The politics Of Getting Canadians Out Of Afghanistan

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Cueball wrote:

So, is it an antiwar party or not?

You could ask the reverse: "Is the NDP part of the War Party?"

I did ask that. And I was accused of taunting.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

jrootham wrote:

 

Fidel, please quote me or anybody else saying that the Afghan war is legitimate.

Let me facilitate your request and Fidel's job.

The Afghan war is legitimate.

The struggle of the Afghan people to destroy and expel the invaders is legitimate.

Furthermore, I support it, without reservation.

As I did 40 years ago when the people of South-East Asia were fighting (successfully) to destroy the U.S. invaders, their allies, and their puppets.

Now, go crazy.

The war is illegit every which way from Sunday. They have no proof of anyone's guilt for having perp'd 9/11. Elvis bin Laden is a myth.

About 80% of Afghan resistance to the occupation is genuine though. The other 20% is Taliban, a CIA-ISI-Saudi creation.

And they've been holding illegitimate "talks" with "the enemy" who are really just another faction of right wing extremists propped up by the USA and their elitist friends in Pakistan for many years.

jrootham

Fidel wrote:

How can we defend over a billion mostly moderate and peaceful Muslims while, and at the same time, we run around like mealy mouthed Liberals agreeing with political conservatives at every turn concerning the alleged legitimacy of this illegal and immoral war?

Since both Unionist and Fidel ignored the actual meaning of the question I'll try to make it a bit clearer.  This question is not about the legitimacy of the war.  It is about who is the "we" in the above quote.

So Fidel can you identify who you meant by "we" and provide a quote demonstrating how they behaved like "mealy mouthed Liberals"?

 

Unionist

jrootham wrote:

Since both Unionist and Fidel ignored the actual meaning of the question I'll try to make it a bit clearer.

Hi jrootham, how are you today? Not sure what "question" you were referring to, but here's what I responded to:

jrootham wrote:
Fidel, please quote me or anybody else saying that the Afghan war is legitimate.

I know it wasn't addressed to me - but I took a chance and replied anyway, hoping to make Fidel's task easier. I said - and I reiterate - that I am saying that the Afghan war is legitimate. By that, I have always meant, and said, that this refers to the struggle of the Afghan people, of whatever stripe, shade, cult, opinion, or taste in interior design and fashion - to destroy the invaders from Canada, U.S., and NATO.

Fidel has consistently stated that it is a "phony war". He has always been ambiguous at best about the insurgency. But I am confident he will come around.

 

Fidel

If "we" say things like, "Bring the troops home now", then why should anyone get behind what we are saying?

Why should the troops be brought home?

Because the right wingers are telling their gullible flock that Canadian troops are there for the good of women and children in that country.

Are either the US-led ISAF forces or Taliban attempting to win a war that can not be won? No, they are not.

Therefore, if both sides know that the war cannot be won, then what are they doing?

Unionist

There you have it, jrootham.

 

Fidel

So what do you tell people when they ask why Canadian troops should be withdrawn? Do you hold up two fingers in a V and tell them to make pizza not war?

Do we backpedal to the notion that this is a legitimate war because "pious Muslims" flew planes into the trade towers and Pentagon on 9/11? The FBI has no proof of that. The US Military says it has proof but can't be revealed to the public for reasons of national security, which basically means whatever in hell they want it to mean.

So?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

So what do you tell people when they ask why Canadian troops should be withdrawn?

I guess I chill in different circles than you do. I don't know anyone who thinks Canadian troops should be there. So I'm really out of practice when it comes to explaining to people that we went there to support George W. Bush's bid to gain and entrench strategic domination in the region - part 2 being the Iraq invasion. I know, it's a very complex nuanced explanation, but you can manage it if you try.

I guess when a majority of Canadians - and a huge majority of Quebeckers - share the same opinion (all for different reasons, I'm sure, but that doesn't matter), you have to scrape really low in some cast-off barrel to find someone who sympathizes with Obama and Harper's viewpoints.

