Wednesday, September 06, 2006
NDP Crossed the Line
As if the NDP wasn't enough of a joke. They don't have as many seats in parliament as the Bloc Quebecois, a party who wants to tear the country apart.
Last week, Jack Layton called for Canada to admit defeat in Afghanistan, and return the country to it's the same terrorists that ruled the country on September 10, 2001.
Now I could wax on about how many more attacks that statement will incite. Rather, what bothers me most is the complete abandonment of the Afghani people. He would voluntarily put the Afghani people under the violent rule of the Taliban.
Today the NDP briefly revealed a list of several resolutions being proposed as party policy. There are a few that are completely dispicable:
Still not convinced that the NDP supports terrorism? There's this gem:
What Jack Layton and the NDP need to understand, is that it's bad enough to be an ignorant peace-monger. It's outragous to support an enemy of our country, and BEG for Canada's defeat - while completely abandoning every bit of progress that has been made there.
This is where the NDP has crossed the line. How can anybody take the NDP seriously when they'll actually consider calling Canadian troops "terrorists"? It's cowardly and treasonous, and I hope it causes every NDP voter to vote Green in the next election.
UPDATE:Predictably, the spineless wimps are now back-peddling. Truely shameful.
Last week, Jack Layton called for Canada to admit defeat in Afghanistan, and return the country to it's the same terrorists that ruled the country on September 10, 2001.
Canada should withdraw its troops from the current mission in southern Afghanistan and invite Taliban fighters to peace talks, NDP Leader Jack Layton said yesterday.
"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said. (link)
Now I could wax on about how many more attacks that statement will incite. Rather, what bothers me most is the complete abandonment of the Afghani people. He would voluntarily put the Afghani people under the violent rule of the Taliban.
Today the NDP briefly revealed a list of several resolutions being proposed as party policy. There are a few that are completely dispicable:
Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been "acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people".
...
"The Canadian occupation is propping up a regime composed of barbarous warlords who are little better than the Taliban,"
(link)
Still not convinced that the NDP supports terrorism? There's this gem:
The resolution about Israel calls for the end to "military aid and economic trade," claiming "there can be no lasting peace in Palestine/Israel or the surrounding region without social justice."
The Trinity-Spadina riding association in Toronto called for the NDP to support the right of return for all refugees, an end to Israeli settlements and "occupation" of Palestine lands, "a halt to armed aggression, the bulldozing of homes, destruction of olive groves and farms and the assassination of political leaders and activists by the Israeli state."
What Jack Layton and the NDP need to understand, is that it's bad enough to be an ignorant peace-monger. It's outragous to support an enemy of our country, and BEG for Canada's defeat - while completely abandoning every bit of progress that has been made there.
This is where the NDP has crossed the line. How can anybody take the NDP seriously when they'll actually consider calling Canadian troops "terrorists"? It's cowardly and treasonous, and I hope it causes every NDP voter to vote Green in the next election.
UPDATE:Predictably, the spineless wimps are now back-peddling. Truely shameful.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Rather than reciting the context you've cleverly removed in order to further your own conservative (optionally hidden) agenda, I'll stick with the point: Afghanistan.
The war in Southern Afghanistan is being lost to the Taliban. I don't think anyone would argue against that. Take a look at the numbers for the latest opium harvest for at least one indicator. In fact, that increase in Opium production is probably the only thing the Afghani people have going for them that they didn't have in 2001. Life sucked in 2001, it sucks today, and now there's missiles in the sky.
It's imperative that we get the Afghani people on our side. This can be done by working with them to rebuild their communities and create hope for the future. If you listen to the Canadian Forces, they'll tell you that if they build a school, the Taliban will burn it down, behead the principal, rape the teacher, and impale her out front as a lesson for others. I don't doubt that at all.
So, the Taliban must be fought first. But in the meantime, what evidence do the Afghani people have that we'll beat the Taliban? They don't have to look further than Iraq to see the West failing against an insurgency, so why should they trust us?
In the meantime, do we just keep throwing our soldiers into the fire and hope for a miracle?
The war in Southern Afghanistan is being lost to the Taliban. I don't think anyone would argue against that. Take a look at the numbers for the latest opium harvest for at least one indicator. In fact, that increase in Opium production is probably the only thing the Afghani people have going for them that they didn't have in 2001. Life sucked in 2001, it sucks today, and now there's missiles in the sky.
