The Shotgun Blog
« Meanwhile, Assad arms Hezbollah | Main | Brilliant Articles »
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Keeping the peace in the NDP
Not much of a surprise that Jack Layton today is demanding that Canadian troops cut and run from Afghanistan since, he claims, the nature of the mission has changed. Among other things, he says, "it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping."
Hmmm. I did notice a suspicious absence of blue helmets. Of course, nothing's changed: that's always been the case. This has always been a combat mission—never a peacekeeping one. Here's a report from over a year ago (when the Liberals were boss), wherein a soldier's wife is perfectly clear on what hubby is headed for: "Usually you're worried about being lonely and how it's going to be, this time they're going into a situation where it's not peacekeeping." And here's another from the same era, in which our top soldier, Rick Hillier, memorably called Taliban terrorists "murderers and scumbags." That's not a peacekeeper talking.
Layton knows full well that this was never a peacekeeping mission, but he's acting like someone pulled the old switcheroo on him. If anything, this act only makes him sound clueless and easily fooled—not the mark of a good leader.
The last time Layton started making anti-war noises, I pointed out in this column that Layton kept quiet about the Liberals' initial plan to send troops to Afghanistan because he'd been bought off with billions in the federal budget. Maybe he thinks that Harper will offer him similar gifts to play along. Little does he know that Canadians stopped putting any faith in anything the NDP had to say about foreign policy quite some time ago.
Posted by Kevin Libin on August 31, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834ad264553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Keeping the peace in the NDP:
Comments
The people who make up the NDP think peace is the absence of armed conflict. That the idea of justice should enter into the concept of peace never crosses their minds because the idea of justice itself is alien to them, just ask Sven.
That said, our soldiers can never win in Afghanistan as long as the Taliban is permitted safe haven in the Pashtun northwest Pakistan, just as the Americans could never win in Vietnam when the Vietcong had safe haven in North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-31 3:34:33 PM
Let me get this straight: the NDP sells itself to the Liebral Party by supports the Chretien plan to deploy the army to Afghanistan, and now they want to bring the troops home before their mission is completed? What gives?
Oh yeah - the NDP is trying to justify its non-existence.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-08-31 3:43:05 PM
It doesn't work: saying "peace, peace, where there is no peace."
What a fool Jack(ass) Layton is. I don't think there is anything that he feels would be worth dying for--which actually means that there's nothing worth living for, either.
Unless, unless, as Jack would point out, it's the establishment of a Utopian, perfect world, totally balanced, gendered-equal and all that. Olivia would have to fix the leaking faucet the same number of times as Jack, and Jack would have to iron the same number of shirts, long-sleeved and short-sleeved, no slacking, as Olivia.
But, of course, they probably have a cleaning lady to fix the faucet and iron the shirts. It's just SO HARD to be a socialist.
Jack wants an everything the same Utopia? Just wait until the Islamofascists take over, right here in Canada: He can wear a burqa too, if he wants, they'll never know he's a guy under the tent, he can stay home, he can never go out without an escort, or have a beer, or go to the House of Commons, or continue with the cleaning lady and all of the other perks he and Olivia are enjoying as a Canadian MPs.
There won't be any Canadian MPs if the Islamofascist win this war. WAKE UP, JACK!! THEN,you'll wish that Canada had stayed in Af-stan and routed the enemy. But it's be too late, you useful idiot.
My family and I do not thank you, Mr. Layabout.
Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-08-31 3:49:17 PM
It's called having a spine Jacko!
What a great role model this yahoo is for the next generation of quitters! aka NDP.
Posted by: missing link | 2006-08-31 3:50:10 PM
Jack probably prefers to keep the army at home, where it can be used to shovel snow in Toronto.
Where's the "reconstruction" and "peacekeeping" in that, Jack? You Toronto people did it - And no other community in Ontario needed it - just so you could save a few bucks. Wow, what a loser.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-08-31 3:52:21 PM
Layton says:
"Layton moved to stave off predictable attacks by insisting that his party supports Canadian troops and multilateral efforts to fight terrorism.
