'This is the wrong mission for Canada,' Layton says

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060904.AFGHANLAYTON04/TPStory/

OTTAWA -- NDP Leader Jack Layton stepped up his call for Ottawa to pull its troops from Afghanistan after four more Canadian soldiers were killed fighting Taliban insurgents.

"This is the wrong mission for Canada," he said yesterday.

"It doesn't have light at the end of the tunnel," Mr. Layton said of the military operations, which have cost Canada the lives of 31 soldiers and one diplomat since 2002.

He said the New Democratic Party accepts that Canadian soldiers must risk their lives from time to time, but it cannot see any prospects of success in Afghanistan.

[JeffR]

1. He's right

eom

[orpupilofnature57]

2. An Honest assessment ,Imagine that?

[panader0]

3. Why any country would want to be on the side of the US

is beyond me. It'd be like having bush and Abramoff come help with your campaign.

[pretzel4gore]

4. so pigmedia ctv news' daily poll question was:

'does jack layton harm the troops?'
and naturally the majority said yes....
what a perverse culture we live in (!) :shrug:

[AlwaysQuestion]

6. Perverse is right!!

I know, weren't the results appalling?!! And CTV bringing out that parent of a dead soldier to give testimony that his son had died a good death. Whatta scam! And what a crazed parent!! Of course, isn't that just like the liberal media to pander to the lowest denominator of intellect. Yeah, like if my son were to die in an unjust war (the vast majority of wars ARE unjust), I'd claim he died a fool's death. Since he was a kid, I've told him repeatedly that war is fought by the plebes for the benefit of the rich and mighty. The promoters of war will say that if you love your country, you'll fight for it, but they will be telling you lies. You go to war and you go as a patsy of the rich. If there's ever a just war, I'll let you know, as in, I even have questions about WWII--but that's for another time.

Just as an aside, do you know that the banks around here who have tv sets in their lobbies have them set on CTV and never, ever CBC. Hmmmmm.

[pretzel4gore]

8. layton should raise issue of caring for wounded vets

for the rest of their lives, and the cost of paying for the families of the dead, not to mention the cost of the so called 'war' against a nation which has no army, airforce or even a recognised national police! note the numbers of wounded are never mentioned unless they wanna downplay the number of fatalitys...
if layton can't turn the tables on the nazipoohs with this issue, he'll betray everything....

[AlwaysQuestion]

10. Layton? Don't hold much stock in that one.

I don't have much faith in Layton. Hell, just like in the U.S., we don't have any electable leaders with sufficient smarts, morality (not to be confused with religion)spunk, and charisma to lead in a positive way. The corporate world is making damn sure of that.

I'm sorry but I think politics today is just a bloody high stakes chess game indulged in by the fairly well heeled using the great unwashed as pawns. I loathe the Conservatives, think the Liberals are only marginally better, and avow that the NDP lacks the guts to go after the good fight. As we all know, when a party is not the government it can advocate for and rally against any measure without facing the consequences or even honouring their much ballyhooed convictions when elected. Layton in my view is your average perennial politician who yaks a good deal but ends up accomplishing nothing. "It's all in the game." And he's been at it for y e a r s.

As I look into the future, I see no progressive leadership emerging. So get used to the body bags coming back; the veterans getting snookered out of benefits; and our overall social agenda tanking. The U.S. will fall on its own petard, and as they go, we will too. It is written.

Pessimist? No, but I'm a pretty good realist.

[w4rma]

16. I have no questions about the morality of

WW2. Not a single one. America was opposite the side of the corporate robber barons in that fight.

[AlwaysQuestion]

20. Really?

You might find this article interesting. I have many more sources just like it. My dad served overseas in WWII and he thought the war was a total waste of lives. We never learned a thing and the rarified few continue to use us to make billions for themselves. Until we en masse finally understand the extent to which we are used, we will continue to engage in the most diabolical act of man--WAR!

http://www.counterpunch.org/white01092003.html

[w4rma]

24. Really. I've read Smedley Butler's essay and he wasn't referring to WWII.

He was referring to many of the other little adventures that the military was sent to do.

[AlwaysQuestion]

29. Yes, really

"As Butler illustrated in 1933, and it is even truer now than then, the U.S. engages in interventions meant to protect the interests of the powerful and wealthy of our nation and our allies, and rarely, if ever, in order to actually protect its citizens."

What he's saying in this article is that the U.S. is not into war for humanitarian reasons but to aid and abet the upper upper echelons to get richer. That was just as true in WWII.

