Apolitical Staples

The NDP drives me absolutely batty. Thank God they have no formidible chance of ever forming a government in this country.

On my blog, I thanked Jack for his advice..;)

Don’t forget that socialist saint J.S. Woodsworth was the only Member of Parliament to vote against fighting Nazism.

And the Canadian media has not helped the confusion by for years referring to soldiers synonymously as “peacekeepers” and calling that task their “traditional” role.

If you can’t understand that there are operations other than “peacekeeping” and “war,” then you might want to ask the CDS about it.

Gen. Hillier said recently that the terms “peacekeeping” and “war” are not useful when talking about Afghanistan, but you failed to accuse him of dishonesty.

I’d get on that, if I were you, or someone might suggest that you’re a little dishonest yourself….

Well - gotta hand it to Jack. He must have stones to go on the Adler show.

But beyond that the difference between peace keeping and peace making…

Maybe wonderdog can enlighten you - he seems to attack and evade pretty well.

Peace making is a term I have heard used since the Balkan crisis in the 90’s. It means going into an area that is actively tearing itself to pieces and enforcing the peace, with the credible threat of the use of force should anyone think of violating it. It is an uneasy middle ground between peacekeeping and war. At least, that is my understanding.

Oh the do gooder NDP. All is right with the world. Right…They still spout a philosophy born in the 1950’s. If Layton and his crew had the opportunity we would have no businesses operating in Canada, we would still be flower children, and everything would be sweetness and light. Layton needs to wake up to the realities of the world and start living in the 21st century. Thank God this protest party will never be the government of Canada. Get a life Jack!

No evasion here at all, Les.

Gen Hillier himself has said that “peacekeeping” and “war” are not particularly useful terms wrt Afghanistan.

However, Layton seems to be coming under fire here for attempting to define what they actually are doing as something other than “war,” and for attempting to define his position on what they should be doing.

Point is, quite simply, you can’t really criticize Layton for “playing politics” when the CDS himself can’t easily define the actual role of the CF in Afghanistan.

Greg’s opinion of what the CF should be doing is entirely valid, but the idea that the definitions are clear cut is not.

i think somebody should sit down with layton , maybe use a chalkboard or a comic book and then try explaining to him and everybody else that still doesn’t get it . we are at war jack . its what happens in the real world where there are people that try to impose their beliefs and their laws ,on other people that don’t want to live the way the imposers feel they should. some people , jack , go as far as flying planes into tall buildings in other countries to try and impose their will on other people . they are not nice people , jack . they don’t try and negotiate . they kill . kidnap , torture , blow up embassies all over the world , behead those that disagree or choose to follow a different religion or another way of life . i kind of like my way of life , jack, and i think we should help others to have a chance for the same thing .

john d…. bang on good post.

We are most definately at war. Have been for a while, and will continue to be for a long time. Whether people like it or not. Whether a lot of people believe it or not. Maybe, for some, the “first shot” was not airplanes crashing into buildings - but an axe blow to the head of someone extending the hand of friendship… Dragging these societies into the 21st century will not be quick or easy, but we have no choice but to do, or, sooner or later, die. I don’t like it. But I don’t see an easy way out.

Jack had better get his head around this, or get the hell out of the way.

This is just another example of the NDP not being able to articulate a position that resonates with the wildly divergent special interest groups that vote for them. They cant please both so they muddy the waters.

Skippy is being dishonest when he tries to play semantics with the whole issue. Putting a name on things is unimportant. The pacifist left was outraged when Nixon termed Viet Nam a “police action”, insisted it had to be called a war. That is what they want right now. Because if they can get this defined as a war they can oppose it and call for the soldiers to come home.

Afghanistan has no functioning government and is not stable without outside intervention. Any withdrawl of coalition forces would lead to the re-creation of the terrorist training camps that existed before. And that is not in anyone’s best interest. Except for maybe Bin Laden.

Okay, let’s see if I can follow you here, Colin….

Greg makes a post criticizing Layton for calling this something other than a war, which is exactly what Gen Hillier did.

I point out that Hillier said the same thing, and that Greg didn’t criticize him.

