An open letter to Jack Layton

[Karlin]

Naw, that is not based in reality.

The morale of our soldiers is NOT more important that having an open and honest discussion of the value of fighting in that war. The morale of our soldiers is not really being lowered by that discussions anyhow, so it really does start to look just like the Bush routine of stifling dissent.

Also, since the Afghan occupation is killing so many innocents over there, this discussion, and critisizm, of the war is justified, and necessary.

Calling for the end to Canada's participation HAS to occur at some point - if we listened to the origator of this thread, we would NEVER leave. Maybe thats what Buish wants - permament occupation. People like this guy are just doing what Bush hoped people would do, which is to parrot the Bush line. Propaganda worked on him.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Yer a mean drunk MockDred. lol

Hey i like that mockdred...thanks Dumf..dumfydo sure comes up with the brill stuff.
It is fun doing the humpty do switcho chango...only here ya can't switcho...
mrhumph..was yer best moniker humpty do shoulda brought that in here...but we'll settle for Dumf

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Thank you for your comments following my recent press conference on Afghanistan. I welcome the opportunity to explain the timing of the press conference and the federal NDP's position on Canada's role in Afghanistan.

First, my July 4th press conference calling on Prime Minister Harper to work towards a de-escalation of the war was already underway when the sad news of the soldiers' deaths was breaking.

Five years after the invasion of Afghanistan, it is reasonable to examine the present situation. NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black has released our Party’s comprehensive report on the Conservative-Liberal mission in Afghanistan. It provides background on the conflict, analyzes the issues faced by Canadian troops and Afghan citizens, and offers concrete solutions to help stabilize the country.

In commenting on our report, journalist Barbara Yaffe said, "The party details a logical, realistic position in an 11-page dissenting opinion to a June 18 report on the deployment by the Commons committee. It followed several months of hearings. ... The NDP's blunt conclusion is one that is mighty hard to refute." (Vancouver Sun, July 10, 2007)

For more information, please visit: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5462

Some will say that if we do not support the mission, then we do not support our troops. That is not the case. The NDP supports our troops and their families and it is out of the deep respect for each and every one of them that we seek a de-escalation of this conflict. We believe in sending our brave men and women of the armed forces on missions that have clear goals and a specific plan on what our soldiers need to do to achieve victory. The truth is that the mission in Afghanistan has neither.

Since 2001, military efforts in Afghanistan have failed to bring peace, reduce poverty, stop heroin production, or help reconstruct Afghanistan. NATO was supposed to secure some areas of the country, where institutions could be strengthened and development projects executed, and therefore, help the Afghan government to deliver stability to its citizens. The sad truth is that both U.S. and NATO military efforts have failed to deliver peace and prosperity to the most vulnerable of Afghans: women and children. http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/014_publication

Malalai Joya, a female MP in the Afghan National Assembly, said, “The situation in Afghanistan and conditions of its ill-fated women will never change positively, as long as the warlords are not disarmed and both the pro-US and anti-US terrorists are removed from the political scene of Afghanistan.” (Quote from speech delivered to 2006 NDP National Convention)

The former Foreign Affairs Minister of Afghanistan, from the pre-Taliban regime, Najibullah Lafraie, stated, "If the international community wants to deny the Taliban and their allies an important recruiting tool, it must withdraw Western troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible." (Reported in Spiegel On-Line, September 6, 2006)

Looking forward, whether it's on climate change, child care, prescription drugs, corporate crime, the high cost of gas and ATM fees, or takeovers by foreign companies the federal NDP is working on the issues that everyday Canadians care about. You can find out more about our work at http://www.ndp.ca or by subscribing to our e-mail bulletin at subscribe@ndp.ca.

Again, I appreciate the time you have taken to register your views on this difficult issue.

Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada

Just so you know Doc, I received this identical email. So did about 20 other people who voiced their concerns about Jacks Antics.

He's a real man of the people with his form letters eh. Some might argue that he's a busy guy, but I've been answred directly by MP's in the past, MP's who are far more engaged and important than the likes of Taliban Jack Layton.

If you read my letter to Jack Layton you might wonder what the relevance of his reply to what I actually wrote.

His actions are very telling Doc. It speaks volume to Jacks character and backbone.

