CitizenX

I think this will answer your question

Maybe, but being Canada we should not have any enemies. I love the fact that our foreign Policy is the opposite of the Americans. Maybe that's why Canada is so respected internationally, and America is hated so much. To any Americans listening, you weren't attacked because as Bush said "They hate our freedom".You were attacked because of your foreign Policies, these being Corporate domination of the world and feeding your addiction to oil.

I'm sorry but I don't believe in blanket statements like "support the troops". I just barely support the troop in Afghanistan, but if Canada had gone into Iraq I would not have supported them. In fact I would have considered them war criminals along with the Americans. Yes the Canadian armed forces do a lot of great things around the world as far as humanitarian aid,"and the many domestic operations in response to natural disasters and for events such as the Olympics". For this I have a great deal of respect for them, but that is their job. To make statement like "to support the troops is always the right choice" is clearly wrong.

I totally agree, but since this is a post about military action it's not the example I'm looking for.I'm not saying there isn't any just none that I'm aware of.

Please give examples Canada not following Human Rights Declaration or international law. To be trueful the US has completely underminded the the whole concept of the UN so yaa it's probably obsolete now.

This is not about whether or not I support our troops in Afghanistan (in this case I do).It's a question about whether a person has to support the troops under any circumstance because they are not responsible for the actions they are ordered to act on. If you don't support the actions of your government why is it acceptable to support the actions of the soldiers that carry out that act. It is simply easier to use the US as an example. Let me use Germany again, if you were living in Germany during the time of world war II and didn't support the actions of your government is it right to support the army that invades other countries. This has nothing to do with whether this is a democracy or if it is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's about your support and where you place it.

I'm simply pointing out that you don't have to support your troops just because it is political correct. Most of my comments are directed towards American forces because Canadian forces don't have enough examples of atrocities committed.

WOW Where do I start 1) Canada is a commonwealth nation and allies of Britain when they are attacked we are attacked 2) Canada is the most warmongering nation on the planet???? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY&feature=related 3)Canada is least attacked nation in the world because of our foreign affairs policies.

Army Guy, most if not all of my comments were directed towards the American forces. One of the reasons to be proud to be a Canadian is the fact that we as a country stay out of most if not all unjust wars (Iraq, and Vietnam for example). Not to mention the fact that for the most part members of the Canadian forces act in a morally correct manner. I was simply pointing out if soldiers don't stand up for what is right when they see something unjust does happen, simply saying i was following orders or I'm not involved doesn't get them off the hook.

Bush Cheney two great examples of amorality. Murder may be immoral but don't push your moral code on me..lol

It was just one example, if you look through history you will find to many examples to list here. My point is that the military is designed in a very specific way. It's all about brain washing. 1) You recruit from communities that are undereducated and have few career options 2) You break these people down physically and mentally to the point that they will follow your orders in their sleep. 3) You limit interactions with people outside this culture. 4) You create a hierarchy that enables individuals to off-load the blame of immoral acts to an authority over them.

I disagree, you have a moral responsibility for all of your actions. Simply saying "Soldiers are simply servants of the state charged with the obligation of carrying out duties prescribed to them" gives people the excuse to be involved in atrocities. This is one of the main causes of evil in the world. First is the dehumanization of your enemy, second is to remove the responsibility for any horrific action you may carry out by placing the blame for your action on someone of authority over you.

Now look back at Germany from 1939 to 1945.

My Point is the US and Britain were happy to subject Iraq to the laws of a higher authority (UN) as far as inspections went. But when Iraq said enough is enough you have found nothing, this gave the US the excuse to make a case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq. The UN Security Council adopted a compromise resolution,which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for non-compliance. This wasn't good enough for Bush and Blair so they went it alone. So it's OK to subject other countries to international laws but don't try using it against us. Bush is a war criminal

Breaking News on Christy Clark’s HST Action Plan July 30, 2011 by theleftcoast.ca A confidential source who is very well connected inside the BC Liberal Party has informed me that if the “YES to Extinguish the HST” vote is anything over 50%, rather than repealing the HST as Gordon Campbell had previously promised, Christy Clark will call a fall election with the HST as the key issue. She will put her government on the line an effort to ask all British Columbians how they feel about the HST. It looks like the HST battle costs are going to continue to spiral upwards. Stay-tuned for a busy fall election season.

Not on the G20 topic but how many remember this side of the Vancouver Olympics?

The UN Charter is clear that wars of aggression are prohibited. Article 2(4) states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The US-led attack against Iraq constitutes a clear undermining of established Security Council authority in the realm of war and peace. I think what you are really saying is when you are the most powerful country in the world you don't have to follow international laws.

