Supporting your troops.

[bjre]

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.

I have heard exactly the same thing when I was in China.

As you say, they belong to people, they protect people, who is the people, any Canadian citizen? or all Canadian citizen? Why they arrest some parents just because the parents want to educate their children in a different way. Are the parents part of people, why they don't protect them? Because the work protect is defined by politicians, it is not defined by "people".

Most people like peace and don't like war, the politician still sent troops to Afghanistan. So the truth is: the troops don't belong to people, they belong to politicians. The politicians can order them go to Afghanistan. People are not able to ask them back.

And the RCMP obey only the order of their supervisors, not the people, what to do and how to do is totally defined by politicians, even sometimes they don't protect people, they hurt people, RCMP still have to do it. That is the truth. They are tools of politicians. Don't deny it. What people can do is only vote, the vote is control by media that full of lies, cheating, half truth, incomplete information and others, that is controlled by powerful people who manipulate the democracy here for their own interest. Most of us are only workers be asked to pay tax and be bullied and can do nothing on it. That is all.

[Smallc]

Why they arrest some parents just because the parents want to educate their children in a different way.

First, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about when you say educating in a different way, perhaps if you gave an example. That said, if what they are doing is outside the law (my third point that you ignored) then they are working against the people.

Because the word protect is defined by politicians, it is not defined by "people".

Politicians are people. They are people that the rest of us elect and send to represent us. Now, we don't always feel that they're doing it, but overall, we have a very responsive and reflective government most of the time.

Most people like peace and don't like war, the politician still sent troops to Afghanistan.

Most people didn't like September 11th. We sent the troops to Afghanistan to help our allies after then were attacked from people being harbored by that country. We stayed in the country to improve the lives of the people there and to help make the country and the world safer. Public opinion may have now turned against the mission, but not because if it's purpose, but rather, it's cost (both monetarily and in lives).

So the truth is: the troops don't belong to people, they belong to politicians.

Again, politicians are people...that represent other people. When we give up on that idea, we lose control of our democracy.

The politicians can order them go to Afghanistan. People are not able to ask them back.

If the politicians don't do what people want, then they will most likely get voted out. Because of the wishes of the people, the troops will be ending their combat mission in 2011.

And the RCMP obey only the order of their supervisors, not the people, what to do and how to do is totally defined by politicians, even sometimes they don't protect people, they hurt people, RCMP still have to do it. That is the truth. They are tools of politicians. Don't deny it. What people can do is only vote, the vote is control by media that full of lies, cheating, half truth, incomplete information and others, that is controlled by powerful people who manipulate the democracy here for their own interest. Most of us are only workers be asked to pay tax and be bullied and can do nothing on it. That is all.

When people begin to think as you do, they lose their voice. We do have power over the process. We can vote, we can run, we can write letters, we can have meetings, we can protest, etc, etc. There are many things that have been done and can be done if a large enough number of people want it to be done. The process is not nearly so corrupt of hopeless and you would like to make it out to be.

[bjre]

When people begin to think as you do, they lose their voice. We do have power over the process. We can vote, we can run, we can write letters, we can have meetings, we can protest, etc, etc. There are many things that have been done and can be done if a large enough number of people want it to be done. The process is not nearly so corrupt of hopeless and you would like to make it out to be.

When people's thinking can be accepted or used by powerful people, they can tolerate it.

Otherwise, they have troops to kill people:

New York Times, July 29, 2932, (has bold headline "Troops Drive Veterans from Capital; Fire Camps

There and at Anacostia; 1 Killed, Scores Hurt in Day of Strife")

http://www.npenn.org/55777011985858/lib/55...onus%20Army.pdf

Attack on the Bonus Army

The government planned to pay World War I veterans bonuses in 1945; however, in 1932 tens of thousands of veterans and their families descended on Washington to demand immediate payment. President Hoover eventually ordered the U.S. Army to drive the Bonus Army from the capital. As you read this excerpt from reporter Lee McCardell’s eyewitness account, consider whether the veterans were treated fairly.

from Lee McCardell, Baltimore Evening Sun, July 29, 1932. Reprinted in Richard B. Morris and James Woodress, eds., Voices from America’s Past, vol. 3, The Twentieth Century (New York: Dutton, 1962), 94–97.

http://www.h-net.org/~dclist/HSWBonusArmyInventory.pdf

Kent State University May 4, 1970:

http://www.may4.org

Kent State students shot. National Guardsmen fire shots into a student protests at Ohio's Kent State University May 4, 1970, killing four students and wounding nine others. In response to the shooting, more than 400 colleges and universities across the country shut down. Associated Press file photo by John Filo

[robert_viera]

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.

So you can support what the troops do (in general), without supporting what they're actually doing (i.e. a specific mandate from the government)?

Edited April 28, 2009 by robert_viera

[Radsickle]

When people's thinking can be accepted or used by powerful people, they can tolerate it.

