Define 'support our troops'

[#juan]

All Canadians paying income tax support our troops whether they like it or not. They can express their voluntary support in any way they choose whether it is by writing letters of encouragement, or wearing a ribbon, or just having a kind thought about them. I can't imagine any Canadian worth his/her spit not supporting the troops. The troops go where the government of the day sends them and a lot of them come home either in a bag or debilitated by injuries. Not supporting them seems shallow or stupid. I was in the military during a time when we had no wars going on and I had the distinct feeling that a lot of civilians didn't care one way or another, or maybe disapproved a little because their taxes were paying for the military. Whatever the case, when our soldiers are in harm's way it seems fitting to wear a ribbon at least figuratively.

 

[Minority Observer84]

Again supporting the troops being used as a right wing head bashing tactic .
First of all it's a volunteer army which means everyone placed in a position of danger right now choose to be in the armed forces and choose the life of a soldier which is often short and violent .
Second municipal traffic is an expression of the people of the community the solution to the TO quagmire is to have a city wide vote on the issue i say this because i'am from there and i know my community they will strike this down because city cars have no place advocating a political position . That is what i believe but if the majority of the population in Toronto vote to keep the stickers on who am i to oppose . Some of us oppose the deployment of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and there is no distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the war . All loss of human life saddens me regardless of the nationality of the dead and the issues of Afghanistan are far too complex to be solved by a gun .
Also note to the person who compared the war in Afghanistan to world war , your comment shows a deep ignorance either of History of political reality in Afghanistan which is deeply rooted in it's violent history .

 

[JBeee]

Scarifying Canadians is no help to Afghanistan


by Mohamed Elmasry
(Saturday, June 30, 2007)
"Only 26 per cent of respondents to the same survey thought Canada’s military mission should be extended "if that is necessary to complete our goals there.""



A recent poll suggests that two-thirds (or 67 per cent) of Canadians want the country's military mission in Afghanistan to end as scheduled in 2009. According to the polling firm Decima Research, this result has been true "in every region of Canada, among men and women, all age and income groups and among both urban and rural residents."
Only 26 per cent of respondents to the same survey thought Canada’s military mission should be extended "if that is necessary to complete our goals there."
But what, exactly, are Canada’s goals in Afghanistan?

Just a few days after the above results were made public, NATO secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, flew to Ottawa to meet Prime Minister Stephen Harper and urge Canada to continue the fight in Afghanistan beyond the country's self-imposed deadline of February 2009.
"I know how dramatic it is if Canadian soldiers pay the highest price," de Hoop Scheffer said, "But I still say, you are there for a good cause . .. you are there to defend basic universal values."
His plea came one day after three Canadian soldiers were killed, bringing to 60 the number of Canadian troops who've lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2002.
But the "good cause" of which he speaks now has a serious credibility problem for many Canadians, who are seeing de Hoop Scheffer as a paid salesman who repeats what George W. Bush has been saying since 9/11 about terrorism, democracy, freedom, etc. And like Bush, de Hoop Scheffer seems to have minimal respect for human lives. This means any human lives - those of Afghani men, women and children, who are killed daily; those of Canadians killed far from home; and those of his fellow Dutch citizens who number among the international forces posted there.
In the meantime, an association of Quebec-based anti-war activists, the War on War Coalition, has sent individual letters to 3,000 Canadian military families urging eligible soldiers to refuse their upcoming deployments to Afghanistan.

The letter says that "the Afghan mission is a web of lies" and exhorts military personnel to reconsider going, because "you are not obligated to go to Afghanistan to become cannon fodder in this unjust war."
The letter goes on to say that it is sent "in the spirit of dialogue and debate" and warns that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan risk complicity in activities "tantamount to war crimes," such as civilian deaths.

The coalition also set up a protest in Quebec City to coincide with a military parade where 2,500 Canadian Forces soldiers - the bulk of them from Quebec - were bidding farewell to family and friends before going to Afghanistan.
"Our aim isn't to attack the soldiers or their families; we want to open... the debate on our presence in Afghanistan and why we should participate in this conflict," said coalition spokesperson Joseph Bergeron. "We want them to know that the reasons they've been given for going aren't the real ones ... they are not going to instill democracy with the barrel of a rifle. The Afghans don't want them there."