But he says Canada needs an independent foreign policy that stresses international development, peace-building and human rights.
[Okay, he says that he supports multilateral efforts to fight terrorism yet says that Canada needs an independent foreign policy. Uh, aren't those two polar opposite things? Isn't it impossible to have both?]
He also says:
"Why are we blindly following the defence policy prescriptions of the Bush administration?''
[Uh, Jack, I like to point out to you that the US has been the leader of the free world for the past sixty years and is unlikely to fall from that position within my lifetime. What makes him think that it is a blind following? Would it make any difference if Clinton, Gore or Kerry were in power? There would still be a war to fight in Afghanistan. All of these questions, and many, many more, have been left unanswered by Jackie Boy Layton, the rich Ontarian servant of the corporations.]
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-08-31 4:08:26 PM
I dunno if it's just me, but it seems Layton and his ilk have a fear of flying.
They always seem to support those who do not have an air force.
The bad guys, in the utopian world, are the ones who drop the bombs and create disproportiate destruction (doesn' t quite fit into the model of equality).
Yet, when it comes to bombs strapped onto human beings, there seems to be no moral outrage. Again, since that's not an object dropped from a loud airplane, it must be OK.
I can't figure out their line of deliniation, but since homicide bombers are considered freedom fighters, it can't be that they are for peace ... or even in support of the sanctity of human life concept.
Somehow, they must figure jihadists are fellow totalitarian socialists and once the forces of capitalism are overthrown, they can sit down and talk things over.
Ha!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-31 4:35:37 PM
Fuckkk....
Can you say echo chamber?
This is worse than the Ruby Dhalla post/thread.
What is wrong with you people?
Posted by: Jay | 2006-08-31 4:51:42 PM
Jumping jack is an idiot making a fool of himself. He definitely has no credibility and the same goes for his caucus.
Posted by: Marianne DeVille | 2006-08-31 4:52:50 PM
Jay:
Peace, brother!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-31 4:57:22 PM
Something Jack Layton understands much better than we give him credit for - leftist Canadian mainstream media willingly carry his socialist appeasement message endlessly and without question!
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-08-31 5:18:58 PM
I'm confused. Is this Jack Layton or John Kerry?
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-31 5:33:38 PM
He can afford to spew than that garbage. He is pandering to his, it is what he knows they want to hear. But in the back of his mind he knows that someone will be there to keep up the fight.
We leave now it will give them the opportunity to catch their breath regroup and get something going again. We have them on the ropes, I know it doesn't look like it, thank you media.
But remember I cornered animal fights the hardest when it knows it's in trouble.
I sounds just like Kerry, that iswhy people will see him for what he is. Just like Kerry. If you listened to our polls Kerry won early on. The New York Times sounds like your rag paper also.
Posted by: Sal | 2006-08-31 6:16:53 PM
Why does this man even make the news. He listened to what Canadians he said. Who? The only ones that would even talk to this left wing nut are other left wing nuts. What an absolutely pathetic bunch of morons. They lost Pluto as a planet now their base for new NDP supporters is gone. Try some far away star cluster to find support. How to people grow up to be so out of touch with reality.
Posted by: Michael Crowell | 2006-08-31 6:33:19 PM
Uh.... and just what is wrong with following the defence policy prescriptions of the Bush administration?
Posted by: Harry | 2006-08-31 8:00:10 PM
Give it a rest, Jay. I notice you're the only one who's used an expletive here: the refuge of the inarticulate.
I would like to point out that despite your likening the comments on this thread to an echo chamber that you are obviously wrong about this...you are obviously wrong about this. Hmmm...
Each one of us has made particular points, using different illustrations to back up our opinions, and I am astonished that you haven't been able to pick up on these subtleties, which make it very clear, Jay, that we are not repeating the same talking points.
'Must be your problem.
Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-08-31 8:46:27 PM
I listened to Jackoff today on the radio and was ASTOUNDED at how clueless he is. Even the radio interviewer was flabergasted.
Layton said we should pull out so that democracy can take hold. The announcer said (in a raised astonished voice)" but Jack, if we pull out the Taliban will simply take over".
