NDP and the military III

221 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

Hamiltonian wrote:

I support having a strong Canadian military. We have 2/3 of the world's fresh water supply. Everywhere else it's drying up fast. I think it's in our own self interest to have a strong military. Now all we need is a strong government to keep the paws of those multinational corporations off our water.

Exactly. The country is surrounded by oceans on three sides. And if I'm not mistaken, the purpose of having a national defence should be to defend Canada's borders right here at home.

And there are all kinds of threats on our borders including mainly unseen Russian submarines and Russian battleships marauding into Canada's territory offshore. And we know that they are there because this is what Uncle Sam tells us to believe so it must be true.

And so I propose, and as the NDP does, that we build ships of all kinds for navy and civilian search and rescue, icebreakers etcetera. And the feds should go on a hiring spree and man/woman those ships to defend Canada's interests against all of evol Russian ships anchored offshore waiting to invade Canada. And we should pay thousands of young men and women good wages and generous benefits packages to defend Canada's borders 24-7 against the Soviets, I mean Russian military threat to Canada. And we might inadvertently end up protecting against any and all foreign fishing trawlers raiding Canada's fish stocks at the same time. And we should do it soon!

God bless Canada. We should stand and sail on guard at the ready, aye, ready for thee and not Uncle Sam over there in Afghanistan or whatever other fool's errand he instructs Ottawa to take part in on the other side of the world. Canadians know all about the importance of having a stay at home defence core. We need to protect things at our end of the ice, and not get caught with our pants down up-ice in Afghanistan.

Fidel

Canada spent around $22 billion on the military in 2010-11, an increase of 54% since what was probably a false flag attack on 9/11/01. And we will probably never know the entire truth unless the people demand a period of glasnost in America. For now it is an extension of permanent war economy in the U.S. as a result.

But Canadian William Krehm says Canadian governments at all levels spend approx. [url=http://www.comer.org/projects/index.htm]$60 billion dollars[/url] in interest payments every year to service whopping public debts owed to private sources.

Upside-down socialism for bankers and rich people achieves a similar demoralizing effect to Military Keynesianism in that it is money not spent on social programs or infrastructure to spur economic growth or benefit the public in general.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

The only threat to Canadian borders or sovereignty of any significance is the U.S., but of course this is a threat against which nothing we could possibly do could prevail, so no effort on our part is worthwhile. It is also not conceivable that the U.S. would allow any other state actor to take over Canada (except perhaps as a proxy for the empire, in which case, see the previous point). Thus, defence against the Russians and the Chinese and all those threatening muslim countries is unnecessary as well.

There is only one real pragmatic reason for having an army as far as I can see. That is to be able to defeat some potential band of non-state adventurers and mercenaries, perhaps well funded, and perhaps led by a few right wing ex-Canadians. (Lord Black's freedom fighters, anyone?) Even a tiny regular army would deter any such scheme, and it certainly wouldn't require F-35s to do its job.

Beyond this, it's all imperial politics. We have no idea how much Canadian independence the U.S. would tolerate, because we have had such a subservient relationship to it for so many years. The most extreme expression of independence was Trudeau being a buddy of Fidel Castro. But even Trudeau did not dare to question which side of the cold war Canada was on.

No matter what he truly thinks and believes, any Canadian PM would have to be very careful not to go beyond what the empire will accept. If there is one thing that history since WW2 proves, it is that the U.S. empire will not tolerate serious insubordination by the governments of its "allies". I seriously believe that the continuation of such meagre independence as Canada now enjoys (for example, we get to run our own health care and education systems) would be put in jeopardy by a government which broke too openly with the U.S. While we can possibly beg off direct involvment in most imperial agression, it is questionable whether we could survive openly working against U.S. imperial interests.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

With the starting price for 65 F35s now pegged at $25 billion and increasing almost by the day, isn't it obvious to everyone that we should be asking what the f*ck we need this things for???

ventureforth

Boom Boom wrote:

With the starting price for 65 F35s now pegged at $25 billion and increasing almost by the day, isn't it obvious to everyone that we should be asking what the f*ck we need this things for???