That's why it's tragic when no one gets up in the House to reflect that broad consensus of public opinion.

And that's why Olivia Chow and Jack Layton need to be hailed, praised, and supported when they say the right thing.

Otherwise, they may end up listening to the wrong kind of "supporters".

 

jrootham

Hi Unionist, awake and moving at any rate, you?

This is about Fidel trying to tar people here with the idea of supporting the invasion.

KenS

I really cant follow you Fidel. Unionist seems to get it, but I dont, and I'm not the only one.

But this I can answer:

"So what do you tell people when they ask why Canadian troops should be withdrawn?"

Simple: everything, and sometimes nothing.

Everything: there are zillions of things to say. Depends on who you are talking to. Most everyone has an opinion by now, even if they arent sure what should be done. and what you might say covers the waterfront depending on what they ask.

Sometimes nothing: of course you would never answer people with nothing. But it bears saying that you don't presuppose an answer when people are not asking a question.

And this aint rocket science Fidel: bring the troops home.

First you say it. And you know that there are already lots of well known 'whys' out there in the public space. So you say it, then you wait for questions. Answer them when you hear them, dont presuppose them.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

So what do you tell people when they ask why Canadian troops should be withdrawn?

I guess I chill in different circles than you do. I don't know anyone who thinks Canadian troops should be there. So I'm really out of practice when it comes to explaining to people that we went there to support George W. Bush's bid to gain and entrench strategic domination in the region - part 2 being the Iraq invasion. I know, it's a very complex nuanced explanation, but you can manage it if you try.

Okay, but what about Canadians who read MacLean's or other news rags explaining how much good Canadian troops have done for them in Afghanistan? Surely our vicious toadying to US power is doing some good for desperately poor Afghans who are still desperately poor and basic rights still denied in 2010?

Surely all your hard core anti-US rhetoric about friendly US imperialism can be sloughed off by conservative and Liberal party supporters if it means little girls are going to school and Canadians are digging wells for them?

No I'm talkin' real anti-war talk here. I tell those kinds of people everything they need to know from square one. The war is illegit.

The Yanquis are not there to win this war and neither are the Taliban. They are both jockeying for better positions at the bargaining table later on.

I tell people that the Taliban do not equal the resistance to the illegal US-led occupation. The US would like us all to believe that the Taliban are leading the resistance, but they are a minority in the deal.

And so when the US Military, CIA and ISI agents and Saudi royals do meet in clandestine with the Taliban in the swankier hotel rooms of Karachi and Islamabad, they are actually talking with their own creations and not nearly a legitimate group representing all Afghans. Not really.

 

Unionist wrote:
I guess when a majority of Canadians - and a huge majority of Quebeckers - share the same opinion (all for different reasons, I'm sure, but that doesn't matter), you have to scrape really low in some cast-off barrel to find someone who sympathizes with Obama and Harper's viewpoints.

What you're really saying is that those minds are made up and lines are drawn. No point in trying to whittle away further at Stephen Harper's support base, about 22% of registered voters. And somewhere less than that for the Liberals.

No, this war is even less legit than even some of us on the left realize. 9/11 as a pretext for war is about as legitimate as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was. Tonkin, like 9/11. was a false flag intel operation. The Nazis needed to explain to the public why they were marching into Poland, too. They pulled a false flag. It's an old fascist maneuver.

KenS

Nowhere to go.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

That's why it's tragic when no one gets up in the House to reflect that broad consensus of public opinion.

There is no broad consensus of Canadians that we should be out of Afghanistan. How can you say there is when any poll shows a split- whether that is close to even split, or even if it were a 60/40 split in favour of wanting Canadian troops out, period?

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

No more war: don't extend it, end it
by Jesse McLaren

Quote:
...

The Globe and Mail celebrated the extension of the war as a “rare bipartisan effort” between the Tories and Liberals, but there’s nothing rare about it. It was the Liberals who launched the war, with the support of the Tories, then the Tories that have extended it three times with the support of the Liberals. In the past month, the Liberals have joined the Tories in defeating bills on Employment Insurance, war resisters, mining reforms, and climate change.