He is dumber than dumb.
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad | 2006-08-31 9:55:34 PM
I listened to Jackoff today on the radio and was ASTOUNDED at how clueless he is. Even the radio interviewer was flabergasted.
Layton said we should pull out so that democracy can take hold. The announcer said (in a raised astonished voice)" but Jack, if we pull out the Taliban will simply take over".
He is dumber than dumb.
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad | 2006-08-31 9:56:25 PM
So E. Jack U. Layton is at it again. This buffoons credibility ranks right up there with the sorry losers in the media that can't get a girlfriend also. Isn't it about time the ndp were charged with a hate crime, like their raging hatred of Americans. If I were an American living in Canada I would bring hate crime charges against these totally retarded assholes and their communist party.
Posted by: batrinsky | 2006-08-31 11:31:27 PM
The NDP has no respect for people at all. Dozens of Canadians have been killed by Islamic terrorists along with thousands of others who have been killed by them, and the people of Afghanistan have been brutalized by terrorists. But Jack Layton couldn't care less about these people - he wants to score cheap political points by appealing to the ignorant who will vote NDP. Jack Layton isn't stupid, he's evil.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-09-01 12:35:09 AM
God help us if they ever win.
It's hard to say this but I think they are worse than liberals.
So if we run like cowards er NDPers and the taliban can get back to stoning women who are raped or those who dare to feel the sunlight on their faces and lets not forget the sharia endorsed educational and career opportunities.
At least he can say he's for womens rights....
Posted by: ghollingshead | 2006-09-01 5:54:59 AM
Jack Layton cannot have a grasp on the reality of the pre-war Afghanistan, no schools for girls, women had no rights, treated worse than our laws would allow animals to be treated. The idiot, idiot, idiot! To suggest a pull-out from that place at this time is to say our soldiers and soldiers of other allied Countries died in vain and the Taliban reign of terror resumes.
The Afghanistan mission is far too complex for the NDP mindset. How do they plan to round up all Taliban terrorists for the group hug,tea and sympathy to end the fighting for all time with a cosy chat?
We really should call the fool's bluff and ship the whole party over there for their convention, all expenses paid of course, well worth the price when they find out how nice the Taliban terrorists are and learn a little of their brutality, if they have an ear for facts.
Oh, forgot, they're booked in Quebec for their love-in, trying to snare a few votes from the peaceniks-at-all-costs in that province.
It's getting to the point where we should really stop talking about Jacko and the gang on any serious matter, they don't live in the real world so anything coming from their Zone is irrelevant.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-09-01 6:04:02 AM
Liz J “the mission is far too complex for the NDP mindset”.
Yes but I think the scarier issue is how many people agree with Layton. In the unscientific poll in today’s Globe and Mail we see:
Do you agree with NDP Leader Jack Layton that Taliban fighters should be included in a comprehensive peace process in Afghanistan?
Yes (49%) 7070 votes
No (51%) 7266 votes
Total votes: 14336
We’ve already had one of our soldiers get an axe in the head from the Taliban but people either forget that or they are too busy to connect the dots that this is the enemy we would be negotiating with. Furthermore why would we compromise with the Taliban whose ideas are based on thinking 14 centuries ago, who don’t believe in the equality of woman etc?
We’ll win the larger War against Islamic Fascists if we stay the course on battlefronts such as Afghanistan and other countries fight it out with Hezbollah and in Iraq and eventually deal with the overall terror sponsor – Iran. But we won’t stay the course and fund the Afghanistan mission if half of Canadians don’t “get it”.
Therefore Harper and McKay need to bring this “complex” mission’s goals to Parliament regularly. They need to show the hypocrisy of the utopians who are in favour of many liberal causes such as SSM and woman’s rights. The utopians are prepared to drop our weapons and have a little chat with the Taliban even though the Taliban if returned to power would again march opponents to their beliefs back into the soccer fields and behead them. We must expose the hypocrisy of the utopians in Parliament or we will not only lose support for Afghanistan, we’ll lose the larger War on Islamofascism and that is what the enemy is counting on.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-09-01 6:52:12 AM
nomdenet wrote: We’ll win the larger War against Islamic Fascists ……………….