We don't need them. My bet is that as other nations drop out (with the exception of Norway which increased its order) and pressure in the US rises, the jet itself will be cancelled or scaled back. This government never wants to back down so maybe its hoping that the decision is made for them.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

With the starting price for 65 F35s now pegged at $25 billion and increasing almost by the day, isn't it obvious to everyone that we should be asking what the f*ck we need this things for???

We don't need them and it has nothing to do with the price. We wouldn't need them if they were free of charge.

But of course the opizishin doesn't want to talk about military policy and whether we need fighter jets, but prefers to talk about the only thing they really understand - money.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, I've never understood what role the F35s would play in defending Canada. Defending Canada against what??? When the F18s were new, they would occasionally intercept Soviet aircraft testing our airspace, but with the fall of the Soviet Union I haven't heard any threat from Russian aircraft - maybe there have been some intercepts and I just haven't read about them?

65 F35s sound like overkill for our national defense. I'd love to read a rational account from DND as to why they think the F35 is so necessary. Who are we under threat from, exactly?  I'd really like to know.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The Cons are so incredibly paranoid and secretive that trying to get a coherent defense policy out of them is an exercise in futility. Best to work on replacing them altogether.

jerrym

For me, there are a number of areas where large savings could easily be made. I agree with Boom Boom that the F-35s are not needed for any Canadian prupose, but only as adjuncts to the US military. Cutting these would save at least the $25 billion mentioned in the auditor-general's report (and almost certainly more as this was only the 20 year cost -not the 35 year cost - of buying and maintaining them). Our submarine service is currently so unshipworthy that it belongs in a Monty Python skit and since any replacement fleet would amount to another F-35 boondoggle while only serving US interests once again, I believe we need to end it. The military is also top-heavy with senior officers. Therefore, this group should be reduced significantly, which will never be done unless the civilian civil service makes this decision rather than the military bureauracy.

While we do need to have ships to protect our territorial integrity in the soon to be ice-free Northwest Passage in the summers, the current ship-building program once again focuses on guess-who's interests. Many of the proposed ships are not needed to defend Canadian interests. Instead, we only need a much reduced shipbuilding program that focuses on more polar-ready ships for the winters, as well as search and rescue ships. Some of these ships could also be used as scientific research centers on global warming since the polar regions are the ones that undergoing the fastest rates of warming due to the albedo effect (as snow/ice melts to form darker water more solar heat is absorbed). 

We definitely do need more ships and aircraft for search and rescue as we have in the last few years seen too many die off all our coasts because of a lack of such equipment and crews. We also need to provide training to our military for the next major earthquake to hit BC, which averages one every 200 years and we are now well overdue. We only need to look to Japan, a country far better prepared to deal with earthquakes than Canada and yet still not prepared enough, to see how important an immediately valuable rescue/rebuilding force would be. Servicemen involved in such a program could help in rescues in the rest of Canada and the world, thereby giving them valuable experience. I would also support UN (not US-led) peacekeeping missions to prevent genocide, such as occurred in Bosnia and Rwanda, but not interference in situations like Haiti etc.

jerrym

I agree Boom Boom. My proposal would be for a future NDP government. Nothing will change as long as we these Con superhawks.

Sean in Ottawa

I can't argue too much with the idea of some of the defence cuts. The department is bigger than it needs to be.

Many of the civilian workers losing defence positions could have been moved to other positions in the government-- but those are being cut as well and I do not support those cuts.

I also support the idea of having a military-- but like others think it should be tasked with defence and potential UN missions-- including humanitarian. It also needs to provide to Canada strong search and rescue given our geography and ironically that mandate is being reduced.

One thing that could be interesting could be to move a large number of "fighting" services to be trained specifically for emergency and assistance roles (a little like an enviro national guard that could also be lent to other countries in times of need).

Without the massive military procurement we could easily afford this.

Just some thoughts as I have not spent a lot of time thinking about this lately so I am not that aware of the relative size of the DND civilian workforce or what they do.

NDPP

The UN is now an imperial warhouse. Afghanistan was a UN mission. Don't support CF doing this dirty work any further.

jerrym

The problem with abandoning the UN would be give it over totally to US control. We can always refuse to take part in particular operations that are offensive (in both meanings of the word) but in the long run we need some international organization to mediate international disputes and we do not have any other such institution. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I don't see why the Canadian Forces can not be used more here at home to help with, for example, infrastructure in areas difficult to reach - they have the capability for heavy lifting, and they are already paid by the taxpayers of Canada. No more bombing and occupation of other countries!!!

