Monday, September 11, 2006

Sir Robert Bond Blusters Forth

My, my, for a man who throws around ad hominem arguments and insults, calling folks who disagree with him Dipocrits,Ed over at Sir Robert Bond Papers Blog sure is thin skined.

He says of my earlier post refuting his arguments as to why we should stay the course in Afghanistan....

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of those who would have our country withdraw from Afghanistan now is best displayed by arguments such as those put forward by La revue gauche among others. But beyond the ad hominem swipes and inaccurate information, there is simply nothing else in the post you will find by following that link.

Now who is being insulting. I am morally and intellectually bankrupt, and provide inaccurate information. Oh really. The fact is besides these assertions he DID NOT REFUTE MY ARTICLE. My article raised over twenty points of contention about what the real mission was in Afghanistan. He has replied to nary a one.

And I note that his original protest against the Left was that should we pull our troops out we would be abandoning women and girls to the Taliban. He no longer uses that particular feint. Because I have demolished it in a series of articles I have written.

He says

Canada's mission includes reconstruction. It is an essential component of the NATO force approach and has been since Canadian troops first arrived in Afghanistan.

As I have shown here no such reconstruction is happening in Kandahar. In fact the very use of the concept of PRT's is a cover for combat operations. In the north the NATO troops have been used for peacekeeping and reconstruction. But that mission has changed. It changed as of last year as I have documented here and here.

Since Ed refuses to even debate the original points I made I will not reiterate these here. But I await anyone on the right, and yes Ed I consider you on the right, to refute them point by point.

If New Democrats can possibly offer something of substance as an alternative to Canada's current policy in Afghanistan, then let's engage in a discussion.

I have Ed and you failed to respond instead you took the cowards way out by dismissing my arguments. Here let me enlighten you on how I think this debate is going to work out. Hints of it were made through out the last week by Jack and Alexa.

Withdrawl of Canadian forces from the warzone in Kandahar. Deployment of a smaller unit of peacekeepers to Kabul to reinforce Karzai's city state. Peacekeepers will do policing, increased funding and use of NGO's to help with development projects, diverting funding from munitions and war materials to actual reconstruction projects. Encouraging NATO and the UN to begin peace talks with all parties involved in the regional conflict.

But if the best the New Democrats and others on the political left can come up with is a withdrawal of our soldiers who are there to establish the peaceful basis on which reconstruction and reconciliation can take place, then they are offering nothing - absolutely nothing - that deserves serious consideration.

There can be no peaceful basis of reconstruction and reconcilliation in Kandahar as long as the mission is to engage the Taliban, destroy opium crops and villages. I will say it again our troops are not there for any peaceful purpose. That was a fient by the Tories to gain Liberals acceptance that their mission was the same as the Liberals. Harpers mission is war making. On behalf of the U.S. who want NATO to take over combat operations. That is clearly in conflict with reconstruction and peace making.

The vilification of the Left by those on the right, including Liberals, as pacifists and appeasers is historical revisionism. The Left went to Spain during the civil war seventy years ago, despite the Liberal government declaring it illegal, and the allies blockading the Republican government.

They went to fight fascism, which the Right supported and still does. Those same veterans and volunteers, the few that survived that brutal war, came back and signed up to continue the fight against fascism in Europe. Because fascism is anti democratic and anti socialist.

The Left led the resistance to fascism in France, Greece, Italy, etc. during WWII. The right created the Vichy collaborationist government in France. The right supported the monarchists collaborators in Greece. The right supported the fascists in Croatia. Etc. Etc.

After WWII the Left supported Wilsonian national liberation movements, the right organized military coups. Democracy in Europe was undermined by CIA support for the mafia, right wing paramilitaryists and former fascist politicians.
In Latin and Central America it supported coup de dats for big American monopoly coporations. It orchestrated the coup against democratically elected Salvadore Allende government in Chile.

The historic war between the Left and the Right is between socialist democracy and
militarism/fascism Between the rights of the people and the rights of the pwoer elites.

And when push comes to shove wars are either about authentic struggles for liberation or else they are geopolitical games of Imperialism. The latter is the case in Afghanistan.

Clearly on this issue the line is drawn in the sand. There is no mushy middle. And this is where the Liberals will fail to offer any real alternative to the Left or Right.

So Ed has at least made it clear, that despite being on the Progressive Bloggers list he has sided with the Blogging Tories and the Conservatives on this issue.

And that is how this debate will play out across Canada. Politically it will leave the Liberal's isolated. Along with its lame duck leadership race, it gives validity to Jacks call this weekend to prepare for an election, one that will give Canadians an opportunity to decide between Left and Right, the NDP or Conservatives.

The Liberals have no mushy middle to wallow in on this issue. Which is why they refuse to debate it, rather like Ed they would rather reiterate their Conservative talking points, over and over again claiming that is discussion and debate.


The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,


1 comment:

leftdog said...

I think we found a Newfoundland Liberal who was stunned to see a challenge to the traditional 'bully boy' tactics that are often directed to New Democrats on the Rock. While I do not know the Nfld & lab NDP leader, Lorraine Michael, I found the 'Dipocrits' posting to be offensive. The fact that no rebuttal is possible got the ire up in me.

Good work on calling this exactly what it is. Kudos