It's imperative that we get the Afghani people on our side. This can be done by working with them to rebuild their communities and create hope for the future. If you listen to the Canadian Forces, they'll tell you that if they build a school, the Taliban will burn it down, behead the principal, rape the teacher, and impale her out front as a lesson for others. I don't doubt that at all.
So, the Taliban must be fought first. But in the meantime, what evidence do the Afghani people have that we'll beat the Taliban? They don't have to look further than Iraq to see the West failing against an insurgency, so why should they trust us?
In the meantime, do we just keep throwing our soldiers into the fire and hope for a miracle?
I would certainly argue that the war in Southern Afghanistan is not being lost. For every one of our guys they kill, we kill ten. Contrary to what the media will have you believe, this is not a war on Opium, it's a war on terror.
And how are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of Afghani's when WE'RE not committed to the cause? On the same day as NATO calls for more troops in Afghanistan, Jack Layton is trying to pull our troops all together. How would you react if you were an Afghani?
It's a fucking warzone. Ugly, nasty, horrible shit happens. Why would the Taliban stop it's attacks, when EVERY time they kill one of our soldiers, everybody in Canada starts screaming for the soldiers to come home? The only part of this war that the Taliban are winning, is the war of wills.
If you want the Taliban to stop burning down schools, theres only one way to accomplish that. Kill them all. The way you talk, I'm lead to believe that you think the Afghani's either don't want schools, or don't deserve them.
You lefties all think the same way, something goes sour in a war, you run away. Thats backwards logic. When NATO calls for more troops, we should send more troops. You win battles by fighting, not by running away.
Furthermore, your comment about the West failing against an insurgency in Iraq is a load of shit. The "insurgency" in Iraq is definetly losing. Most of the violence in Iraq these days is Iraqis killing Iraqis. The "insurgency", which consists mostly of FOREIGN fighters is resorting to killing the citizens of Iraq to impose fear. It's devolved into a civil war, with the Coalition in the middle.
On the bright side, Iraq is going to have its third democratic election. There is talk in their government about splitting the country into three distict regions (that IS a good thing). Iraqis can now see that their future is in their own hands, and thats something they've never known before. Of course you're not going to hear about that on CBC News though.
If we wanted things to go smoother over there, we'd send every damn soldier we can to Afghanistan. We shouldn't feel a bit of guilt for killing the enemy. When one of our guys dies, we should respond with renewed vigor, not fall-back and discuss our "exit strategy".
Post a Comment
And how are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of Afghani's when WE'RE not committed to the cause? On the same day as NATO calls for more troops in Afghanistan, Jack Layton is trying to pull our troops all together. How would you react if you were an Afghani?
It's a fucking warzone. Ugly, nasty, horrible shit happens. Why would the Taliban stop it's attacks, when EVERY time they kill one of our soldiers, everybody in Canada starts screaming for the soldiers to come home? The only part of this war that the Taliban are winning, is the war of wills.
If you want the Taliban to stop burning down schools, theres only one way to accomplish that. Kill them all. The way you talk, I'm lead to believe that you think the Afghani's either don't want schools, or don't deserve them.
You lefties all think the same way, something goes sour in a war, you run away. Thats backwards logic. When NATO calls for more troops, we should send more troops. You win battles by fighting, not by running away.
Furthermore, your comment about the West failing against an insurgency in Iraq is a load of shit. The "insurgency" in Iraq is definetly losing. Most of the violence in Iraq these days is Iraqis killing Iraqis. The "insurgency", which consists mostly of FOREIGN fighters is resorting to killing the citizens of Iraq to impose fear. It's devolved into a civil war, with the Coalition in the middle.
On the bright side, Iraq is going to have its third democratic election. There is talk in their government about splitting the country into three distict regions (that IS a good thing). Iraqis can now see that their future is in their own hands, and thats something they've never known before. Of course you're not going to hear about that on CBC News though.
If we wanted things to go smoother over there, we'd send every damn soldier we can to Afghanistan. We shouldn't feel a bit of guilt for killing the enemy. When one of our guys dies, we should respond with renewed vigor, not fall-back and discuss our "exit strategy".
Links to this post:
<< Home