Doug

Boom Boom wrote:

The Cons are so incredibly paranoid and secretive that trying to get a coherent defense policy out of them is an exercise in futility. Best to work on replacing them altogether.

 

Coherent? Well, maybe not but you can read about the defence policy here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

jerrym wrote:

...in the long run we need some international organization to mediate international disputes and we do not have any other such institution.

The UN doesn't mediate international disputes. There is a World Court of Justice that resolves international disputes that are referred to it.

Any intervention by the UN in international (or domestic) disputes is done at the behest of the United States through the Security Council. Nowadays this usually involves delegating authority to NATO to make war against one side or the other, depending on where the interests of the United States lie.

And once NATO is involved, Canada pretty much has to participate.

 

Fidel

Boom Boom wrote:

I don't see why the Canadian Forces can not be used more here at home to help with, for example, infrastructure in areas difficult to reach - they have the capability for heavy lifting, and they are already paid by the taxpayers of Canada. No more bombing and occupation of other countries!!!

 

I tend to agree with Dennis Bevington and Michael Byers who say that remote northern regions need civilian infrastructure not military outposts. If Canada is to make a credible claim in our share of the Arctic, there has to be civilian infrastructure to support Canadians living there. All of Mulroney, Chretien or Martin basically ignored Northern Canada. Harper wants military outposts in the Arctic but little else. And the NDP says civilian infrastructure is what's needed.

Sean in Ottawa

Military-- or some kind of national service is a back up to such civilian development -- this is not a contradiction.

The point is that the military is a flexible resource used for physical work that can be inserted anywhere.I support a move form a military war-making function to this direction.

Fidel

Third world conditions all over the north. The military needs something to defend other than a few homeless Polar bears and some people who've never heard of Ottawa. Our corrupt stooges have basically ignored remote Northern Canada for decades. 

skip2 skip2's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

With the starting price for 65 F35s now pegged at $25 billion and increasing almost by the day, isn't it obvious to everyone that we should be asking what the f*ck we need this things for???

 

“Iran is a complicated country...”

    -Javier Solana, European Union Foreign Policy and Security Chief and former NATO Secretary-General (Der Tagesspiegel)

 

Grandpa_Bill

jerrym wrote:

I would also support UN (not US-led) peacekeeping missions to prevent genocide, such as occurred in Bosnia and Rwanda, but not interference in situations like Haiti etc.

In this entire (and, no doubt, very progressive) thread, jerrym's comment contains the only mention of peacekeeping.

In a new book Scarce Heard Amid the Guns: An Inside Look at Canadian Peacekeeping, billed as "a highly readable account of a great Canadian institution while at the same time offering the reader an insider's perspective," Lt. Col. John Conrad writes persuasively that Canada has an opportunity and a duty to take up once again the challenge of peacekeeping.

Hm-mm-mmm?!

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

In this entire (and, no doubt, very progressive) thread, jerrym's comment contains the only mention of peacekeeping.

And rightly so. Most "very progressive" people are well aware that Canada's reputation as a peacekeeping nation and honest broker in international conflicts is [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/book-review-lester-pearson%E2%... fictitious[/url].

Your Lt.-Col John Conrad is engaged in a propaganda and mythmongering exercise.

Grandpa_Bill

M. Spector wrote:

Most "very progressive" people are well aware that Canada's reputation as a peacekeeping nation and honest broker in international conflicts is [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/book-review-lester-pearson%E2%... fictitious[/url].

Your opinions are always interesting , M.S., and the one above is no exception.

To judge by Paul Weinberg's review in Rabble, one would conclude that Yves Engler's book, though an indictment of Lester Pearson's (foreign) policies, makes no attempt to demonstrate that Canadian peacekeeping is a fiction.  Perhaps you will write a book that does that.  If you do, I will read it.  Below is my response to Weinberg's review.


Paul Weinberg's review (of Lester Pearson's Peacekeeping: The Truth May Hurt by Yves Engler) makes scant mention of the reason that most Canadians know of and/or remember Lester Pearson and the reason for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:  his immense contribution to the historic invention of armed UN peacekeeping forces and to the establishment of UNEF, the first armed peacekeeping mission.