Otherwise, they have troops to kill people:

New York Times, July 29, 2932, (has bold headline "Troops Drive Veterans from Capital; Fire Camps

There and at Anacostia; 1 Killed, Scores Hurt in Day of Strife")

Kent State University May 4, 1970:

Geeze, Man, you list examples of one country using it's troops for bad purposes. This does not relate to the Afghanistan situation. The troops there are part of a UN-Mandated Mission; an organization of MANY countries agreed that something needed to be done in Afghanistan and MANY countries sent some troops to help the cause. NATO eventually took the helm with the UN's blessing.

Your criticism that Canadian troops are being used for nefarious purposes does not apply here. The UN and NATO are respectable organizations. I don't mean to criticize the way you think but please try to be rational.

You've got an issue with educational freedom in Canada, I understand. Personally, I think the public system is the best but you've got an issue with private schooling options that the government won't allow? I dunno but...

...Please start your own forum topic about this seperate issue.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Radsickle

[g_bambino]

So you can support what the troops do (in general), without supporting what they're actually doing (i.e. a specific mandate from the government)?

Yes. Their dignity and willingness to serve Queen and country is worthy of support, and continues institutionally from long before to long after any one particular mission.

[xul]

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.

I think you have missed something: RCMP arrest your "brothers" according to the law...

Let's assume the law is wrong, so you can blame the lawmakers, but you can not blame the police officers whose job is to enforce the law.

If we could blame soldiers to be responsible for the wrong-doing of their government, we should throw all German and Japanese soldiers into prison for the crimes their government committed in WW2.

[Radsickle]

Yes. Their dignity and willingness to serve Queen and country is worthy of support, and continues institutionally from long before to long after any one particular mission.

Huh? What "Queen"?

It was to serve Canada, screw the `Queen'.

Former Imperial Powers are part of the problem.

UN-Empowered Forces are part of the solution. Those troops are there for that.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Radsickle

[Smallc]

Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. Every soldier takes an oath to her.

[Radsickle]

Oh, sorry.

Well, in my opinion, that should be changed.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Radsickle

[Smallc]

Well, in my opinion, that should be changed.

In this country, almost everything is done in the name of the Crown. There's really nothing wrong with it.

[Radsickle]

In this country, almost everything is done in the name of the Crown. There's really nothing wrong with it.

Figures a `small c' Conservative would say that. Some Right Wingers here have always preferred the infantile position of being a `colony' and always looking to Daddy Britain for guidance. As a Liberal, I say that this reliance on the past is not sustainable, Canada's her own Nation, has been for awhile, and our soldiers should swear allegiance to the Maple Leaf before the Union Jack. And no friggin crowns; Daddy Britain would've had us in Iraq.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Radsickle

[xul]

Personally, I dislike such "army-support" stuffs unless in some certain circumstance, such as an army's day ceremony or somewhere. My reason is:

1. The sticker is so cheap...maybe I would have one if the politicians sold it $100 per piece for raising some money to buy a helicopters to save the lives of those soldiers who were wounded in Afghanistan.

2. If my memory is not wrong, I remember in history each time when the "army-support" things overwhelmed the streets in a country, it's always the time that the least support was needed by their soldiers. If we had a time-turner which could bring us back to old time, we would find that when Nazi took over Paris and Japanese raided Pearl Harbor, such "army-support" things were overwhelming the streets of Berlin and Tokyo. But at the end of ww2, when the soldiers came home, defeated and starved--that meant they really needed some support now, we could not expect to see a lot of soldier-support in their home country. Such things give me a impression that some so-called soldier supporters and politicians just the guys who like to steal glory of victory and hitchhike triumph from their soldiers. If the soldiers fail to give them what they want, the support will vanish immediately.

3. The slogan of "support soldiers" usually insinuates or instigates that people should give their army or soldiers unconditional support, that can make people doing terrible things without knowing what they are committed. In july 3rd, 1983 an American cruiser shot down an Iranian jumbo jet in international water, 290 passengers were killed. As an open-minded man, I think I can understand that soldiers (or sailors) might make such horrible mistake unintentionally even if I was on the plane. I just can not undertand, several days later, when the cruiser came back America, I saw it on TV, the captain walked off the ship with a brisk and cheering way waving to people, meanwhile all "soldier supportors" gathering on the pier hurrahed to him as though he was a hero. Both of them didn't show any sign of sorrow or remorse to those innocent passengers killed by their sailor's mistake. I think I can bet all those American soldier-supportors I saw on TV, regardless they are liberal or conservative Americans, were fully educated with all of those civilized stuff such as what is human-rights. But what had blinded them and made them such terrible men or women at the moment? May be the soldier-support flags they held in hands?

Edited April 28, 2009 by xul

[g_bambino]

Huh? What "Queen"?

It was to serve Canada, screw the `Queen'.

Er, where exactly do you live, again?