Two things he has none of.

Cheers
M

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

AAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA
I posted here what I sent him....I thought he knew I was talking about the problem of him opening his yap....he never really addressed the issue ...the guy is a politician for himself....

any way I'm thinking of resending a stronger flame and see what he saends back...lol
cheers mate
D

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Be sure your letterhead includes this pic.

 

[Nuggler]

Lies are not support? I'm not asking him to lie. I'm not even asking him to change his agenda. I'm simply asking him to choose his words with more care. By the way, Jacks not right, he's a coward. He has never responded to a single query I've made and is gutless when it comes to open debate.

I consider him just another Sven Robinson in love with himself and willing to be an exhibitionist to get headlines. His approach and that of his party is why they will never run this Country.

Finally, I tried reasoning with him.

Too the others I thank you for your kind words and I did sign it with my name rank and address as well as phone number.

I just won't hold my breath waiting for a reply.

Cheers
M

Yes indeed:thumbup:

 

[BitWhys]

All I see are childish rants not worth the response they received. You people should be satisfied you didn't receive the "thank you for your support" form letter instead. There's no pleasing some people. When your email is full that makes for a good rule of thumb.

 

[MikeyDB]

Midnight Rider strikes again


“They did not choose to be there Mr. Layton, they’re simply performing their duties as soldiers and whether you disagree or agree with the mission is really quite irrelevant to doing your part in supporting them.”

This is sophistry of the lowest caliber.

Jack Layton has never been a stirling monument to reasoned debate in the House of Commons. I have grave concerns regarding the Honourable Jack Layton’s effectiveness in actualizing commitments and policies made on many other issues that have direct impact on the citizens of this nation.

However: He like any other Member sitting in government on the opposition side of the House has the responsibility to represent his party’s position, the position of those who disagree with government policy and those seeking representation who challenge the sitting government’s..party-line….

Canada ought not be governed by “consensus”.

Policy that serves the interests of Canadians supported by verifiable fact regarding some particular issue distilled in the crucible of focused examination as tempered by the moral standards of a well-informed free society ought to be government’s primary goal.

While it is true that Canadian service personnel currently serving in Afghanistan are executing the policies of the Canadian government, criticism and indeed rehtoric that calls that policy into question is the appropriate role of the opposition. Mr. Layton’s personal opinion regarding his assessment of the potential outcome of Canadian participation in this effort deserves and enjoys the right of freedom of speech.


“Canada became involved in the NATO occupation of Afghanistan to placate the Americans for not sending troops to Iraq. The nature of Canadian involvement changed radically, however, once Stephen Harper's minority government was elected in January 2006.”
“Harper has always backed the aggressive military behaviour of the United States. He enthusiastically supported the US invasion of Iraq and complained bitterly when Canada did not send troops there.”

Harper: "I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans," he told Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002. He voted against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq on March 20, 2003.”

McQuaig points out that the war in Afghanistan was an illegal war of aggression at the outset with questionable status today. It was launched without regard for international convention, negotiation attempts made by the Taliban government or the human rights abuses of its Northern Alliance allies. By definition it is illegal. She quotes Canadian international law professor Michael Mandel as saying that Afghan civilian deaths represent "'very serious crimes, in fact supreme international crimes,' because according to international law asserted at the post-World War 2 Nuremburg Trials, 'To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime... '."”
http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0021

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MED20060318&articleId=2125

Both of these websites raise serious questions regarding the appropriateness of Canadian interventions in Afghanistan.

However: When any government supports the action of some nation that has determined that military action against another nation is demanded…

“In time of war, truth is always replaced by propaganda. I do not believe we should be too quick to criticize the actions of a belligerent nation. There is always the question whether we, ourselves, would do better under similar circumstances. But we in this country have a right to think of the welfare of America first, just as the people in England thought first of their own country when they encouraged the smaller nations of Europe to fight against hopeless odds. When England asks us to enter this war, she is considering her own future, and that of her empire. In making our reply, I believe we should consider the future of the United States and that of the Western Hemisphere.”

Charles Lindbergh

http://www.rightwingnews.com/speeches/lindy.php

It isn’t uncommon across the spectrum of international politics to see even the United States take a position that suggests that more information and more study be obtained before committing/entering-into military hostilities.