You can't be serious? What are the odds in Vegas for this happening? History is written by the victors, plus It's like here in Canada when police investigate police misconduct...lol

I'm sorry but people have to take responsibility for their actions or lack of action. As you said "the troops are not some automated political machine". They have a duty and responsibility to think for them selves. I respect the fact that some of these people were in the forces before the Iraq war started. I also understand that the majority of those that enlisted are from the underprivileged portion of society and are less educated, and therefore had little options or no real understanding of how corrupt the US Government can be, and were lied to. I'm sure that most people in the beginning truly believed that they were there to help the Iraqi's. I wonder how many believe that now ? But like I said people have a ethical responsibility to say "NO I will not be apart of this" when they discover something illegal is occurring. Passing the buck by saying I am just following orders is no longer acceptable. Please don't get me wrong I am comparing the US to Nazi's but simply to point out that this is how most of the atrocities occurred in Germany "I am just following orders".

The law is the law is the law. The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.I'm not saying the bombing of Serbia or Libya are anymore lawful. As for torture, just because a few troops were punished doesn't mean justice was served what about the real decision makers? A little different from a couple of psychopathic redneck racists in the Somalia Affair.

Just a philosophical question here. If Canada had entered the Iraq war as Harper wanted back when he was opposition, being that I believe it to be an unjust war I would not be able to support our troops. How can Americans against the Iraq war support their troops when they are involved in an illegal war and responsible for torture. If I believe Canadian troops are responsible for handing enemy over to people they know will torture them. Is it ethically responsible to support our troops? To any and all Harperites, constructive thoughts and criticisms only please (not love this country or leave it please).

I would say that the PC Party is really the Reform Party in PC clothes.

"Ontario's Liberal government passed a secret law governing police powers during last year's G20 summit in Toronto that could have led to even more abuses than were witnessed, concludes former chief justice Roy McMurtry in a report released." My link Without a public inquiry into not only the obvious police misconduct but also the Ontario governments and Harper's involvement. Federal, Ontario governments dodge call for G20 inquiry

Hello I’m new here so be gentle please...lol. What does a representative democracy mean to you? When your community elects A Member of Parliament to represent them, are you/they voting for someone (a person) that will act the interest and wishes of you and your community? Or are you simply voting for a party that represents your values? The reason I ask is the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want. What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs This means that in some instances, one’s MP will vote in a way that might run counter to prevailing opinion in his or her constituency. What this means to me is when you vote you are not voting for an individual but in fact voting for or against a party. How is a Member of Parliament a representative? How is this a representative democracy? If you are in reality voting for a Party, and in fact really for a party leader (because he controls the party), what kind of democracy is this?

Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I think the question is, if Canadian rights and freedoms are subject to limits prescribed by law, do Canadians really have any Rights and Freedoms? Lets look at Freedom from arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.Freedom from arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure are two of the most fundamental rights enjoyed by Canadians. To detain or arrest a person, police must have reasonable grounds to believe they are implicated in criminal activity and, unless an individual is being legally detained or arrested, the police must generally have a warrant, or other reasonable grounds, to search him or her. If all that is required to limit peoples rights is to enacted second world war legislation like the Public Works Protection Act. Ombudsman Andre Marin’s who published a report on acts use he can be quoted. “The Ontario government was opportunistic when it gave police wartime powers during the G20 summit in Toronto, resulting in a mass violation of civil rights in peacetime” "It was opportunistic and inappropriate to use a war measure that allows extravagant police authority to arrest and search people in the name of public works," "Apart from insiders in the government of Ontario, only members of the Toronto Police Service knew that the rules of the game had changed, and they were the ones holding the 'go directly to jail' cards," "Going into the weekend of the G20 summit, no one knew about the regulation - not the public, not the press, city administrators or even key members of the Integrated Security Unit in charge of summit security," he said. "Worse, the ministry's decision not to publicize the regulation entrapped citizens who took the trouble to inform themselves of their rights and wound up caught in the act's all but invisible web." “The act was used "to intimidate and arrest people who had done no harm," "was of dubious legality and no utility," "the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history" had occurred during the G20 weekend". ombudsman Andre Marin’s The "Breach of the Peace" report calls for a joint federal-provincial public inquiry to determine who was responsible for "serious violations of fundamental rights and freedoms." Besides the use of this act to illegally demanding ID, search and seizure, and arresting the innocent.Hundreds of police officers removed their badges and many lied telling protesters that martial law had been declared and that protesters had no longer any rights and they could be held as long as necessary. Overall what concerns me the most was the mass arrests with no criminal charges made. If all police have to do is illegally arrest protestors in mass, throw them in concentration camp like cells,in some cases beat them, humiliate them, and in general make them think twice before they think about questioning authority or protesting again. Because they don't have to follow the laws that they expect others respect.