To get a thoroughly modern view of Canadian peacekeeping in general, readers could do worse than turn to the book Scarce Heard Amit the Guns:  An Inside Look at Canadian Peacekeeping by L. Col. John Conrad, 2011.

Weinberg notes Engler's claim that "Pearson was primarily interested during the Suez crisis of 1956 in mediating a conflict among NATO partners."  Conrad agrees, stating that Pearson's pitch for the first armed peacekeeping force "was not one of unselfishness, but one more centered on Canadian national security. . . .  The very first mission was in the Sanai in 1956 was to keep the ceasefire between the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion force and the Egyptians."

In his review, Weinberg remarks that Steven Staples, of Ceasefire.ca and president of the Rideau Institute, views "Canada's peacekeeping tradition, however flawed, as a political alternative and counterweight to Stephen Harper's militarism."  Conrad holds a similar view. While reporting many of the flaws in Canadian peacekeeping, Conrad quotes Walter Dorn, a contributer to Afghanistan and Canada:  Is There an Alternative to War? edited by Lucia Kowaluk and Steven Staples, as follows:

"Some may dismiss the UN's 60 years of peacekeeping as outdated and out-moded, but today's UN operations are in fact, the result of steady evolution . . . .  If we want to restore Canadian leadership in the world . . . we should start where we are able and universally recognized to have provided solid leadership in the past:  peacekeeping missions."

Conrad's narrative (he calls it a travelogue) of the Canada's 35 UN peacekeeping missions and 5 non-UN missions makes this important point:  "a credible, disciplined combat force is the only force that can aptly handle peacekeeping duties."  He ends his book with this:

"The UN keeps calling for Canadian troops to serve as blue berets. . . .  Peacekeeping still has a place for Canadians as an instrument of policy.  Our soldiers have demonstrated time and again that we have the essential skills and attitudes to do the job with verve.  Canadians have indicated in survey after survey, poll after poll, that they are proud of the peacekeeping mosaic. . . .  It is time perhaps to pick up the tool once again.

"Over 120,000 Canadians have served the UN as peacekeepers--114 of whom were killed in the line of duty.  Are we letting the sun set on one of the UN's original fire brigade nations? . . .  The UN needs Canada now.  Our service men and women are among the world's best soldiers, superb grist for the UN peacekeeping mill--without apology, the world's best peacekeepers. . . .  We should renew our faith in the UN.  Peacekeeping is not doing less on the international stage.  In many ways, peacekeeping is about doing more.  It certainly demands more of a soldier.  This cannot be the way we close out our contribution in the service of peace."

So, what do I say of Pearson and his contribution to Canada and the world:  good guy or bad guy?  We don't get a whole loaf from anyone, do we, but for Canadians who value peace, the truth about Pearson's contribution to peacekeeping doesn't hurt.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Grandpa_Bill wrote:

To judge by Paul Weinberg's review in Rabble, one would conclude that Yves Engler's book, though an indictment of Lester Pearson's (foreign) policies, makes no attempt to demonstrate that Canadian peacekeeping is a fiction.  Perhaps you will write a book that does that.  If you do, I will read it.

No need for me to write the book. Engler has done so already. It's called The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. I suggest you read it.

From an interview he gave to David Lvingstone:

Quote:
But there is still this real deep sense, a lynchpin of Canadian national identity is the idea of peacekeepers, is the idea of Lester Pearson and the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, if you look a little deeper, if you scratch the surface a bit, what Lester Pearson was doing, going back to 1956, with the creation of the UN peacekeeping force, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for, was during the Suez Crisis in 1956, when France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt, what he was doing was really helping the Americans out. The Americans opposed that invasion. And they opposed that invasion for two reasons. One, they were nervous it was going to add to Soviet prestige in the Middle East, at a time when the Americans were quite popular. And they were also trying to tell the colonial powers in the region, ie. France and Britain, that there was a new boss in the region, the US. So the peacekeeping mission wasn't designed to help Egyptian civilians or to protect Egyptian sovereignty. It was really design to support American geo-political interests in the region.