This is the real “coalition” in Canadian federal politics, between the twin parties of corporate Canada, the Conservatives and the Liberals—both fighting for the profits of Canadian weapons, mining, and oil companies abroad and at home.

Cracks in the war machine

But as endless as the war in Afghanistan seems, cracks are emerging, in Parliament and in the armed forces. The sheer hypocrisy of extending the so-called “war for democracy” without a debate or vote in Parliament is a sign of weakness.

There is a rift opening up in the Liberals, and Harper and Ignatieff fear that if they have a vote they could lose. The anti-war movement stopped Canada from participating in the Iraq War in 2003 through mobilizations that created a split in the ruling Liberal party and forced Chretien to say no to war. If we can widen the split in the Liberal support for the Afghanistan war we can isolate Ignatieff and Harper, and eventually force an end to Canadian participation in this war.

Another significant difference with this extension is the beginnings of unrest from rank and file soldiers and their families. A few months ago veterans ombudsman, retired colonel Pat Strogan, blasted the Harper government for its treatment of veterans...

http://www.socialist.ca/socialistworker/SW2010/issue524/Afghanistan.html

Cueball Cueball's picture

This thread needs more interventions like the one above.

mmphosis

Bob Rae wrote:
Partisan Gamesmanship And All That

mmphosis wrote:

Dear Hon. Bob Rae,

What Canadians want is to bring the troops home now.

This desire of Canadians is what transcends partisanship and politics. Listen. Listen to your constituents. Listen to Canadians. I agree with you about talking to the public about it.

I very much question the motives of what I see as very small group of military promoters of the so-called “mission”, invasion, and what has escalated into a war in Afghanistan. The initial invasion of Afghanistan, and yes it is an invasion, and it was carried out three weeks after the events of 9/11. After nine years, questions about the events of 9/11 remain. Check out http://buildingwhat.org/

I am discussing this with family and friends and writing letters to Members of Parliament. Most respond that they totally agree that “What Canadians want is to bring the troops home now.” I am not seeking applause, I am demanding action from politicians of all the parties to carry out the wishes of Canadians. You do not answer to NATO, the UN, or whatever some international organization wants: you need to answer to what Canadians want.

I appreciate you reading.

my comment on Bob Rae's blog is awaiting moderation.

Bloc to spur Afghanistan vote

Top Grits make case for Afghan mission extension

John Ivison: Ignatieff suffering ‘enthusiasm gap’ with voters wrote:

Mr. Ignatieff will survive Tuesday’s vote on Afghanistan – it needs only a handful of Liberals to join the Conservatives and vote down the Bloc’s motion to condemn the extension of the mission. But a significant number of empty seats would lead to a whispering campaign against the leader and increase pressure on him to step down.


Fidel

mmphosis wrote:
my comment on Bob Rae's blog is awaiting moderation.

That should be interesting. Keep us updated?

Fidel

jrootham wrote:

Hi Unionist, awake and moving at any rate, you?

This is about Fidel trying to tar people here with the idea of supporting the invasion.

No I've said no such thing. Because there are lefties who don't support the truth movement's cause to win the public's right to a legitimate and transparent investigation into the events of 9/11. But they argue against it for very different reasons than those mentioned anywhere here. Some people simply defer truth seekers to the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission cover-up without any real analysis of their own on the matter and as if that report is without controversy. And it is a very controversial cover-up with defenders of the official lies basically to the political right of those lefties not demanding a real inquiry.

NDPP

Diplomats Fear Wikileaks Will Expose US Brickbats Aimed at Canada

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/diplomats-fear-wikileaks-wi...

"In Ottawa there is speculation that the documents could reveal private accounts of US pressure on Canada to extend its military mission in Afghanistan.."

Siddiqui: Harper and Ignatieff: Errand Boys for America

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/896370--siddiqui...

"Two men [and maybe more...] have decided to extend the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan by three more years. Stephen Harper did not seriously consult his cabinet or Michael Ignatieff his caucus. They also cut the Commons out of the loop. Good luck to the two-thirds of Canadian who oppose the Afghan war in getting fair news coverage...'

