The Shotgun Blog
« Welcome to the table | Main | "....But the question is, 'Do we want to fight this terrorism devil, or not?'" »
Friday, September 22, 2006
Jack Layton gets snubbed and then has his petty revenge
Ezra let's us know that Afghani President Hamid Karzai decided not to meet with Jack Layton, despite multiple increasingly desperate attempts to set up a meeting, and so make the NDP appear relevant.
So what does Jack Layton do in return? He has his petty revenge by twisting Karzai's words into yet another vile lie aimed at the Canadian forces, implying our troops bomb villages. Nice piece of work, our Jack.
Posted by Steve Janke on September 22, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834b4cdfb53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jack Layton gets snubbed and then has his petty revenge:
Comments
The people have spoken:
http://tinyurl.com/huw53
PM The Rt Hon Stephen Harper addressed a crowd of thousands of supporters of the military and their mission in Afghanistan.
Beat that, Taliban Jack!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-22 6:46:29 PM
Little Jack Layton....your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to head out on the next available flight to Afghanistan, to the area that has those pesky anti-west, anti-female, hell....anti-life Taliban members and make them change into peaceful loving people.
and...you can't come home until your mission is complete.
(tape blows up at this point)
Posted by: anonymous | 2006-09-22 6:52:06 PM
Gee, I wonder why a president of a country, who got his presidency because of military intervention, would want an army supporting his presidency to stay in his country?
And why would he snub someone who sees through this bullshit and wants to pull his protection?
Wow, you conservatives are getting blinder by the day.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-22 10:37:02 PM
Taliban Jack Layton is a very ignorant man who seeks power over people simply for the sake of having power over people. Typical socialist. And he's probably upset that Karzai got more votes than he did.
Jack Layton uses people. He deftly exploits suffering for his own political gain, the last thing he wants to do is alleviate suffering.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-09-23 1:02:41 AM
Lefty: why should we not support Karzai? The alternative is to return the country to another regime - the Taliban - which owed its status thanks to the Pakistani government. At the very least, both have the same liability. But Karzai's government enjoys full international legitimacy from the United Nations. Everything about his government is legal.
Layton isn't seeing through anything - except rose colored glasses of course. His hoaxes and conspiracies do not make for good policy.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-23 2:03:59 AM
The Coward, Lefty_99, Taliban Jack Layton,and Their White Feathers* ...-
Let true colours show
Ottawa Sun ^ | 2006-09-23 | Earl McRae
Posted on 09/23/2006 2:53:06 AM PDT by Clive
I thought of you, Jack Layton. I thought of you and all your other left-wing lollipops who want to bring our brave and committed soldiers home from Afghanistan because you can't stomach that some of them are getting killed -- I thought of you because with your self-righteous intellectual arrogance and colossal stupidity, you just don't get it, and never will.
I thought of you, Lollipop Jack Layton, as I drove to Parliament Hill where thousands upon thousands of Canadians -- who, unlike you, get it -- formed a massive blanket of red from east to west and north to south in front of the centre block of the great bastion of Canadian democracy, the kind of democracy the embattled government and mothers and fathers and children and grandchildren of Afghanistan crave in their war against the inhumane, murderous Taliban.
I thought of you, Lollipop Jack Layton, and I wondered what your reaction would have been to another Friday, Sept. 22, this one in the year 1944; I wondered -- had you been alive and had there been a Nutso Dumbo Party and had you been its leader -- if you'd have wet your undies and demanded our brave and committed soldiers be immediately brought home after you read the following newspaper story on what happened on that day.
After fierce fighting in close quarters and casualties suffered from German artillery and mortar fire, soldiers of the Canadian 3rd Division of the 1st Canadian Army liberated the French port city of Boulogne, a strategic German stronghold. The city had been well-fortified by some 10,000 German troops, but they succumbed to the combined efforts of the Canadian infantry, combat engineers, and tanks that took out Nazi bunkers one by one.
What would you have said, Lollipop Jack Layton? That the victory wasn't worth it because Canadians were killed in the battle? Would you have made, back then, the asinine statement you made recently: "I DO support our troops -- that's why we should bring them home."
......
Stephen Harper. You're no Stephen Harper, Lollipop Jack Layton. At last this country has a true leader after a series of spineless oafs.
