Saturday, September 09, 2006

Please Liberal party, you've got to save me!!!

Well, the NDP just lost my vote. Too bad for them, as I've voted NDP in the last two federal elections.

Now, c'mon Liberal party, save me.

'Cause if I end up being left with only the Tories to vote for, I'm not voting at all.

Recommend this Post


leftdog said...

I am very sad to hear your words. But please, the Liberals stand for nothing because they stand for everything. Depending on which Liberal you talk to, they want our troops out / they want our troops in!

Stay in the tent and argue your view as LOUDLY as you possibly can!

Use your wit and tenacity to make your point - but, surely, the Liberals will not, cannot reach a unified positon on our mission in Afghanistan.

Devon Rowcliffe said...

Have you ever considered the Green Party of Canada? Had a look at their platform yet?

What are the key issues that matter to you? The Greens would never support aggressive military campaigns, such as the hunt for remaining Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. However, keeping Canadians in Afghanistian as peacekeepers would be an entirely different matter.

What other issues are particularly important to you? I assume social justice, as you had been an NDP supporter - well, social justice happens to be one of three main Green policy pillars.

Don't forget - there are more than three options out there! The Greens are now at 10% in the polls, growing rapidly, and on target to elect MPs to the House of Commons in the short/medium-term.

leftdog said...

I want to point out one major point of observation. In view of what the NDP passed today at the convention, stop for a second and let's just listen to what the Liberals are saying in the blogosphere about it, listen........
........ (hear the Liberal reaction) nothing - they are saying nothing, they are running and hiding from the issue lest they have to commit themselves ...... nothing.....

Lord Kitchener's Own said...


I should say, I didn't mean my post to suggest that there are only three options out there, and yes, I have considered voting for the Greens in the past. To me though, saying that one would support "peacekeepers" in Afghanistan, but not if they're going to shoot at the people trying to break the peace, is lunacy. Some people seem to think that the mere presence of peacekeepers stops wars. Well, there were plenty of "peacekeepers" in Lebanon, and their mandate was basically to watch Hezbollah attack Israel, and report back to the UN that Hezbollah had attacked Israel. Then Israel would retaliate, and the peacekeepers would report back to the UN that Israel had attacked Lebanon. To me, "peacekeeping" means INTEREVENING, and yes, intervening means attacking the people in Afghanistan who want to go back to stoning women for not wearing the burka, and burning down schools for teaching girls.

If we won't use our military to fight the Taliban, then we won't use our military to fight anyone. I suspect this is the NDP's point, and that they'd like us to pull out of NATO too (or they'd like NATO to decide to kick us out). And fair enough. I disagree, but it's a legitimate position to take.

But I won't vote for a party that won't fight the TALIBAN under a UN-mandated, NATO-commanded mission supported by the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. That's a bridge too far for me.

If we pull out of Afghanistan, one of two things happen. Either some other country (countries) picks up the slack, and the Taliban are defeated, or we've handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban. I'd be pretty ashamed in either event, and I won't vote for a party who's policies will let either happen.

HisHighness said...

Good choice my man, don't let these guys sway your decision. The Conservatives are a no no, the Green Party isn't worth anyones vote. The Liberal party is the best party in Canada.

As for leftdog's comment I've already commented on the whole Layton thing, so I didn't feel the need to comment again. But if you want a Liberal comment on it here you go: "The NDP are simply using this issue to try to gain votes, period. They don't care any more about the troops than anyone else, save maybe the Conservatives, they're just trying to morph Afghanistan in to Iraq. The true litmus test of if we are truly ahead of the United States will be to see if the people fall for this ploy."

Lord Kitchener's Own said...


I'm not sure you're correct that "the Liberals will not, cannot reach a unified positon on our mission in Afghanistan", but I also think that's beside the point. I'd rather vote for a party that is divided on this mission, than for a party that is united in opposition to it. My point about the Liberals "saving me" is that I fear they will move to the left on Afghanistan, and mirror the current NDP stance. There are very few issues that are deal-breakers for me, but abandoning the people of Afghanistan to the Taliban is one of them. My worry, is that by 2007, the Tories will be the only party left who want to keep fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda.

And since the Tories are on the wrong side of most of my other "deal-breaker" issues, that leaves me with no one to vote for.

I can't vote NDP, I won't vote Tory. The Liberals either win me back, or I spoil my ballot next election. I hate to do it, but I won't support a party I don't support.

Should be a fascinating winter though!

Lord Kitchener's Own said...


I don't agree with your position that the NDP are JUST using Afghanistan for political reasons (though there is politics involved of course, that's why they're called POLITICAL parties, and not quilting bees).