Frmrsldr

The Bloc enters a motion calling for a vote on whether to escalate Canada's military presence in Afghanistan and asserts that all Canadian troops should come home.

Juliet O'Neill, Postmedia News wrote:

"Canadian troops have done enough," said Bloc defence critic Claude Bachand, asserting that most Quebecers want all Canadian troops home after a decade of sacrifice, 152 soldiers killed and billions of dollars in expenses. "Now it is time for other people to step in."

MPs deferred a vote on the motion to next Tuesday...

... The Bloc motion asks the Commons to "condemn the government's unilateral decision to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan until 2014, thereby reneging on two promises made to the population: one was made in the House on May 10th, 2006, and reiterated in the speech from the throne of 2007 to submit to Parliament a vote on all military deployment and the promise made on Jan. 6, 2010, that the mission in Afghanistan be strictly a civilian one after 2011 without a military presence, with the exception of security to guard the embassy."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tories+Liberals+harmony+over+Afghanista...

NDPP

US A Kid In A NATO Candy Store - by Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LK25Df04.html

"As clinically on target as a pat-down in a major US airport, the Pentagon got a fabulous box of chocolates from its 27 North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies at last weekend's Lisbon summit..."

 

Afghanistan Has Been Having Peace Talks with a Fake Taliban Leader

http://gawker.com/5696870/afghanistan-has-been-having-peace-talks-with-a...

"Did you hear about the secret talks, between the Afghan government and the Taliban aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan? Well it turns out the 'Senior Commander' the Afghan government was meeting with...wasn't"

NATO: Kabul Safer For Kids Than New York

http://gawker.com/5696004/kabul-safer-for-kids-than-new-york-says-nato

"NATO's senior commander in Afghanistan Mark Sedwill says kids in Afghanistan have nothing to worry about: 'The children are probably safer than they would be in London, New York or Glasgow'...

Meanwhile civilian deaths are 'soaring' across the country"

CANADA OUT NOW!

KenS

I notice that there is very little in the print media today on yesterdays debate following the Bloc motion.

Was there much time devoted in the House to the question? [And even if there wasnt, there is the scrums.]

Was it visible for more than 5 seconds on television? [I heard nothing on CBC Radio]

What is the 'mechanics' of the process? [Like, roughly speaking even, how much more debate on Monday, or Tuesday before the vote?]

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

NATO: Kabul Safer For Kids Than New York

http://gawker.com/5696004/kabul-safer-for-kids-than-new-york-says-nato

"NATO's senior commander in Afghanistan Mark Sedwill says kids in Afghanistan have nothing to worry about: 'The children are probably safer than they would be in London, New York or Glasgow'...

Meanwhile civilian deaths are 'soaring' across the country"

And what a load of nonsense that claim is:

Justin Forsyth, Chief Executive of Save the Children wrote:

Afghanistan is the worst place on earth to be born a child - one in four living there will die before they reach the age of five.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/11/24/charities-criticise-statement...

NDPP

The NDP Should Get the Hell Out of Ottawa - by Norman Spector

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-visi...

"For some time, public opinion polls have made clear that Canadians have soured on the Afghanistan mission. You have to wonder, therefore; why Jack Layton - who cut his political teeth at McGill University during the Vietnam war years - has not chosen to organize and channel that sentiment across the country.

Instead the NDP has deployed its spin doctors to emulate the big boys and girls playing the Ottawa game; meanwhile, its MPS and the leader himself have been chasing clip with clever clip. Judging from present coverage and current polls, all of this amounts to a losing proposition in the parliamentary precincts. It's time the party got the hell out of the village called Ottawa and connected with the voters - and non voters in the rest of the country..."

mmphosis

Fidel wrote:

mmphosis wrote:
my comment on Bob Rae's blog is awaiting moderation.

That should be interesting. Keep us updated?