Stephen Harper, who yesterday stood before the men, the women, the young, the old, the new Canadians, the born and bred Canadians, the English Canadians, the French Canadians, the ethnic Canadians, the Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and Muslim Canadians, including Afghan Canadians, and the spouses and families of soldiers.
Who had them applauding and cheering his understanding of the reality in this new world -- Stephen Harper who gets it.
And they get it, too, those who waved their Canadian flags and red and white signs saying Support Our Troops and who wore caps and T-shirts with the words Always Caring, Always Canadian, Never Defeated and who thrust up other signs saying Support Soldiers, Not The NDP and Layton Is A Moron.
"This is the first time in my life I've been applauded by a bunch of Canadians wearing red," said the prime minister to laughter, followed by roars of approval. Like when he said: "Our men and women in that country are proud to be there, they are under the mandate of the United Nations ... they are doing brilliant work." And: "Whenever there has been an enemy that needs to be stood up to, the Canadian Forces have been there." And: "We don't start fights, my friends, but we finish them, and we stay until the end."
.......
I spoke to a young woman wearing a burqa. "I am Muslim. I come from Afghanistan. The Taliban slaughtered my uncle and aunt and their two children for no reason." She made a hand motion across her throat. "With knives. Thank you, dear Canada, for helping us."
On the way to my car, the streets filled with red, I passed the National War Memorial. Canadians in red were lined up along both sides of the street.
They were applauding a man who'd stepped from a limousine. He waved at them, and they waved back. President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. He, with one of our soldiers, laid a wreath at the Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier.
At Albert and Metcalfe streets, another event had just taken place. People in red were gathered around a small, agitated woman in a red beret. "She nailed the big bastard," said an older man.
"He was shouting our troops were war mongers," said the woman. She said her name was Gail Latourelle, 20 years old. "I dared him to say it to my face.
"He did, so I punched him in the mouth. I actually decked him. I won't have anyone talking about Canadians that way. His mouth was bleeding. He jumped up and ran. The coward just took off."
"Probably Jack Layton in disguise," said a voice. Guffaws and laughter. True Canadian hearts. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706826/posts
*White feathers are a symbol of cowardice.
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-09-23 5:36:22 AM
Jack be dim-ble,
Jack be a jerk-a
With him in charge (sic)
Chow'll be in a burqa!
Sorry! But such a trite little twit as Jack Layton deserves such doggerel. (Lefty, if you can, insert some form of your own name in the first two lines--remember, it has to scan--and that of some Canadian woman you love in the last. Have fun!)
Posted by: lookout | 2006-09-23 6:51:50 AM
Lefty,
I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you trying to say that the Taliban are the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan and Karzai is the usurper?
Karzai effectively engineered a coup?
Please tell us who should be in charge and how that should have been achieved?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-23 8:09:08 AM
Good question h2o273kk9, and I am waiting for lefty's answer also. He won't answer, because he knows the only alternative to Karzai is the taliban. The left do not understand that there is no negotiating with terrorist. The more you give the more they want. You give them nothing, root them out, and destroy them. Take for instance the pope, they want his head on a silver platter. Even if the old fellow were to bow down, and kiss the ass of islam that would not appease them. They want him dead, and that is the high and low of it. He is foolish to go to Turkey and meet them on their soil. They will kill him, that is all they know.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-09-23 8:27:41 AM
I hate to see Jackass Laydown getting all this attention--because that's what he craves, over and over again.
He adds nothing to the political discourse in our country, nothing, that is, that is going to take us forward. His rants are purely for show, to get him noticed and in the headlines. But the artifice is, thank G*d, wearing thin.
He's being smoked out by Canadians loyal to Canada's legitimate heritage as a genuine force on the world stage--like we were in the troubled times in WWI and WWII, when we more than pulled our weight.
Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's brilliant leadership, Canada's brave and able soldiers are once more pulling more than their share of the weight in the world's trouble spots. As long as he and his CPC government are in power, Canada will continue to take back its legitmate, important, and central place in establishing freedom and democracy in places where none exist at the moment.
G*d bless Canada!
G*d bless Prime Minister Stephen Harper!
G*d bless Prime Minister Karzai and the people of Afghanistan!
And G*d help Jack bin Layton.
Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-09-23 9:59:01 AM
Lefty99
Not to dimish the sacrifice made by 30 plus brave young soldiers in Afganistan...a nobel cause. There were 630 homicides in Canada in 2005. Where are you Lefty 99...what? I can't hear you. It appears the afganistan conflict is just the lefts flavour of the day.
Please clarify as to who the NATO!!! forces are protecting the presidency from?
Posted by: righty99 | 2006-09-23 10:16:08 AM
It's starting to look as if Layton took an enormous gamble with this stance, and it is failing. His attempt to cash in on the public response to the casualties has only brought the NDP resentment and greater opposition. After all they are trying to seek power by standing on the corpses of our honored dead.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-23 10:39:01 AM
Layton is proving that he is an ugly little man at heart, and not a statesman.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-09-23 10:43:51 AM
OK look, I just woke up by the way. In no way am I saying that the Taleban are the legitimate leaders and that this guy staged some kind of coup. I was merely pointing out that of course this guy has his own policital agenda as well. Personally, I think he could have done better by meeting with Mr. Leyton and either told him himself how much Canada has helped, or asked him what his ideas for solving the problem would be, or simply to tell Mr. Leyton to go fuck himself. Mr. Leyton said a bit more than he should, but I think his point was that what we are doing now, and what the whole world is doing to fight terrorrism, is just not working.
I am happy for the people of Afghanistan because the Taleban were bastards. But, I can never buy into the idea that we went in there to help the people. If that was the case, why are we not in Sudan? Those people are suffering far worse than the Afghanis ever did. I'd rather have women kept out of school, then have everyone displaced to refugees camps, having the women raped, and thousands of people murdered. That is what frustrates me the most. Like Iraq, its senseless to pull out now because we'd have wasted so much, including the thirty-some soldiers who have died, and things will just turn to chaos in those countries.
I wish I could invent a solution, I'm sure you all do, and I guess that is the reason why there is such controversy about this issue.
Thanks for the tribute by stealing my name, Righty99, very clever. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your reference to the homocides in Canada, please elaborate.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-23 11:57:13 AM
Lefty99's comment about if we were in Afghanistan to help people then why are we not in Sudan? The answer is pragmatic and shows the fault in NDP thinking. We quite simply could not adequately participate in an offensive in Sudan. Don't kid yourself it would be an offensive military move. This is the quandry for the NDP. If they believe that our work in Afghanistan is not properly balanced then would they have the stomach for Sudan. All efforts to have UN forces put on the ground in Sudan have been rebuffed. The only way is for a large force to drop into the country and capture a position. Parts of the world will see it as further proof of a clash between Muslims and Non-Muslims. A disproportionate amount of money would be spent on defensive/offensive military efforts. The enemy will not only be the Sudan government, but the militias they have been fighting(the enemy of my enemy idea). How many will die for this noble effort? Will the NDP continue to support such a measure or will they ask for a rebalancing of the mission? The NDP in its effort to be the country's conscience has not dealt with the reality that security comes before reconstruction. Even when reconstruction begins, someone must defend it, so that it may be of use. If we step away from this task then who is to take the bullet for our men. Who shall fill the graves in our place. We can not faulter. We can not expect people to have faith in us until they can feel secure. Certainly, it does not completely happen now with such military force that we have used, but the recent news about the bicycle bomber shows that any humanitarian effort is just as easily threatened.
P.S. Lefty99 - thank you for answering others comments and also please take care to use your spellcheck. It provides more credibility to your own intelligence.
Posted by: DarrenL | 2006-09-23 12:36:32 PM
Oh God, I add an "r" to terrorism and I'm stupid all of a sudden. One typo when not reviewing my comment is pretty intelligent I would think.
Of course Sudan would take a major military operation, but if Canada, the us, Australia, the UK etc weren't busy pissing around in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, then they'd have the force to send there. Also, the reason it would look like another clash with Muslims, is because of the wars being fought in those other countries. Don't you see? Being in Afghanistan and Iraq for the sole purpose of forwarding Bush's agenda has now made it more difficult to enter the Sudan for the above reasons. Or, its possible that this is their excuse for not going there. It's unfair to expect the African Union to be the ones to take care of this. They should be at home in their own countries helping the sick and dying. We've really screwed that continent over and it breaks my heart.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-23 12:51:48 PM
Lefty,
Thank you for your reply.