...and another interesting read

http://www.communitycurrency.org/BushCrimeFamily.html

Then this from the likes of a simple but analytical pastor..... with an Continuing Cycles of Debt and War

"But instead of peace and debt-free prosperity, we have ever-mounting debt and cyclical periods of war. We as a people are now ruled by a system of banking influence that has usurped the mantle of government, disguised itself as our legitimate government, and set about to pauperize and control our people.

It is now a centralized, all-powerful political apparatus whose main purposes are promoting war, confiscating the people's money, and propagandizing to perpetuate its power. Our two main political parties have become its servants, the various departments of government have become its spending agencies, and the Internal Revenue Service is its collection agency."

http://www.bigeye.com/bankers.htm

Who benefits most from Whatever War is the only question to ask. All the rest of the stuff, like fighting for one's country, being patriotic, supporting the troops, is all propaganda. The very fact that war has taught us absolutely nothing should also tell you that war is unproductive and serves no useful purpose except that which we assign to it. In short, war is contrived. All war, including WWII

[tuvor]

18. I believe you're mistaken. Here are their most recent polls.

From http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate

1. What do you think of a British film about the fictional assassination of U.S. President George Bush?
2. Be honest. Do you always wash your hands after using the toilet?
3. NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada should pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Do you agree?
4. Would you like to attend the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games?
5. Did Lakehead University make a mistake by poking fun at George W. Bush?
6. Do you think the JonBenet Ramsey murder will ever be solved?
7. Is the NASA space program worth the expense and risk?
8. Which Canadian are you most rooting for on Sunday night's Emmy telecast?
9. What do you think of the astronomers who stripped Pluto of its planetary status?
10. Now that Paramount has dropped him, what will happen with Tom Cruise's movie career?

Nothing there about Layton "harming the troops".

Perhaps you have a link to something that I missed.

[pretzel4gore]

32. i saw that too...

they doctored the wording of the poll they put up on the website: on tv, where you could ph in a vote the question was 'is jack layton harming the troops' and that's the truth.
you don't have to believe me, i looked at the list you posted right after the 'news at noon' poll, and tried to contact ctv. with no success. they are true pigs. obviously, such an evil question as they put up on tv would cause repercussions if brought to public att'n, so they wiggle around it by doctoring it. they are pigs, beneath contempt. when you watch them, you are watching the enemy
here sept 2nd column by toronto sun nazipooh michael coren, titled 'we should nuke iran'
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2006/09/02/1795183.html
snip>
Michael Coren Sat, September 2, 2006

We should nuke Iran

By MICHAEL COREN




It is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months -- if not weeks -- if we are to preserve world peace.

Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand.

The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war.

Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives

<snip

this is the mentality of the nazipoohs - they are terrorists, and anyone who credits them with any humane sense is a fukking goof....

[applegrove]

5. I resent very much that Canada went in with Nato cause of 9/11..

and then American troops farted off to Iraq. They never leave enough troops anywhere to actually try and win one of these things. I don't think any of our soldiers signed up for that. And neither did our government who had troops & ships on standby by noon on 9/11..just in case the USA needed them that day.

[AspenRose]

7. I agree. Canada: Get the HELL out....please!

Layton is right....

[Lisa]

9. another Canadian killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/04/afghanfriendly.html

"Two U.S. aircraft mistakenly fired on a Canadian platoon taking part in a massive anti-Taliban operation west of Kandahar on Monday, killing one soldier and injuring dozens of others."

[Pab Sungenis]

11. Layton may say that now....

...but HE's the one who put Stephen Baby-Eater Harper in power. The blood of every Canadian soldier is on his head, and his head alone.

If he's so concerned, let him pull his support out of the coalition, and force a vote of no confidence.

[Telly Savalas]

12. There's no fucking coalition.

Get your facts straight.

[Pab Sungenis]

13. There is.

Harper leads a minority government. He needs support from the NDP and the Bloc to get things done. There will be plenty of opportunities coming up for Layton to not just talk about the horrors of these wars, but do something about them.

[Telly Savalas]

14. Harper gets enough votes with just the Bloc.

And even then it has been made clear by all 4 parties that there are no coalitions. Things are being done on a vote-by-vote basis.

[laundry_queen]

17. My thoughts exactly.

I think he'd better put up or shut up (well, not really I'd like him to keep making such statements, but you all know what I mean).