If as history records, many Americans were unconvinced that America’s duty to its British ally or even perhaps American commitment to the more ethereal notions of “liberty” “freedom” and “democracy” must take second place in considering the prudence of active involvement, how do the proponents of Canadian military intervention in Afghanistan rationalize the American hesitancy at becoming involved in the Second World War?

Midnight Rider: “How do you think that soldier will feel when he or she reads the news from home via the internet and that one of the leaders of the opposition is referring to their mission as hopeless? Perhaps compounded by the grief and the negative comments of Canadian Politicians will result in him or her not seeing the next IED, missing an impending ambush or targeting an innocent bystander or civilian.”

If a soldier loses his attention span sufficiently to take time to consider what some politico safely sitting in Toronto has to say about the mission in Afghanistan, and that consideration costs he his comrades or innocent civilians their death, that soldier ought not be in uniform representing the people of Canada. If the words of some politician in Ottawa undermine his resolve to honor his duty to his comrades-in-arms, for the safety of every other Canadian service person serving anywhere…that soldier should do the honourable thing and withdraw.

Midnight Rider: “If you want our soldiers to come home and withdraw from the mission in Afghanistan I encourage you to put forward as many motions as you like. Urge you to work in Government to bring voice to your agenda. This is what our soldiers are fighting for Mr. Layton, but personal responsibility on your part would be greatly appreciated. If you would like to further harm our soldiers and embolden our enemy you need only carry on making inflammatory statements which include catch phrases such as “unwinnable or hopeless.”

While this gentleman, this “Midnight Rider” appears to put great store in process of government, in the underpinning foundations of free speech and reasoned debate, this subscription is thrown out the window through the proposition that the “propaganda value” of critical statements will have greater and if one believes this gentleman’s rhetoric…enormous deleterious impact on Canadian service personnel while reinforcing and championing the “enemy”…..

Clearly this gentleman believes that only the rights of those who agree with his determination have the protection of the very system of laws and charter of rights and freedoms that should be the seminal issue in these troubled times.

If a politician were to be influenced to change his mind, to self-censor on the basis of this quality of argument and appeal to emotionalism….we would in fact be in a much graver position tomorrow than we are today.

Mr. “Retired Canadian Soldier…..” Mr. “Midnight Rider” is entitled to his views and opinions. Just as Jack Layton or any other Canadian is entitled to his or her opinion.

Since this gentleman prefers to employ the “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” line of reasoning and actively work across the internet and through access to Canadian politicians to divisively reduce and marginalize the opinons of anyone who disagrees, we must be reminded of the sentiment and the unfolding culpability and corruption of the agents of war at work in America and decide if we can reliably synthesize those arguments and those actions as representative of the kind of Canada that Canadians ought to embrace.

This gentleman is prepared to look “skin-deep” at the issues and to castigate and demean anyone prepared to build an argument based on fact.

Offer an argument based on verifiable fact that affords the observer the opportunity to reach his or her own conclusions as opposed to smarmy emotionalism that demonstrates not a knowledge and understanding of the dynamics at play in this issue and these decisions, but the cowards last refuge of patriotism in place of common sense.

I doubt that this individual has the scope of sophistication to entertain anything other than his narrow and poorly served world-view, and that is truly a shame.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

The "war" is unwinable.

Tell me what the objective is? Eliminating terrorists? How did Britain eliminate the IRA? Bombs and guns? They tried that for a while and realized it wouldn't work. You can raid all the apartment blocks you want.... kill a bunch of what you thought were IRA terrorists (turns out some weren't) oooops..... you've just recruited an entire family into the IRA that wouldn't have been there if you hadn't just killed their father, son, cousin or whomever!

The situation isn't much different.... just on a grander scale. "Coalition" bombs and guns are going to be the best recruiting device that the terrorists could ever hope for!

A fundemental change in foreign policy and diplomacy will dry up the recruitment for the terrorists... killing people won't.

Also, anyone that compares this "war" to WWII is an idiot. Go read your history books.... it ain't even close!

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

The "war" is unwinable.