Faced with such strong opposition to Canada’s presence in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declared that Canada's military role in Afghanistan will continue past February 2009 only if there's a consensus on the home front among political leaders and Canadians.
"I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians about how we move forward after that," he said. "I would hope that the view of Canadians is not to simply abandon Afghanistan. I think there is some expectation that there would be a new role after February 2009, but obviously those decisions have yet to be taken."

"This mission will end in February 2009," Harper continued. "Should Canada be involved militarily after that date, we've been clear that [it] would have to be approved by the Canadian Parliament ... I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition is going to ... undercut the dangerous work that [soldiers] are doing in the field."

This was a dramatic change for Harper, who has said until recently that Canada will not "cut and run" from Afghanistan, a point he drove home during a visit to Kandahar just a month ago.
"You know that our work is not complete. You know that we cannot just put down our arms and hope for peace," Harper told Canadian troops then.
"You know that we can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best."
But Harper's change of mind received a cool reception from the opposition.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion accused the Prime Minister of "creating ambiguity."
If Harper was "responsible," he would give notice to NATO and Afghanistan that Canada would be pulling out in 2009, Dion said. "He should be very clear. He should say that the combat mission in Kandahar ends in February 2009."
And for the majority of Canadians, whose lives have been scarified for too long by the Bush-Harper-NATO war dance, February 2009 cannot come soon enough.

 

[Colpy]

Again supporting the troops being used as a right wing head bashing tactic .
First of all it's a volunteer army which means everyone placed in a position of danger right now choose to be in the armed forces and choose the life of a soldier which is often short and violent .
Second municipal traffic is an expression of the people of the community the solution to the TO quagmire is to have a city wide vote on the issue i say this because i'am from there and i know my community they will strike this down because city cars have no place advocating a political position . That is what i believe but if the majority of the population in Toronto vote to keep the stickers on who am i to oppose . Some of us oppose the deployment of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and there is no distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the war . All loss of human life saddens me regardless of the nationality of the dead and the issues of Afghanistan are far too complex to be solved by a gun .
Also note to the person who compared the war in Afghanistan to world war , your comment shows a deep ignorance either of History of political reality in Afghanistan which is deeply rooted in it's violent history .

I sometimes think if terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in downtown Toronto, the average IQ in the country would jump at least 10 points..........

\You CAN support the troops and not the mission. It requires that you understand that soldiers are simply a tool of our democratically elected government......individuals that have volunteered to serve by being the cutting edge of our foreign policy. Therefore one supports them by demanding they have the tools necessary to do their job as well and as safely as possible, one supports them by demanding the gov't treats them as well as possible, one supports them by personally treating them with respect....

None of these things require you take any specific political stance.

 

[Minority Observer84]

I sometimes think if terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in downtown Toronto, the average IQ in the country would jump at least 10 points..........

\You CAN support the troops and not the mission. It requires that you understand that soldiers are simply a tool of our democratically elected government......individuals that have volunteered to serve by being the cutting edge of our foreign policy. Therefore one supports them by demanding they have the tools necessary to do their job as well and as safely as possible, one supports them by demanding the gov't treats them as well as possible, one supports them by personally treating them with respect....

None of these things require you take any specific political stance.

I Agree with you within those parameters supporting the troops is not only fine but noble . Ensuring that they and their families are cared for after they return , Making sure they are well equiped and well supplied .
That being said that the mantra of "support our troops " has been used to oppress the voices that are opposed to the war , my form of supporting the troops is to call for their instant return and those stickers are a message of support for the mission it's just latent way of saying i support the troops .

 

[triedit]

For me, supporting the troops means not suggesting they should "know better" or have some sort of moral obligation to NOT go to war. For me, it is standing up to people and governments who harbor deserters. In my world, it is maintaining contact with the families of those serving and listening when they need an ear. Sometimes it means sending books and stuff over. Sometimes it means talking about it on forums and sending emails to politicians.

Sometimes it means keeping my yap shut when someone doesnt agree with me and I know thier mind is closed.

 

[gopher]

Wonder what might have happened if the bring-them-homes were allowed to succeed during the second world war.


Hitler and Hirohito declared war on us and that's why we fought.

In Iraq, nobody declared war on us nor caused us any harm. We did not ask for nor cause WW II. By contrast, Bush caused the war on Iraq just like Hitler did with the earlier war.