Hi Fidel!  Appears my comment has been moderated into a response on Bob Rae's blog.  Mayhaps, Bob Rae reads our responses, listens to what Canadians want, and votes accordingly.

http://bobrae.liberal.ca/journal/partisan-gamesmanship-and-all-that/comment-page-1/#comment-1175

 

Fidel

mmphosis wrote:

Fidel wrote:

mmphosis wrote:
my comment on Bob Rae's blog is awaiting moderation.

That should be interesting. Keep us updated?

Hi Fidel!  Appears my comment has been moderated into a response on Bob Rae's blog.  Mayhaps, Bob Rae reads our responses, listens to what Canadians want, and votes accordingly.

http://bobrae.liberal.ca/journal/partisan-gamesmanship-and-all-that/comment-page-1/#comment-1175

 

That's a very good letter to post. And for very many people, the slip-shod FEMA-NIST investigations are enough for them to question the official story. However, and I include myself in this group, it's the overall false narrative surrounding the events of 9/11. It's not just their official cover-up of the building collapses which defy Newtonian laws of physics. It's the appalling lack of evidence for everything from the hijackers' identities to what amounts to a 30 year-long history of anticommunist jihadis trained on US and European soil and financed by North American and European taxpayers themselves. And it's ongoing. There are whistleblowers who've been gagged by the US Government and ignored by the mainstream newz agencies and politicians alike in order to maintain cover for the corruption of US government and criminality of the whole thing moving along at a steady pace as usual.

What's needed is a North American equivalent of perestroika. There needs to be a lifting of the veil of government secrecy and daylight shed on the corruption, the kick-back and the overall failure of democracy in general. Apocalypse or barbarism? It seems to me that right-rightists have already chosen.

jrootham

Moving right along.

I'm not sure what to think about Specter's column.  I don't trust him anywhere near as far as I could throw him (given my feelings about him, that might not be such a short distance).  Harper is not going to back down in the face of people in the streets.  I would expect the Liberals to respond to them if and only if they saw it as a route to power.  It would have to be unequivocal.  I would not expect any hope of a change until the next election.  I claim the strategic move is to time in the streets protests to peak just before the next election call.  The problem being that if the street protests are effective they will delay the next election call (unless they get big enough to get the Liberals on side).  So it's a gamble.  Launch street protest now and hope it gets big enough to get the Liberals.  Don't launch now and run the risk of the Cons going for an early election.  

Cueball Cueball's picture

Spector said nothing about street activism. What he said was NDP messaging is lame. Basically.

Who actually thinks that anything is going to change in the regime now, either because of what is happening in parliament or on the streets? No one! To think that activism is about necessarily forcing a change in government policy in the immediate frame is to miss the whole point. Activism is about changing the terms of agenda and shifting the ideological framework, not getting Harper and co. to change his world view. That will never happen.

It is about mobilizing our base.

Thinking that activism does not influence the terms under which people like Harper feel that they are free to operate, and shifts the discourse, even if he does not like it. Likely, were it not for having "to face down people in the streets", the whole idea of any disengagements from Afghanistan, would be entirely off the table.

The timing is irrelevant. What is important is that the movement build and stay active. The point of protest is not shift the views of the governing party, but to build the movement through initiatives that encourage people to be active, and not to be intimidated by hegemonic messaging of the elite.

jrootham

OK, that's all good.  I am somewhat concerned about doing actions that have no discernable effects burning people out.

 

KenS

What Cueball said in the last paragraph.

It doesnt matter at all in the near term how the government, or its friends, reacts. In fact, you can almost count on them not reacting- at least not explicitly in terms of doing any backing off. We have plenty of experienced activists who wont be expecting an immediate results.

The issue is getting started. And the longer that takes, the more risk there is that even activists will just continue the lethargic activity level- current mission extension provocation notwithstanding.

Spector's take is interesting, and he's sincere, but he doesnt know what he's talking about. He apparently decided some time ago the whole Afghanistan adventure is a serious and hopeless mistake. Memebers of the elite of that opinion are always part of the dynamic. And we'll get more. But he has no interest in or understanding of movements or mobilizing them. He just wants them to spring out of the shadows now that he sees a need. Good for him that he doesnt sneer at them, but thats it.