I agree that the Sudan is in meltdown. As is the Congo or pretty much most of Africa.
We have limited resources. Even the US can't do it all. We have to pick and choose.
Even when we do, there are those who will criticize that we are being imperialists. We just want oil, or resources.
They will say that we are racists.
They will get other members of the UN to impede our ability to help. Witness the Arab league.
Other democracies will play gotcha politics just for a chance to put it to Uncle Sam or Harper. Witness France and Germany.
Or the NDP. Witness Afghanistan.
The decisions that are made as to where to intervene, when to intervene, and how to intervene are based on living in a non-linear world where each nation has its own agenda. For good or ill.
Either the NDP can help by taking on the responsibilities for re-building OR they should get out of the way and say THANK YOU to those who will do it for them...at risk to their own blood and treasure.
When this job is done, perhaps we can get together and help Sudan.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-23 12:55:35 PM
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/09/23/1884463-cp.html
Breaking news: Karzai meets with Layton in Montreal.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2006-09-23 1:05:26 PM
We can't wait that long to help the Sudan. It's been going on for far too long and the people are suffering. Not the same way the people of Afghanistan or Iraq suffered. This problem should have been addressed ages ago and it seems to me it hasn't even been recognised properly yet.
The people who are criticizing are right to do so. And those who object outright, (France and Germany)are right as well. Afterall, there is no dispute that Iraq was a lie and a debacle, and France and Germany were against it from the beginning. As was Canada, as you might recall.
But you are right, decisions are made based on a nations agenda and that is what is wrong with this world. Not just the USA's agenda, but Iran, N. Korea, China, the UK, Canada, etc etc, and its ridiculous. Its not a hockey game. Its life and death. Until people stop seeing themselves as americans, or muslims, or black, or rich, and just realized that we are human beings, that we all belong to a planet, a society of people, then this will continue forever. Or at least until global warming gets us. I know I'm a dreamer and that I wish we could all be John Lennon, but the way we act as human beings disgust me. No one is better or worse than another just because they were born into a particular country or culture. As Canadians, we should be one of the first to recognize this as we are very lucky. Very lucky that we are able to sit here in our nice homes behind our computers, discussing and debating the happenings of other countries where people are suffering and dying. Doesn't it make you feel the least bit guilty?
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-23 1:13:11 PM
Good find Pike. I guess Karzai read my post a little while ago, lol. It was the right move. Even though Mr. Leyton has said what he has over the past weeks, don't forget, he was in favour of entering Afghanistan in the first place.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-23 1:19:14 PM
Lefty,
Why should I feel guilty? I am not stepping on anyone's throat. I do not advocate stealing my neighbours resources for his own selfish purposes. (ie. read that as socialism).
I am not trying to force my religion down anyone's throat. (ie. read that as Islam...particularly the Sudan).
I do advocate helping someone when possible (ie. read that as voluntary charity but only so long as they want the help)
I wish the world were a better place. I would like to raise it up to our standards rather than thrashing around only to be dragged down to 3rd world standards. I can't help someone who is starving if I too am starving.
As you recognize that the Sudan is a more immediate emergency than Afghanistan, perhaps you'll refrain from bringing up global warming. I'm sure you agree that Sudan and Afghanistan are more immediate emergencies than this theory.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-23 1:32:35 PM
It is disappointing Karzai would meet with this petty little man and lend him any credibility. The old saying "shut up, men are talking" applies here.
People like Layton and his ilk should simply be ignored.
To see them marginalize the Iraq and Afghanistan war, and in particular the Iraq people who were being slaughtered by the Tyrant Saddam Hussein while actively promoting invading another country to remove another tyrannical government is laughable at best, and shows these people for who they truly are.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-23 1:38:12 PM
Ok, first of all, you should familiarise yourself with the ideals of socialism.
Secondly, when I said you should feel guilty, I wasn't implying that it was because you're not contributing anything. I was meaning that you should start to think about how lucky we are that we were born where we were. It's not like we passed a test of virtue to decide where we would be born.