Tell me what the objective is? Eliminating terrorists? How did Britain eliminate the IRA? Bombs and guns? They tried that for a while and realized it wouldn't work. You can raid all the apartment blocks you want.... kill a bunch of what you thought were IRA terrorists (turns out some weren't) oooops..... you've just recruited an entire family into the IRA that wouldn't have been there if you hadn't just killed their father, son, cousin or whomever!

The situation isn't much different.... just on a grander scale. "Coalition" bombs and guns are going to be the best recruiting device that the terrorists could ever hope for!

A fundemental change in foreign policy and diplomacy will dry up the recruitment for the terrorists... killing people won't.

Also, anyone that compares this "war" to WWII is an idiot. Go read your history books.... it ain't even close!

the ira war is now over....Britain wore them down. Had a huge edge after 911 when the war on terror was established....this thing will eventually be won , by us....It might take 100 years....It has to....they are gearing up for more terror.....We shall wear em down....We need a solid footing in those countries is all.....Britain was there and now we are there..it never went away...these morons have got to be brought into reality...all this taliban shmaliban indoctrination has got to be eradicated....Living with this is not an option...


the only fundemental change in foriegn policy these people will settle for is our leaving them to their own devices, and dismantleing Israel....both are not going to happen for leaving them to their own devices implies bringin sharia law to the world...Israel is to be protected at all cost...They are one of us....

Unless the great schmoe has a better idea....

 

[BitWhys]

What peace there is in Ireland is the result of over 10 years of PEACE negotiations, not the least of which involved getting the Orange to back the hell off.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

What peace there is in Ireland is the result of over 10 years of PEACE negotiations, not the least of which involved getting the Orange to back the hell off.

yeah but me Grandmother was sending money back there to the IRA in the 20's for chrissakes...she had guys always on the run living in a back room on Bishop street in montreal the whole time me dad and aunt grew up.....

My point is without the military intervention nothing is gonna happen anywhere ceptin for the terrorists having a free riegn.....

 

[BitWhys]

...We need a solid footing in those countries is all...

tell me again this isn't colonial adventure? I keep forgetting.

 

[BitWhys]

...My point is without the military intervention nothing is gonna happen anywhere ceptin for the terrorists having a free riegn.....

and Britain has been intervening militarily in Ireland for the last decade HOW, exactly?

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

both posts.....
I don't see anything wrong with bringing our way of life to these barbarians...Fukc em they drive plains into our buildings ,they circamsise young girls , force em to marry prikcs, cover em up head to toe in 50C heat, etc. If that means colonizing them so be it. the first colonization worked in the sense of bringing these people out of the dark ages ..I've actually talked to Africans that say colonization had a pleathora of good effects on Africa. i mean come on it's 2007...and the new colonization would bring it with all we learnt like not raping them and country to bring em up to snuff.

Ok as for ireland...the brits ..did or did not in last 10 years have troops on the ground and still do in northern Ireland...yes no?

 

[BitWhys]

...
Ok as for ireland...the brits ..did or did not in last 10 years have troops on the ground and still do in northern Ireland...yes no?

Like Canada has troops in Afghanistan?

no

 

[BitWhys]

...
I don't see anything wrong with bringing our way of life to these barbarians...Fukc em they drive plains into our buildings ,they circamsise young girls , force em to marry prikcs, cover em up head to toe in 50C heat, etc. If that means colonizing them so be it. the first colonization worked in the sense of bringing these people out of the dark ages ..I've actually talked to Africans that say colonization had a pleathora of good effects on Africa. i mean come on it's 2007...and the new colonization would bring it with all we learnt like not raping them and country to bring em up to snuff...

if you say so

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Like Canada has troops in Afghanistan?

no

Well to some there seeing british troops patrol 24/7 it was like to them an occupying force....at least they were told as such....

But if britain did not have those troops on the ground patroling and such, and there were fights,would the "Enemy" take them seriously. And make no assumption the IRA and sympathisers were the enemy.....totally different in so much as normal relations carried on btw Ireland and Britain....

I am not saying these 2 wars are similiar at all.....But without military you are not going to achieve any sort of peace with someone blowing up your people......

 

[BitWhys]

The general need for a military somehow bestows carte blanche justification for its use?

I don't think so.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

The general need for a military somehow bestows carte blanche justification for its use?

I don't think so.

getting back to afghanistan...where is carte blanche been used.....Iraq yes definatly....the world said no......