Supporting your troops.

Argus · April 25, 2009

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.

Nor could anything else of substance be accomplished. Good idea! Perpetual incompetence and confusion!

Not that, of course, that isn't already the goal of the loonies on the left. Nor the result whenever they get into power.

Argus · April 25, 2009

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.

This is such a dumb comment on so many levels it's hard to know where to being.

For a certain segment of the Left, nothing the West ever does is right, or even moral. If we interfere in the affairs of some third-world shithole, we're condemned for that. If we fail to interfere, we're condemned for not caring, for leaving the locals to perish in horrible ways, be it war, poverty, starvation, disease, etc.

We didn't interfere in Afghanistan, so the left bemoaned the horrible state of human rights there, the brutality of the Taliban against women and minorities. We didn't interfere - and yet Afghanistan hosted a massive "terrorist central" base with 10,000 Islamist loonies coming from all over the Muslim world - some of whom then flew airplanes into buildings in the west. So then we invaded, and the leftist loonies now snivel about us interfering in the private affairs of Afghanis.

No one with more than a tenth of a brain thinks we created Afghanistan the way it is. It's been this way for a thousand years, under one group of messianic tribal nutjobs or another, always warring against each other, and anyone else with the misfortune to be nearby. Now the tribal nutjobs have cell phones, internet, and access to airplanes and high explosives. That puts all of us as neighbors, one way or another, and the belief we should just ignore them is simply not realistic or practical.

Saudi Arabia: Another putrid, shithole country which, by rights, we should have invaded decades ago, shot anyone who got in our way, and pumped out the oil we discovered and we drilled into. Instead we've smiled and stood aside while the nutjob religious loonies ran things their way, even though they stole masses of money from us so they could build thousands of palaces, fleets of limousines, and stables of whores - not to mention exporting their brand of zany religious wackydom to other countries, like Pakistan, and funding the same throughout Europe and America. Yet we're condemned by the leftist loonies for "supporting" the Saudis, simply for selling them stuff they give us our money back for. And the fact the ONLY real opposition to the Saudi government are even WORSE loonies has no practical affect on the loonies bemoaning our "interference".

Let me tell you what kind of "interference" would be in the best interest of the west. It's called carpet bombing. It's called scattering the savages and wack jobs and making sure the only aircraft that ever leave their zany little corner of the world are ours, with military markings.

But we're much too nice for that, and yet the leftist loons continue to snivel about how we interfere in the workings of the wack jobs of the middle east.

Argus · April 25, 2009

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....

Let's deal with two aspects of this. First, Harper didn't invent this conflict. That was the Liberals, the Liberals who then, once out of office, turned around, and utterly shamelessly condemned Canada's role in Afghanistan, like the slimiest of political weasels, taking gleeful advantage of every military death to score political points against the Conservatives. Joined in eagerly by the BQ and NDP, the Left in Canada have done their level best to tie this war to Harper and portray it as some kind of evil, militaristic conservative adventure. All for political gain, and the hell with what happens to the troops, or, for that matter, what happens to Afghanistan. And yet you snivel about Harper trying to parlay his support of the troops into political gain?!

Let's face a second fact. The left has had a visceral hated and contempt for members of the military and policing for decades now. There is a reflexive disdain, a curled lip on the part of leftists every time they even see someone in uniform. So when someone suggests that those who don't support sticker campaigns don't support our troops - they're right. The actions of many on the Toronto City Council - a notoriously leftist group, and the fact that the people AG quoted were all quite notably on the left, are just some of the many indications of this. I mean, the idea that Mayor David Miller would support the troops is laughable. He'd be more likely to put together a care package and send it to the Taliban.

Because to a leftist, anyone who hates Americans and Jews, is a friend to them. So Afghanistan is not a UN effort, or a NATO effort, it's an AMERICAN effort, and they are pulling at their hair at the thought we're sending military people (Ick!) to help support Americans (Ick!).

Molly · April 25, 2009

What it means is a tougher question than it looks like.