I think that basically, the NDP are pascifists, and don't want us fighting anyone, anywhere. They want us to "keep the peace" but only if it doesn't involve shooting at anyone (which, let's face it, means basically all we can do is keep people who don't really want to fight each other, from fighting each other). That said, I think it's a perfectly legitimate position (if naive), and good for them. However, I don't support that position. You're totally right that they're trying to morph Afghanistan into Iraq (ironically, almost exactly like Bush is trying to morph Iraq into al Qaeda) but in neither case do I think it's because of politics. Bush thinks he's right. And so does the NDP. They'll both use their positions to get votes where possible, but they haven't adopted those positions for political reasons.

I don't blame the NDP for using their desire to get out of Afghanistan to try to gain votes. I just can't support their (sincere) desire to pull us out of Afghanistan.

Mike said...

I have had the same kind of issues LKO, but for wihat it is worth, I think that while we must continue in Afghanistan, we cannot continue using the strategy and tatics we are now. We are not doing the job we are supposed to do. We need to take a new tatic, one that hopefully means kicking the Pakistanis in to action, along with our NATO allies.

Essentially the same one as Gerard Kennedy, which you got wrong earlier.

But then, I vote for the NDP for more reasons than Afghanistan...

But truly if that is your decision, I can understand it. Just don't count on the Libs to be sensible unless Bob Rae or Kennedy wins (and i don't think that will happen)

eugene plawiuk said...

Actually before jumping to conclusions you may wish to review the debate on the resolution as broadcast by CPAC and the ensuing phone in show with Alexa and some dweeb from the Conservatives. Alexa points out that a negotiated peace settlement, and move of troopsto Kaul to ensure NGO safety are realistic options to the current search and destroy mission. But hey lets not let realistic alternatives get in the way of accusations of appeasement, death to all terrorists, and do you want the Taliban back in power as the Conservative spokesman continually chided Alexa with.

leftdog said...

LKO said, "I think that basically, the NDP are pascifists, and don't want us fighting anyone, anywhere. They want us to "keep the peace" - that is a fairly good analysis.

War is primitive - it is no more sophisticated then a fist fight only on a larger scale. AND, inevitably, when wars do occur, they always end. Usually they end with some kind of talks or negotiations. As an NDP'er I believe it is incumbent on the world community to try and find a way to bypass war (if possible) and go right to the talks or negotiations. For that. we have been damned and condemned this week.

It is not popular in many circles to want peace. The right wing voices are loud, and arrrogant, and blood thirsty, and vindictive.

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth" Jesus.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

Moving our troops to an area of Afghanistan that is already pretty much secure is only a "realistic option" if the reality one wants to pursue is a reality in which Southern Afghanistan belongs to the Taliban. I think this proposal is basically to cut Afghanistan in half, give half to the democratically elected government, and half to the Taliban. Then, I suppose, we would enter negotiations with the Taliban to try to convince them with rational arguments to give the South back again.

I think this idea that if we treat the Taliban like rational peace-loving human beings, they'll suddenly change course and start acting like rational peace-loving human beings is lunacy. I think we agree that the Taliban aren't going to stop burning down schools and stoning women to death just because we are batlling them. I just don't think they're going to stop because we stop battling them, and ask them politely, either.

These people are religious fanatics. You don't politley ask religious fanatics who blow up abortion clinics to please stop bombing clinics. You hunt them down, and put them in jail. Unfortunately, it's a little hard to put religious fanatics with AK-47s and anti-tank weapons, hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan with experience fighting the Soviet Red Army in jail, especially when they'd rather martyr themselves than surrender.

If Mr. Layton would like to lead a delegation of NDP MPs to Afghanistan to sit down with Mullah Omar to negotiate, then more power to him. I rather think within a day though, he'd either have an axe sticking out of the side of his head, or he'd be on al Jazeera in a orange jumpsuit.

There are plenty of bad people in the world that we can, and probably should negotiate with. Even crazy people like the President of Iran. But negotiating with the Taliban, and al Qaeda is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What they want, is for everyone in the world to convert to Islam and live under Sharia law. What compromise from that position do you suggest they would accept? Do we only stone to death rape vicitms who refuse to marry their rapists on weekdays? Do we only cut off the hands of thieves who steal over $5000? Which of their literal interpretations of the Quran do you believe they think there's leeway with? Which "commands from Allah" do you think we can get them to ignore? How do we convince them to ignore God, and listen to us?

One can't negotiate with people who believe they are fulfilling God's will, and are willing to die to reinstate a Global Islamic Caliphate. If you believe we can, you're a fool, but I invite you to try. Say "Hi" to the Mullah for me. And let him know I'm still an infidel.

(oh, and then... duck.)

Lord Kitchener's Own said...


That last quote is very inspiring.

I don't know why I never thought about this before, but someone should really call up the Taliban and tell them that Jesus wants them to stop.

That ought to work.

John Murney said...

Afghanistan is an issue I am struggling with. The controversy is not cut and dried.

The Original LRU said...


That quote is wrong. The real quotes are:

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." - Matt. 5:5

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." - Matt. 5:9

Anonymous said...

You are all idioots. CHeck out a real blog with fascists.