Here’s an excellent piece by Pat Buchanan on the use of the term Islamo-fascism
Islamo-fascism?
by Patrick J. Buchanan - September 1, 2006
“President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascist Tool.”
So ran the New York Times headline on Oct. 26, 1948, after what Dewey biographer Richard Norton Smith called a “particularly vitriolic attack in Chicago” by Harry Truman.
What brings this to mind is President Bush’s assertion that we are “at war with Islamic fascism” and “Islamo-fascism.”
After the transatlantic bomb plot was smashed, Bush said the plotters “try to spread their jihadist message I call – it’s totalitarian in nature, Islamic radicalism – Islamic fascism; they try to spread it, as well, by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.”
What is wrong with the term Islamo-fascism?
First, there is no consensus as to what “fascism” even means. Orwell said when someone calls Smith a fascist, what he means is “I hate Smith. ” By calling Smith a fascist, you force Smith to deny he’s a sympathizer of Hitler and Mussolini.
As a concept, writes Arnold Beichman of the Hoover Institution, “fascism … has no intellectual basis at all nor did its founders even pretend to have any. Hitler’s ravings in ‘Mein Kampf’ … Mussolini’s boastful balcony speeches, all of these can be described, in the words of Roger Scruton, as an ‘amalgam of disparate conceptions.’”
Richard Pipes considers Stalinism and Hilterism to be siblings of the same birth mother: “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.”
Since the 1930s, “fascist” has been a term of hate and abuse used by the left against the right, as in the Harry Truman campaign. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. claimed to see in the Goldwater campaign “dangerous signs of Hitlerism.” Twin the words “Reagan, fascism” in Google and 1,800,000 references pop up.
Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-social Democratic left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran into the same “Islamo-fascist” kill box, then let Strategic Air Command do the rest.
But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.
But Saddam was about as devout a practitioner of Islam as his hero Stalin was of the Russian Orthodox faith. Saddam was into booze, mistresses, movies, monuments, palaces and dynasty. Bin Laden loathed him and volunteered to fight him in 1991, if Saudi Arabia would only not bring the Americans in to do the fighting Islamic warriors ought to be doing themselves.
And whatever “Islamo-fascism” means, Syria surely is not it. It is a secular dictatorship Bush I bribed into becoming an ally in the Gulf War. The Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Syria. In 1982, Hafez al-Assad perpetrated a massacre of the Brotherhood in the city of Hama that was awesome in its magnitude and horror.
As with Gadhafi, whom Bush let out of the penalty box after he agreed to pay $10 million to the family of each victim of Pan Am 103 and give up his nuclear program, America can deal with Syria as Israel did after the Yom Kippur War – for an armistice on the Golan that has stuck, as both sides have kept the deal.
America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus, as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses.
Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world. Contrary to what Bush believes, the 9/11 killers and London and Madrid bombers were not out to repeal the Bill of Rights, if any ever read it. They are out to kill us, and we have to get them first.
Hamas and Hezbollah have used terrorism, but, like Begin’s Irgun and Mandela’s ANC, they have social and political agendas that require state power to implement. And once a guerrilla-terrorist movement takes over a state, it acquires state assets and interests that are then vulnerable to U.S. military and economic power.
Why did the ayatollah let the American hostages go as Reagan raised his right hand to take the oath of office? Why did Syria not rush to the rescue of Hezbollah? What did Ahmadinejad not rocket Tel Aviv in solidarity with his embattled allies in Lebanon? Res ipse loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. They don’t want war with Israel, and they don’t want war with the United States.
“Islamo-fascism” should be jettisoned from Bush’s vocabulary. It yokes the faith of a billion people with an odious ideology. Imagine how Christians would have reacted, had FDR taken to declaring Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy “Christo-fascist.”
If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 7:30:36 AM
Once again, Neville Chamberlain Layton has provent that he reached his highest and best use as municipal trougher. The suicide curtain on the Bloor viaduct proves his inability to carry a thought for longer than 10 minutes.