I 'support the troops', because no small part of me is in awe of the willingness to serve at that level, not really knowing whether what will be asked is ones life. (The word 'serve' is pointedly chosen.) I deeply, deeply respect that, and believe it deserves both whatever assistance/seconding the rest of us can offer, and sincere homage.

But I may or may not agree with the tasks to which the military is assigned, and don't/won't have a sticker because it comes off as more of a political statement- support or not for the mission, than as an actual expression of respect and appreciation for the people.

I would no more stick a statement of support for a political action on my car than I would apply a campaign sign to it.

g_bambino · April 25, 2009

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

Well, thank you for being clear, at least. Though, I greatly disagree with you.

Borg · April 25, 2009

Sooner or later one of them will manage to sneak in an H-bomb.

That will happen even if we bury our heads in our asses and do nothing.

Death to all non believers is a common saying over here.

I also hear "First the Saturday people and then the Sunday people" a lot more than you can believe

Doing nothing is worse - and negotiation is only a tactic to delay the final outcome - providing time to soildify - Swot is a prime example.

As for support the troops signs - hardly warmongering - but each to their own - I will mention this to my senior citizen neighbour and tell her she is one when I get home - bet she disagrees with you.

Borg

eyeball · April 25, 2009

This is such a dumb comment on so many levels it's hard to know where to being.
For a certain segment of the Left, nothing the West ever does is right, or even moral.

No it only seems like it, its only your own assumption that's left you dumbstruck. The west however does manage to cock up an enormous amount of what it touches.

If we interfere in the affairs of some third-world shithole, we're condemned for that. If we fail to interfere, we're condemned for not caring, for leaving the locals to perish in horrible ways, be it war, poverty, starvation, disease, etc.

First of all you have to define interference. Its not the same as help. Interference in the context I'm using it is propping up military dictators, sending them aid, weapons, intelligence etc that they can use to terrorize the civilian populations under them. The west in these cases are guilty of terrorism, of exporting terror and being part of an international network of terrorism.

We didn't interfere in Afghanistan, so the left bemoaned the horrible state of human rights there, the brutality of the Taliban against women and minorities.

Do you have any sources that document the outpouring of right wing outrage and mass demonstrations demanding that the west 'interfere' in Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out? Put up or shut up. Taliban women and minorities are going to have to do what women and minorities in the west did, change their own societies from within. This is the way its been for hundreds of cultures and I'm quite sure we can help without having to resort to violence.

We didn't interfere - and yet Afghanistan hosted a massive "terrorist central" base with 10,000 Islamist loonies coming from all over the Muslim world - some of whom then flew airplanes into buildings in the west. So then we invaded, and the leftist loonies now snivel about us interfering in the private affairs of Afghanis.

When you're looking for the other sources I asked for perhaps you could also supply us with the location of the Afghan flight simulators that the terrorists trained on. You might also want to explain how they managed to fly all the way from their Afghan air bases without raising any suspicions until they reached their targets in the US.

No one with more than a tenth of a brain thinks we created Afghanistan the way it is. It's been this way for a thousand years, under one group of messianic tribal nutjobs or another, always warring against each other, and anyone else with the misfortune to be nearby. Now the tribal nutjobs have cell phones, internet, and access to airplanes and high explosives. That puts all of us as neighbors, one way or another, and the belief we should just ignore them is simply not realistic or practical.

No, provoking them to apoplectic outrage makes so much more good sense doesn't it?

Saudi Arabia: Another putrid, shithole country which, by rights, we should have invaded decades ago, shot anyone who got in our way, and pumped out the oil we discovered and we drilled into. Instead we've smiled and stood aside while the nutjob religious loonies ran things their way, even though they stole masses of money from us so they could build thousands of palaces, fleets of limousines, and stables of whores - not to mention exporting their brand of zany religious wackydom to other countries, like Pakistan, and funding the same throughout Europe and America. Yet we're condemned by the leftist loonies for "supporting" the Saudis, simply for selling them stuff they give us our money back for. And the fact the ONLY real opposition to the Saudi government are even WORSE loonies has no practical affect on the loonies bemoaning our "interference".

