Supporting your troops.

[Army Guy]

I along with dozens of soldiers are getting tired of all this polictical double speak...a support your troops sticker or what ever you have means just that....i don't care what you think it should means, what your neibour thinks it means ....those of us that can read english or french knows exactly what it says...."Support your troops"

It does not say, vote cons, or NDP sucks, or liberal are human to, i i like to blow small countries up....no it clearly states "support your troops" i've got 4 on my truck, need one take it i can get more....Oh ya i got another sticker on my truck it's the Canadian flag, it used to mean we where a nation that could reach out to anyone in need, a nation that stood up for the small guy, a nation that could accomplish anything it set it's mind to.....perhaps someone can tell me what that now means....

stickers

[M.Dancer]

Linky no worky...

[Army Guy]

Sorry link is broken....

The Support Our Troops decal getting stuck to all Saskatchewan government vehicles isn't getting a warm response from everyone.

Regina resident Allan Taylor said he supports the troops but opposes the war in Afghanistan and questions why the stickers are going on public vehicles.

Taylor said he would have no problem with government workers or anyone else putting the decals -- bearing a yellow ribbon plus some green from the Saskatchewan flag -- on their personal vehicles.

"But I don't think it should be on something that's owned by all the people of Saskatchewan," said Taylor, adding polls have shown many others share his viewpoint on the war.

Taylor's concerns were echoed by the Council of Canadians.

"We see it as not a smart initiative for the province of Saskatchewan to be taking," said Sheila Muxlow, the group's Edmonton-based prairie organizer.

While the decals are often called a show of support for the troops and not necessarily the war, Muxlow said the council doesn't feel that's the case.

"To see a support the troops campaign happen now, it's inevitable that it's going to be linked to the mission where our troops are most actively involved," she said.

However, Premier Brad Wall said he has no concerns about the government's decision to display the stickers on government vehicles.

"We're supporting those troops in what they're doing whether we support the mission or not," he said.

"We're also supporting what they're doing with respect when they're helping out with the flood situation, when they're doing what they can in domestic issues," Wall said. "I'm very comfortable with it."

NDP Leader Lorne Calvert said he understands and supports the sentiment of showing support for Canada's troops. But he said the decals also a present a policy issue.

"Once you begin to use public property for any cause, good or bad -- in this case good -- you open yourself to a difficult, I think, challenge," said the Opposition leader, adding he doesn't interpret the stickers as supporting war although some others will.

The issue of "Support Our Troops" stickers on municipal vehicles has sparked debate in many Canadian cities. The Alberta government said last year that employees could put Support Our Troops decals on their government vehicles, but on a voluntary basis.

-- With files from James Wood

Edited April 24, 2009 by Army Guy

[Shakeyhands]

You may want to take this up with the governments in both Canada and the US who have hijacked them for political gain. Those that think that if you support the troops then you support the conflicts....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/dea...s_who_supp.html

http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.c...s=M1ARTM0013121

http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0063

[eyeball]

"Once you begin to use public property for any cause, good or bad -- in this case good -- you open yourself to a difficult, I think, challenge," said the Opposition leader, adding he doesn't interpret the stickers as supporting war although some others will.

I certainly do, just like I do when politicians stand up in front of a bunch of soldiers to sell the public on a mission of military interference, it indicates the soldiers support interfering too. I don't support the war or the mission and as far as I'm concerned I'm supporting the troops against my will. The fact they're volunteering to go galls me.

If we were talking about conscripts OTOH who were being dragged of against their will to this quagmire then you'd have my unequivocal support. Likewise if we were talking about Canada standing up to the superpowers that are the actual root cause of the problems in places like Afghanistan.

[Leafless]

The fact they're volunteering to go galls me.

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but I heard troops are receiving 70k classified as danger pay extra per mission.

Is this true?

Edited April 24, 2009 by Leafless

[xul]

I don't support the war or the mission and as far as I'm concerned I'm supporting the troops against my will. The fact they're volunteering to go galls me.

I think being a volunteer soldier means someone who gives his/her country a promise that he will carry out any military mission or operation which the legal government of this country instructs him/her regardless he/she agrees or disagrees with the governmental decision.

If Canadian army or government allows its soldiers to choose which mission or operation they can involve in and which one they can not, I'm mistaken and I think it's really great.....though I doubt the army could still work by this way.

Edited April 24, 2009 by xul

[Cameron]

I support a victorious result to the Afghan conflict for all NATO troops. I will also say the same for the US and Coalition Partners in Iraq.

[xul]

It does not say, vote cons, or NDP sucks, or liberal are human to, i i like to blow small countries up....no it clearly states "support your troops" i've got 4 on my truck, need one take it i can get more....Oh ya i got another sticker on my truck it's the Canadian flag, it used to mean we where a nation that could reach out to anyone in need, a nation that stood up for the small guy, a nation that could accomplish anything it set it's mind to.....perhaps someone can tell me what that now means....

If I was a soldier, I'd like to keep away from all such kind of political propaganda. Just imagine, if Bush got a "support Harper" sticker on his car, how his opposite politicians would react on this? In any case, Harper would become the victim though he didn't do anything on American Politics.

[eyeball]

I think being a volunteer soldier means someone who gives his/her country a promise that he will carry out any military mission or operation which the legal government of this country instructs him/her regardless he/she agrees or disagrees with the governmental decision.

If Canadian army or government allows its soldiers to choose which mission or operation they can involve in and which one they can not, I'm mistaken and I think it's really great.....though I doubt the army could still work by this way.

As I understand it our troops do not have to go to Afghanistan if they don't want to.

Canadian voters should be the only ones who directly vote on whether our troops are sent into any foreign conflict. No politician should be allowed to have anything to do with the decision. I doubt if a war could even be started this way.

[g_bambino]

I certainly do, just like I do when politicians stand up in front of a bunch of soldiers to sell the public on a mission of military interference, it indicates the soldiers support interfering too. I don't support the war or the mission and as far as I'm concerned I'm supporting the troops against my will. The fact they're volunteering to go galls me.

Your comparison makes no sense. In one instance, an individual is (wrongly, IMHO) using troops as political props; in the other, an individual is using a symbol to communicate his/her support for the Armed Forces. The major difference lies in the fact that the former would cease to have the same meaning once the Afghan mission was complete, whereas the latter would continue to mean the same thing, whether now, next week, or ten years from now. Anyone who thinks a support-the-troops ribbon is a partisan statement on the Afghan War must also then believe that Her Majesty's Canadian Forces were assembled specifically for, and will be dissolved at the end of, that conflict. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if some did think such a thing...

_{[ed. for sp.]}

Edited April 24, 2009 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

Your comparison makes no sense. In one instance, an individual is (wrongly, IMHO) using troops as political props; in the other, an individual is using a symbol to communicate his/her support for the Armed Forces. The major difference lies in the fact that the former would cease to have the same meaning once the Afghan mission was complete, whereas the latter would continue to mean the same thing, whether now, next week, or ten years from now.

Every politician and government uses props for its causes but nobody seems as willing to be used as one than a bunch of soldiers, unless its a bunch of cops. In the meantime I'm left wondering how any self respecting soldier who's complained about the lack of funding for equipment and resources could square the different displays of support they receive.

Anyone who thinks a support-the-troops ribbon is a partisan statement on the Afghan War must also then believe that Her Majesty's Canadian Forces were assembled specifically for, and will be dissolved at the end of, that conflict. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if some did think such a thing...

I would be because that really makes no sense. That said I do think why our forces should be assembled in the first place or ever dispatched abroad again need to be thoroughly reviewed. Before the end of this conflict would be fine by me.

Edited April 24, 2009 by eyeball

[Borg]

I along with dozens of soldiers are getting tired of all this polictical double speak...a support your troops sticker or what ever you have means just that....i don't care what you think it should means, what your neibour thinks it means ....those of us that can read english or french knows exactly what it says...."Support your troops"

It does not say, vote cons, or NDP sucks, or liberal are human to, i i like to blow small countries up....no it clearly states "support your troops" i've got 4 on my truck, need one take it i can get more....Oh ya i got another sticker on my truck it's the Canadian flag, it used to mean we where a nation that could reach out to anyone in need, a nation that stood up for the small guy, a nation that could accomplish anything it set it's mind to.....perhaps someone can tell me what that now means....

stickers

Quite the rant my friend

I am with you on this issue though

On the flag - I took the flag down several years ago though - and no longer wear it on my uniform - I no longer fight for Canada - I do it for the guy on my left and the guy on my right.

