Populism Sucks The Big One
I wont call the Canadian public stupid. They are not stupid.
But does the entire Canadian population understand that negotiating with the Taliban is tantamount to validating what they are doing? I don’t think so.
With all the bullshit being hurled by people from all corners on the Afghan mission, it’s no wonder Canadians misunderstand what is going on.
Negotiations require good faith. Since they took over the country 10 years ago, the Taliban have not showed any good faith even when their rule was unopposed. They refused to participate in any international negotiations even when they were the de facto rulers of Afghanistan.
And even though the NDP track record on good faith is worse than the Taliban’s, if peace were to be brokered, Canadians would still have to stay there to help maintain it.
Here is a summary of everybody’s position. (I have issues with all 4 to varying degrees)
CPC: (The Neocon) You either support everything we say or you are a terrorist.
Liberal: (The Pussy) We only like missions where we do not have to risk anything.
Bloc: (The Irrelevant) What does the polling say? Quebecers want to separate from a country that supports a war we once supported!
NDP: (The Populist Nonsensical Superpussy) We have no business bringing peace to Afghans because Canadians don’t want it. We like Darfur. We will only like it until we can gain a political advantage by opposing it. Elizabeth May is a terrorist.
We need to educate people about how things work in Afghanistan. People need to own up to mistakes and we need to show solidarity. We have Canadian soldiers risking their lives in the field while the 4 parties play a stupid chess match with each other. In 2001 when we sent soldiers to Afghanistan, the parties were unanimously in favor. It seems we may never see that kind of solidarity again.
par / by Anthony à / at 5:47 p.m.
66 Commentaires:
What complete and utter nonsense.
All wars end. No war lasts forever. At the conclusion of wars (at least the ones that are not complete routs where unconditional surrender occurs) THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME TYPE OF TALKS TO BRING THE CONFLICT TO A CONCLUSION.
Vietnam went on and on and on and eventually there were the Paris peace talks that contributed to bringing the mattter to an end.
Layton advocated bringing talks in Afghaninstan up front to try and end a prolonged conflict - as is now occuring - where resolution is NOT going to be found on the battle field.
For that, he was called 'Taliban Jack' and I spit in the eye of those right wing Liberals who joined their ideological pals in the Conservative Party of Canada by doing so!!!!!
"But does the entire Canadian population understand that negotiating with the Taliban is tantamount to validating what they are doing?"
Antonio, you do realize the Afghan Senate, and Karzai himself, have advocated "negotiating" with the Taliban. Karzai even went as far as offering amnesty to Afghan Taliban fighters. All this poll shows, we are on the same page as the Afghan government.
yes they were offered amnesty AND THEY KEPT BOMBING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
what more can really be offered
Buck,
Here's the deal though: pointing out that there are "always some types of talks to bring the conflict to a conclusion" (even in your trademark capital yelling style), in no way supports the suggestion that where one ruling party is not willing to "bring the conflict to a conclusion" that negotiations will somehow convince them. Right?
I mean, I hate to use a world war II analogy, but simply saying that "THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME TYPE OF TALKS TO BRING THE CONFLICT TO A CONCLUSION" does not mean that negotiating with Hitler would somehow have been the most propitious course for the Allies to take in 1942 (or 1938, for that matter).
You understand this, right? Just because talks may be necessary at some point, does not mean they are sufficient at any point.
Explain to everyone here what we can plausibly expect to be the outcomes of such negotiations at this point, and perhaps people will listen. So long as Jack and his comrades suggest that negotiations are inherently good and thus inherently likely to succeed, without making an argument as to what we can reasonably expect to be the acceptable outcomes to such negotiations (eg. anything but a return to Taliban rule) people will ignore him (and you).
Steve,
Antonio, you do realize the Afghan Senate, and Karzai himself, have advocated "negotiating" with the Taliban. Karzai even went as far as offering amnesty to Afghan Taliban fighters. All this poll shows, we are on the same page as the Afghan government.