[Telly Savalas]

34. By the way, Paul Martin was the guy that sent the troops there.

So even if you accept the ludicrous proposition that it's Layton's fault there's a Conservative government, it's irrelevant. Those troops would still be there even if the Liberals had won in January.

[Dems Will Win]

15. DRAFT ALERT COMING SOON!!!!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

19. I think its a shame that Afghanistan is being reconsidered

and its simply because of the clusterfuck of Iraq that it is such.

Had there been an even halfassed American attempt at pacifying that nation, it would have fucking been done. Osama and Zawahiri and whatever the fuck that one-eyed dude's name is: all of them should have been dead within 48 hours of 9/11 - if there was even an inkling of suspicion they were behind it. What the fuck do we even have satellites and cruise-missiles for if it takes us a full goddamn month to start attacking the people ostensibly involved in 9/11?

There is a full NATO compliment in Afghanistan, and still the Taliban thrives. In the end, it's because the US just wasn't committed to it. That's why its a self-fulfilling prophecy that we are now shedding allies in the one area we need them most.

Now, I know that there are going to be plenty of responses that attack my position. I understand that. I think its a big mistake to pull from Afghanistan. I don't however, considering the circumstances, blame the Canadians for those sentiments. I wouldn't want an ally like us, we're a goddamn albatross around andybody's neck at this point.

[NNN0LHI]

22. One question. What does "pacifying that nation" mean to you?

This is not meant to be a trick question. I just need to know what you mean before I try to respond to your post and I don't want to inadvertently put any words in your mouth.

Don

[SlavesandBulldozers]

23. not being a harbor for terrorists. economy not reliant

on black-market wares and organized crime. infrastructure.

[NNN0LHI]

25. Doing away with terrorism (ists) anywhere is like doing away with air

It can't be done. Its everywhere. You can drop bombs from now until doomsday and you are never going to eradicate terrorism. Actually dropping bombs is its own form of terrorism if you stop and think about it.

As for the other economic stuff you mention I find those commendable ideas.

But again that can't be done with bombs and guns either. It takes money. Lots of it. And we will never do what it takes to see that the money gets there. Even if we tried our corrupt bureaucracies would siphon off most the funds and put it into pockets of millionaires. Thats how it works. But you knew that.

Don

[SlavesandBulldozers]

26. yeah you can't defeat a tactic. absolutely.

you can certainly take away its breeding ground though. Afghanistan is a petri dish for it, and if we had leadership that cared to eliminate that petri dish we certainly could. But we don't. Quite the opposite in fact. But you knew that;)

[NNN0LHI]

27. I don't think we were looking for international terrorists in Afghanistan

Not any more than we were looking for WMDs in Iraq.

Before the invasion and occupation I stated that the people who were smart enough to pull off a 9/11 were certainly not going to be stupid enough to wait around in some cave in Afghanistan for the calvary to arrive.

I stand by that statement.

Don

[SlavesandBulldozers]

30. absolutely, but its clear that it was a harbor.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are in many ways, as you know, creations of the western mind (or lack thereof). Regardless, it would certainly be a good place to go to run into international terrorists. Which is why the Big Dog cruise missiled them every so often.

I wish the Democrats would ask serious strategic questions, in public, to the republicans. Such as why we won't pursue Public Enemy Number One (whose name is still not associated with 9-11 on the FBI website) into Pakistan. Ya know, dead or alive, with us or against us? Why is Bush kissing Saudi Princes when nearly all of the highjackers were Saudi? These kind of questions. Not because invading Pakistan is a good idea, but precisely because its a bad idea that Republicans won't pursue - when they pursue nearly every bad idea they have.

We know the answers to those questions, profit. But why not call the republicans on it?

I understand your sentiments, and we agree on most things I'm sure. I don't agree that an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was unnecessary. Nor do i bundle it with Iraq as a completely unnecessary cluster-f based wholly on profit.

[NNN0LHI]

38. Sending the military looking for the perchance terrorist is not the way

Our soldiers aren't trained to tell the difference between a terrorist and some Afghan man protecting his family. It is shoot first and ask questions later. And the "smart" bombs we drop on them can't tell the difference either.

Terrorist acts are crimes and need to be investigated and prosecuted as such. Otherwise we never know if we are killing terrorists or just some people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when our armys do what they does best. Destroy things.

Don

[mogster]

21. Interesting quote from the article

"This past May, the House of Commons voted by a slim margin to extend the mission in Afghanistan until February of 2009 -- a motion the NDP opposed."