Frmrsldr

That Herr Harper and the War Party Cons aren't going to change their stance on Afghanistan is a given.

The change that the propeace/antiwar, anti-interventionist movement can (and hopefully does) achieve is to make those people who are antiwar etc., more publicly vocal and encourage the ignorant and apathetic to learn more about Afghanistan and become interested and motivated to being publicly and vocally antiwar.

This change could further result in a change of popularity and support for the various main federal political parties. In the next federal election, if the Cons don't change their stance on Afghanistan, then the people will eventually change Canada's involvement in Afghanistan by voting the Cons out of office.

Under these circumstances, another change(s) that will take place is the NDP will/may become stronger in their antiwar stance and the Liberals may also adapt to take advantage of this political change in order to defeat the Cons and get elected.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Honestly the same could be said for the NDP. And it was that, not the condtion of the movement that was the main thrust of Spector's arguement. Not where is the movement? But where is the NDP in relationship to the movement: "It's time the party got the hell out of the village called Ottawa and connected with the voters - and non voters in the rest of the country..."

In any case, I am looking forward to the discussions on Monday and the vote Tuesday. Looking forward to more clear sighted statements against the war from the NDP, the Bloc, and a few rebel Liberals,

Canadians need clear leadership on important issues like this if the opposition wants to remain relevant.

jrootham

So what do we do?

 

Unionist

jrootham wrote:

So what do we do?

What members and supporters of the NDP and of many trade unions and other groups have done - don't rest until your organization, union, association, community, friends, religious institution, veterans' club, legion, bowling league etc. has discussed the matter and decided to take some kind of public stand against the invasion. If the NDP can do it (when it would rather be gentle and say harmless things as it did up to 2006 and most of the time since then) - if the CAW (for example) can do it, when they can't even get many of their members to not vote Conservative and they have lots of jobs in war-related industry - then others can too.

And, of course, all kinds of creative activities not excluding the traditional kinds (demonstrations, marches).

Those who underestimate the vital importance of people and organizations just saying where they stand, are making conscious or unconscious excuses for cowardice and laziness. It should become increasingly unacceptable, in public discourse, for anyone to even hint that we have a right or duty to have soldiers in Afghanistan. We may even get to some Liberals that way.

 

KenS

Cueball wrote:

Honestly the same could be said for the NDP. And it was that, not the condition of the movement that was the main thrust of Spector's arguement. Not where is the movement? But where is the NDP in relationship to the movement: "It's time the party got the hell out of the village called Ottawa and connected with the voters - and non voters in the rest of the country..."

Spector agrees with us- surprised me- that the only way that there is going to be disengagement from this open ended "extension" is for an outspoken response from Canadians. And he also knows that means beyond Parliament. He isnt coommenting at all on the condition of the movement. He assumes that means Jack Layton getting out and stirring things up. 

Thats not the way it works. It happens that Cueball thinks that is the way it should work: that there is no reason d'etre for the NDP if it is not as integraly engaged with movements as it is with Parliament and the electoral process. I dont think this is the place to chase that around again.

If Jack Layton is to go out 'stirring things up', there has to be something to stir up. It obviously is not going to be, and does not need to be, anything like a fully formed movement. But there at least has to be a bully pulpit that is not the NDP. A few hundred people in front of City Hall does not a bully pulpit make.

We can chase around forever how much more the NDP could or should do. But independent of questions of what can be expected of the NDP, if there isnt some kind of nasceant anti-war movement strring and developing, we dont have much to go on. There is every reason to expect that will happen. But it doesnt happen from talking about what the NDP hasnt done.

I'm not saying that the biggest question is "where is the movement?". I'm just the only one asking it as one of the questions.

The questions are where is the movement? and where is the NDP? Both.

At the initial satge of responding to the endless "extension" of the mission, what the NDP has to do is much easier. All that is required is a statement of position. [And making it clear this is not just one of 100 positions.]