Thirdly, I do NOT agree that the Sudan and Afghanistan are bigger emergencies. Global Warming is by far the most important issue for the future of humans and this planet. It is already causing major havoc around the world and there are projections that by the end of the century, 178 million, that's right, 178 000 000, sub-saharan Africans, mostly children will die because of our usage of fossil fuels, not because of something they did. However, the dreamer in me says that Global Warming has the potential to take care of many of these other problems around the world. It could be the thing that does what I mentioned in my previous post, bring the world together and realize that we are humans and that we should be facing the challenges of life together. I know it sounds "utopian", but its called "Global" Warming for a reason: its going to affect all of us, and its going to take the efforts of everyone around the world to solve it, especially once we near the threshold.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-23 1:47:46 PM
"Ok, first of all, you should familiarise yourself with the ideals of socialism."
That's quite an assumption there. You know nothing about me. I do read. I have travelled. I do pay taxes.
"Secondly, when I said you should feel guilty, I wasn't implying that it was because you're not contributing anything. I was meaning that you should start to think about how lucky we are that we were born where we were. It's not like we passed a test of virtue to decide where we would be born. "
Again, that's quite an assumption. Not only do I realize it. I also realize that we are living in a special time and place. Never before in history has there been such prosperity and peace for so many. It could all be gone tomorrow if certain members of our society and other societies get their way.
"However, the dreamer in me says that Global Warming has the potential to take care of many of these other problems around the world. It could be the thing that does what I mentioned in my previous post, bring the world together and realize that we are humans and that we should be facing the challenges of life together. I know it sounds "utopian", but its called "Global" Warming for a reason: its going to affect all of us, and its going to take the efforts of everyone around the world to solve it, especially once we near the threshold."
This is called "wishful thinking". It borders on believing in prophecy. A religious argument. What is worse is that it is apocalyptic in nature.
Lefty,
I don't want to see you standing on a streetcorner with a long beard, scraggly hair, not having bathed in days, wearing a sandwich board which reads:
Global Warming is coming!
Repent or we will all be judged!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-23 2:00:38 PM
Sorry, my figure about the projection of dying africans by the end of the century was incorrect.
It's actually 182 million.
Here's the link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0515-04.htm
You all will appreciate it as the projections were made by your boys over at the Christian something or other.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-23 2:03:56 PM
Lol, thanks for the concern with my health and future. But in no way do I put any of this into religious apocolyptic or Nostradamus predictions. I don't believe in any of that crap. I do, however, believe in what is currently happening and what 95% of the accredited scientific community believe. (Tim Ball is not an accredited scientist). And, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one. Many people, rich, famous, politicians, businessmen, intellects, are realising what is happening and are beginning to do something. You only have to look at Sir Richard Branson and Bill Clinton this week (the most recent example). I've read posts on here that suggest what you said, that we on the left think Global Warming is punishment for the sins by man, and, in a way I suppose it is, although before this time, we didn't know what we were doing was wrong, but now, we do know and not re-acting is unforgiveable. But, it has nothing to do with god or religion, its just nature, evolution. We discovered a fuel, exploited it, and this is the result. Its cause and effect, nothing more.
Do worry about me on the street with a beard. First of all, I can't grow a full beard. Secondly, I'm still relatively young and if I am going to preach about global warming, I'd rather do it in political circles than on the street.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-23 2:19:55 PM
"Lefty and the Laytons," formerly known as "The Taliband," want Canadians to sing along to thier grim song of self flagellation.
I'd way rather listen to John Lennon's "Plastic Ono Band," which was clearly not an influence on them.
Posted by: Spindly | 2006-09-23 2:59:17 PM
"Sorry, my figure about the projection of dying africans by the end of the century was incorrect.
It's actually 182 million.
Here's the link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0515-04.htm
You all will appreciate it as the projections were made by your boys over at the Christian something or other."
I'm not Christian. So no, I can't appreciate it.
And name dropping all those people who support this theory leaves me unimpressed.
Science isn't a popularity contest. Nor is it about reaching a CONSENSUS even among scientists. It is about provable and testable assertions.
In addition, I am well trained in physics and computer science myself. So I will make up my own mind and will not be swayed by appeals to the majority view. A view I am not even certain exists despite your assertions.
182 million additional dead Africans you say. The end is nigh.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-23 3:28:57 PM
So Lefty,
Getting back on topic. Do you think Jack should direct the NDP to begin supporting Karzai? To appeal DIRECTLY to HIS constituency to donate time, money, and materials to the Afghan people?
