• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Response to the Ruxted rebuttal of Jack Layton in the Toronto Star

How can you negotiate with Hezbollah or Hamas?  Both have the destruction of the Jewish State in their founding documents.  Pushing the Jews into the Mediterranean is the raison d'etre of their existence.  Anything less than the destruction of Israel would be a huge defeat for these organisations.  The reason why the Palestinian Authority is receiving no aid from the western world (lead by PM Harper of Canada) is because Hamas refuses to withdraw it's goal of the destruction of the State of Israel from its constitution.

Just because these groups have elected members of legislative assemblies and hand out counterfeit American currency to rebuild homes, does not make them legitimate combatants to negotiate with.

Edited for clarity.
 
RangerRay said:
How can you negotiate with Hezbollah or Hamas?  Both have the destruction of the Jewish State in their founding documents.  Pushing the Jews into the Mediterranean is the raison d'etre of their existence.  Anything less than the destruction of Israel would be a huge defeat for these organisations.  The reason why the Palestinian Authority is receiving no aid from the western world (lead by PM Harper of Canada) is because Hamas refuses to withdraw it's goal of the destruction of the State of Israel from its constitution.

Just because these groups have elected members of legislative assemblies and hand out counterfeit American currency to rebuild homes, does not make them legitimate combatants to negotiate with.

Edited for clarity.
Well to a point I agree. The thing is as Hezbollah showed by agreeing to a ceasefire, they are capable of showing retreat. Now you make a good point, but if we refuse to talk to them, what options does that leave us with? When the organizations are so supported by the citizens of their countries, there is only so much military action can do. Like for the Isreal - Palestine situation, if anythings ever going to get solved, Isreal has two options: nuke them off the face of the planet or talk to the "bad guys". Miltiary action can only go so far when the majority of a country supports the terrorist groups. At least in Afghanistan, it seems like the average citizen is opposed to the Taliban.
 
From my understanding of Hezbollah, there are the average citizen Hezbollah and the militant Hezbollah.  I agree if the majorty of the population supports that organization then there is really no other choice than to try and negotiate.  Whether or not that works, well it hasn't in the past but I guess time will tell.  They at least have to try to talk, but peace talks in the middle east have never been a successful route.

In terms of the Taliban, well again from my understanding they are purely a militant group and the average citizen does not support them, so I struggle with the idea of sitting down with these terrorists and talking it out.  How do you negotiate with someone willing to die for their cause.  Again I say to Jack... by all means give it a shot, but you be the first one through the door and we'l see how long you last.  (not quite what I wanted to say, but I curbed my anger).
 
There are threads-o-plenty for Hamas/Hezbollah debate.  Lets stick to Mr. Ruxpins intent.  :)
Boy, and I thought the Ex-Charging Bison thread drew out a bunch.  ::)

I cannot get my head around anyone who is saying that Layton and Mr. Harper are cut from the same cloth?  ???  I can understand being cynical with all government, but the two individuals are at two ends of a spectrum. 
Layton is using fear mongering tactics for no other reason than to play up to what he perceives as Canadians lack of fortitude for a shooting war.  In doing so, he can try to discredit Mr. Harper's government and thus try to rob a few seats away from the Lieberals next time around.  It is that simple.  Self serving, BS politics.  Where he is running into trouble is that he is dead wrong, but if he backs down now he looks like an even bigger tool.  He had his opportunity to bow out gracefully when Pres. Karzai was here.  He could have had a big "I've seen the light" revelation, then still tried to get in his two cents.  But he appears to be sticking to his rhetoric just for the sheer pettiness of it.  Which is all well and good, if you are arguing about GST or health care.  Snipe away. 
But Layton is playing with peoples lives.  At the best of times, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are focused zealots who are willing to die for what they believe in.  They view us as weak, decadent and sub human.  As such, they are probably somewhat baffled that we have the resolve that we do.  So now we have a "leader" that routinely gets on the television and is going on at length about wanting us to pull out.  Does he thing that doesn't get back to them?  So any moral erosion that the soldiers over there have caused the Taliban gets shot to crap.  Now, all they have to do is hang in there and keep trying, since one idiot mouth continues to advocate our withdrawl like it is a foregone conclusion.  Now, all they need to do is throw out the odd reminder to the citizens that "Hey, we are still here, and we can reach out and touch you whenever we want.  And when the infidels are gone, you are gonna get it so much worse than before".  Thanks Jack.  No doubt your flagging career is more important than our soldiers lives. 
But we have hung in, and we do continue to stand up to them.  It is that demonstrated fortitude that has gotten us local cooperation and paved the way for some decisive victories.  The Afghan people respect strength and conviction.  If we pull out now, not only do we tell the Taliban that killing westerners is a good way to get them to leave, we will also be telling Joe and Jane Afghanistan "good luck, it was fun while it lasted".  So do you really think these people will get too ramped up when a terrorist camp opens up next door to go after westerners?  Terrorists have money to buy supplies and patronize the local economy.  The Afghans need to make a living just like anyone else does, and they don't have the luxury that we do to take time to be morally righteous. 
Layton knows damn well that we are not going anywhere.  He also knows that it would be a human rights disaster if we left, and likely in reality doesn't want it to happen.  However, it is the only thing he can pick at with Mr. Harper's government since things are going so well. 