The demands on the movement are much greater. The NDP is already visible, and gets to be visible on an issue by just speaking. Its not as easy for an inherently amorphous movement to be visible. All the more reason to be talking about it.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Those who underestimate the vital importance of people and organizations just saying where they stand, are making conscious or unconscious excuses for cowardice and laziness. It should become increasingly unacceptable, in public discourse, for anyone to even hint that we have a right or duty to have soldiers in Afghanistan. We may even get to some Liberals that way.

Wherever you are you do what you can. And you always do the basics. And that very much includes getting your organisation, and any others to take a stand and make it known however you can.

It has never been my intention to criticise that.

If there is any reason to have 'what is to be done' discussions then it does need to be said that we also have to look at how much impact we are having. And to at least consider the questions of having more.

KenS

Cueball wrote:

In any case, I am looking forward to the discussions on Monday and the vote Tuesday. Looking forward to more clear sighted statements against the war from the NDP, the Bloc, and a few rebel Liberals,

We're already getting stronger statements. Spector actually spent more time on pointing out what was said but not reported in the media, that than what the headline referred to.

Statements dont mean much if they arent getting around. Whether that is statements directly about the war, or about the contributing stream of getting in the licks that the Conservatives [and Liberals] have scammed the process and cannot be trusted. [Which is part of the framing that people should not even listen to the 'sweet reason' of why it 'really is about training', etc.] 

There is still Monday and Tuesday.

But I asked this before. Is any of the House process showing up on television Thursday through this weekend?

Cueball Cueball's picture

KenS wrote:

Thats not the way it works. It happens that Cueball thinks that is the way it should work: that there is no reason d'etre for the NDP if it is not as integraly engaged with movements as it is with Parliament and the electoral process. I dont think this is the place to chase that around again.

If Jack Layton is to go out 'stirring things up', there has to be something to stir up. It obviously is not going to be, and does not need to be, anything like a fully formed movement. But there at least has to be a bully pulpit that is not the NDP. A few hundred people in front of City Hall does not a bully pulpit make.

I agree. I highly doubt the NDP is capable of putting together a 5 date speaking tour for Jack Layton on the war issue and getting more than a handful of people out in front of city hall or anywhere.

One would think that the NDP could throw $50,000 dollars at such a project and look for similar levels of support from organized labour, a group who could also be counted on to do substantial organizing. The NDP could connect locally with peace organizations, church groups and so on to build events. You would be looking at a 6 to 8 week time frame, but as you say "that isn't the way it (the NDP) works", they would prefer to have their message buried in the media paradigm, as opposed to reaching out, as Spector suggests.

Fidel

I think the NDP is looking for more efficient ways of getting the message out, like internet social forums, auto-dialing for campaign dollars using the same methods telemarketers use, FB, twitter etc. Everyone's using the internet to communicate ideas these days including the American CIA.

The bottom line for any party these days is money. And there is a lack of it for parties like the NDP depending on individual donations from the very people they represent. Canadians' savings rates haven't been this low since 1938 according to CCPA reports. And it takes money to do anything these days and especially since neoliberalism really kicked-in in Canada after 1991.

There is no shortage of money for Canada's two oldest parties enjoying long-time associations with Bay Street though. The rich and corporations traditionally have funded both Liberals and federal Tories roughly equally. The game has been rigged for years, and the new rules for campaign donations aren't much of a hinderance for them. FPTP elections and dollar democracy go hand in hand.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

I said - and I reiterate - that I am saying that the Afghan war is legitimate. By that, I have always meant, and said, that this refers to the struggle of the Afghan people, of whatever stripe, shade, cult, opinion, or taste in interior design and fashion - to destroy the invaders from Canada, U.S., and NATO.

Thanks for this.  I think it's a powerful reframing.

Fidel

No it's not legit. The very lofty word 'legitimate' implies legality. And the bastards violated Nuremberg code with marching into Afghanistan and Iraq on bullshit pretexts for "self defence." Total bullshit.