The sooner the better. Then we can get started on Darfur.
If that is unacceptable, I suggest that Jack instead appeal DIRECTLY to HIS constituency to donate time, money, and materials to the Sudanese people. They could act as the advance team ahead of the rest of us.
SHOW US how this is supposed to work instead of pointing fingers!
Show us superior results and we would be more inclined to follow. That's the mark of a leader.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-23 3:43:51 PM
The ndp policy was to withdraw form nato during the cold war. Could you imagine what kind of impact that would have had. And now they want us out of afganistan. But its ok to go to the sudan where the government doesnt want un troops. Could you imagine the body bags sent home then. And to come out of a meeting with the president acting like the president agrees with him is pathetic. We saw the emotional and tearful comments about our fallen troops from the president, yet where is laytons sympathy. What the hell is he talking about when he says we should support our troops by bringing them home. What kind of message does that give our troops or the world.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-23 7:07:12 PM
Jump on the leftie, go for it !
Shoot the messenger. Rah-rah-rah Support the troops ! Um.
Afghanistan is where the British lost 12,000 men at one go when a detachment was left with one survivor. This isn't mubly-peg or patty-cake.
Ask for the reputation of Gurkhas, for instance.
People in this part of the world are battle-hardened and ruthless. The Pakistanis aren't that far off and literally millions of Afghans take refuge in Pakistan. The Pakistani head of the army has no love of Western adventurers.
Crap like this needs a little bit of reflection before heading off for a shooting jamboree. I wouldn't mind being convinced (a) that there is a worthwhile plan (b) objective and (c) informed military/intel appraisal which predicts a reasonable chance of long term success. That eluded the U.S.S.R. with a lot closer proximity and shitload of resources and manpower.
What the NDP does really doesn't worry me much. They are never going to get much more than a faint whiff of power.
Putting our troops at risk, I'd like some assurance that the people in charge know whether they're punched or bored, rather than following the lovely (sarcasm !) example of our neighbour to the south.. Any information sources you can cite ?
Posted by: opit | 2006-09-23 9:37:11 PM
Hey Opit,
What you say has merit. I'm all for a proper evaluation of the risks/benefits of tackling
Afghanistan.
My problem is that I don't believe that is what the NDP or Lefty REALLY want. They keep saying "but what about Sudan?" If we actually got around to going into Darfur the refrain would immediately be "but what about (insert name of dysfunctional state here)?"
So now that I have explained my view and agreed with your hesitations on Afghanistan. I want to know why you wrote
"Jump on the leftie, go for it !
Shoot the messenger. Rah-rah-rah Support the troops ! Um. "
Is this a defence of Lefty for being right about Afghanistan or is it a defence of Lefty because you too have no real answsers but just like to ankle-bite?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-24 7:49:29 AM
"I'd like some assurance that the people in charge know whether they're punched or bored, rather than following the lovely (sarcasm !) example of our neighbour to the south.. Any information sources you can cite ?
Posted by: opit | Sep 23, 2006 9:37:11 PM"
Perhaps you would like to get your head out of your ass and stop comparing fiction to facts, an all to common occurrence these days.
We could only hope and dream to follow the example of our neighbors to the south who seem to be the only county these days standing up for freedom and democracy, and are willing to fight and die for it.
It is wonderful we finally have leadership and hopefully the will, so will can continue to do a least a small part.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1510003,00.html
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-09-24 8:44:55 AM
The siren cry of concern for Darfur in Sudan is just a Leftist attempt to make 'the perfect' the enemy of 'the good'.
If we had the forces to invade Sudan and start kicking Muslim butt there, and again it is the Muslims who are the aggressors in Darfur, the Left would be protesting against the new war in the Sudan.
These people make no distinction between right or wrong except that if a war is somehow good for our interests then it is a bad war.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-09-24 9:39:10 AM
In afganistan the government wants us there and supports us. If we decided to send troops to sudan like that idiot layton and the liberals want, we would be going against the wishes of the government there, and would be involved in a major war against the muslim government and the rabble supporting them. The body count would be horrific. You would also have every muslim in the area flocking there at the governments cry of infidels invading a muslim country.
