The NDP vs the Rest of Us
The NDP fanatics are at it again. Spreading lies, innuendos, and degrading debate with scare tactics. They stand for passivism and appeasment. Won't have any violence to save their lives. Thank God there's only a few of them to round up. Here's a quote from the Defence Critic Dawn Black taken from the debate on military committment in Afghanistan that they clamoured for. Looks like a workable solution to answering their whining is to remind them that their legacy party, Tommy Douglas' CCF party, would have prevented us from joining the fight in World War II. Is that a Mosquito I hear. Made in Canada, Hun.
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the take note debate held in the House in November [2005], members of Parliament and Canadians were assured that this was a NATO-led mission and that it would be a multinational mission. We know that at this time it is not. We are operating under Operation Enduring Freedom. [emphasis mine]
That is not accurate. In reading over the take note debate in November 2005 it was abundantly clear to me, and I'm not paid to know anything, and I'm certainly not a defence critic for a "national political party" like the NDP purports to be. The state the mission was in, at the time of the debate, just so happened to be under a coalition. The fact that the 'Merican's were the lead is due to their number strength, committment, preparedness, and hoorah aggression.
As Al Jazeera states, we were there at the outset supporting the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban government along with the States, Brits, and the Aussies. Whether the boogey monster called "Enduring 'Freedom" changed the depth and breadth of the multinational UN sanctioned security force or not, we're in control of our own section of the mission within the rotational international force command structure (see ISAF).
There are 36 countries directly involved in the mission to free Afghanistan, at whatever level of capability they can muster. I would have thought Ms Black would have known that since she is the defence critic and must (I'm stretching here) be able to read. If she had taken a look at the public records she would have had all the information I have. I would think that would be part of doing her job. Apparently, facts might change her agenda to undermine Canada's role, so that's a nyet, nyet.
Scaring us all to believing we are under control by the pariah 'Mericans is just ignorant or down right malicious. Any connection the NDP can draw between us and the big bad Americans seems to be a red flag for her and her international cabal of communists. Ooops. I mean her international communard, ooops, harumph, her international community of socialists. Even saying it nice still doesn't quite wipe the stench off these liars.
Of course we support the women and men in our armed forces and we believe the best way to demonstrate that support is to ask the serious questions that need to be asked about this mission.
Why have the Dutch delayed their deployment to Kandahar? Why are we not operating now, as we were told we would be, under a NATO-led multinational mission in Afghanistan, in Kandahar province?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe the Dutch people are getting scittery about the Islamic tactic of intimidation, and subsequent dhimmitude of the population; or maybe they have a communist party in their minority government hindering their NATO committment.
Maybe if the NDP were taken seriously in this country you could strangle our resolve too. With the ISAF gradually taking more control over operations, leading up to full command authority we don't need frightened rabbits destabilizing the very serious and deadly situation our comrades are confronting. Your cut and run tactics will turn us all into charcoal. Any hint of the kind of riotous Islamic violence, ala Danish cartoons, being foisted upon our staid citizenry and we're supposed to hide? What do you think that Tim Horton's bombing was?. Oh, yeah, keep that suppressed, don't want anyone to hear reality. Yes, Ms Black, this is part of our enduring freedom, should you look up from your granola you might see your ass getting saved.
Email Ms Black
10Apr06 Hansard Debate on Afghanistan
posted by Ottawa Core @ 11:33 PM
7 comments
links to this post
7 Comments:
>>>Looks like a workable solution to answering their whining is to remind them that their legacy party, Tommy Douglas' CCF party, would have prevented us from joining the fight in World War II.<<<
I find this very interesting. Do you have a source? Or are you just making stuff up?
Lets see:
In September 1939, the CCF national council voted 13-9 to support the government’s declaration of war. In the House of Commons, only one CCF M.P., party leader J.S. Woodsworth, spoke and voted against the war. (their were only 7 or 8 members at the time. But every one of them went against their leader and voted in support of war)
By the time of the 1942 Referendum (after Woodsworth's death), the CCF was giving all-out support to the war effort, including conscription. It strongly OPPOSED the anti-conscription movement in Quebec.
Oh, and by the way, here is a little bit about Tommy Douglas: After the outbreak of World War II, Douglas enlisted in the wartime Canadian Army. He had volunteered for overseas service and was on a draft of men headed for the Winnipeg Grenadiers when a medical examination turned up foot problems. Douglas stayed in Canada and the Grenadiers headed for Hong Kong. But for that ailment, he would have been with the regiment when its members were killed or captured at Hong Kong in December 1941.
Not to mention that the reason Douglas became leader of the Saskatchewan CCF party in 1942 was because the previous party leader WAS fighting over seas in WWII.
I would appreciate you naming a couple right wing party leader's who fought, or attempted to fight, in WWII. As far as I know it is 2 for the CCF, 0 for the rest of the parties.
yup, right there in the hansard. both o'connor and kenney made mention of it.
o'connor to layton:
"That is the party that opposed our being in NATO until a few years ago. I do not want to go back to World War II and that history. That party does not want the military involved in anything."
kenney to mcdonough:
"They also seem to forget that in the most important military action in modern history, the second world war, Canadian troops fought under a joint command led by the United States. We did so proudly in the liberation of Europe, a military operation that the leader of their legacy party, the CCF, voted against."
the dippers have always remained a thorn in the side of democracy. i dug this up from the Socialist History Project:
The CCF’s 1933 Regina Manifesto was very clear on war. It said:
"We stand resolutely against all participation in imperialist wars. Canada must refuse to be entangled in any more wars fought to make the world safe for capitalism."
In 1937, CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth proposed a resolution in Parliament which declared that Canada would remain neutral in any war.