The phony war in Afghanistan is no more legal or moral than the Nazis' attack and invasion of Poland. Were the Poles equally armed and ready? No, the Nazis marched all over them after blitzkrieg, which is one more reason why this one looks so phony.

It's a bullshit war on terrorism. There is no such thing as al-Qaeda

al-Qaeda = al-CIA'duh

Frmrsldr

Compromise.

The U.S./NATO/ISAF had no right to attack Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has every right to defend itself.

Unionist

Frmrsldr wrote:

Compromise.

No thanks. Not on this point. It's not just a matter of semantics. The "phony war" theme is used to justify negotiations between the invaders, their puppets, and the insurgents to determine the future of Afghanistan. That is never going to happen.

 

Fidel

I'll agree to that. And I think some of us would agree that the sum total of the resistance is more than the Taliban mullahs who have met with ISI, CIA and MI6 officials for secret discussions over the last few years.

Unionist

Oh right, Frmrsldr, I almost forgot - the "phony war" theme is also used to help us (outsiders) pick sides and favourites.

No compromise. Fight to the finish.

 

Frmrsldr

Those negotiations are so when the U.S./NATO/ISAF leave Afghanistan just like Russia left Afghanistan in the Soviet-Afghan War and the U.S. left Saigon in the Vietnam War like pitiful looking dogs with their tails between their legs, the U.S./NATO/ISAF can have a meager fig leaf to grasp onto to at least save face somewhat.

As long as they (U.S./NATO/ISAF) think (or at least intimate) that they are winning the war to the public, they will never take the "negotiations" seriously.

The instant they take the negotiations seriously, is the instant we will know that they have realized that they have lost the war.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Compromise.

No thanks. Not on this point. It's not just a matter of semantics. The "phony war" theme is used to justify negotiations between the invaders, their puppets, and the insurgents to determine the future of Afghanistan. That is never going to happen.

No, you've got that wrong.

If, for instance, the boss man comes down to the shop floor, or perhaps even a luxurious hotel suite in Islamabad to discuss a grievance workers might have, who does the talking for workers?

Is this all a prelude to a bullshit peace settlement with the CIA's former proxies in government and Mooj retros from the 1980s stooging for Uncle Sam in Kabul and ordinary resistance fighters on the outside looking in has been typical of so many other US-backed right wing dictatorships around da vorld?

 

Fidel

In Vietnam, the Russkies were supplying the NVA.

In 1980s Afghanistan, there were billions of dollars in aid and weapons air dropped and pack muled to Mooj "freedom fighters", and some of whom are there in Karzai's municipal government today. And we won't even mention the make-work projects for anticommunist jihadis throughout the nineties.

Who's supplying the Taliban?

Cueball Cueball's picture

"Mooj" is pejorative racist slang. You can stop your rubbernecking from the right in the cause of the "left" anytime. Thanks.

Unionist

Frmrsldr, I don't think I made myself clear. It is impermissible for a progressive Canadian to promote such negotiations. Our one and only job is to show solidarity with the Afghan people by getting out. I understand perfectly well that when the U.S. negotiated in Paris with the Vietnamese, it was a fig leaf aiming at getting out. But their aim was a last-ditch effort to consolidate a puppet regime. The task of U.S. citizens at that time was to end the war by getting out - not to preach talks and treaties.

There is no way in hell that I will support any "intermediate" call for talks or treaties. Let the bastards get the hell out, and then they can negotiate all the fuck they want by Skype for all I care. The calls for "negotiations" are purely, and simply, calls for ensuring that Afghanistan ends up with a regime which is to our taste. Not like the nasty regimes that those poor wretches come up with on their own.

Hope I'm making myself crystal clear. Sometimes repetition and cursing is needed. This is not a matter of semantics.

ETA: You may have noticed that some people spend 99% of their time in these threads condemning the Taliban - trying to prove they are on the U.S. payroll - and slandering anyone who refuses to engage in that game as being soft on the Taliban.

Maybe one more time. This is a deadly real war. On all sides.

 

Pages

Topic locked