No, you're condemned for smiling and feeding the monsters that inhabit the palaces. The fact they were our bastards has blown back in our faces.

Let me tell you what kind of "interference" would be in the best interest of the west. It's called carpet bombing. It's called scattering the savages and wack jobs and making sure the only aircraft that ever leave their zany little corner of the world are ours, with military markings.

Like I said show me the sources you have of mass right wing demonstrations demanding the west carpet bomb these shit-holes. All I've seem to recall are pictures of right-wing western leaders kissing and holding hands with these savage whackjobs. By the way do you really believe hijackers flew their airplanes all the way from Afghanistan to New York and Washington?

But we're much too nice for that, and yet the leftist loons continue to snivel about how we interfere in the workings of the wack jobs of the middle east.

Before you answer the last question you might want to define the word loon.

normanchateau · April 25, 2009

-----
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.)

----

Harper's comment that we can't win in Afghanistan is no different than what Jack Layton has been saying for years.

What's more surprising were Harper's comments in September, 2008 that Canada would cut and run. He even announced a date for our departure. When Layton said we should cut and run, Harper supporters called him Taliban Jack.

Layton's error was saying what Harper said before Harper said it.

Argus · April 25, 2009

No it only seems like it, its only your own assumption that's left you dumbstruck. The west however does manage to cock up an enormous amount of what it touches.

No doubt. Governments do cock things up from time to time.

First of all you have to define interference. Its not the same as help. Interference in the context I'm using it is propping up military dictators, sending them aid, weapons, intelligence etc that they can use to terrorize the civilian populations under them.

You'll have to define what you regard as help. Starting from the realization that Almost all the countries outside the west can or could at one time be described as various forms of dictatorship. Is it your contention we should have had no aid, no trade with any of them? We should ignore a hundred or so countries because they're not democratic? And we should do this even though our enemies, like the Soviet Union, are pouring money into "their side" to try and spark various revolutions, be they communist, Islamic, or whatever. We should do nothing in response to that?

Because that's really the heart of this "western interference" crap.

For example, when the Chinese and Russians poured arms and advisers into North Korea, which invaded South Korea. We should have.... done nothing, right? Filed a stern protest with the UN, maybe? And when they did the same with Vietnam we should have.... done nothing? And when they did the same in Africa, in Latin America, in other countries, we should have..... done nothing?

Do you have any sources that document the outpouring of right wing outrage and mass demonstrations demanding that the west 'interfere' in Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out?

I never suggested there was any.

When you're looking for the other sources I asked for perhaps you could also supply us with the location of the Afghan flight simulators that the terrorists trained on. You might also want to explain how they managed to fly all the way from their Afghan air bases without raising any suspicions until they reached their targets in the US.

Of what possible relevance do you imagine it is that Bin Laden sent them here on commercial airliners instead and had them train here?

No, provoking them to apoplectic outrage makes so much more good sense doesn't it?

What exactly have we done to provoke them to "apoplectic outrage", bearing in mind the WTC happened BEFORE Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, it happened because bin Laden was outraged that the US had forces in SA with the permission of the SA government. Profaning the holy land of Saudi Arabia with our presence was apparently more than enough to cause "apoplectic outrage" on the part of some. So just how do you imagine we could act which would NOT outrage their ilk? Abandon Israel and run home, ignore the progression of Islamism, let oil prices be jacked up to the sky, build our walls high and hope they don't get nukes before we get star trek force field?

No, you're condemned for smiling and feeding the monsters that inhabit the palaces. The fact they were our bastards has blown back in our faces.

The alternative to "our bastards" in SA is to have an even harsher, more tyranical, more fanatic Islamist government there. Do you deny this? Do you think they'd have more affection for us?

Jimmy Carter decided that the Iranian people should be allowed to choose what form of government they wanted. He prevailed upon the Shah and his military not to hammer them, but to abandon the country and let the "religious" leaders take over. Did that endear us to the Iranians? Hardly!

Like I said show me the sources you have of mass right wing demonstrations demanding the west carpet bomb these shit-holes. All I've seem to recall are pictures of right-wing western leaders kissing and holding hands with these savage whackjobs

.

