After the recent deaths, the opposition Liberal Party, which was in power when Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan, introduced a motion in Parliament calling on the government to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan when the current commitment expires in February 2009.
[...]
The Liberal and separatist Bloc Québécois parties are expected to support the nonbinding motion, but without the support of the third opposition party, the New Democratic Party, it is expected to fail.
I must have missed this, but if true its a real puker. Now, it looks like the Dippers will try to cover the fact that they're propping up the Harper regime by demanding an immediate withdrawal, and claiming that anything less is unacceptable. But of course, since an immediate withdrawal is impractical, dishonorable and just generally ain't gonna happen, this choice is entirely illusory. 2009 is the first realistic date, and Jack Layton is ready to reject it to, what, spare Stephen Harper some embarrassment?
God these guys have become a disappointment under Layton. Anyone for a "draft Ed Broadbent again" movement? How about a "draft Alexa' movement? Anything but what we have now.
14 comments:
Ah, but no amount of dead Canadians or Afghanis or pointless military quagmires compares to Layton's virtuousness.
Yes, Mr. Say Anything Jack. He horrified that Harper would cause Canada want to back out of a commitment like Kyoto and embarrass our country, BUT, hey, it's OK to back out of a commitment in Afghanistan.
So, what is it Jack? Do Canadians honour their commitments or not?
www.draftblaikie.ca anyone?
I love how the Times aptly points out that Liberals want to withdraw because there are casualties.
Are we only in favor of wars where only the enemy dies?
Antonio,
We are against wars that appear to be open ended invitation to spill Canadian blood and money. I'd be interested in knowing how many casualties/billions you are willing to spend before your willing to close the book on this whole disaster? As many as it takes to "do the job"? So, like, an infinite amount? Because the job looks like it will take forever.
No, in 2009 we will have been fighting that war for as long as WWII lasted. At that point, I say bring 'em home.
Have Canadian ever been in a full-out war where so little blood has been spilled on our side? Where the blood spilled has been so lopsided in our favour? I am very serious about those questions. It seems to me that we have lost all memory of prior wars and a perspective on what is happening in Afghanistan.
Criminals are never going to stop killing police officers, but we have decided that there is something important and valuable in society hiring and paying for humans to risk that sacrifice for the greater good of other Canadians.
If Canadians decide that the greater good is not served by having an endless war in Afghanistan, then we should pull out at that time.
But the mere fact that it could be endless or that there could be lots of deaths, to me, is not a solid rationale for pulling out once the war is engaged.
Ted,
1) the body counts on the Taliban side are not reliable.
2) We accepted major casualties in earlier times because major things were at stake. No matter how its spun, the Taliban are not Hitler and Afghanistan is not Nazi Germany. Insofar as there are legitimate reasons for being over there, denying a base to Al Qaeda, lets say, then as long as 1,000 miles of border with Pakistan can't be closed, we are not getting close to accomplishing these goals.
3) The only way to know for certain that we are in a never ending war is to wait forever. I don't see Canadians as being up for that.
Layton is an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere.
Appreciate your thoughts Cerberus... well said.
Lemme get this straight ...
Does Jack realize that the result of his vote could be that the tropps stay there 2 years LONGER?
it would appear that the ndp are wiiflully constructing their own demise...wtf??? the "borrowed votes" from the last election will be returned to sender faster than you can say the ndp is completely and utterly irrelevant. gee, i wonder why bill blaikie, someone who always put principle before partisanship, retired???
antonio:
"I love how the Times aptly points out that Liberals want to withdraw because there are casualties."
i love how antonio aptly misreads what the times explicitly printed:
"After the recent deaths, the opposition Liberal Party, which was in power when Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan, introduced a motion in Parliament calling on the government to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan when the current commitment expires in February 2009."
i.e. not "because" of casualties, but "after" the recent casualties, the liberals introduced a motion...sheesh, my three year old cousin has better reading comprehension.
as far as staying in kandahar after 2009...why??? why would we not rotate out of kandahar and assume a different mission in a different region??? you know, one where we might have a chance at succesfully accomplishing something; you know, somewhere where we could engage in reconstruction and not solely combat operations. the current mission is beyond folly, signalling to NATO that we are not willing to remain in a combat role without a chance of success is important. time for our allies to get involved in the muck.
Not surprised.
The NDP has been reduced to nit picking service charges as a reason to exist.
War?
Don't bother the NDP with such nonsense but if you hate that $6.95 system access fee on your cell phone, give Jack a call.
FACT: Canada wouldn't be in Kandahar if it hadn't been for the Liberal cabinet of which Dion was a part having sent us there.
FACT: If it hadn't been for Liberals voting with Harper, we could have been out of the war-fighting mission two months ago.
FACT: If Liberals want to be out of Afghanistan, don't take it out on Jack Layton, talk to Ray Bonin, John Cannis, Raymond Chan, Irwin Cotler, John Godfrey, Ralph Goodale, Charles Hubbard, Jim Karygiannis, Paul Martin, Lucienne Robillard and Byron Wilfert and ask them what they were doing in May 2006 that was more important than voting end our war-fighting mission two months ago.
FACT: The Liberal Party has flip-flopped on this mission twice.
The difference between the NDP and the new Liberal position is only that the NDP has been consistant: It's time to change Canada's mission now, not on Stephen Harper's timetable that the Liberals continue to support.
Blogging Horse,
That last bit makes no sense. We're not pulling out now. We just aren't. We made a commitment to NATO and no one's going to renege on that (no one who can form a government anyway). This whole "We won't vote to end the mission in 2009, because we want to end the mission now" argument is idiotic. I support the mission, and don't want to artificially decide that it ends in 2009, and must do so, but for people who want the mission to end today, to vote against a bill meant to ensure the mission doesn't continue beyond its current schedule is the height of idiocy.
If you want troops out, start by passing a bill that gets them out in 2009, when the current commitment ends. A bill that can actually pass. A bill that isn't hopelessly meaningless. If you want to later try to push that date forward, go for it. It'll be as meaningless an endeavour as it is now, but at least you'll have established that the troops are coming out in 2009, when the current mission ends, no matter what.
I guarantee at some point NATO is going to ask us to extend the mission, or sign on for a new one, and (apparently) thanks to the NDP, there won't be a bill passed by Parliament already putting the kybash on such an extension. The NDP are refusing to fight a battle because they only care about the whole war! It's like Eisenhower refusing to invade France because the goal is to invade Germany!
If the bill fails because of the NDP, then when the negotiations to extend the mission beyond 2009 start up I hope Jack can still look himself in the mirror. Somebody needs to tell Layton he needs to focus on the battles he can win. Or at the very least that sabotaging the battles you can win, in favour of battles you can't is moronic.
Post a Comment