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

Taliban can't be defeated by troops: Layton

slowmode said:
You cant really develop when the Taliban keeps blowing up the things we develop
Ie: Roads, schools, houses, hospitals

Security can only be achieved by getting rid of the problem, and the Afghan government can only build up if the root of evil is taken away. Sorry but you have no valid point

The man said, "Troops ALONE cannot defeat the Taliban, but without them nothing else can."

Ummm... I think you're actually agreeing with each other - combat troops won't directly end the mess in Afghanistan. That said, without combat troops, the rebuilders can't accomplish anything.
 
OK right, now I can just see a bunch of blue helmets been sent to Afghanistan and the taliban having a great turkey shoot.

What the hell is the UN going to do, set up another green line and say to the taliban, now you can't cross it. HAA, good luck with that one. Jack your living in an alternate universe, come visit us in ours sometime, it's called reality!

This guy is a total buffoon, I think it's time the NDP find another leader because he's, now just a total embarrassment to Parliament and to all those we've lost in the past 5 years.

Get your head out of your *** Jack and stop sucking on that bong, because the 60's are over pal or maybe you were to busy sucking on that big old "bong" and never got the memo.

There's nothing more irritating than listening to a blow hard like taliban jack and his infinite wisdom sessions. "Jack" ass!
 
MCG said:
So, he wants Canadian efforts to be within a UN mandated force in Afghanistan.  Clearly he does not know what ISAF is (nor does he know what peacekeeping is).

I got into a crapping match with the useless ewe that's my MP and his purple track suit wearing propaganda regurgitator over this about a year or so ago - she tried to tell me what was happening in Afghanistan vis a vis who was in charge of what and what the Canadian public and Parliament had/ had not been told.  Sum total was that she either has NO knowledge of current affairs or actually believes that the whole thing is like a NATO invasion without any UN mandate - she actually told me we were under UN command in Kabul and I had to inform her to the contrary, and then had to tell her I knew that because I had actually been there.  If I had been talking to her face to face I'd have had to literally spell words and things out or use sign language, as she seems only to know what's fed to her by Jacko Lantern.  Perhaps he's a ventriloquist and all his MP's are his lap dummies - if we watch question period hard enough, maybe we'll see the strings.

Anyway, that circus and it's ring leader make my blood pressure rise.

MM
 
I think Mr Layton is chasing after the peace activist, save the snub nosed caterpillar voters.

Just remember Jack, when you have these potential voters over to your party it's puff, puff and pass!! Oh, and make sure you have lot's of snacks!  :pop:
 
Bigmac said:
I think Mr Layton is chasing after the peace activist, ...
In the process of securing votes from a segment of society, he is also fooling/misleading another segment.  That is not good for Canada or for the CF.
 
Personally I am of the opinion that he has two core beliefs:

1  All war is bad......... the corollary to that is that we, the west can never be allowed to win a war in case we develop a taste for going to war.
2  Somethings are important enough to justify lying...............................................see point 1. 

Even if we "win" Jack and his buddies will never admit the win, or any other definition of success.

George Orwell had it right on pacifists.
 
MCG said:
In the process of securing votes from a segment of society, he is also fooling/misleading another segment.  That is not good for Canada or for the CF.

I think Mr Layton actually believes his own rhetoric because he really has no clue what the military is about or why the mission in Afghanistan is so important. He knows a great deal of voters have little knowledge on the mission as well so he can get away with a lot.

The general public is fooled because they only know what the media shows them. Why is nobody chewing apart Layton's statements with facts in the media just as fast as he spits them out? By not addressing Layton's comments immediately it leads the general public to believe his rantings may have truth. This negative media is definitely not good for Canada or the CF but it is up to the current conservative government to set the record straight.
 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080204/dion_afghanistan_AM_080204/20080204?hub=TopStories
Layton wants new direction for Afghanistan mission
Updated Mon. Feb. 4 2008 5:50 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he'll try to convince Stephane Dion tonight to support a non-military approach to Afghanistan, before the Liberal leader meets with Prime Minister Stephen Harper Tuesday.

Dion is expected to take a more middle-of-the-road position and, unlike the NDP, is unlikely to call for an immediate end to NATO operations.

But Layton told CTV's Mike Duffy Live he hopes Dion still has an open mind.

"I hope I can persuade Mr. Dion to grab hold of the leadership that's needed here," he said. "I'm hoping he won't go down the path that (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) has laid out, that calls for really an endless commitment of our military to a war-fighting counterinsurgency role, which shows no sign of reaching a conclusion."

Layton said his party has outlined "an alternative path based on the principles of (former prime minister) Lester Pearson, who said that peace is tough to accomplish but you've always got to strive to achieve it."

The NDP wants Canada to pull its troops from Afghanistan and focus on civilian operations to rebuild the war-torn country.

A recent report from a panel headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley called for Canada to extend its commitment beyond the February, 2009 deadline, but only if other NATO nations commit troops to take on combat duties and Canada moves to a training role.

But Layton said the mission needs to be dismantled and a new approach must be taken -- one that would see the United Nations handling the mission.

