CLRV

Actually, it's more like burning someone's house to the ground on the pretense that they were harbouring a criminal in their basement, and then telling them what sort of house they were allowed to rebuild. These analogies are so helpful, aren't they?

Still not a patch on the "lion's share" -- Saudi Arabia's 10.5 million barrels/day. As I said before, those "constraints" only cemented Saddam's hold on power in Iraq and permitted him some of his worst butchering and repression. To wait ten years and then portray the next invasion as a humanitarian gesture based on our concern for those abuses would be laughable if it weren't so horrible.

Oh but I did mention it. Quite clearly. We were lied to. That's how the "majority" got involved (although I wonder how strong that "majority" actually was). At any rate, since then the lies have been exposed. It has become generally accepted by those in the know that the Taliban had no more to do with 9/11 than Saddam did. Witness the power of those lies. Check out this chapter-and-verse recitation of those lies right here only a few days ago, despite all we've learned. The same old tired regurgitation. For further information, see also the shameful number of Americans who still somehow believe Saddam did it. In this age of disinformation; of shamelessly dishonest governments that peddle lies, is it any use appealing to what the "majority" did or did not do? At any rate, I have also said the mission in Afghanistan (and Iraq) has turned the entire region into one big terrorist training camp. As I said, there was no referendum; no way for anyone to vote on the decision. As for demonstrations, they take place on a regular basis. No, the "majority" aren't there. They most likely have jobs and, as you point out, we are not a politically demonstrative people. Still the polls speak for themselves. Is it necessary in a democracy for the people to storm the barracades en masse before the government listens? As I said, we are not going to. Even those who still actually believe the lies that got us into this; those who are still driving around with those stupid ribbons on their bumpers, don't have the commitment. The belt-tightening, sacrifice and taxation increase that are necessary to win any war effort will still remain far beyond them. If the troops can't get that from the chickenhawks, how can anyone expect if from those of us who still think the best way to support the troops is to bring their asses home alive?

And Saddam was left in charge of Iraq; a top producer (2 million barrels/day). As lions' shares go, that's pretty sweet.

Well you're quite the speechifier yourself, A.G., if your subsequent response is any indication. What a convenience that this board has its very own returning soldier. Just returned, I infer, from the Afghanistan theatre to cheering throngs and a field of yellow ribbons, row on row. I'm glad this vision gave you pleasure and continues to do so. It certainly gives me a warm glow. Glad the t.p. was a boon as well. As I said, it makes a more appropriate image than a yellow ribbon anyway. Who needs adequate kevlar and body armour anyway? Who needs vehicles that can stand up to an IED? An experienced foot soldier like yourself, fresh from battle and still dusty, would know the value of a ribbon and a bog roll when faced with a screaming Taliban warrior better than a poor civvie like me who just wouldn't "get it". And when, exactly did I call the troops ungrateful? Oops. There I go, defending myself from an unwarrented attack instead of ignoring it as it should be ignored. MY nerve? When did *I* get a say? It wasn't MY nerve that got us into this. Now you're catching on. Oh really? Did we indeed? Was there a referendum or something that I just missed? Some democratic process where the "majority" of Canadians got a say? That's news to me, because I'm almost certain nobody even asked me. So, the smaller brother isn't a pussy just for standing behind the big bro, shouting and jeering like the chickenhawks and their pathetic little ribbons. He's only bad when he realizes that big bro has once again gotten himself into more shit than he can handle with his big mouth and sensibly advises him on the better part of valour? I see. Schoolyard analogies are so helpful when talking geopolitics. They're almost as good as sports terms like SLAM DUNK! Do they really? "WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Pentagon has no constitutional obligation to provide the media access to U.S. troops during combat." Who knew? "OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian military officials removed four journalists accompanying troops on an Afghanistan operation earlier this year after complaints from allies, newly released documents show." At any rate, the issue in war was never about what the soldiers think. As someone has already pointed out in this thread, they do what they are ordered. Theirs not to question why. Theirs but to do or die. That's why it's important for those of us back at home, whose freedoms they are being killed and maimed to protect, should USE those freedoms to challange lies and deceit whenever we can. Especially since the troops get lied to so foully. They were told OBL was there waiting for a fight. He wasn't. They were told they were going to destroy terrorist training camps and ended up watching the entire region transform into one big terrorist training camp. THEN they were told it was all about schools and clean water. Thank God they finally got something to believe in. Odd that you would bring up clean water, though. How soon we forget the international laughing stock Canada became because of the deployment of our DART water system to tsunami victims two years ago. Re-read what I said above about the hypocrisy of "supporting the troops" in the face of such poor equippage.