Posted by: john a. | 2006-09-24 4:21:48 PM
lefty_99
We are in Afganistan and not Sudan because the Afganistan Taliban attacked the US. As a member of NATO, an attack against one of the members is an attack against all of the members, including us, and we are obligated to respond. We have honored our commitment. Many other NATO nations have not. An attack such as 911 cannot go unanswered. After living in safety behind the American military and under their nuclear umbrella which allowed us to ignore our own defense forces for so many decades, it's about time we did our part.
The US should NOT have gone into Iraq. Sorry, but the Liberals were right on this one. They weren't involved in 911, and posession of WMD is not a valid reason to invade. It was also in the US's best intersts to leave Saddam in power, because he kept the Muslim radicals under control the way only a brutal dictator can. He was an enemy, but the much worse enemy are the jihadists who have now been unleashed.
As for global warming, you're supposed to call in climate change now, because it's been pointed out that there's been a lot of cooling between the mid '30's (when it was warmer than now)and the mid '70's. Go to http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and learn the truth about CO2 and the greenhouse effect. And there are thousands of scientists who oppose Kyoto. Ever heard of the Leipzig, Heidelberg and Oregon declarations/statements/petitions, protesting the abuse of the science and the politicised goings-on at the UN's IPCC and the Kyoto accord?
Posted by: dirtman | 2006-09-24 10:57:54 PM
No, Canada is in Afghanistan due to UN resolution. See, it's what the international community wanted to focus their efforts on.
Do you have something against the UN, against building international consensue.
Monkey in the middle is such a silly game, Lefty. It doesn't work here.
The topic is Afghanistan. Stick to it.
You're all over the freakin' map.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-24 11:08:44 PM
The UN resolution approved the response by NATO.
Posted by: dirtman | 2006-09-24 11:21:06 PM
The point still stands that the action was ultimately approved by the United Nations.
Lefty displays some tragic type of attention deficit with an inability to stick to the topic.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-09-24 11:28:32 PM
Actually, I'm not the one who changed the topic. Someone mentioned that afghanistan was more important that global warming, so I disputed it.
Look, just because I don't support the war and my name is Lefty, doesn't mean I support Jack Layton or the NDP. I'd actually prefer not to be affiliated with them or mentioned in the same arguement. If I was to enter politics, I would join the Liberals only because I think the conservatives are wrong on pretty much all social issues, and I think the NDP is too far left fiscally.
Anyway fine, back to topic. I understand that this war in Afghanistan is sanctioned by the UN. I don't think too many people objected to this mission in the first place, but at the time, it was suppose to be a peace-keeping mission. Now, it has turned into a war. A war that shouldn't be fought by us. We're not the ones strutting our military might all over the planet and then piss and moan when someone retaliates by crashing a couple airliners into some buildings. I realize how "american" a lot of you feel, and that's understandable considering how propogated this country is, but there has to be a time to wake up and realize that WE ARE CANADIAN. There's nothing wrong with helping out a neighbour, but what we're doing is aiding a bully. In elementary school, if the main bully, who pushed people around, stole their milk money, and beat kids up, got attacked by a bunch of the school yard kids who were sick of it, would you run over and defend the bully? Even if he'd been bullying you all there years? Not only is it ridiculous to help him, you'd also be exposing yourself to this gang of rebellious kids. I'm not sure if that's a proper analogy, but I reckon it sums it up pretty good.
Now, as far as the comments disputing global warming go, I won't even respond because it'd be like trying to convince you the world is round.
Now, as far as Sudan is concerned, this is the biggest humanitarian disaster in the world right now. To say that I would prefer to be there just because I want out of Afghanistan is ridiculous. I've mentioned before that I don't agree with pull out of Afghanistan because all hell will break loose. However, if it meant going to the Sudan, then I'd agree because oppression is a far better life than poverty, rape, displacement, and murder. You people on here have to decide why you favour this mission? If you honestly believe that its for humanitarian purposes, then again I ask, why not Sudan. If its because of 9/11, then you need to get your head out of your ass and take a good look around.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2006-09-25 12:09:55 AM
Lefty_99, Sept 23, 2006 1:13:11 PM
"... Or at least until global warming gets us."
Lefty_99, Sept 25, 2006 12:09:55 AM
"Actually, I'm not the one who changed the topic. Someone mentioned that afghanistan was more important that global warming, so I disputed it."
WRONG! You were first.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-09-25 4:10:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.