.gc.ca; BellC@parl.gc.ca; Charlc@parl.gc.ca; chrisd@parl.gc.ca; blackd@parl.gc.ca; savoid@parl.gc.ca; bevind@parl.gc.ca; mathyi@parl.gc.ca; crowdj@parl.gc.ca; comarj@parl.gc.ca; Judy Wasylycia-Leis wasylj@parl.gc.ca; daviel@parl.gc.ca; cullen@parl.gc.ca; chowo@parl.gc.ca; martin.pat@parl.gc.ca; dewarp@parl.gc.ca; nashp@parl.gc.ca; priddp@parl.gc.ca; juliap@parl.gc.ca; stoffp@parl.gc.ca; martito@parl.gc.ca; marstw@parl.gc.ca; godiny@parl.gc.ca

You should be able to copy and paste that into your email client and it will send emails to all of the NDP MPs on the hill. As has been said earlier, they're probably all looking for some support given the fact that they're about to make a pretty bold move on monday, so how about sending them all a quick email to let them know you support them. They really need it now.

Edit: errr...

[ 26 April 2007: Message edited by: Joshua Kubinec ]


From: here | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca