Jack Layton says ....

I think not
Avatar
#1
...Canadians don't support involvement in Afghan offensive

TORONTO (CP) - As Canadian troops prepare to do battle with insurgents in the mountains of southern Afghanistan, NDP Leader Jack Layton says the public is not in favour of going on the offensive in that war-torn country.

He pledged Tuesday to use his party's influence in the next Parliament to maintain the Canadian military's good-guy peacekeeper role around the world.

"Our view is that Canadians support the peacekeeping role," he said following a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade.

"But what Canadians do not support, in my view, is a war-like offensive role in the context of Afghanistan."

Roughly 2,200 Canadian troops are set to deploy to the dangerous Kandahar region, where just two days ago the political director of the Canadian provincial reconstruction team was killed in a suicide bombing against a military convoy. Three soldiers were also injured, two of them critically.

One of the missions of the multinational brigade, which will be led by a Canadian general, is to take the fight to remnants of the Taliban regime and al-Qaida in remote villages and mountains.

As he did earlier in the election campaign, Layton called for a halt to future troop deployments and a Parliamentary debate about the changing role of the mission.

He said the country's top generals should appear before the Commons defence committee "to explain precisely what the mission is now and how they see it changing."

The evolving nature of Canada's commitment to the NATO-led force has been the subject for public discussion for the better part of a year, as Defence Minister Bill Graham has given a series of speeches, warning the public to expect casualties.

Layton has denied he's late in coming to the discussion, saying his party has been calling since last spring for a debate on the switch from peacekeeping in the Kabul area to all-out war in Kandahar.

"Canada's role is the peacekeeping role, the peacemaking role, nothing more than that," he said.

"Canadians feel helping the Afghanis build a democratic society is a role that is appropriate for Canadians to play."

A move to offensive operations is "a significant change in Canadian foreign policy" that needs to be agreed upon democratically, Layton said.

His call for discussion puts him in line with the feelings of some other NATO countries, most notably the Netherlands, which is expected to debate pulling its troops out of Afghanistan in the coming weeks.

However, the Liberals and the Conservatives are apparently determined to press ahead with the operation.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said the peace and stability of Afghanistan depend on Canadians taking on dangerous missions.

If they win Monday's election, the Conservatives have also made it clear that they will not withdraw Canadian troops from the fight.

But the uncertain political dynamics of minority government might force them to at least examine the question, especially if Layton's NDP hold the balance of power.

--
 
Jersay
#2
Makes sense. Unlike America, I am sure Canadians would want to know we are at war so any casualties could be a bit easier to stomach.
 
aeon
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

...Canadians don't support involvement in Afghan offensive
"Our view is that Canadians support the peacekeeping role," he said following a speech to the Toronto Board of Trade.

"But what Canadians do not support, in my view, is a war-like offensive role in the context of Afghanistan."

Roughly 2,200 Canadian troops are set to deploy to the dangerous Kandahar region, where just two days ago the political director of the Canadian provincial reconstruction team was killed in a suicide bombing against a military convoy. Three soldiers were also injured, two of them critically.



This is what makes me laugh about, we arenot in afganisthan to bring democracy to the afganies, we are there to please the americans, this is what really pisses me off.

We are simply on the wrong side. Shame on paul martin, and stephan harper, they are not better than george w bush.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#4
Layton seems somewhat clueless. Canada's role is..."peacemaking"...but somehow this does not mean going on the offensive? Please Jack, go visit Romeo Dalliare. Then come back to us when you have a clue.

Sometimes peaceKEEPING doesn't work; that's when you need peace MAKING, which, BY DEFINITION, is offensive.

Yet again, Jack is wandering around cluelessly.
 
I think not
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Makes sense. Unlike America, I am sure Canadians would want to know we are at war so any casualties could be a bit easier to stomach.

Don't you know why you are in Afghanistan?
 
Jay
#6
To stamp out Islamofacism?
 
aeon
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

To stamp out Islamofacism?


Lol, probably somewhere in the 4th dimension yes, but not in reality.
 
MMMike
#8
I don't understand... is he for our involvement in Afghanistan or agin it? Or only for it if there is absolutely no risk for our troops. If we believe in the cause the cost shouldn't matter.
 
Dunkin
#9
I don't see why we are there. I don't see how attacking a bunch of camels in a desert is going to change things here. We attack terrorists and then we let thousands of them into our country.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
Avatar
#10
"Thousands of them?"

Who is them? Terrorists? And what grounds can you claim them to be terrorists?
 
Hank C
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

This is what makes me laugh about, we arenot in afganisthan to bring democracy to the afganies, we are there to please the americans, this is what really pisses me off.

We are simply on the wrong side. Shame on paul martin, and stephan harper, they are not better than george w bush.

Unless you have the balls to actually join the military and do something you comments make you look foolish......we are not there to help Bush or America, I can't stand people who are soo blinded by anti Americanism that they can't see the forest for the trees. I am happy Martin and Harper are supporting this mission. Layton is not coming out against this mission because it will be seen as disrespectful...however it does not take much imaginatinon to know what he really thinks.

And what do you mean we are on the wrong side!!! I wish we could ship some of the ungrateful people living in Canada over there for the Taliban to teach.....then we will see whos side they are on.... oh yea thats right, they will be beheaded.
 
Finder
#12
I'm not so big on Canada being in Afghanistan. I think a peace keeping roll is alright but as far as I know our guys are not wearing the blue helmets, of the UN. *shrugs* I might be wrong though.

Either way I'm pretty sketchy on Canada's involvement as we are making ourselves a target for terrorism.
 
Jersay
#13
Seems to me some people are short-sighted.

And actually you could make the case we are pleasing America, because, to stay out of Iraq we sent the warships and the larger contingent of troops to Afghanistan. So until you know what you talk about, learn your facts.

And a Retired Colonel, yesterday on CBC said the exact same thing that I said in my first post.
 
I think not
#14
The facts are, you had troops in Afghanistan well before Iraq even started.
 
Jersay
#15
Yes, but they were pulled out with a little firendly-fire incident they came home.

Then when the Iraq war started, Canada said it would send a number of warships to the Gulf and a number of troops to Kabal and later kandahar, to at the time in one newspaper, to keep troops out of Iraq but please Americans.
 
I think not
#16
How is a war on terrorism "pleasing" Americans?
 
Jersay
#17
Because to some people in Canada, I'm not one of them with the Afghanistan case, but the war on terror is just a way for America to mop up for past mistakes, etc, etc.
 
I think not
Avatar
#18
Afghanistan was a retaliatory strike for September 11th. What are the mistakes you speak of?
 
Jersay
#19
Bin Laden.

Against the Russians his Mujhadeen forces were trained and financed by American resources. As well as other. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, he asked the Saudi's and AMericans if he could lead his Mujhadeen forces against Hussein.

However, he was denied.

Or that is what the people claim.
 
aeon
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C


Unless you have the balls to actually join the military and do something you comments make you look foolish......we are not there to help Bush or America, I can't stand people who are soo blinded by anti Americanism that they can't see the forest for the trees.


Where do i say , i am anti american??I am very pro american for what they really stands for, i critize the bush adminsitration, the bush family , cause they are the one to blame for this whole mess, they arent getting rid of terrorism, they are making it, and multiplying the sources.They are the real terrorist.

would you like to be occupied by a foreign nation, who come to your land , and steal your ressources??



Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C

I am happy Martin and Harper are supporting this mission. Layton is not coming out against this mission because it will be seen as disrespectful...however it does not take much imaginatinon to know what he really thinks.


Tell me, what is the mission behind that?? don t tell me it is about democracy, cause i am not ignorant and stupid.


Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C

And what do you mean we are on the wrong side!!! I wish we could ship some of the ungrateful people living in Canada over there for the Taliban to teach.....then we will see whos side they are on.... oh yea thats right, they will be beheaded.


We are simply on the wrong side, we are occupying foreign country and we are killing peoples.
 
aeon
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

I'm not so big on Canada being in Afghanistan. I think a peace keeping roll is alright but as far as I know our guys are not wearing the blue helmets, of the UN. *shrugs* I might be wrong though.

Either way I'm pretty sketchy on Canada's involvement as we are making ourselves a target for terrorism.



Exactly, right to the point.
 
Jay
Avatar
#22
By giving aid to England during WW2 we ran the risk of being the targets of Nazi aggression too. But we won the war. Does anyone actually think we would have a seat at the world power tables had we not fought that war? The answer is no, no we wouldn't. It is exactly as Mulroney said to the Europeans "we are not renting our seats at this table".

People who can't understand this seemingly want to have Canada become some sort of isolationist state, without a say in what goes on. Having a say means you did something to earn it. Having a say isn't a policy welfare program doled out by the frick'n UN.

We are going to stand by our allies in this and we are going to win, and we will have a say on how these matters are settled. Jack Layton can go to hell in a hand basket if he doesn't understand this.
 
aeon
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

By giving aid to England during WW2 we ran the risk of being the targets of Nazi aggression too. But we won the war. Does anyone actually think we would have a seat at the world power tables had we not fought that war? The answer is no, no we wouldn't. It is exactly as Mulroney said to the Europeans "we are not renting our seats at this table".

People who can't understand this seemingly want to have Canada become some sort of isolationist state, without a say in what goes on. Having a say means you did something to earn it. Having a say isn't a policy welfare program doled out by the frick'n UN.

We are going to stand by our allies in this and we are going to win, and we will have a say on how these matters are settled. Jack Layton can go to hell in a hand basket if he doesn't understand this.



Win what?? there is nothing to win, except ressources. The war on terror is already lost, simple as that.
 
Jersay
#24
I don't know if the war on terror is lost. It depends on which side you are. on.
 
Jay
Avatar
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Win what?? there is nothing to win, except ressources. The war on terror is already lost, simple as that.

Oh, I forgot about that resource rich Afghanistan. We can't wait to get our hands on all those sheep…
 
Jo Canadian
#26
 
aeon
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Win what?? there is nothing to win, except ressources. The war on terror is already lost, simple as that.

Oh, I forgot about that resource rich Afghanistan. We can't wait to get our hands on all those sheep…


LOL, funny, but afganisthan is a strategic place to build an oil pipeline,even before 9-11, us wanted to invade afganisthan, exactly for those reason.


here is an article....


--
 
Jay
#28
I'm aware of the pipeline theory, but that is hardly a conventional resource.
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#29
What's really funny is that Afghanistan is what caused the boycott of the Moscow Olympics; then the US trained bin Laden to fight the Russians; they finally gave up. Now it's the West that's fighting in Afghanistan, because of bin Laden. I'm sure a whole lot of Russians are thinking, "See? Now you understand our point?"
 
I think not
Avatar
#30
Oil, Gas, Sheep, Caviar. People need to look at things a little bit on the broader side. China is growing, and will eventually be challenging the US, any questions?
 

Similar Threads

0
Jack Layton interview
by Avro | Mar 2nd, 2007
13
What is it about Jack Layton?
by JomZ | Feb 8th, 2006
4
Jack Layton - Big Wuss!
by Toro | Jan 19th, 2006
10
Jack Layton-NDP on Healthcare
by Timetrvlr | Dec 16th, 2005
no new posts