I might suggest that history will remember Ojacka Bin Layton the same way as Neville Chamberlain; a weak appeaser that lacked the moral fibre to do what had to be done.  But that would be entertaining the idea that he will be remembered in history, and I just don't think that will be the case.

peaceinourtime.jpg


(I can't take credit for the picture.  It came from another thread)
 
I hate to admit it but I agree with Jack on this one!
Spending so much money on the military over humanitarian stuff is just dumb!

We should just do what they did in Somalia and Africa.  Drive up trucks loaded with food and water and building supplies and drop it off to the locals. We don't need security, I'm sure no one will be bold enough to mess with the relief convoys or interdict the food stuffs and then sell it back to the people, or keep it.

Lets give the Taliban and drug lords some food to sell fo the locals so they can line their pockets, whos with me?
 
Ummmm, Flawed Design... That will NOT work.

... you have to give the warlords some munitions and explosives too... Otherwise those pesky locals can actually get to the food without paying.

All joshing aside... Jack's hyperbole and rhetoric are just about as silly. Your point is eloquently made!

Pronto
 
Flawed Design said:
I hate to admit it but I agree with Jack on this one!
Spending so much money on the military over humanitarian stuff is just dumb!

We should just do what they did in Somalia and Africa.  Drive up trucks loaded with food and water and building supplies and drop it off to the locals.  or interdict the food stuffsWe don't need security, I'm sure no one will be bold enough to mess with the relief convoys and then sell it back to the people, or keep it.

Lets give the Taliban and drug lords some food to sell fo the locals so they can line their pockets, whos with me?


I guess no one reads the News.  Cpl Arnold was killed, along with three others, handing out food and other relief supplies.  Whenever a relief convoy goes into any area, it is "mobbed" by the locals.  Relief supplies have been stolen by War Lords in other nations and used in corrupt schemes for profiteering.  Why yes, the NDP have the correct solution, don't they.

Flawed Design

Your sarcasm was great.    ;D
 
Holy Crap Flawed...

I had the ol' reliable M60 out, was already donning my Sylvester Stallone Muscle vest, and tying on my fashionable Rambo sweat band to come looking for you....and I suddenly realized it was sarcasm.  Yeah, I'm getting older and not as sharp as I used to be.

In reality, your post is excellent: it perfectly illustrates the stupidity behind Taliban Jack's "cut and run" mentality.  Now, ya wanna help me get this stupid muscle vest off?
 
From today's sad news about our two latest killed in Afghanistan:
PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan -- Two Canadian soldiers were killed Tuesday in southern Afghanistan as they worked to clear a route for a future road construction project, the deputy commander of Task Force Afghanistan reported

THERE IS reconstruction, it's dangerous work, yet you wish us to "relocate" and say that this mission is "unbalanced".

Shame on you
 
Here is another good article on that point:

Lawmakers urge NATO to boost Afghanistan troops
Tue 3 Oct 2006 5:03 AM ET

BRUSSELS, Oct 3 (Reuters) - NATO must send more troops to south Afghanistan to kickstart reconstruction which has been hampered by an upsurge in violence there, lawmakers from alliance nations urged on Tuesday.

"More boots on the ground are needed in the southern part of Afghanistan to provide sufficient stability for sustained reconstruction," said the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a grouping of parliamentarians from across the alliance.

"The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in recent months. The increasing cost in human lives ... demonstrates that this war is not yet won," it said in a statement, adding that "a failed Afghanistan will also be a failed NATO".

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly describes itself as a forum for building public and parliamentary support for NATO. Its recommendations to the alliance are not formally binding.