Where was Jack when the homicide bombers were wiping out scores of people in Israel's shopping areas and on buses.
Canada is wise to Jack's games.
Posted by: Ed Sweet | 2006-09-01 8:01:43 AM
I'll let the inventor of Fascism define it.
Back to Modern History SourceBook
Modern History Sourcebook:
Benito Mussolini:
What is Fascism, 1932
-----------------------------
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].
Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.
In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
...Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.
-----------------------------
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997
[email protected]
Speller sez>
This definition fits nicely with President Bush's use of the term and describes Islam as practiced by the prophet Mohammed very well.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-01 8:27:56 AM
Speller sez>
This definition fits nicely with President Bush's use of the term and describes Islam as practiced by the prophet Mohammed very well.
Of course most people immediately think of Mussolini when the term fascist appears don’t they.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 8:45:41 AM
Mussolini, being the inventor of Fascism, is most fit to define it.
Marx, being the inventor of communism/socialism, is most fit to define it.
V.I.Lenin who first put communism to practice in a government is most fit to define it after Marx.
"The goal of socialism is communism."
Vladimir Lenin
It is typical of socialists to pretend there can be no dialog on a subject by equivocating on definitions.
Jock LeToon has no idea of the definition of peace. He probably has a private definition, but is afraid to share it for fear of being laughed off the planet.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-01 9:24:22 AM
No Spin Zone,
You are representative of the problem facing the west, you can find all kind of fault with Bush and how he has handled the war on terror, even if he one of a hand full of world leaders who has recognized there even is a problem, but offer no solutions, only excuses and spin.
Al Qaida hates Iraq, yet they are there fighting Americans, Iran and Syria are arming Hezbollah, yet you see no alliance, on and on. It is tiresome.
Until people like you realize we are in a war of civilizations and realize the problem is not with our leaders, but with theirs, we will continue to lose this war.
It is amazing to me no one can see the parallels with the radical elements of Islam and the Japanese in WW2. They to were bent on the destruction of the US and were willing to die to the last man. They were flying planes into warships and committing mass suicide, much like the present day suicide bombers. It was not till they looked over their shoulders and saw their own civilization was about to end, their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers dying, that they changed their ways. They learned the true meaning of terror.
I have said it before and I will say it again, the terrorists of today exist because they themselves do not know what true terror is. This war on terror could be dealt with in one day if the Western Leaders had the fortitude (its not so much the leaders, as the people who have been sold a bill of goods by the terrorist allies and appeasers, the left) to pick up the phone and inform the more radical leaders it will end now or you will cease to exist, and be prepared to back it up. It really is that simple. It is the only language these people understand.
But it won't happen, like WW2 we will flounder around, negotiate and appease till these maniacs get nuclear weapons which they will have no qualms about using, very unlike the weak kneed west.
Right now we have the advantage, but in years to come we will lose it, that is when people will learn what true horror is, not a relatively small, relatively successful campaign like the one being waged in Iraq.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-01 9:32:46 AM
Libin is right. Layton gave up our soldiers for 30 pieces of silver from Martin last year, when he knew exactly what the mission was. This should be the conservatives' #1 talking point on the NDP.
Posted by: Joan Tintor | 2006-09-01 9:48:27 AM
bad news
unfortunately did not land upon the sheet wearing bearded ayatollahs or the almajackoff pres of irans houses
--
80 killed in Iran jet crash - hopefully more
Iranian state TV reports 80 people were killed when their passenger plane caught fire as it was landing in Mashhad, in northeastern Iran. The fire began after a tire blew out as the aircraft was landing, state television reported
Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-09-01 10:13:56 AM
It's just too bad Jacko's father didn't know when to pull out !
Posted by: JohnnyR | 2006-09-01 10:51:58 AM
deepblue wrote: This war on terror could be dealt with in one day if the Western Leaders had the fortitude (its not so much the leaders, as the people who have been sold a bill of goods by the terrorist allies and appeasers, the left) to pick up the phone and inform the more radical leaders it will end now or you will cease to exist, and be prepared to back it up. It really is that simple. It is the only language these people understand.
Thanks for your solution to terrorism General Turgidson.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 11:17:53 AM
Too many tokes maybe that have affected your 'thinking', NSZ?
Deepblue is right that lefties like you are a big part of the problem and clearly not part of any solution.
The only thing our enemy understands is brute force and until we are willing to apply such force to the point of totally defeating them we shall never win. We have to get over getting all teary-eyed over discovering that a few captured jihadists were humiliated in prison, especially when any captured "infidel" should be so lucky.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-09-01 11:31:42 AM
I'll say this for the NDP - they at the very least have an idea of a foreign policy statement. It may be silly, poorly considered and reckless, but the Liebral Party cannot say the same.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-01 11:34:49 AM
No Spin Zone “If Bush does not want a war on civilizations he will drop these terms”
To win a war it is first necessary to name the enemy. Bush and Blair (once again the Anglosphere has found its chest) have now named the enemy, so I’m confident we will now win the military war -- provided we win our own internal war against utopians so that we can resource the war against Islamic Fascists. If an extreme, right-wing, isolationist utopian like Pat Buchanan doesn’t like the term – then we must finally be getting it right.
But this is not “a war on civilizations” because Islamic Fascists aren’t civilized. In fact, Moderate Muslims will need to have their own civil war if Islam is to survive – much like the Reformation. Yes, I agree, some Moderate Muslims might get inflamed with our using the term Fascists – just as the Catholics got inflamed with Luther’s Reformation. Reformation is tough and the sooner Muslims try to recover their religion from the extremists – Jihadists – Fascists – whatever - the better the chances of survival.
Meanwhile, I agree with the other commentators, winning is fairly easy if we simply have the will to win militarily but to do that we’ll need to defeat our own utopians at the polls. To win Parliamentary support for the next few years we’ll need boots on the pavement in the next election to get a majority so that Harper can try to move Canada out of half a century of utopianism. As we all watch the economic and demographic decline in Old Europe we will be given some warning signals of what we’re going to look like if we don’t change. We must dump multiculturalism propped up by political correctness that has muffled freethinking in this country.
Deepblue – agree, but at least the Kamikazes weren’t as cowardly. They wore a uniform to be identified. They did not hide behind women and children as human shields. Their primary targets were military not the WTC and civilian targets.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-09-01 11:40:55 AM
Alain wrote: Deepblue is right that lefties like you are a big part of the problem and clearly not part of any solution.
The only thing our enemy understands is brute force and until we are willing to apply such force to the point of totally defeating them we shall never win.
Spoken like a true neo-con; promised a cakewalk (Iraq) and delivered, instead, a "catastrophic success."
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 12:03:33 PM
"instead 'delivered a catastrophic success'".
All Spin Zone, like a true defeatist leftie is no doubt hoping for, if not promoting with glee, the failure of the West in its war against Islamofascism.
Posted by: JR | 2006-09-01 12:19:08 PM
Funny, I distinctly heard Bush, and Blair, say it would be a long and difficult battle against terrorism, he has said it many, many times, and still is.
But I know to a close minded fool like you who hears what they wants to hear, particularly only when it comes from the left wing media, that means little.
You still haven't given a solution, you have only bashed Bush, and now us, and you wonder why the left has no credibility in these matters, and are not even worthy of debate.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-01 12:20:12 PM
"instead 'delivered a catastrophic success'".
JR wrote: All Spin Zone, like a true defeatist leftie is no doubt hoping for, if not promoting with glee, the failure of the West in its war against Islamofascism.
As the reference was specific to Iraq, could you explain how the 2003 invasion of Iraq was part of the war against “Islamofascism “?
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 12:39:28 PM
deepblue wrote: But I know to a close minded fool like you who hears what they wants to hear, particularly only when it comes from the left wing media, that means little.
Attempting to quash public discourse by smear and intimidation is nothing new for the neo-cons and their sycophants
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 12:57:41 PM
wow NSZ what part of Iraq is a front on the global war on terror don't you understand.