In fact, this (offering amnesty to Afghan Taliban fighters) has been an offer given to Taliban fighters since 2003, which many have taken advantage of. It isn't new. Little good it has done, which isn't to say the offer should be revoked, just to suggest it is not likely to be the solution to anything. In fact, it doesn't represent negotiation in any real sense of the term.
If "negotiating" as you suggest it, is just a trumped up word for "capitulation" - which is what amnesty in return for forsaking the Taliban cause amounts to - than most people would be all for it. However, this of course begs the question as to why, if such a deal is available and has been since 2003, we can expect that a new round of Layton run negotiations to somehow solve everyones problems. So long as "negotiation" with the Taliban is presented as some sort of fix all solution, making military force and security completely superfluous, people will continue to laugh at the suggestion. Should the Afghan government present "negotiations of Taliban capitulation" as an option (which they have for years)? Of course. Should a Canadian political party present "negotiations with those unwilling to capitulate" as a reasonable alternative in an effort to prevent a Taliban resurgence? Not if they want to sound lucid, no.
Once again Antonio, you're a rare voice of reason.
Olaf
It might not be new, although the Afghan Senate asking coalition forces to stop hunting Taliban surely is another step.
The point, isn't whether the Taliban have been receptive, but the fact that the government recognizes that some sort of negotiated settlement is the only endgame. If the Karzai government doesn't see a military solution, it begs the question, why are NATO forces touring the south, looking for Taliban, in the hopes of "eradicating"? There is a disconnect there.
Let's see ... am I surprised that an unabashed Conservative Party / Harper supporter is posting in defense of the right wing opinion articulated here on this topic ... nope.
Steve,
The point, isn't whether the Taliban have been receptive, but the fact that the government recognizes that some sort of negotiated settlement is the only endgame. If the Karzai government doesn't see a military solution, it begs the question, why are NATO forces touring the south, looking for Taliban, in the hopes of "eradicating"?
Eradicating those who are waiting in the wings to blow up a school, plant IEDs for convoys, kill women who are without proper dress, etc. Not "eradicating" those who are coming to the government to "negotiate" their surrender. You make it sound like NATO forces are going after the Taliban, and then after the Taliban gives up, they're being "eradicated" anyways out of spite.
And by the way, this "there is no military solution" line is getting so old. NO ONE in their right mind thinks there is a single military solution. NO ONE. Even Stephen Harper has said on countless occasions that there is no "military solution" (for example, in his first speech to the UN general assembly). However, this shouldn't be construed to mean that military security is unnecessary as part of a broader solution.
Here's an analogy that may help: say if you're shot (God forbid!), and a doctor remarks that there is no superficial solution, and that surgery is necessary. Then, the nurse treating you, decides not to dress your wounds, stop the bleeding, or attend to the situation in any way because it's not a "solution". Then you die. End scene.
I know, a bit dramatic - I just needed to ram home the point that just because it's not a solution in itself, doesn't mean that keeping the Taliban at bay militarily while other NATO forces attempt to bring security and development to the rest of the country is somehow a worthless objective. It's not the ultimate objective, and it's not sufficient, but it is (in my opinion) necessary to any comprehensive plan.
I could be wrong. Maybe Buckdog is right, and the nurse should try to negotiate the bullet out of the body. But that would take an extremely compelling and convincing nurse. Jack Layton, perhaps?
Buck,
Let's see ... am I surprised that an unabashed Conservative Party / Harper supporter is posting in defense of the right wing opinion articulated here on this topic ... nope.
Let's see... am I surprised that when confronted with reasonable critique of his overly simplistic opinion that an unabashed NDP/Layton supporter should ignore that criticism of the left wing position altogether and instead choose to exaggerate any minor ideological connection I should have with the CPC as a way of deflecting said criticism as somehow invalid... nope.
Olaf ... isn't there some sort of Conservative Party of Canada meeting going on somewhere in Calgary tonight that you should be attending????
I have yet to read the comments yet, but Antonio, tell me who you think the Taliban are, then a discussion can be had.
Buck,
Is it not embarrassing to be squarely confronted on the position that you hold so righteously, only to continue in shameless obfuscation and blatant misdirection in order to avoid like grim death actually defending that position?
And by the way, even if I did miss a meeting, I get a daily talking points memo from the PMO, so I should be ok.
The taliban are a group of people who are dedicated to enforcing a very strict interpretation of the Quran on the people of Afghanistan. they are willing to use violence to achieve their ends and have done so since 1997.
As mentioned in the post, nothing they have done, before or after they were removed from power, shows that any deal made with them would be solid.
They are terrorists in the purest sense of the word because they use fear to achieve their goal which is to control.
I hope I answered your question adequately enough knb.
"And by the way, this "there is no military solution" line is getting so old. NO ONE in their right mind thinks there is a single military solution. NO ONE. Even Stephen Harper has said on countless occasions that there is no "military solution""
Harper, O'Connor and everyone else can say that, but given the fact they still endorse a 10/1 military expenditure the facts suggest otherwise.
Olaf
Speaking of old, Conservatives re-hashing all the Bushisms everytime someone questions the mission or justifications. Talk about tired, not to mention unoriginal.
I agree with the first sentence of the first comment: this post is complete and utter nonsense -- imperial, warmongering, white-man's-burden-y nonsense, as a matter of fact.
And, oooooh, it uses schoolboy misogyny (as in, "I will denigrate you by feminizing you, via labelling you an anotomical part that only women have") to score some points! How super progressive and smart and cool!
Steve,
Harper, O'Connor and everyone else can say that, but given the fact they still endorse a 10/1 military expenditure the facts suggest otherwise.
This is also a gutless point. Our current task, as part of a larger NATO mission, is largely military. Indeed, it is a crucial task that few countries are willing to play. Every NATO country (some 30 of them) that is in Afghanistan right now, other than the States, Britain, the Dutch, Estonia and Canada in the South, are at liberty to spend 70% or 80% of their budget on reconstruction, precisely because those countries in the South are fighting to keep the Taliban at bay. Right? Canada isn't the only nation partaking in the larger mission, so to somehow suggest that our expenditures should be more balanced is simply to ignore the specific (mainly combat) role Canadian soldiers are playing, as part of a larger mission. If you want to dig up the facts that show the mission as a whole is unbalanced, instead of our single part of that mission in which we have a single purpose (which one would assume would be tilted towards that specific purpose), then go ahead.
Speaking of old, Conservatives re-hashing all the Bushisms everytime someone questions the mission or justifications. Talk about tired, not to mention unoriginal.
True enough, and I cringe every time they do. But two wrongs (as in you rehashing tired, repudiated Laytonisms) isn't much better.
does the entire Canadian population understand that negotiating with the Taliban is tantamount to validating what they are doing
What a strange idea. With whom would the actions of the Taliban be 'validated' once negotiations take place?
I'm not really sure I get the "populism" part of the title, Antonio. How is populism associated with 2/3 of the Canadian people apparently wanting to negotiate an end to the Afghan conflict?
Mario Dumont MIGHT be advocating negotiations with the Taliban as well (though you'd know better then I would) but that doesn't necessarily make the desire to negotiate "populist".
Olaf ... give it up. Your endless attempts to put a kinder gentler face on the crap that is Harperism and Bushism is so old and pathetic. Who teaches you pol-sc at the University of Calgary ... Professor Preston Manning??
Buck,
Your endless attempts to put a kinder gentler face on the crap that is Harperism and Bushism is so old and pathetic. Who teaches you pol-sc at the University of Calgary ... Professor Preston Manning??
At least I'm willing to defend my position. Indeed, if it was such easily obliterated neo-con rubbish, one would think you'd jump at the chance to prove me so utterly incompetent.
Instead, your unwillingness to make any argument at all seems less and less a sign of confidence in your convictions and more and more a sign of the fact that you know as a good pacifist leftist you're supposed to think something, but aren't quite sure why...
If by “stupid” it can be said to mean “horribly uninformed and/or misinformed” then I will happily call the Canadian public stupid, because that’s what I believe to be the case here. You might as well ask about their thoughts on capital gains taxes or quantum physics; subjects that would probably elicit equally worthless opinions. Polls such as this are singularly unhelpful and provide no insight whatsoever other than to confirm that people are inclined to assume that “negotiation” is a good thing simply by virtue of how we generally regard that word in a positive light.
lol @ "Who teaches you pol-sc at the University of Calgary ... Professor Preston Manning??"
Olaf said, "At least I'm willing to defend my position. Indeed, if it was such easily obliterated neo-con rubbish, one would think you'd jump at the chance to prove me so utterly incompetent."
Olaf you miss the point of this whole debate, and that is that the VAST majority of Canadians have agreed with the position that Layton articluated last year. It is you who has to justify your right wing ideology to the majority of Canadians. All of your university talk in this post is simply that, university talk from the faculty of political science, university of calgary.
It is right wing rubbish.
And back to Antonio ... look who is here on your site defending your position ....
Buck,
You're missing the point, in that I did defend my position, which is that you are wrong, by way of criticizing yours - criticism which you ignored. You expressed an opinion, I said why I think it's not reasonable, which would make it your turn to either elaborate on why it is reasonable, or say why my criticisms are unreasonable.
Why do I feel like I'm teaching a debating class for dummies here?
Befoer you get too NDP^w arrogant on us Dog, perhaps you could address Olaf's point here:
"I mean, I hate to use a world war II analogy, but simply saying that "THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME TYPE OF TALKS TO BRING THE CONFLICT TO A CONCLUSION" does not mean that negotiating with Hitler would somehow have been the most propitious course for the Allies to take in 1942 (or 1938, for that matter).
Just because talks may be necessary at some point, does not mean they are sufficient at any point."
Hmmm?
Cheers,
lance
Yes indeed boys, like the title of this post states, Populism Sucks The Big One when the Canadian people reject right wing thinking, right wing ideology, and right wing strategies to manipulate said public opinion.
I hope I answered your question adequately enough knb.
Antonio, you did in a sense, because you answered precisely as I think many Canadians would.
The Taliban, however, is not one unit. It is no longer what we saw being deposed after 9/11. It's morphed. Expanded in a way that need not be threatening.
Those who sought to implement "life according to the Qu'ran", as they see it and kill all who don't...of course, these are not who we negotiate with.
The Taliban is now a group that we lump many citizens into. There are farmers and just locals, who only know what the old Taliban, hardcore, tell them.
The Taliban, is a very small group, they have enticed those who they know cannot defend themselves to be anything but that. These are normal folks, without education, who only know their rural sense of being, modesty and all of that, then they are asked to choose. Immoral westernism or modesty and us? They only have one frame of reference.
Then we have warlords.
I'll stop now, but this is not a homogeneous group, out to kill democracy.
There are reasonable factions that must be spoken to/with.
To misunderstand that, is to miss it completely.
And even though the NDP track record on good faith is worse than the Taliban’s
A bit over the top, n'est pas?
Buck,
Yes indeed boys, like the title of this post states, Populism Sucks The Big One when the Canadian people reject right wing thinking, right wing ideology, and right wing strategies to manipulate said public opinion.
Was that even a coherent response? All I got out of it was that you don't like "right wing" people, which isn't really an argument supporting negotiations with the Taliban. If you don't have a point worth defending, that's fine - no one will think the less of you for it.
I swear to God, what if a reasonable NDPer substantively challenged your position? Would your head explode without your trusty "you're just a dumb conservative" fall back? What could you possibly say in response, considering that your arsenal seems to consist exclusively of "you would say that, you crazy Preston W. Reagan-Stalin-Hitler right wing warmongering jerk!"
Actually, I know exactly what you'd say to an NDP critic: instead of defending the validity of your position (God forbid!), you'd say "hey, shut up, you sound just like a crazy neo-con Preston W. Reagan-Stalin-Hitler right wing warmongering jerk!"