"I'm saying it's time not only for Canada to pull out, but for NATO itself to realize this is not a military mission that's going to succeed," he said. "NATO should pass responsibilities to the UN, an organization constructed to deal with bringing an end to regional conflicts like this."

The UN, he said, could give the mission a mandate that would go beyond military commitment and put a renewed focus on development, peacekeeping, equality for women and aid.

He said that would be more in tune with Canadian principles.

But the Liberals have suggested the UN would not be a preferable organization to tackle Afghanistan.

"You can't protect people just with blue berets and a sidearm," Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff said last week. "It requires -- and this is the difficult bit for Canada -- it requires military capability."

Some military experts have slammed Layton's position on the war, calling it harmful to the morale of soldiers and to the struggling Afghan government.

If Dion does align himself with Layton, it would theoretically mean the two parties could join with the Bloc Quebecois and out-vote the government in any bid to extend the Afghan mission.
He's on to something now!  The UN could give the mission a mandate .... oh yeah, the UN (still) has already done that.

But it is nice to see that someone is getting intelligent sound-bites to counter the NDP foolery. 
 
If Mr. Ignatieff had won the Lib leadership thingy there a year and a bit ago, there would not be this debat in the House.  Though a member of the liberal party, he is also, I suspect, a realist.  Though he's backtracked on Iraq (as every "good" politician has done), he supported intervention there in 2003.  He's seen inneffective military responses to corrupt regimes (specifically, the Balkans) and he knows the consequences.  I'm actually a bit surprised that he's not part of the Conservative party, but his social liberal ideals may be a bit off the track for the Conservatives.
 
Wow i can't believe this guy has a right to represent our interests......  As one of leading nations of the world does he really think that we don't have a obligation to provide security locally to third world nations and in secondary to that provide security for ourselves and our friends down south.  I just hope that his words fall on deaf ears or hope people are not that stupid to actually think that he has some validity to his statements.  I agree combat is not the only way...no ship anyone over the age of 17 should be able to figure that one out.  But to say that were not being effective in our past and current missions is blading all "us".  Well at least i know who i won't vote for..... :salute: :cdn: :salute:
 
Keep digging at that hole Jack, only a matter of time before you completely bury yourself.
 
From Terry Glavin:

Into the Abyss: Afghanistan, Jack Layton, and the Fall of the New Democratic Party
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/into-abyss-afghanistan-jack-layton-and.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Taliban Jack polls evenly with the greens!  ;D
And half of his own supporters don't support NDP line on Afghanistan!  :rofl:

Thanks Mark - I needed that!

 
Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.

George! Two falsehoods in one sentence! Nice!

Can you demonstrate how Canada is a more dangerous place?
Can you demonstrate how being in Afghanistan makes any negative difference?

Canada is in Afghanistan for CANADA.
It's in Canada's national interest.

Can you support your arguments with more than poorly constructed rhetoric?
 
Rote, rote, rote your vote
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/2008/02/24/4872021-sun.html

Results of Nanos Research-Sun Media poll hardly music to the ears of Prime Minister Harper
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/02/24/4872028-sun.html

By GREG WESTON

The average Conservative supporter is driven by policies, hordes of Liberals vote by rote and tradition, and leadership is barely a factor in the current popularity of any of the federal parties...

This is no rogue survey. Pollster Nik Nanos is arguably the most respected in the country, having accurately predicted the outcomes of the last two federal elections within a decimal point.

Unlike other political surveys, the Nanos poll not only asked Canadians how they would vote, but added the pivotal question: Why?..

For the New Democrats, the Nanos-Sun survey has some good news and bad.

As expected, the party of the left scores high among its supporters for its policies, and for what devotees perceive as "caring about the average working person."

On the other hand, the survey tends to dash NDP hopes that its hardline against the Afghanistan war would attract masses of Liberal voters.

Among the 1,001 Canadians surveyed, the Dippers' position on Afghanistan was listed as the main reason for voting NDP by exactly one person..."

Duh.

By the way, on CTV's "Question Period" today,
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=http://esi.ctv.ca/datafeed/urlgen2.aspx?vid=33929&video_link_low=QP0224_second&clip_start=00:00:00.00&clip_end=00:07:49.00&clip_caption=CTV's%20Question%20Period:%20NDP%20Leader%20Jack%20Layton&clip_id=33929&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080224&slug=layton_budget_080224&archive=CTVNews

Layton said NATO, as military alliance, should not be having a lead role in Afstan.  Rather the UN should.  I'm waiting for him to demand that NATO KFOR be withdrawn from Kosovo.  I suspect it will be a long wait, and maybe he just doesn't know anyway.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Is the mission in Afghanistan not mandated by the UN and carried out by NATO?
 
OldSolduer said:
Is the mission in Afghanistan not mandated by the UN and carried out by NATO?

Yes but Jack likes to ignore that part.........minor detail !!

::)
 
Yes the truth is out there,,,the NDP conveniently ignores this for their purposes.....
 
What I find interesting about Jack is how convincing he sounds UNTILyou start letting the facts filter into the argument.