I've never suggested that there was a mass right-wing movement to carpet bomb anyone, and I don't deny that western leaders have been sucking up to mideast dictators for decades. That's not the point. The point here is you're blaming us for the terrorism inflicted upon us, suggesting its an understandable response to our actions in "supporting" dictators. I'm asking you what the alternative is. Ignoring them all until they crash airplanes into buildings?

Edited April 25, 2009 by Argus

normanchateau · April 25, 2009

I along with dozens of soldiers are getting tired of all this political double speak...

Stephen Harper: “There will be some who want to cut and run, but cutting and running is not my way and it’s not the Canadian way."

Stephen Harper: “Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency."

robert_viera · April 25, 2009

If you know that soldiers carry out the government's foreign policy (without question), can you "support the troops" without also supporting the government's foreign policy?

Edited April 25, 2009 by robert_viera

g_bambino · April 26, 2009

If you know that soldiers carry out the government's foreign policy (without question), can you "support the troops" without also supporting the government's foreign policy?

Yes.

Radsickle · April 26, 2009

I've had a Support the Troops ribbon on my car since 2002, I believe. I also have extras that I've offered people for their vehicles. I am proud of our troop commitment in Afghanistan because it's a UN-Mandated Mission. Forget NATO, my Canada listens to the UN first and those soldiers are on a Noble mission.

But Canada needs to treat Omar Khadr like a Citizen too.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Radsickle

Argus · April 26, 2009

I've had a Support the Troops ribbon on my car since 2002, I believe. I also have extras that I've offered people for their vehicles. I am proud of our troop commitment in Afghanistan because it's a UN-Mandated Mission. Forget NATO, my Canada listens to the UN first and those soldiers are on a Noble mission.
But Canada needs to treat Omar Khadr like a Citizen too.

I think the government should strip the entire Khadr family of their Canadian citizenship and ship them back to whatever craphole they came from.

Radsickle · April 27, 2009

I think the government should strip the entire Khadr family of their Canadian citizenship and ship them back to whatever craphole they came from.

Toronto?

Oleg Bach · April 27, 2009

I used to support the troops but no longer will I support those that ignore reality and die to please some vampire tycoons in Toronto and Montreal.. You people do not get what is going on - our old corporates that installed Harper...hate those that will not bow down to their authority - they HATE our soldiers - who are their because they have been duped into dying - they are being genocided because they are Christians - the atheist corporates along with their Jewish atheists friends - Have you noticed that there is not a peep out of the Canadian Jewish Congress as far as protesting the war.....look at the pictures of the dead - CHRISTIANS>>> THIS IS A SLOW INCRIMENTAL DESTRUCTION OF WHAT IS LEFT OF THOSE THAT CARRY OUR FOUNDING DOCTRINES ..............GENOCIDE - AND OUR STUPID PUBLIC CAN NOT GRASP THAT SUCH EVIL IS TAKING PLACE..A CURSE ON THOSE THAT DESTROY THE SON'S OF GOD...... sounds wacky..but in the end this is what I see...................... :rolleyes: and I am rarely wrong.

Borg · April 27, 2009

I used to support the troops but no longer will I support those that ignore reality and die to please some vampire tycoons in Toronto and Montreal.. You people do not get what is going on - our old corporates that installed Harper...hate those that will not bow down to their authority - they HATE our soldiers - who are their because they have been duped into dying - they are being genocided because they are Christians - the atheist corporates along with their Jewish atheists friends - Have you noticed that there is not a peep out of the Canadian Jewish Congress as far as protesting the war.....look at the pictures of the dead - CHRISTIANS>>> THIS IS A SLOW INCRIMENTAL DESTRUCTION OF WHAT IS LEFT OF THOSE THAT CARRY OUR FOUNDING DOCTRINES ..............GENOCIDE - AND OUR STUPID PUBLIC CAN NOT GRASP THAT SUCH EVIL IS TAKING PLACE..A CURSE ON THOSE THAT DESTROY THE SON'S OF GOD...... sounds wacky..but in the end this is what I see...................... and I am rarely wrong.