NDPP

Canada found the stubborness of the 'Peacekeeping' myth was interfering with support for the Afghan mission, which was perceived by many to constitute an abandonment of 'cherished national principles'. It was thought necessary to correct the record thusly:

The Peaceable Kingdom? The National Myth of Canadian Peacekeeping  - by Eric Wagner

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo7/no4/wagner-eng.asp

"The peackeeping myth dominates discussions of Canada's post-war military past, and continues to confuse debates over Canada's military future. However, the peacekeeping myth, in claiming that Canada was motivated to keep the peace primarily by altruism and moral virtue, is false and misleading.."

 

Fidel

Quote:
The Americans opposed that invasion.

Is that like when the British Navy and marines sailed into the American hemisphere and invaded the Falklands in '82? The Yanks must have been miffed over that one, too.

They're all the the same bloodthirsty psychopath. They are one, and they are legion.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

Is that like when the British Navy and marines sailed into the American hemisphere and invaded the Falklands in '82?

No, it's like when the Russians put missile bases in Cuba.

 

Grandpa_Bill

NDPP wrote:

Canada found the stubborness of the 'Peacekeeping' myth was interfering with support for the Afghan mission, which was perceived by many to constitute an abandonment of 'cherished national principles'. It was thought necessary to correct the record thusly:

The Peaceable Kingdom? The National Myth of Canadian Peacekeeping  - by Eric Wagner

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo7/no4/wagner-eng.asp
"The peackeeping myth dominates discussions of Canada's post-war military past, and continues to confuse debates over Canada's military future. However, the peacekeeping myth, in claiming that Canada was motivated to keep the peace primarily by altruism and moral virtue, is false and misleading.."

What an interesting constellation of agreement:

(1)  According to Weinberg's review, Engler claims that "Pearson was primarily interested during the Suez crisis of 1956 in mediating a conflict among NATO partners.

(2) Conrad agrees, stating that Pearson's pitch for the first armed peacekeeping force "was not one of unselfishness, but one more centered on Canadian national security."

(3) You quote Wagner as above: "the peacekeeping myth, in claiming that Canada was motivated to keep the peace primarily by altruism and moral virtue, is false and misleading.."

(4) Spector quotes David Livingstone as follows: "what Lester Pearson was doing, going back to 1956, with the creation of the UN peacekeeping force, and he won the Nobel Peace Prize for, was during the Suez Crisis in 1956, when France, Britain and Israel invaded Egypt, what he was doing was really helping the Americans out."

There is a remarkable amount of agreement in the comments of these four people. As I see it, the essence of that agreement centres on the motives or intentions of Pearson and the Canadian government. None of these sources are claiming that the outcome of Pearson's efforts was something other than peace. And peace is a desireable outcome--for some of us.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

No justice, no peace.

And Pax Americana/Canadiana is neither justice nor true peace.

Grandpa_Bill

M. Spector wrote:

No justice, no peace.

Your claim is reasonable, though not one with which I agree.  For me, peace is not an end proximate to the pursuit of justice, but an ultimate end valued for itself.

Perhaps we do agree, however in believing that we progressives are consequentialists, if not by nature, then certainly by habit.

As such, we are not mindless of motives. Indeed, we are fully aware of the great mix of human intentions that underlie any effort to move a progressive social agenda forward.  However, our judgements are focused more on consequences than on intentions, on outcomes than on motives.

We (at least I do) see peace as a consummation, about which, though we are not optimistic in the present, we are ever hopeful for the future.  We have a regard for any analysis that sets us working for peace; we seek not analysis in itself but the peaceful fruit of those labours that our analysis provokes.

As a result, I suggest that (most) progressives agree with Arne Naess, who, in another context, counselled wisely, but simply that "the front is long":

"There is arrogance among socialists who think that they should be leading the ecological movement [and the peace movement--GB], because they have a 'class analysis' and are anti-capitalist. What comes across is that the Left believes it is entitled to intellectual hegemony in the green and environmental movements, by virtue of prior knowledge. The Left does not seem to be able to absorb the pluralism of green and environmental politics - as Naess informed us, 'the front is long' - let alone accept the earned leadership of others by virtue of their practical or theoretical work....  The idea that deeper environmentalists and greens can come to an anti-capitalist critique based on their own experiences, without studying Marxism or social ecology, but based on field experience, seems, apparently, difficult to grasp for the Left.

http://deepgreenweb.blogspot.ca/2011/01/deep-ecology-and-left-contradictions.html\

But this has taken me far from the topic of this thread, so I fold my tent and steal away, if not silently, then at least agreeably, pleased to have had the chance to exchange these views with you, Spector.

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Is that like when the British Navy and marines sailed into the American hemisphere and invaded the Falklands in '82?

No, it's like when the Russians put missile bases in Cuba.

  

I think Moscow and Beijing realize they are dealing with megalomaniacal psychopaths here in the west even today.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall the heavily-armed NATO countries have been devoid of imagination as to the prospects for world peace and prosperity.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Without justice the marginalized in any society never have peace.

Fidel

Their playbook makes increasing use of "strategy of tension". It's about mercenaries for hire and funding right wing religious extremists abroad to destabilize and create chaos in targeted countries. IOW's, state-sponsored  terrorism dating back to the 1950s.

NDPP

Canada's Military Hunting For 7 New Bases  -  by Allan Woods

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1205776--canada-s-mi...

"The military is hunting for 7 strategically placed nations willing to host a network of Canadian bases aimed at cutting costs and boosting response times to future wars..

Two of those bases in Germany and Kuwait have already materialized, but the full extent of the plan to create overseas beachheads for military planes, ships and equipment has not been previously acknowledged. When the collection of operational support hubs is complete, Canada's military will also have a permanent footprint in the Latin America and Caribbean regions, on both sides of the African continent, in the swath of countries marked by the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as in South East Asia..."

"peacekeeping?"

Todrick of Chat...

 “This government likes to talk about its support for the Canadian Forces,” said NDP Deputy-Critic for National Defence Christine Moore. “But failing to meet the basic health and safety requirement of fire alarm inspections proves once again how superficial this support really is. And I’m not just talking about the bases; the infrastructures on the reserves are also in a very worrying state.”

 “The government has failed to ensure that bases get the money they need in time to complete basic maintenance and repairs”, said Official Opposition National Defence Critic Jack Harris. “The long term effects of these compounding maintenance failures could be quite costly.”

http://www.ndp.ca/news/poor-maintenance-military-bases-conservatives-affecting-canadian-forces

How are these guys progressive again? Some days I am not sure if I can tell the difference between them and the conservatives.

 

 

 

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think it's important to keep in mind that the government is supposed to be the government for all people, regardless of their political leanings, and, second, regardless of how you feel about the military, they are men and women who have just as much right to a safe working environment - and infrastructure - as anyone. So, yes, the NDP has to stand up for a safe working environment for the military, but also show themselves highly critical of the government in military procuremment boondoggles like the F35's and government overspending, and in stupid military crusades we don't need to be involved in. Be responsible when it comes to military matters, but draw a line in the sand, too.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Show me a government anywhere in the world that doesn't support its military. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

My point is that the NDP will have no choice in governing but to support the military. I was responding to the previous post, by the way.

Todrick of Chat...

The NDP does have a choice however they choose to ignore their rightful of duty and call for the Armed Forces to be disbanded and criminal charges laid against each member of the forces (past and present) for thier crimes against humanity.

However they continue to support the women and child murdering psychopaths in their Capitalist Crusading adventure(s) against the
non-western world.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

The NDP does have a choice however they choose to ignore their rightful of duty and call for the Armed Forces to be disbanded and criminal charges laid against each member of the forces (past and present) for thier crimes against humanity.

However they continue to support the women and child murdering psychopaths in their Capitalist Crusading adventure(s) against the
non-western world.

I agree with your moral analysis of the situation, but that makes me part of a very small minority. If we had proportional representation, I would look for a party that takes the positions you recommend, and vote for it, in hopes that it would reach the 5% threshold and elect a few MPs to speak truth in the House of Commons. As it is with first past the post, any party which took these morally honest postions would have no more chance of electing MPs than the CPC(ML).

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Put forward a motion to disband the military and bring forth criminal charges. Make sure that's in their next election campaign. Smile

Fidel

And stop the rutabaga hunt! They won't get my vote until innocent rutabagas feel safe in the ground knowing no farm tractors will disturb their slumber. A motion, bill and law of of the land. Accept nothing less. In the mean time we'll just have to put up with the Harpers waxing worse and worcestershire still. And besides you know what they say. If it's not perfect, then there's no point in giving up a dead, maggot-infested parakeet in hand for a rare talking orange flamingo in the bush, or something like that.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

So, you're saying a bird in the hand is indeed worth two in the bush? :ducking

Todrick of Chat...