The 26-member military alliance has acknowledged it underestimated Taliban resistance in the south, where British, Dutch and Canadian soldiers have taken heavy casualties in what has been the toughest ground combat in NATO's 57-year history.

NATO countries have yet to plug troop shortfalls identified by commanders in its 20,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), due on Thursday to complete its plan to take control of peacekeeping across all of Afghanistan.

The move into east Afghanistan, the only area not already covered by ISAF, is only possible because the United States agreed to transfer 12,000 of its troops from the separate U.S.-led coalition there to NATO command.

"In view of NATO's commitment to extend security throughout the country...member countries must decide to redouble their efforts to provide the assets required to achieve this goal," the lawmakers said.

Poland, Bulgaria and Romania have indicated in recent weeks that they will send some more troops to the mission, but others such as Spain, Italy, France and Germany have declined to deploy troops to the south.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L03605392

Of course, it is all just us Bush puppets trying to get more troops into the "occupied" country in order to make it more secure for the Trans Afghan Pipeline that Haliburton wants to build.  ::)
Oh, how complicated life is as an inbred killbot.  :'(
 
zipperhead_cop:  On the oil pipeline conspiracy theory:

Pipe Dreams: The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2059487

There is no need for an oil pipeline through Afstan now that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is open:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline

The government of Kazakhstan announced that it would seek to build a trans-Caspian oil pipeline from the Kazakhstani port of Aktau to Baku in Azerbaijan, connecting with the BTC pipeline, to transport oil from the major Kazakhstani oilfield at Kashagan as well as points further afield in central Asia.

The Great Energy Game
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060903/11game_2.htm

...the $4 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which opened with much fanfare in July and links Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. At the ribbon-cutting, the 1,109-mile pipeline was hailed as "the Silk Road of the 21st century," bypassing Russia to bring oil from the world's third-largest reserves in the Caspian to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean, where it can be loaded onto tankers to supply global markets.

Kazakhstan, the largest country in central Asia, has three of the world's richest hydrocarbon fields. One of them, Kashagan, was discovered in the Caspian five years ago. It is believed to rank among the five largest fields on Earth and is expected to start producing in the next few years. Kazakhstan produced 1.2 million barrels a day last year, but it is expected to pump 3 million barrels a day by 2015-almost as much as Iran. Chevron is spending over $5 billion to expand production there, its largest project anywhere. "There are very few places in the world that have still untapped reserves and the openness in the business environment," says Roman Vassilenko, a Kazakh government spokesman. He says 70 percent of Kazakh oil production is owned by foreign companies...

But still, as more oil is pumped out, Kazakhstan must choose between exporting it north through Russia, east through China, or west through an expanded BTC pipeline. The United States is gearing up to make its pitch. Later this month, Nazarbayev will come to the United States for the first time since 2001, visiting the White House and the Bush family compound in Maine. Energy, obviously, will top the agenda...

There is however a long-standing plan for a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Aftan to Pakistan and (maybe) India.  But that is hardly a vital US national security or capitalist interest.

Turkmenistan: A Pipeline Long In The Pipeline
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/b8cadc86-b102-44ea-bce5-6d68c87b6ec9.html

And not likely to be built for a while.

Mark
Ottawa

 
Of course Tally jack fails to mention that Australia pulled it’s SF to give them a rest, not because they are pissed about the way things are going.

I also noticed that he is silent on the subject of western nation neglecting to follow through with their promises, something that lead to this particular situation.
 
GMan87: A truly intelligent comment, good logic and good argument.

Might I suggest you edit it and sent as a letter to the Toronto Star/i]?

Would be happy to help with editing (not much).
:)

Mark
Ottawa
 
I sent Layton this from the Ruxton group along with this letter I hope I get a reply this time.

  Mr. Layton I have sent several message’s to your constituency office with NO reply. I feel that you should know that we the soldiers of this country support the current mission in Afghanistan, it is a mission that we can be proud of un-like any UN missions. In my and many of my friend’s opinions the comments you make are a complete morale breaker. To hear you say that we are peacekeepers is actually insulting to a great many of us and find completely derogatory, we are soldiers proud professionals. No matter what branch of the service Army, Navy of Air Force this is a mission that we can be proud of.