Ha! It always works! Never shall Buckdog deign to defend a position! All he has to do is express it, and then denigrate his opponents by virtue of their political ideology while ignoring the substance of their criticism! So much more convincing then that stupid Bush who only attempts to denigrate his opponents by virtue of their political ideology while ignoring the substance of their criticism.
Oh... wait...
Attacking me, and pandering your pathetic arguments does not change the essential point of this thread. The majority of Canadians do not agree with your war mongering right wing ideology. Period.
I am not the issue. The way that I choose (or do not choose) to engage you in your smokescreen arguments is not the issue.
The issue is what the majority of Canadians believe on the topic of Afghanistan.
You are using a well oiled right wing technique to attempt to deflect from reality. (which a lot of right wingers are good at anyways).
Too bad.
You have lost the argument.
Antonio, do you still stand by this statement that you made in opening this post,
"And even though the NDP track record on good faith is worse than the Taliban’s, if peace were to be brokered, Canadians would still have to stay there to help maintain it."
?????????
Buck,
The issue is what the majority of Canadians believe on the topic of Afghanistan.
You are using a well oiled right wing technique to attempt to deflect from reality. (which a lot of right wingers are good at anyways).
Too bad.
You have lost the argument.
Ok, so we're assuming that the majority of Canadians are necessarily right? In which case, when can I expect you to renounce your NDP membership? I mean, Canadian's have been quite clear over the past 40 years (not just on one single poll), on polls that actually matter (I call them "elections") that the NDP has and will never be their choice for federal government.
Indeed, at least 32% of Canadians thought that negotiation with the Taliban was a "bad idea". When's the last time even 32% of Canadians thought an NDP government was a "good idea"? You boys in orange are currently polling at half that...
In your own words: You have lost the argument.
Once again in your trademark yelling capitals, in case you've missed it: YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT.
Owch, eh? Just owch... I almost feel bad, because that was too easy... and yet, I feel really good. Go figure.
Olaf, your authoritarian roots are showing.
You said, "Ok, so we're assuming that the majority of Canadians are necessarily right?" YES - IT'S CALLED DEMOCRACY!!!!!
You said, "In which case, when can I expect you to renounce your NDP membership?" NO IT'S CALLED 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' - AN ESSENTIAL TENENT OF DEMOCRACY
Your views are deranged. You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself on this post.
olaf
"This is also a gutless point."
You and I have argued the "re-balance" theme before, it's a little more involved than the cute dismissal. I will add, the government have recently moved Canadian soldiers from the field to training the Afghan army, with the goal of exit in mind. As you well know Olaf, I have been arguing this point since we first started debating. Training the Afghan army and police force should be THE primary focus.
RT
"If by “stupid” it can be said to mean “horribly uninformed and/or misinformed” then I will happily call the Canadian public stupid, because that’s what I believe to be the case here. You might as well ask about their thoughts on capital gains taxes or quantum physics; subjects that would probably elicit equally worthless opinions. Polls such as this are singularly unhelpful and provide no insight whatsoever"
For proof of the above, the Darfur poll released today supports the thesis. Not exactly an issue on the everyone's mind, yet only 6% had no opinion.
Buck,
Olaf, your authoritarian roots are showing.
You said, "Ok, so we're assuming that the majority of Canadians are necessarily right?" YES - IT'S CALLED DEMOCRACY!!!!!
You said, "In which case, when can I expect you to renounce your NDP membership?" NO IT'S CALLED 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' - AN ESSENTIAL TENENT OF DEMOCRACY
I'm not attempting to stifle anyones opinion or preclude their freedom of speech, so I don't know how you came up with that. Unless, of course, you're insane, which is becoming more and more an appealing explanation.
All I'm saying, is that if by your own logic you can say with complete confidence (without defending your position) based on a single poll by the Strategic Counsel, that I "have lost the argument" on negotiating with the Taliban issue, then SURELY, I can say with even more extreme certitude based on elections over the past 40 years that you "have lost the argument" on the best party to run the Canadian government.
It's your logic Buck. You just got hosed. That you're willing to try to spin this as my own deficiency is stunning but surprisingly endearing. Poor fella... still supports the NDP... God bless 'em!
Can someone please back me up?
Dick Cheney backs you up, I'm sure. So would George Bush if he were aware of this post.
Surely Stephen Harper would back you up.
I am also quite sure that Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day back you up as well.
I am absolutely positive positive that Rob Anders and Preston Manning are in total agreement with you.
Move along folks, nothing to see here .........
Steve,
You and I have argued the "re-balance" theme before, it's a little more involved than the cute dismissal. I will add, the government have recently moved Canadian soldiers from the field to training the Afghan army, with the goal of exit in mind. As you well know Olaf, I have been arguing this point since we first started debating. Training the Afghan army and police force should be THE primary focus.
I'm glad you thought my dismissal was "cute", however I still think it was worthy of comment, which I actually provided. Surely you read past that, where I made this point, which went slightly beyond a cute dismissal:
Our current task, as part of a larger NATO mission, is largely military. Indeed, it is a crucial task that few countries are willing to play. Every NATO country (some 30 of them) that is in Afghanistan right now, other than the States, Britain, the Dutch, Estonia and Canada in the South, are at liberty to spend 70% or 80% of their budget on reconstruction, precisely because those countries in the South are fighting to keep the Taliban at bay. Right? Canada isn't the only nation partaking in the larger mission, so to somehow suggest that our expenditures should be more balanced is simply to ignore the specific (mainly combat) role Canadian soldiers are playing, as part of a larger mission. If you want to dig up the facts that show the mission as a whole is unbalanced, instead of our single part of that mission in which we have a single purpose (which one would assume would be tilted towards that specific purpose), then go ahead.
Again, if you want to make this argument, I'm all ears.
I am aware of your general position, and I think on some levels (eg. the importance of investing more generally, and investing in the Afghan policy/military in particular) we agree. However, if you're gonna play Layton's $1 for humanitarian efforts to $9 military efforts card as if there was no broader mission involved, without providing any context (eg. that we are one of the few countries in a largely military role in a broad and largely reconstructive 30+ country NATO mission), then I'd have to clarify the record.
By the way, as to Darfur, great point. The funny thing is, that you'll see NDP supporters (Bob McClelland being one example) who constantly rail against the Afghan mission, and yet criticizes the Canadian government for not intervening in Darfur, as if that were a simple and easily dealt with conflict. Anyways...
Buck,
You're an unbelievable caricature... while you criticize the "right" as one homogeneous mindset unable to support their ludicrous opinions, you're the one with the ability to prove them wrong, and shamelessly decline.
I hate to say it, but on this issue, you're a joke. I'm not saying that no one can argue against it, just that you are obviously incapable. I'd give up.
Olaf ... you seem to have lost your way to the Blogging Tories site ... or maybe not.
Haha,
Ok, at this point, I'll assume you're just trying to drive me bonkers, and leave it at that. If you actually believe what you say is true, and want to defend that position, please contact me Buck.
incoming snark...
Does the Taliban have a better good-faith record than the NDP?
Neither have any credibility and the NDP has been around longer...so I stand by what i said.
Any deal with the NDP is not worth the paper it is written on. Same goes for the Taliban.
The NDP makes backroom deals in hotel rooms to save governments they deem corrupt (seriously no principles) but then when others make backroom deals its an affront to democracy. It's a sad sad story.
The Taliban are mean mean people but in terms of who can you trust, the answer is neither of them...
I have absolutely NO desire to contact you.
I came here to discuss with Antonio some things he said that I found offensive.
You came along at that point with your right wing text book idealism and made his arguments for him.
This site DOES warrant membership in the Blogging Tories!
Olaf
You know I don't support the Layton position, as a matter of fact I find it quite hypocritical, given the "international obligations" angle he plays, as it relates to Kyoto. You don't get to pick and choose your obligations.
BTW, I did read the rest, but the line I cited was quite "cute" :)
The bottom line is this: if Karzai, the leader of a (supposedly) democratic government, wants to talk to the Taliban, he will. That's his right. End of story.
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
Buck,
I have absolutely NO desire to contact you.