But for most of the CCF leadership, those fine words didn’t last a day past the beginning of a real war. In September 1939, the CCF national council voted 13-9 to support the government’s declaration of war.
In the House of Commons, only one CCF M.P., party leader J.S. Woodsworth, spoke and voted against the war.
This was a major betrayal of CCF principles, and it’s very likely that a majority of the CCF’s membership would have opposed the war if they had been given a say.
i especially like this reference to their first convention's manifesto:
No CCF Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Cooperative Commonwealth.
As for your first post.
Kenney said exactly what I said. Woodsworth voted against. He didn’t mention that everyone else, including long time pacifist Agnes MacPhail, voted for military action.
O’connor implies that The CCF didn’t support Canadian involvement in WWII. He is wrong. The leader didn’t, but the rest of the MP’s did.
Looks like the history shows that the NDP and its predecessor will support military action (wholeheartedly) when it is absolutely necessary. But, before killing people and risking lives they like to make sure that every alternative to prevent the slaughter has been exhausted. A lot of Canadians agree with that approach. Harper and company wanted to go charging into Iraq with Bush II despite having zero evidence (except fabricated stuff) and no attempts at diplomacy. Bush was wrong. So was Harper.
As for the second post
Imperialist wars are fought to extend control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires through territorial conquest. Almost all Canadians do not support imperialist wars. 50 to 100 years ago a lot more Canadians did support such things. Those Canadians were wrong, the CCF was right.
As for the Woodsworth proposing a resolution on neutrality in 1937, lets not forget that he was the only CCF member to vote against the war. Also at the time there was a lot of support for neutrality in Canada the UK and (especially) in the US where there was such a strong public desire to stay out of another European war (JFK’s father who was the US ambassador to the UK wanted FDR to guarantee neutrality) that Roosevelt had to campaign in 1940 on a promise of the US staying out of the war even as he was aggressively preparing for war which he knew was inevitable.
As for the rest of it. Everyone knows that the CCF was a proponent of socialism. This is not a debate about whether or not the CCF opposed capitalism. My post was to comment that you were mistaken. The CCF would not have prevented Canada from entering WWII – they were strong supporters (except Woodsworth). As your last post confirms. Glad to see we now agree.
I was under the impression the Toronto Police had determined that the Tim Horton's incident was a rather messy suicide rather than a political statement. Otherwise I agree with the general tenor of your remarks.
Trevor: So what you're saying is that the CFF wouldn't have prevented participation in WWII because, despite proffessing to be utterly spineless socialists in their manifesto, they were also brazen hypocrites (except the leader, of course)!
So, essentially, I needn't worry about the socialists doing anything wrong because they don't really believe the crap they spew anyway?
Is that supposed to reassure me?
Jeff said...
>>>Trevor: So what you're saying is that the CFF wouldn't have prevented participation in WWII because, despite proffessing to be utterly spineless socialists in their manifesto, they were also brazen hypocrites (except the leader, of course)!
So, essentially, I needn't worry about the socialists doing anything wrong because they don't really believe the crap they spew anyway?
Is that supposed to reassure me? <<<
This is what the Regina Manifesto of 1933 said:
10. EXTERNAL RELATIONS
A FOREIGN POLICY DESIGNED TO OBTAIN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND TO PROMOTE DISARMAMENT AND WORLD PEACE.
Canada has a vital interest in world peace. We propose, therefore, to do everything in our power to advance the idea of international co-operation as represented by the League of Nations and the International Labour Organization. We would extend our diplomatic machinery for keeping in touch with the main centres of world interest. But we believe that genuine international co-operation is incompatible with the capitalist regime which is in force in most countries, and that strenuous efforts are needed to rescue the League from its present conditions of being mainly a League of capitalist Great Powers. We stand resolutely against all participation in imperialist wars. Within the British Commonwealth, Canada must maintain her autonomy as a completely self-governing nation. We must resist all attempts to build up a new economic British Empire in place of the old political one, since such attempts readily lend themselves to the purposes of capitalist exploitation and may easily lead to further world wars. Canada must refuse to be entangled in any more wars fought to make the world safe for capitalism.
It specifically says “against all participation in imperalist wars.” WWI was viewed as imperialist as we were fighting with the British while they acquired Palestine, Iraq, of Tanganyika, Nambia and New Guinea. One the causes of WWI was also viewed as Economic Imperialism (from wikipedia).
WWII was quite different. It was mainly caused by the rise of Nationalism (in Germany, Italy and Japan) and indirectly through unanticipated consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. The British Commonwealth did not acquire territory.
As for hypocrisy:
The Conservative Party campaigned against conscription in the 1940 election (led by Dr. Manion) but then started to strongly advocate conscription starting November 1941. The Liberals also campaigned against conscription, but held a national referendum to absolve themselves from that position in 1942. There was nothing to gain from CCF members voting in favor in war and much to lose. They voted as they did based on conscious, knowing that it would cost them votes in the upcoming election. It cost a couple of them, including Agnes MacPhail, her seat.
How about Peter MacKay and his deal with Orchard to not join the CA?
And lets have a look at our PM regarding Iraq:
"It was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win."
- Stephen Harper supporting the US-lead war on Iraq, Montreal Gazette, April 2nd 2003. Harper also called then-Defence Minister John McCallum an "idiot."
"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."
- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.
"Nay."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March
Then during the most recent election, despite the fact that “This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls.”
Dah, dah, dah dah – “I would not commit Canadian troops to that country.”
But none of that matters right? It doesn’t count when it is your guys. Mulroney and Diefenbaker always stayed true to their principles! Joke.
My point was that the CCF did support WWII. That can’t be argued. Bye.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home