 
I think at this point it would be safe to assume that Layton could care less about what soldiers think.  He probably has the hippie mindset that we just aren't happy unless we are fighting somewhere.  Probably listened to this song in the 80's too much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCW6Kte2o1A&mode=related&search=

I think Ojacka Bin Layton is trying to consolidate the soft, pacifist element within Canada.  If he can seize on peoples dissatisfaction with the Lieberals (agree with previous comment about Layton predicting an Ignatieff win for that party) and play up fears with regards to the "OOOO Scary Conservatives!!" he may figure that it will draw him some votes.  What he is also counting on is that people are uninformed cattle and will not take any steps to educate themselves beyond his "pearls of wisdom". 
Hopefully, by continuing with this sustained vein of foolishness, people will be driven to ask themselves "what is the real story here?" and do the looking on their own. 
Political hell hath no fury like a socialist duped.  Watch and shoot.
 
Just saw O'Connor and Kenney on CTV Question Period.  O'Connor about the best I've seen him--pointing out his efforts in Slovenia to get NATO members (i.e. Germany, Italy, France and Spain) to get rid of caveats-- and Craig Oliver not too awful.  Kenney made a point--which the government should have been doing months ago--of emphasizing that ISAF is a UN Security Council mandated operation.  He's sharp; no wonder the PM gives him such exposure.

Mark
Ottawa
 
:cdn: Layton showed me his attitude towards our military past and present when I watched him at the national ceremonies commemorating the end of WW2 held in 2005. The other political leaders picked up the wreath they were to lay and did so with some pride and reverence. Layton had a cadet carry it up to the cenotaph and looked like he was picking up some dirty diaper when he did take it to lay it.

I would never support the NDP with the likes of Layton as the leader and when 92% of their delegates vote to support his hair brain demands, I'm even less likely to waver. I don't support Harper either but I sure can respect that he 'gets it' that we have to stay the course in Afghanistan. I come from a long line of war veterans and have learned that Canadian troops have often prevailed and succeeded through persistence and ingenuity.

Always caring ... always Canadian... never defeated.
 
A superb and comprehensive article by Jack Granatstein; a taste (shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act):
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=bfb37125-4437-4095-9f4d-31e916700ca0&p=1

...the NDP would far prefer Canada's troops be deployed to Darfur in Sudan than to Kandahar. There, the UN would be in charge, or so Layton appears to believe.

There are, of course, a few practical problems with a Darfur operation. The Khartoum government refuses entry to UN troops and threatens a jihad against them if they dare to come. Moreover, Canada has no way to get troops to Darfur (even if it had the troops to send), no way to support them logistically in a barren area of the world, and no way to get them out in an emergency. Finally, the casualties in Darfur might be far higher than in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, because the U.S. is (relatively) uninvolved and because women and children are being brutalized, Darfur is the NDP's preferred operation...

What Layton refuses to acknowledge is that the Afghan operation has been sanctioned by repeated UN resolutions, and is yet another military operation sub-contracted by the UN to those who are willing to pick up the burden. The UN's undersecretary-general for peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guehenno, says bluntly that traditional UN peacekeepers can't do the job in Afghanistan where robust forces are needed to take on the Taliban insurgents. The world organization wants its political and humanitarian efforts -- and, not least, its efforts to assist women and children -- in Afghanistan to succeed, and Guehenno understands that without military action, the development and stabilization efforts could be stymied. The undersecretary-general last week even congratulated Canada for sending tanks to Kandahar.

Not one Canadian in a hundred, and certainly not Layton and friends, understands that the UN considers the troops fighting in Afghanistan to be carrying out a Security Council mandate. The Canadian government would be wise to make this clear to the public...

So, claiming to support our troops, Layton's NDP wants our soldiers to concentrate on reconstruction and to opt out of an unwinnable war. Every Canadian wants an end to the war in Afghanistan and the establishment of a government that can control this tribalized, dangerous state. Unfortunately, it will take combat to hold down the Islamist terrorists sufficiently to allow reconstruction and development to proceed. Ottawa understands this and even the United Nations does.

Why doesn't Jack Layton get the message? The reason is clear: He believes that he can parlay Canadian casualties in Kandahar and strident anti-Americanism in Canada into votes in the next election. He might be right, but Canadians should understand the bald-faced cynicism that underlies his policy.
 
Agree 100% with Mr. Granatstein. Time for the PM to maybe re-iterate the reasons why, and who actually mandated the mission. Some folks might be converted to understand but I think it is too late for "Osama bin Layton".
 
Excellent article mate, thanks for sharing. I know with the right facts presented, many people in the middle can/will change their minds about the war there, as several of my own friends have.
 
Back
Top