An excellent article linked. Thank you. Of course you did read that article, so you know what it really says. Were you counting on my not reading it? The author clearly says that as an example of a connection between yellow ribbons and the Civil War, it is "a rather weak one". This "putative association" is taken very lightly by the author and he makes clear he includes it more for completeness of information than in any real belief that people were tieing yellow ribbons to everything in sight during the Civil War. He also includes a tale about yellow *hankerchiefs* and another about *white* ribbons. Quaintly similar but ultimately unrelated. I did not, however, know that the hit song had been penned by Irwin Levine and L. Russell Brown in June 1972, rather than by Tony Orlando when he sold three million copies in three weeks in 1973, and that James Earl Jones played the returning ex-con in the T.V. dramatization. Nor did I know that the first arguably popular usage of the yellow ribbon in the way we use it today was in fact by the families of American hostages during the Iranian crisis of 1979. Thank you for that information. The song's theme of imprisonment was indeed more appropriate to the Iranian crisis, since people were actually being held prisoner. I would still have to say, however, that trotting it out for soldiers invading another nation is in poor taste and dramatically ironic in the worst possible way. Yes indeed. And as I just said the petro-dollars were kept flowing the proper way for another ten glorious years. It kept us riding high through the 90's. But if you are offering that as an example of the war's "success", don't come around now with a sob story about the pains of the Iraquis under Saddam or those of the Afghanis the under Taliban. It can't be an example of success THEN and a justification for war NOW. It was either wrong then and now, or not. Which do you believe?