I still can't tell if you're kidding, but if you're not, consider me utterly unsurprised. Because contacting me, or actually responding to my criticisms, would involve actually defending you opinion, which you apparently have no interest in doing, despite the thrashing I've given you (especially with the "you've lost the argument" based on a majority of Canadians disagreeing... which was a hilarious set up, thanks by the way).
Good luck to you.
leftdog I am a Liberal and I am damn proud of it.
I have posted why MANY times, and just because I believe in the very liberal (small l) concept of interventionism, does not make me a Conservative.
We went in there with the support of all parties to get rid of this regime. If we are not careful, they will come back. If the NDP had their way with immediate withdrawal, the Taliban would come back.
I would like to see a dipper pick apart that point.
And, btw, Canada and NATO have been holding secret talks with the Taliban since last fall (if not sooner).
Antonio, check your Canadian political history. Over the years the NDP has propped up Liberal minorities numerous time.
Your grievences do not reflect that history. I live in a province that had a 4 year Liberal / NDP coalition government from 1999 - 2003. It worked quite well and kept right wingers in oppositon.
If Dion wins a minority, would you not want the NDP to prop him up so he can work a minority?
Your outright hatred of the NDP is totally out of sync with history and reality.
You should be a bit more diplomatic, because some day, my guys may prop up your guys.
To equate the NDP with the Taliban is fucking outrageous!
just on levels of trust leftdog
i dont trust either of them at all
thats an equal level...
This comment has been removed by the author.
(previous post hat typo)
Antonio, that is NOT good enough.
You don't 'trust' the NDP - huh - ??? you maybe want to open that up a bit, because there is no bloody way Dion will get a majority next election - a minority perhaps and then you better hope my guys don't feel as pissed off at you as I do.
The Taliban is much worse leftdog...
dont get me wrong
they are terrorists who kill people to uphold their strict reading of the Quran, in terms of evil the Taliban is far worse.
In terms of trust level, I dont trust either of them, just like I dont trust the Bloc or the PQ.
The NDP are driven by their own interests at all times, meaning they dont do people any favors. The second it is in the interest of the NDP to stab someone in the back they will and they have.
And the Liberals are any different???
The Liberals aren't 'driven by their own interests at all times, meaning they dont do people any favors.'
Think about it. You look after your family and I look after my family. If my family and your family find reasons to cooperate for mutual benefit, then we should do it.
Hating me because I have my own family and I am loyal to it is nuts.
The difference leftdog is that the Liberal Party actually has to govern sometimes so we actually get thigns done...
the NDP accomplished one thing on the federal scene in 40 years
they saved a governments ass (one which they deemed corrupt)
they then voted that government down before one penny was even spent of their famous budget.
At least the Liberals got things done over the years. The NDP just stood by and bitched. That is why I have no respect for them and definitely no respect for Jack! Layton
That just shows your limited experience.
Tomorrow the NDP will win government again in Manitoba and the Libs will get 1 or 2 or 3 seats because Liberals in Manitoba vote NDP provincially.
The government in Saskatchewan is NDP and has been for most of the last years. They are in their 4th term because Liberals vote in Saskatchewan largely vote NDP provincially.
So if you could broaden your perspective from just Federal politics and look at the politics of this country you might see it somewhat differently.
You and I should be loosely respectful progressives on the centre and centre left who are fighting a massive right wing threat to our society.
Hating the NDP is illogical. Wary, okay - be wary but this blind hatred does not serve your interests.
provncial parties are their own formation.
Growing up in Quebec, we learned that it is two completely different things.
I respect the PQ and the provincial NDP parties who have governed. But any power with the chance of taking power does not act in the senseless way that Jack! and his merry band of complainers do. Like the Bloc, the NDPs role at the federal level is to bitch and say it isnt good enough.
I have more respect for the conservatives. This is not a new position. I have shared these views for a very long time. I wont ever vote conservative but I respect them WAY more than I respect the federal NDP
Being a Liberal in Quebec, what happended with Adscam, and Sponsorship MUST have sickend you.