And I’m being dishonest?

Layton is criticized here for not calling this a war, while meanwhile the pro-war commenters insist on calling it one, and you come along and say that the anti-war movement wants to call it a war so they can complain about it … and I’m being dishonest?

Lots of people are playing semantics here, half-wit. I’m not one of them. The military has known for a long, long time that there are many things other than “peacekeeping” and “war.” There’s no point in trying to ram a square peg into a round hole here. Our participation in Afghanistan is neither peacekeeping nor war. Why is it dishonest to admit that fact?

I interpret Hellier as saying that it is both and more than that.

Oh, well, as long as he’s not engaging in semantics….

Dude, give your head a shake. I already corrected myself on Layton based on your suggestion. I had not read Hellier’s comments when I wrote my post. Once I read them I retracted.

What else do you want?

Our forces in Afghanistan are engaged in OOTW - operations other than war - which covers the spectrum of conflict from absolute peace at one end to a general high-intensity war at the other. Even during the latter, liberated and occupied territories have to be governed, fed, etc. Really, OOTW is just a nice way of avoiding using the “w” word, because there is the general expectation that one declares “w” and mobilizes for “w”. Some things are made easier, and unfortunately some harder, by not using “w”.

We are not at war with the current recognized legitimate government of Afghanistan. We are at war with the Taliban and its supporters.

Canadians seem to be engaged in a more friendly version of the ‘Dirty War’ phase of the South African War, 1899-1902, where the Canadian contigent helped the British gain control of the Transvaal and Orange Free States after offically annexing them.

This involved various duties, including ‘dirty’ tactics like burning farms and interning women and children (thousands died in concentration camps) [I do not refer this part to Afghanistan] BUT ALSO training police, enforcing ‘civilised’ law and order, and helping the new British friendly regime get up and going while crushing the resistance that remained.

“I am to believe that it was President Bush’s objective to be Iraq for a decade long war? Please!”

No, George thought (because Rummy, Condi and Wolfie told him) he would be out of Iraq in a year or two tops. At least the Harperites are being more realistic.

I knew you would go nuts over the Bush reference as I watched that. But, you have to admit, Layton was pretty sober about the whole thing and did not advocate a withdrawl from Afghanistan. His concern is that Canada have a say in this mission and not just blindly follow orders from Washington. You may not think that is a realistic concern, but it is real to a lot of people and it needs to be addressed.

“Dude, give your head a shake.”

Done. My brain cells are duly rearranged. I didn’t see that you’d updated your post. That’ll teach me to shoot first and read later.

I will now return to the doghouse to do what dogs do in private.

Unfortunately, the Afghan mission may prove to be a wedge issue for the NDP. If all the other parties support our just cause in the Middle East, and he opposes it, he stands to make a political win.

James, how do you figure that Jack wins? Maybe it’s late & I’m braindead, but I’m not following your logic that this particular wedge issue will be a win for Jack.

Now that the NDP holds no balance of power, we should give Layton’s comments the weight they deserve.

Jack is marginalised in terms of his numbers, and his latest are just confirmation of why he deserves the status of a powerless fringe player rather than a serious contender.

Jack Layton is a self-serving idiot!!! Anyone who can’t see that needs to see an optomistrist right away. Or, a shrink.

The debate shouldn’t be about Afganistan, we need to finish what we began there.

If we want debate, debate Canada’s foriegn policy. What kinds of things do we stand up against? What values do we fight for and send our young women and men to die for? What is the line in the sand for Canada? Are we selfish, isolated Canadians who only want to defend our borders and never want to venture into other countries? Do we send soldiers only to foriegn countries if we can be guaranteed the fighting will cease in 1 year? Do we help other countries with their fight for freedom and democracy only if Bush hasn’t suggested it’s a good idea?

There should be some clear policy that says if these conditions exist - we go, if they don’t we stay home.

If debate in the house could be non partisan(which Layton has clearly demonstrated it can’t), with an honest attempt for a strong and well thought out foreign policy then let’s wait for parliment to resume and have it. It isn’t about Afganistan. The words Afganistan shouldn’t even come up in the debate.