Saddam was paying Hamas suicide bombers 25,000 dollars for killing innocent jews.
Dubbya clearly stated he was going after supporters of terrorism. You don't think giving 25 grand to murder civies falls into that realm.
Lefties hate to be wrong but face it you are a lost cause because you will not admit that Iraq is a FRONT on the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR.
Sorry get a real argument before you try that stupid remarks about Iraq. Also if you really did listen to the State of the Union Address you weould of heard Bush say this will be a long hard struggle.
You chose to be against Bush for no reason other than he did something your party didnot have the spine to do. Even thought they were given ample opportunities to prove their worth
Kenya Tanzania USS Cole and last but not least the 93 bombing of the WTC
Posted by: Sal | 2006-09-01 1:22:08 PM
NSZ can be identified as the "enemy within". In times of war, such as now, there is no room for sedition under the name of "public discourse". NSZ and his like may want and hope for the destruction of civilization, but they have no right to impose their desires on everyone else.
The bottom line in any war is that you are either with us or with the enemy, for no fence-sitting is possible.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-09-01 1:29:47 PM
Sal wrote:wow NSZ what part of Iraq is a front on the global war on terror don't you understand.
I understand perfectly what the war on terror is. If you would read what was written the word that was used was “ islamofascism” not terror. I will ask you again. Was Iraq in pre-invasion 2003 the center of “ islamofascism”?
Sal also wrote: Sorry get a real argument before you try that stupid remarks about Iraq. Also if you really did listen to the State of the Union Address you weould of heard Bush say this will be a long hard struggle.
It would help if you read what I wrote. While a understand that nuances in language are difficult for you, don’t try a Straw Man on me.
Sal also wrote: Sorry get a real argument before you try that stupid remarks about Iraq. Also if you really did listen to the State of the Union Address you weould of heard Bush say this will be a long hard struggle.
Non sequitur
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 1:50:39 PM
Alain wrote: NSZ can be identified as the "enemy within". In times of war, such as now, there is no room for sedition under the name of "public discourse". NSZ and his like may want and hope for the destruction of civilization, but they have no right to impose their desires on everyone else.
Making an ad hominem argument is really about as weak as it gets.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 1:58:16 PM
Wow,
you guys (lefties & righties) make me glad I'm a libertarian.
Is this what passes for intelligent debate? Ezra, is this really what you had in mind?
Posted by: sheeesh | 2006-09-01 2:15:52 PM
"Making an ad hominem argument is really about as weak as it gets."
Posted by: No Spin Zone | Sep 1, 2006 1:58:16 PM
Did you feel weak with your 'General Turgidson' comment at 11:17 ad hominem?
How about your neo-con remark at 12:03?
Neo-cons and their sycophants comment at 12:57 is an ad hominem again.
Is that hypocrisy No Spin Zone or are you just too weak to stand the heat.
Do you have any comments on the topic of Jack Layton and his confusion about Canada's Afghan mission launched by the Liberal government with Mr. Layton's support?
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-01 2:21:41 PM
Speller wrote:
Did you feel weak with your 'General Turgidson' comment at 11:17 ad hominem?
No. It is not ad hominem attack but a legitimate illustration.
How about your neo-con remark at 12:03?
No. Poster is a neo-con
Neo-cons and their sycophants comment at 12:57 is an ad hominem again.
No. Again poster is a neo-con
Is that hypocrisy No Spin Zone or are you just too weak to stand the heat
No.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-09-01 2:46:55 PM
Apparently, NSZ has difficulty being nuanced.
Islamic fascism describes the underlying philosophy ... world domination through an attitude of superiority of the chosen elite.
Terror is the means by which the goals are carried out ... the tactics by which world domination can be achieved.
Philosophy ... isn't that what Al Gore and Nitsche espouse?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-01 2:48:44 PM
Do you have any comments on the topic of Jack Layton and his confusion about Canada's Afghan mission launched by the Liberal government with Mr. Layton's support?
I guess your answer to that is NO as well.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-01 2:49:53 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.