My thoughts are with those who will be spending Christmas away from home, especially the members of our Canadian Forces. Let us support their families, who anxiously await to be reunited with them.

http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-leader-tom-mulcair-wishes-you-merry-christmas

Gee I think Mulcair and Harper must have the same speach writer.

Support the troops.

 

 

 

Fidel

I love the soldiers. They are workers the same as me. 

They just have terrible leadership is all.

And North Atlantic Treaty Org used to mean a bunch of fascists and their troops stationed on the front lines of a cold war. They've sinced lost their way and are being sent to places on the map far away from the North Atlantic. It seems our colder warriors don't know Atlantic Ocean scenery from the edge of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

It's time for Canada to have a democratic say in the currently obsolete cold war org known infamously as NATO. We can not disband it until we stop cow-towing to uncle Sam and his minions of doom in NATO. That's right, we must speak up for peace and be counted as voting against participations in various NATO blitzkriegs occurring at a frenzied pace ever since 1991 and the end of the cold war.

We can't do that sitting on the sidelines as Harper chooses to do while merely following orders from Warshington as per unwritten rules not laid out clearly in the colonial administrativeship handbook.

Right now Canada is still a lap dog follower of the fascist army of darkness. Harper is not  a leader - he is a follower and obedient lap dog same as every other leader in Ottawa before him. His purpose is to trust and obey his Washington and London bosses. Harper is a mindless zombie incapable of thinking for himself much less represent a nation of people.

And as long as there are bought and paid-for stoogeaucracies in Ottawa the weather forecast for Canada will be even more cow-towing to NATO terror to prop-up a corrupt western banking cabal's foraging into Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. 

Let's crash the NATO clique's party with a first-time NDP government in Ottawa. Let's stand with countries like France and Russia and China in refusing to rubberstamp military threats against sovereign countries followed by military attacks ordered by a cosmeltic leader and head don in Warshington.

Bring them home. 

NDPP

and OUT OF NATO!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I have bumper stickers I made regarding bring home the troops out of my own pocket. I am not looking to make a lot of money on this. Here is a link, http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/anti-war-canadian-war-involvement-bumper-sticker. If you are interested in having some, please send me an email here on rabble and we can make arrangements. As a retired military man, I can't emphasize enough how much I want to bring "the troops" home. No more supporting American adventurism. And by the way, any NDP party insiders reading this blog, you can tell Tom Mulcair I said so. I met him in Winnipeg and he know who I am. Enough of this foolishness.

genstrike

Would now be an opportune time to point out that the NDP stood up and voted for the latest NATO blitzkreig (Libya), and if I remember correctly, has pretty much dropped any opposition to NATO in their policies?

I'm not a fan of all this "support the troops" stuff.  Singling out "the troops," even in feel-good messages like a Merry Christmas announcement, only serves to reinforce a culture of militarism.

NDPP

 The soldiers are not 'workers the same as me'. Nor are the police. Neither the bourgeois parliamentary politicians, coke, pepsi or canada dry.  No wonder people who make such obvious mistakes can also mistake the ndp for a progressive anti-war party. Or a settler-state colony for a democracy. No wonder Canada is the way it is.

Fidel

genstrike wrote:

Would now be an opportune time to point out that the NDP stood up and voted for the latest NATO blitzkreig (Libya), and if I remember correctly, has pretty much dropped any opposition to NATO in their policies?

Can you point us to an official document that identifies the NDP's support for bombing Libya? If you can not, then all that's left is conjecture and heresay as per usual.

And if you can not point us to anything that says the NDP supports NATO in the same way that our corrupt stooges have cow-towed to uncle Sam on everything from Avro Arrow and Bomarc missile boondoggles to rubberstamp approval for CIA medical experiments on Canadian citizens to the last Liberal Government of Canada sending troops to Afghanistan on George Bush's order and then lying to Canada's Parliament about the purpose of the "mission" in Kandahar by 2005, then I think you will likely resort to even more heresay and conjecture wrt the NDP.

Pages