Oh wise one - must you scribe when you have been using heavy drugs?

Your deep thoughts are so ....... well, the best word I can think of id ....... uninspiring.

Borg

Army Guy · April 27, 2009

Leafless:

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?

I wish , Soldiers do recieve a bonus, which is based on many different factors such as how many tours of duty you have completed, The risk factor of the tour, etc etc also included into that is our taxes are returned while in threater....so you might top out at 12 to 14 k in bonuses and 8 to 10 back in taxes deducted....in all, a guy with 6 to 8 tours might get 25 K while a guy on his first tour might get 0nly 15 k...

Not alot of money when you consider you may have to earn that by giving your life up.

Army Guy · April 27, 2009

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.)

Mr Harpers statement was not very popular with the troops, which ran a couple days after we had had a Ramp Ceremony for a couple of our comrads....over there, there is no second place, no medal for just coming out, everyday is a Struggle...it was a blow to moral that was for sure...it was a mistake on his part, once the soldiers start questioning thier sacrafice, Canada's contribution will be over....

bjre · April 27, 2009

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

Why do you think they are MY (or OUR) troops?

Just because they spent our tax dollars?

Just because we need to pay more tax dollars if they pay more lives?

What is the benefit for me or us if they will win.

What is the disadvantage to me or us if they will lose.

Army Guy · April 27, 2009

Why do you think they are MY (or OUR) troops?
Just because they spent our tax dollars?

Just because we need to pay more tax dollars if they pay more lives?

What is the benefit for me or us if they will win.

What is the disadvantage to me or us if they will lose.

When i first read this i thought what a freaking troll but i wanted to give you the benifit of the doubt....

Are you a Canadian citizen ? if so they are your troops, just like the Canadian flag is our nations flag, just like the RCMP are our national police force ...you may not like it, but thier your troops....

Just because we need to pay more tax dollars if they pay more lives?

you lost me here, what are you implying....

As for winning or lossing i'll let you figure that one out....

bjre · April 27, 2009

When i first read this i thought what a freaking troll but i wanted to give you the benifit of the doubt....
Are you a Canadian citizen ? if so they are your troops, just like the Canadian flag is our nations flag, just like the RCMP are our national police force ...you may not like it, but thier your troops....

you lost me here, what are you implying....

As for winning or lossing i'll let you figure that one out....

Canadian flag is my national flag.

But RCMP arrest my brothers just because they try to use a different education method to teach their own children while the education system does not care if the kids learn or not.

And the troops kill innocent people in Afghanistan and be killed there just for the conflict between the US and some of the people who don't willing to be bullied by US when some of the powerful people think they have interest there.

Why I should think my tax dollars goes for that purpose is worth while.

Aren't you going to tell me if I am a Canada citizen, I should support them without thinking, so that if my PM were Hitler I should support him no matter what he did?

Our nation is not in danger if the troop does not sent to Afghanistan;

And my brothers should have their rights to choose the way to education their kids (if it is not a religion, it is at least their faith.), it is good to Canada.

Therefor, currently, the troops and the RCMP is only resource or tool used by politicians. The can use it for their own purpose. If is not used properly, it is not good for our nation, both now and in the future.

Edited April 27, 2009 by bjre

Smallc · April 27, 2009

Therefor, currently, the troops and the RCMP is only resource or tool used by politicians.

Sorry, but this isn't Communist China. You're wrong.

bjre · April 27, 2009

Sorry, but this isn't Communist China. You're wrong.

What is the difference?

Show some evidence or give some reason.

Don't tell me my vote.

It is nothing, one vote can decide nothing.

The majority of the vote is controlled by media that is controlled by powerful peoples that although I don't know who they are, but they have their own interest everywhere.

Smallc · April 27, 2009

What is the difference?
Show some evidence or give some reason.

The government in this country belongs to the people. By extension, the military and RCMP belong to the people. They are tasked with protecting us, maintaining order, and upholding law. Now, those organizations are also made up of people, and even though they aren't perfect, they do a very good job over all. There is nothing sinister about it.