Borg

Edited April 24, 2009 by Borg

[g_bambino]

Every politician and government uses props for its causes but nobody seems as willing to be used as one than a bunch of soldiers, unless its a bunch of cops. In the meantime I'm left wondering how any self respecting soldier who's complained about the lack of funding for equipment and resources could square the different displays of support they receive.

That has nothing to do with your original statement: that you equate support-the-troops stickers with support for the Afghan War. Either you now agree with me in that your initial belief was false, or what you're actually doing is lumping the war in Afghanistan with all military conflict, and hence see any pro-military sticker as the expression of a war-monger.

[eyeball]

That has nothing to do with your original statement: that you equate support-the-troops stickers with support for the Afghan War. Either you now agree with me in that your initial belief was false, or what you're actually doing is lumping the war in Afghanistan with all military conflict, and hence see any pro-military sticker as the expression of a war-monger.

Okay, I think pro military stickers are an expression of warmongering.

[eyeball]

Okay, I think pro military stickers are an expression of warmongering.

Especially when they have flags on them.

[eyeball]

And they're bought from The Patriotic Superstore.

$10 bucks says they make these stupid things in China.

[daniel]

...I do it for the guy on my left and ....

Borg

...I wouldn't have thought you'd do it for anybody on the left.

[Shakeyhands]

I've always wanted to make some of those up that says "Support Magnet Sales!"

[Topaz]

Support the soldiers could mean a lot of things, like I support a soldier who has tried to deal with the fighting but as a human being just can't mentally function. That soldier should be transferred to another job rather than hold a gun in their hands. I have also heard that a soldier has to do at least one tour of duty in Afg. and their time is 5 years in the military. If a soldier thinks they need commit suicide because they can't deal with their job, then we NEED to support that soldier and NOT drug them up so they can deal with it.

[August1991]

I along with dozens of soldiers are getting tired of all this polictical double speak...a support your troops sticker or what ever you have means just that....i don't care what you think it should means, what your neibour thinks it means ....those of us that can read english or french knows exactly what it says...."Support your troops"

I think I get your point, AG.

What is the connection between the sticker and our mission in Afghanistan? Not much. For example, I do not have a "Support Our Troops" sticker on my car but I strongly support our troops in Afghanistan. No doubt some people put the sticker because they like the colour or they want to appear populist to their neighbours. Dunno.

Then again, would I "support our troops" if I opposed a federal government's decision about troop use? (For example, I think that Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970 was extreme and I wouldn't have supported our troops then.)

-----

Army Guy, your question ran through my mind the other day as I thought about how soldiers stationed in Afghanistan would feel about the current domestic debate about this war. (For example, I didn't like Harper's comment that we cannot win the war in Afghanistan in part because I thought about you guys.)

IMV, first of all, as professional soldiers, a democratic government has given you a job to do. Both Conservatives and Liberals agree on this mission.

Secondly, Canada is part of NATO and we have treaty obligations.

Thirdly, and this derives from the first two points, we are in Afghanistan to ensure that it no longer becomes a threat to us, the US or any other western country. Before 1979, Afghanistan was filled with wily, medieval, uneducated and uncivilized clansmen. They may have mistreated their women but they were of no threat to anyone outside of Afghanistan.

If we return Afganistan to this pre-1979 condition, then I would say our mission has been accomplished and NATO troops can come home.

----

IMHO, you are not in Afghanistan to modernize the place. You are there to ensure that it never again becomes a staging ground for attacks against the West. It should be clear to Afghans that if they let people like al-Qaeda in their midst again to organize attacks, the West will drop the H-bomb on Afghanistan.

Edited April 25, 2009 by August1991

[xul]

As I understand it our troops do not have to go to Afghanistan if they don't want to.