He's not stupid or unaware of the nature of what he is saying.
I suspect his stance on Afghanistan is more diversionary than real.
You could say I'm accusing him of some serious dishonesty.
I'd have to agree. ;)
 
The latest UN Security Council resolution, Sept. 19, 2007; Mr Layton might read it (I'm sure he has not):
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9122.doc.htm

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1386 (2001), 1510 (2003), 1707 (2006) and 1746 (2007),

“Reaffirming also its resolutions 1267 (1999), 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and reiterating its support for international efforts to root out terrorism in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

“Recalling its resolutions 1265 (1999), 1296 (2000), 1674 (2006) and 1738 (2006) on the protection of civilians in armed conflict and its resolution 1325 (2000) on women and peace and security,

“Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

“Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghan Authorities and welcoming the cooperation of the Afghan Government with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),

“Recognizing the multifaceted and interconnected nature of the challenges in Afghanistan, reaffirming that sustainable progress on security, governance and development, as well as the cross-cutting issue of counter-narcotics is mutually reinforcing and welcoming the continuing efforts of the Afghan Government and the international community to address these challenges in a coherent manner through the comprehensive framework provided by the Afghanistan Compact,

“Stressing the central role that the United Nations continues to play in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan, noting, in the context of a comprehensive approach, the synergies in the objectives of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and of ISAF, and stressing the need for further sustained cooperation, coordination and mutual support, taking due account of their respective designated responsibilities,

“Reiterating its concern about the security situation in Afghanistan, in particular the increased violent and terrorist activities by the Taliban, Al-Qaida, illegally armed groups and those involved in the narcotics trade, and the links between terrorism activities and illicit drugs, resulting in threats to the local population, national security forces and international military and civilian personnel,

Expressing also its concern over the harmful consequences of violent and terrorist activities by the Taliban, Al-Qaida, and other extremist groups on the capacity of the Afghan Government to guarantee the rule of law, to provide basic services to the Afghan people, and to ensure the full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms [emphasis added],

Reiterating its support for the continuing endeavours by the Afghan Government, with the assistance of the international community, including ISAF and the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) coalition, to improve the security situation and to continue to address the threat posed by the Taliban, Al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and stressing in this context the need for sustained international efforts, including those of ISAF and the OEF coalition [emphasis added--note the support for OEF],

“Condemning in the strongest terms all attacks, including Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks, suicide attacks and abductions, targeting civilians and Afghan and international forces and their deleterious effect on the stabilization, reconstruction and development efforts in Afghanistan, and condemning further the use by the Taliban and other extremist groups of civilians as human shields,

“Expressing its concern about all civilian casualties, and reiterating its call for all feasible steps to be taken to ensure the protection of civilian life and for international humanitarian and human rights law to be upheld,

“Recognizing the robust efforts taken by ISAF and other international forces to minimize the risk of civilian casualties, notably the continuous review of tactics and procedures and the conduct of after-action reviews in cooperation with the Afghan Government in cases where civilian casualties have reportedly occurred,

“Stressing the need for further progress in security sector reform, including further strengthening of the Afghan National Army and Police, disbandment of illegal armed groups, justice sector reform and counter-narcotics,

“Stressing in this context the importance of further progress in the reconstruction and reform of the Afghan prison sector, in order to improve the respect for the rule of law and human rights therein,

“Reiterating its call on all Afghan parties and groups to engage constructively in peaceful political dialogue within the framework of the Afghan Constitution and in the socio-economic development of the country, and to avoid resorting to violence including through the use of illegal armed groups,

“Recognizing the importance of the contribution of neighbouring and regional partners for the stabilization of Afghanistan, and stressing the crucial importance of advancing regional cooperation as an effective means to promote security, governance and development in Afghanistan,

Welcoming the completion of ISAF’s expansion throughout Afghanistan, the continued coordination between ISAF and the OEF coalition, and the cooperation established between ISAF and the European Union presence in Afghanistan, in particular its police mission (EUPOL Afghanistan) [emphasis added],

Expressing its appreciation for the leadership provided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and for the contributions of many nations to ISAF and to the OEF coalition, including its maritime interdiction component,

“Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace and security
[emphasis added],

“Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of ISAF, in coordination with the Afghan Government,

“Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“1.  Decides to extend the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force, as defined in resolutions 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), for a period of 12 months beyond 13 October 2007;

“2.  Authorizes the Member States participating in ISAF to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

“3.  Recognizes the need to further strengthen ISAF to meet all its operational requirements, and in this regard calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF
[emphasis added], and to make contributions to the Trust Fund established pursuant to resolution 1386 (2001);

“4.  Stresses the importance of increasing the effective functionality, professionalism and accountability of the Afghan security sector in order to provide long-term solutions to security in Afghanistan, and encourages ISAF and other partners to sustain their efforts, as resources permit, to train, mentor and empower the Afghan national security forces, in particular the Afghan National Police;

“5.  Calls upon ISAF to continue to work in close consultation with the Afghan Government and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General as well as with the OEF coalition in the implementation of the force mandate;

“6.  Requests the leadership of ISAF to keep the Security Council regularly informed, through the Secretary-General, on the implementation of its mandate, including through the provision of quarterly reports;

“7.  Decides to remain actively seized of this matter.”

Mark
Ottawa

 
Back
Top