February 2009. The war in Afghanistan started in 2001, that comes close to ten years of war. We're just as dumb as the Soviets.
They too invaded without proper support among the people of Afghanistan, and wanted a puppy government to take care of their interests. I agree with mister Layton; there's no light in the end of the tunnel. In fact, the tunnel's length is unknown, the twists and turns are unknown and there seems to be no other plan than 'fighting Al-Queda' - an org. that seems more in connection with Pakistan than Afghanistan these days, and an org. where the leaders seems to be under some sort of protection by the US and UK governments.

Ridiculous.

[boolean]

28. The Afghanistan mission was bullshit from the start

We all fell for it because 9/11 had happened so few weeks before. I, like many, fell for bush's rhetoric about fighting the terrorists "dead or alive" and all that nonsense. We were all very angry at what had happened back then, and we got duped.

Bush never intended to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. He just wanted to start military conflicts for his own personal gain. While I don't think the government conspired to create 9/11, I think that after it happened, they took full political advantage of it. It's why people supported Iraq.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

31. i don't think it was bullshit from the start.

in principle at least.

it did seem delayed, weak, and phoned-in. like they werre going thru the motions prepping for the big game which was wholly unrelated and based entirely on greed.

[pretzel4gore]

33. see, you can't be idealistic here.

you don't think the government mihoped 911, but believe this: there is only one entity on earth able to derive benefit from 911, who are also the only one able to engineeer a 911, and also able to blame someone else and get away with it. by the very fact he was named within days of 911 as the culprit exonerates osama bin laden(for 911 that is). the guilty party was the people pres. dwight eisenhower warned america about in his farewell speech - the usa military industrial complex.... it was elements of this that murdered jfk, that imposed ronald regan on the us as its c in c, and that staged 911.....you don't need to believe this; just keep it in mind when considering stuff that simply defies common sense, such as the war in iraq, or senator wellstone's death etc

[SlavesandBulldozers]

35. i haven't made my mind up.

i entertained the various theories for a while. I simply don't know, still searching and trying to learn. In many ways the "Hops" distract from incompetence, and serve as a distraction from criminal negligence in the very least.

Criminal negligence would be a good starting point. They never convicted Al Capone of murder or conspiracy to commit murder. They started small.

"the very fact he was named within days of 911 as the culprit exonerates osama bin laden". Please explain.

Couldn't the very people you talk about just as easily have used OBL, and done so without his knowledge?

By the way. 9-11 was no Wellstone plane, or JFK for that matter. The numbers of people involved, and thus the odds of the entire thing being blown wide open - were magnitudes greater. I'm not ruling out the possibility, TRUST ME, i wouldn't put anything past these people.

[pretzel4gore]

36. lookit 'jack the ripper'

'jack the ripper' was a serial killer of desperate women in 1880's london- he became famous in part because public literacy was becoming widespread at the time, and newspapers, called penny press, suddenly became very popular, and the jack the ripper story got going. the name 'jack/ripper' was, of course a media invention, but it captured the popular imagination. coupled with national horror at the living standards of the poor in london etc exposed by the story, well the story became very big, and remains big to this day....
the problem was, there never was a 'jack the ripper' case...the murderer, a guy named john druit, committed suicide in thames river 2 weeks following the kelly murder. he was insane. his family had suspected him (much of the detail of how the police id'd druit were 'lost' on purpose) and the top scotland yard investigators named druit in their private papers. however, druit was a public school boy, a member of the aristocracy. identifying him, as he was dead, didn't really gain anyone anything, and besides, class consciousness said it wouldn't look good: queen victoria was not amused by dragging the upper class into a sordid sex murder involving poor victims like the whitechapel murders. to put it bluntly, a whole lot of factors gelled to create the fiction we today know as 'jack the ripper'. and the passage of over a hundred years hasn't lessened the need for keeping up the fiction. the upper class twittery felt the 'legend' was harmless, lotsa people msde lotsa money on it, and 'history' was branded on the poor while the upper class whistled and winked at each other...
there was no conspiracy in the jack the ripper case, but the fact is, montague john druit is today mentioned only as a 'possible' suspect, and as recent as couple years ago, a uppper class twit named patricia cornwell wrote a doorstopper called 'case closed' etc that beats the dead horse some more....everybody has heard of 'saucy jack' but few suspect there never was a mystery.
case closed

[SlavesandBulldozers]

37. i understand.

there are also very distinct parallels with 9-11 and The Maine and the Spanish American War - and the Hearst media empire acting in league with the. . . well, you know the drill.

Except i didn't know that about Jack the Ripper;)