Why would anybody object to a yellow ribbon embossed with the slogan "Support The Troops" on a public emergency vehicle? Let me count the ways. First off: it's a stupid symbol. This is an image gleaned from a song by Tony Orlando and Dawn. Have we all forgotten that? This is the level of intellectual commitment. The song is not about remembrance. It's about a *criminal* getting out of *prison* and wondering if his girlfriend is still willing to see him after he's done the crime and done the time. Yet without a trace of irony, these idiots are foisting this association upon us as representation of our troops. Next, we have the fact that this symbol was invented during one of the most cowardly and certainly the most ultimately pointless military invasions in recent history: the First Gulf War. Techniques of sophisticated propaganda and deliberate disinformation were perfected during the runup to this war. What's worse is they got that part right. Canada rallied behind America, lending a hand wherever we could. From safely out of range America flattened Iraq, destroyed its infrastructure, killed thousands of Iraquis and then, right at the point where they could actually have done some good, they turned around and left for home, threw themselves a big, fat tickertape parade, called themselves heroes and went on to enjoy artificially low gasoline prices for the next decade. But Saddam was left in absolute power, even freer than before to kill, maim, torture and rape the Iraqui people; exacting reprisal killings of Shiia in the thousands (the same Shiia for whom we now claim an abiding concern). The 90's went blissfully by, while Saddam entroned himself on a golden toilet and skimmed from conscience-salving "oil for food" scams. A generation of Iraqui children died of typhus and cholera epidemics caused by destroyed water and medical systems. That was the legacy of Gulf War One. A yellow ribbon was wrapped on that and see how pretty it is. Then we have the mindless mantra itself; Support The Troops. Naturally the majority of those who support the war parrot this. They are used to hiding behind these brave men and women who put their bodies and lives in peril for our safety (or in this case the *illusion* thereof). Why not hide behind them rhetorically as well? You'll see a lot of yellow ribbons on chickenhawkmobiles. The sad thing is the growing number of people who do not support the war but are still afraid to question this slogan for fear of being accused of "hating" the troops; who are actually affixing these things to their own bumpers for fear of being called out. And who can blame them? It's an easy point to score by shameless jingoists and most western liberals are still too wishy-washy to stick to sensible, logical, factual discussion and not allow themselves to be side-tracked into defending themselves against unjust personal attack. What does this mean, Support The Troops? Reading this thread, we'll sure never know. Four pages so far and not a single note of agreement on terms. That's because it really DOESN'T mean anything, least of all to those who use it the most; those who probably have one of the damnable things stuck to their S.U.V. right now. During the world wars people supported the troops. They sacrificed. They went without for the sake of the troops. You don't see any of these people rallying for fuel rationing to support the war. You certainly don't see them calling for something that would demonstrate TRUE support for the troops: an increase in taxation to offset the enormous cost of funding a war effort. Oh dear no. What are these guys sending our troops? TOILET PAPER? Are you even serious? Another nice ironic symbol perhaps, but do you really want to impress us all with your magnanimous, selfless support of the troops? Have a whip-round and send them a few ARMOURED VEHICLES . Is a magnet on your bumper the extent of your grim resolve? Apparently so, because the corpulent orgy of over-indulgence that characterizes so much of our western culture goes merrily unabated. Gee whiz, what's wrong with putting it on a public vehicle? Who could object to that? So what if it's obviously been hijacked as a pro-war slogan? It's all good, right? Well look at it this way. Arguably the best way we could support the troops would be to bring them home alive with all their limbs intact. What if a firefighter put a sticker saying something along the lines of "Bring the Boys Back Home" on the pumper truck? How many seconds would it be before some bunting-encrusted flag-waver was on the phone to the city about this obvious political statement -- gesture of support for the troops though it surely is? That's because "Support the Troops" is NOT a neutral political statement and it never has been. Claiming it as such is dishonest or blinkered or both. Bring the troops home? Scandalous! Unthinkable! Imagine how *DEMORALIZED* the poor lads will be if they had to come home in one piece, alive, with all their arms and legs and hands and feet and eyes, back to the arms of their wives and children and mothers and fathers. Imagine the weeping on that day. The sense of loss. Anybody who knows anything about the troops will tell you that they would be soooo much happier if we left them on an impossible treadmill of futility, imposing "order" and "freedom" on a 15-way sectarian boodbath that has been raging on-again/off-again since before the time of Alexander the Great. The Mongols, the British empire, the Soviets. Everybody has taken a kick at this can and gotten their asses handed to them each and every time. Now here comes Canada, with it's brave but dreadfully underfunded and underequipped military, and we're going to make it all right or by God we're not leaving. What monumental hubris. The mouse that roared. This is not a "mission". It's a fantasy cooked up by wannabe Americans -- Canadians who want to be like America, with a population base one-tenth the size and a geography three times as large, but still somehow able to flex Charles Atlas military muscle all around the globe like their heroes to the south; people who, remember, have no interest in making the kind of financial committment it would take to even come close. If the troops were even asked; if they were offered the freedom to speak openly (remember that soldiers have no more right to express their political opinions than cops or firefighters), how many would admit this sense of futility? How many would admit their sense of betrayal at being lied to from the beginning? For just like Iraq, Afghanistan was started on a lie. Osama Bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora waiting for the final battle, remember? The "building schools" business only came about *after* we discovered that he was never actually there at all. Has everyone besides myself forgotten this? Have the troops forgotten this? Sadly we shall never know. We'll be sure to hear from those carefully selected soldiers who remain buoyantly optimistic, but don't count on equal time for grumblers and nay-sayers. Even if we did, they would only be dismissed by our self-appointed troop support system as just that: cowards and whiners, malingerers and layabouts. That's their inevitable reaction whenever a soldier exercises his right to conscientious objection. Support the troops? Well hurrah. Metro Council saw "sense" and voted to keep the annoying, meaningless magnets. What a surprise. What a principled decision. I'm sure the situation in Afghanistan will continue to improve as a direct result. But hey Toronto! While we were all bickering over this crucial issue, the Council passed a by-law charging you between $41 and $151 a year for your garbage removal. You don't suppose that was on purpose do you? This ultimately pointless but emotionally charged issue raising its head in council precisely when they were voting approval on what is sure to be a severely unpopular by-law? No. Now I am going too far. Somebody stop me.