Under a democratic system, the army must obey its political leader's decision unless the decision is illegal or impossible to perform. I agree with you that the army generals usually are more keen to war than other government officials. Partly it is due to that wars are what they are trained for. Another cause is, probably, that wars consume weapons, weapon consumption booms military industries, and booming military industries can afford to hire several million dollars payed retired generals to lobby his successors to make new wars ---this is my understanding of how the American "system" works.

About the decision of political leaders, I can say Canada do have not direct interests in Afghanistan. But Canada had to go to Afghanistan to help America just because it is a number of NATO, at least it gives the political leaders a cause to go there.

Let's review the course that leads Canada going into Afghanistan. Of course, it seems like that all these started on September 11th the day of terrorists attack, but I believe the war plan had laid in a safe in the Pentagon for many years, or maybe many decades. The terrorists attack just worked as giving America government a perfect legal cause, or using our American friend BC_2004's word, an opportunity, to carry out the plan.

At first, just as other American NATO allies, Canadian government showed less interest in participance of the war. Canada only sent 4 warships to help American, I think these were the least things American wanted (and other allies did the same like Canada). Afghanistan was the place that another superpower Soviet fell and suffered terrible loss. Who would want to risk their soldiers life(and of course, their money) to go there? The call of help from America only got some halfhearted reaction.

But after November 13th, that day American took over Kabul, all Taliban militants seemed had vanished and western politicians and medias interpreted the phenomenon as an American decisive victory, so all these Americian "friends" suddenly had become more enthusiastic on sending their troops into Afghanistan. British offered 6,000 troops, Germany 3,900, Japan 1,500, Australia 1400, Turkey 3,000 and Canada 1,000, all wanted hitchhiking the Americian triumphant train, a bit of cheeky are these governments, aren't they?

But Bush was smarty than all his pals. He had a big scheme far beyond taking over afghanistan. He let these "Allies" hitchhiking American victory in Afghanistan to dig rock, just for then he could transfer American troops to go into another war in Iraq to dig oil. But unfortunately he failed to estimate the difficulty of his new war correctly and American troops were traped in Iraq, meanwhile Taliban regained some power because NATO lacked enough troops to control rural area of the country. Then Canadian troops are also traped there.

If I can say it frankly, it's all due to greed, due to the desire of gaining easy benefits without hardworking and sacrifice, just as the same cause of the mess that some bankers did in financial system recently.

Canadian voters should be the only ones who directly vote on whether our troops are sent into any foreign conflict. No politician should be allowed to have anything to do with the decision. I doubt if a war could even be started this way.

American law requests its government asking for a parliamentary warrant before going into a war unless under some emergency situation such as its troops was attacked first. So American governments made several hundreds wars, but only two or three were warranted---the invasion of Iraq is among the two or three. It is too easy to get ride of the restriction of the laws. The Pentagon just sailed a small spy boat into Vietnam territory water and got shot from Vietnam communist soldiers, then the Vietnam War began.

Unless Canada quits from NATO, that means Canadian has to pay more tax to support its own national defence to match the threat from some its powerful neighbors such as Russia, and Canadian military industry has to give up tens of billion dollars military equipment orders from American annually, Canada can not stop to be drag in some wars made by American. Frankly, the soldiers are just fighting for keeping some Canadians's jobs and saving their tax. Everything has its pro and con effect. We can not only take the good side without the bad side.

Edited April 25, 2009 by xul

[eyeball]

IMHO, you are not in Afghanistan to modernize the place. You are there to ensure that it never again becomes a staging ground for attacks against the West. It should be clear to Afghans that if they let people like al-Qaeda in their midst again to organize attacks, the West will drop the H-bomb on Afghanistan.

It should be clear to the west that if we keep interfering in the affairs of other regions we'll always have places like Afghanistan to contend with. Sooner or later one of them will manage to sneak in an H-bomb.

[bush_cheney2004]

It should be clear to the west that if we keep interfering in the affairs of other regions we'll always have places like Afghanistan to contend with. Sooner or later one of them will manage to sneak in an H-bomb.

Drama noted, but the very same thing could be said if the "west" does not interfere in the affairs of other nations.

[Borg]

...I wouldn't have thought you'd do it for anybody on the left.

Have to admit you did give me a good laugh

Perhaps I will have to re-think my approach

Regards

Borg