 

[damngrumpy]

There is some good discussion here, yes it is a NATO mission under the so called control of the UN, and I support our troops and the effort in Afghanistan, however I do not support the mission in Iraq as they were attacked, purely for American political reasons.
As for 911, I'm not sure little kids in a daycare deserved to be murdered by fanatics in jetliners, I am not sure civillians in offices deserved to die like that.
I also don't believe that thousands of Iraqis needed to die at the hands of American carpet bombing.
Now America does deserve what it gets, in many ways and the world is slowly turning on them.
The murder of women and children is hard for me to justify, unless both side declare the term total war, as happened toward the end of WW2.

 

[Liberalman]

Patriotism is a higher calling and that’s what makes us all citizens of this great country.

If you want to enjoy this country then you have to be prepared to give your life to defend it.

I like peace and I do not like war and no soldier likes war they would rather be home with their families enjoying life.

In order to enjoy life and liberties we got to be prepared to fight for it or else we lose it.

We have to show the world that Canada will share and help other countries but if they try to take it by force then we will defend it to the death if need be.

I support our troops they do a great job and if asked I will go and any Canadian worth his or her salt will go because this country is worth it.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Patriotism is a higher calling and that’s what makes us all citizens of this great country.

If you want to enjoy this country then you have to be prepared to give your life to defend it.

I like peace and I do not like war and no soldier likes war they would rather be home with their families enjoying life.

In order to enjoy life and liberties we got to be prepared to fight for it or else we lose it.

We have to show the world that Canada will share and help other countries but if they try to take it by force then we will defend it to the death if need be.

I support our troops they do a great job and if asked I will go and any Canadian worth his or her salt will go because this country is worth it.

I really can't argue with this. It's really a big part of how I think the majority feel in this country....
Deep down if it ended up hand to hand down the street from everyone ...All would feel the same excepting cowards.And sometimes one can't blame a coward for being one and it's our duty to protect the week as well.

 

[TomG]

In just a few days there will be an unveiling of a veteran’s memorial in my small rural township of 250 permanent residents. The memorial rock will have a list of township residents in bronze who have served in their countries’ militaries during times of armed conflicts. The memorial is the result of one person’s vision and efforts, and the willingness of my community to support community work voluntarily, and availability of national organizations to fund such projects. The project founder is a WWII Canadian veteran. It is a long list given the small number of people who live here. The number of people who will attend the ceremony will be a large public gathering given our small size. My name is on the list. I am a U.S. veteran who served in the U.S. forces voluntarily during Vietnam but was never in Vietnam.

I will be part of receiving a small honour from my small community in recognition of my service to a foreign country. I cannot speak for the founder or do I have knowledge of the speeches that touring dignitaries will make. My understanding is that the memorial honours the service, not the conflicts, not the politicians who formed the national policies and not the high-minded abstract normative values used to justify national participation in any armed conflict. The service is honoured without ennobling the conflict, the leaders, national institutions, high-minded philosophies or justifying the policies. That is a way of supporting the troops.

I came here as an immigrant and eventually received a small honour from a small place for those residents present and past who serve. I welcome this honour that comes forty years later It is recognition and support that I never received in my country of birth. I welcome receiving the honour from a fellow veteran but of a different conflict. I will tolerate speeches by touring dignitaries.

The events of the conflict during which I served are dimming into history. The causes and their leaders fade into disgrace. The shame of the propaganda that leaders used to sell armed conflict to electorates as instruments of national policy dissipates. The events no longer move dissidents to scream ‘baby-killer’ at their own countrymen in uniform. The leaders no longer scream back about protecting families and homes and saving the world. It is over, as our participation in Afghanistan will be over. It all eventually becomes history.

What remains is the service of those who served. The present causes and leaders may or may not eventually fade into shame and disgrace. Do not allow these troops who will become veterans to belong to any cause or leader. Do not allow national service to be politicized. Do not make these veterans wait forty years to receive simple honours for their service. Do not risk shamming those who serve with service to causes that may become a source of shame and disgrace. They serve in their own right. They served as did I, and nothing more. That’s what soldiers do. They deserve better than to be used as instruments in the marketing schemes of career politicians. They deserve to be honoured in their own right.