9 Responded To This Post

12869. mushroom said on January 31, 2008 at 2:36 am

Thanks for the plug, Scott.  Still waiting for your response on facebook with regards to Italy and PR ;)

If you want to have fun on this issue, check out the full speech that Layton gave at the University of Ottawa last evening http://www.ndp.ca/page/6134.

By far the best foreign policy speech I have heard in a while.  Calls for a return to Canada’s peacekeeping roots and gives a tribute to Lester B. Pearson.     
 

12875. Greg said on January 31, 2008 at 7:29 am

I would assert that Dion’s views on the mission are a lot closer to Layton’s then they are to Stephen Harper (or Harper’s proxy guy John Manley).

I agree with you, but do you think Dion can convince the Iggy/Rae people to come along? They are much closer to Manley and Harper than Dion.

12877. The Jurist said on January 31, 2008 at 9:14 am

Greg: Remember that the last extension passed by only four votes at a time when the Libs had no permanent leader (and indeed their interim leader backed the extension). If Dion doesn’t have enough clout to get just a few of his own MPs to side with the party line beyond the ones who would vote with him already, then Afghanistan is the least of his problems.

12885. Greg said on January 31, 2008 at 1:49 pm

This could just be just Tory mischief making (make that probably Tory mischief making), but John Ivison is claiming that Dion is about to make a deal with Harper.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=3581c1e3-5773-44c7-b0df-903b08c0748c&k=75768

12889. JimBobby said on January 31, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Whooee! Yup, Dion and Harper will agree to stay and fight for Hamid Karzai’s Islamic narco-state. When leaders make a deal like this simply to avoid an election, the only ones who lose are those opposed to the Afghan mission. That’s a majority of Canadians but who cares what the public thinks? The public’s too stoopid to understand how we’re bringin’ freedom to Afghanistan, one hanged journalist at a time.

It doesn’t matter that we’re sending our kids to die for a country we can’t even trust with POW’s. The goal is not to help Afghanis. The goal is to (re)establish Canada’s role on the world stage. Manley said so in his report. Harper’s said so before. It’s all for glory and international prestige. I don’t find propping up a warlord-ruled, opium-financed, torture-practicing, Shariah Law-abiding nation to to particularly glorious or prestigious.

JB

12894. Scott Tribe said on January 31, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Hey Jim:

Let’s wait til we see this supposed deal happen before we condemn it, eh?  I don’t put a lot of stock into what the National Post says.

12895. JimBobby said on January 31, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Whooee! Yer right, Scott. There’s no deal yet. My problem with any Lib-Con deal i sthat I don’t agree with either party’s policy. Afghanistan is simply not worth another Canadian life. We’ve tried. We’ve done our share but progress is not being made. Opium production is up. Insurgent activity is up. Canadian death rate is up. School attendance is down. Karzai’s been openly trying to recruit Taliban into the government.

Now, Manley wants us to hang in there until the Americans remember Afghanistan exists and sends in massive air power to level wedding parties, kill allies and win hearts and minds. Anything that keeps us in this war is wrong. We’re there for the wrong reasons. Karzai’s warlords don’t deserve Canadian blood. Islamic courts that impose the death penalty on journalists for humiliating Islam do not deserve Canadian blood.

Anyone who thinks 1000 troops and a coupla helicopters is going to turn the tide better go back and read up on Vietnam.

"Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
Have no fear of escalation.
We are trying everyone to please.
Though it isn’t really war,
We’re sending 50,000 more,
To help save Vietnam from the Vietnamese."

In LBJ’s case, 50,000 more at a time never really turned things around. More than 50,000 Americans were killed, though.

Afghanistan is a quagmire. We oughtn’t be talking about how long we’re staying but about how quick we’re leaving.

JB

12896. mushroom said on January 31, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Update after yesterday’s caucus meeting, with quotes from the Grits Nova Scotia caucus http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1035291.html.

It’s a wait and see approach.  Grits are willing to stay in Afghanistan on a non-combat mission as long as Layton accepts it.  At the same time, Harper needs to ensure that it is not an indefinite stay as Keith Martin pointed out on the Ivison article.
JimBobby, I expect kinder words from you today.  I understand your opposition to the Afghan mission.  But when our former PM gave Lizzie a nice endorsement, you should work together to make Stephane Dion a more authentic leader. The link is here.  http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/01/31/chretien-dion.html

Thanks.

12898. JimBobby said on January 31, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Yeah, Scott and Lizzie’s been tellin’ anyone who’ll listen that an ideal electoral outcome would be a Liberal minority with a smattering of Green MP’s. Endorsements are a two way street and there’s been ample traffic both ways on the May-Dion highway.

My convictions on war and on the futility of this mission do not waver when the Liberal leader says nice things about Elizabeth May. I’m a true blue GPC supporter and I appreciate any help M. Dion can provide. But I won’t give Dion a free ride on this vital international issue. The wrongheadedness of the mission is way more serious and important than political endorsements. When Dion admits the blunder of Canada getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place, I’ll be impressed with his leadership. We can’t make Dion a more authentic leader. He’ll do that himself.

JB

Leave A Reply

Go Back To Home Keep sticking to your position, Stephane. | Warning: More internal Liberal stuff - OYL Beyond forms.

 Username(*required)

 Email Address(*private)

 Website(*optional)

Subscribe without commenting

Please Note: comment moderation may be active, so there is no need to resubmit your comments