The fact that the Martin government fell should be more the fault of Liberals then of New Democrats.
That is over and I believe that Liberals are probably taking measures to make sure that kind of corruption can never happen again.
Don't hate Layton for what went down.
I am trying to find some point of commonality or raproachment with you. Is that possible or is your hatred of the NDP such that this is not possible?
Can someone please back me up?
I'll help you out Olaf.
Sorry leftdog, but you can't make ad populum arguments, and then support the NDP.
Beyond that, just saying "you're a right-winger!!!" is not much of an argument either.
Don't get me wrong - Olaf is completely incorrect on this issue. He essentially argues that we shouldn't explore the possibility of ending the war through negotiation, which of course leads us with the other alternative: perpetual war.
It shouldn't be hard to understand why perpetual war might not be a great idea.
So, who “won” the argument?
It escapes me how negotiations can be held with intolerant religious fanatics. What ground is there to cede with such people? Presumably everyone wants the Taliban to lay down their arms. What would compel them to do this in exchange for? Control of a semi-autonomous Pashtun state within the Afghan federal construct perhaps? One where they could freely impose their strict interpretation of Sharia law and where all of the “freedoms” that have been brought to the Afghan people in that region would be rescinded; e.g., no elections, women forbidden from attending school, enforcement of the most rigid cultural mores along with the harshest punishments, etc.) Would Karzai and his NATO allies be satisfied with this sort of compromise solution? Could they tolerate such a thing? Or are we to believe that the Taliban will moderate their stance somehow and betray their deepest-held religious beliefs that many of them have passionately nurtured all their lives through zealous devotion?
Seems there are no happy solutions or peaceful outcomes to be had in this situation if one side or the other doesn’t surrender their principles/beliefs. The ideological divide is too great. My money in that regard would be on NATO. So let’s just call it what it is, a capitulation, and be done with it. That said, commitments have been made, so everyone will play along with those until the clock runs out on them and they can pack up and go home, having declared their internationally sanctioned obligations fulfilled and Afghanistan reconstructed (kind of), capable of defending itself (maybe) and semi-secure. In the meantime, Karzai will be cutting deals with Taliban leaders that will essentially allow them to return to power in their ethnic homelands in the south.
Short of perpetual war (or a decades long commitment) I don’t see any other resolution to this. Nobody comes away looking good. The Taliban, I suppose. That’s unfortunate, but such is the way of things.
As some wise but politically incorrect person said:
" Arguing on the blogs is like competing in the Special Olympics.
You might win, but even if you do, you are still retarded."
Clearly, what everyone wants is lasting peace.
What we don't agree on is how to achieve it.
Who here has first hand knowledge and expertise?
Solutions that emphasize violence and suppression tend to perpetuate.
They build lasting resentment within elements of the population who then do their best to disrupt whatever peace is achieved.
Solutions built on negotiation and consensus are desireable but they depend on being able to negotiate with reasonable people who truly represent and have the support of those with an opposing point of view.
I will take populism over elitism any day, if it means politicians will listen to the public rather than continually trying to impose their failed dogma. I certainly credit the public as being more intelligent than the party talking points.
Antonio has become the new Cherniak - outragious rhetoric backed by idealogical rigidity.
olaf, robedger, and down and out in la; thanks for the laughs...i suppose i should add leftdog to the list, but then again the laughs were at his expense.
antonio, i liked your comment at michelle's world...i felt much the same way.
accusing me of being the new cherniak is pretty funny.
especially when one of always toes the Liberal line, and the other rarely does...
Here's my unbiased opinion. Antonio is (once again) wrong.
In 2001, NATO supported America in a 'simple' mission to depose the Taliban government and root out the terrorists.
Since then, we have learned that no one who is trustworthy can run the government. In fact, there is no one (even the untrustworthy ones) who can run the government as designed by America.
So, the Afghan senators (among others) want a cease-fire with the rebels and to negotiate. Who are we (the foreigners) to say NO!
In the end, it is the Afghanis who must make peace and make their society work. Why not listen to them?
Post a Comment
<< Home