Some Right Wingers here have always preferred the infantile position of being a `colony' and always looking to Daddy Britain for guidance. Canada's her own Nation, has been for awhile, and our soldiers should swear allegiance to the Maple Leaf before the Union Jack. And no friggin crowns; Daddy Britain would've had us in Iraq.

Scratch that earlier question. In light of the above, it should be: when exactly are you living, again? Canada, Britain: two completely separate entities, absolutely regardless of the fact that they share the same individual as sovereign. The British government has had nothing to do with this nation since at least 1982, and certainly hasn't directed any Canadian affairs, whether internal or external, since well before the Second World War. When Canadian soldiers take their oath to the Queen it is to the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of the United Kingdom.

Besides, would you really prefer a commander-in-leaf?

_{[ed. to add. & etc.]}

Edited April 28, 2009 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I just can not undertand, several days later, when the cruiser came back America, I saw it on TV, the captain walked off the ship with a brisk and cheering way waving to people, meanwhile all "soldier supportors" gathering on the pier hurrahed to him as though he was a hero. Both of them didn't show any sign of sorrow or remorse to those innocent passengers killed by their sailor's mistake. I think I can bet all those American soldier-supportors I saw on TV, regardless they are liberal or consertive Americans, were fully educated with all of those civilized stuff such as what is human-rights. But what had blinded them and made them such terrible men or women at the moment? May be the soldier-support flags they held in hands?

Actually, the USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airliner in 1988, and the crew received the same homecoming support as the USS Stark did the year before, when it was attacked and damaged (with 37 dead) by two Iraqi missiles. During the Iran-Iraq War, both nations attacked third party vessels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

Edited April 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[xul]

Actually, the USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airliner in 1988, and the crew received the same homecoming support as the USS Stark did the year before, when it was attacked and damaged (with 37 dead) by two Iraqi missiles. During the Iran-Iraq War, both nations attacked third party vessels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

Thank you for the correction of the year, I was mistaken.

I have said that I can understand soldiers could make mistake in battlefield, just as we could also make mistake in our office or workplace but I don't think the essence of the two events you cited above is the same. At least, we didn't see the Iraqi pilot triumphed at Bagdad street receiving Iraqis's hurrah. (maybe they celebrated somewhere we don't know... but even if they did that, it would not make we think that the deed of those Americans in the pier is better unless Americans like to equal their country to Sadaam's )

Edited April 28, 2009 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

....I have said that I can understand soldiers could make mistake in battlefield, just as we could also make mistake in our office or workplace but I don't think the essence of the two events you cited above is the same.

For the captain of the Vincennes, it wasn't a mistake, but he certainly has personal regrets. Because of the Stark incident, US warships in the Gulf assumed a much more aggressive readiness and defense posture.

Years before, Soviet fighter pilots were also greeted with cheers after shooting down KAL 007 near Sakhalin island.

[Smallc]

Figures a `small c' Conservative would say that. Some Right Wingers here have always preferred the infantile position of being a `colony' and always looking to Daddy Britain for guidance. As a Liberal, I say that this reliance on the past is not sustainable, Canada's her own Nation, has been for awhile, and our soldiers should swear allegiance to the Maple Leaf before the Union Jack. And no friggin crowns; Daddy Britain would've had us in Iraq.

Look under my smallc name....the rest of it is there...I'm a car carrying Liberal (though not blindly loyal)...and yes, I am conservative when it comes to our system of government....but bambino's post above nicely explains everything.

[Army Guy]

BJRE:

Are you kidding me....your biggist complaint is that the RCMP where doing thier job, enforcing the law.......and you do know that laws can be changed and there is a process for doing that...and it can start with one ordinary citizen just like you.....

but you already knew that right....you were just performing your public duty in informing the forum on the status of our government services all geared to imped every day Canadians lives....Such as enforcing the laws, got to suck when the very laws we all agreed to live by actually get enforced....

Perhaps you should use goggle to do some research on your whinning , sorry informing....the only example you gave was one out of the States...and how old was that...perhaps you could stay on topic and give us a Canadian example.....of how Canadian RCMP actions even come close to the abuses handed out in say, Iran, Iraq, China, Russia, where the little things in life mean so much, like getting beat for what your wearing, who your with, or speaking out again'st the very governments you compare us with...

Yes Canada may not be perfect, but when you compare it to alot of the other nations making up our globe....you'll find out just how good you have it....of course you don't have to take my word for it, travel and see for yourself....See why so many Canadians are proud to well ...just be plain old Canadians...

[Radsickle]

When Canadian soldiers take their oath to the Queen it is to the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of the United Kingdom.

Oh, you must mean Michaelle Jean.

[g_bambino]

Oh, you must mean Michaelle Jean.

You're close. Her boss.

[bjre]

BJRE:

Are you kidding me....your biggist complaint is that the RCMP where doing thier job, enforcing the law.......and you do know that laws can be changed and there is a process for doing that...and it can start with one ordinary citizen just like you.....

but you already knew that right....you were just performing your public duty in informing the forum on the status of our government services all geared to imped every day Canadians lives....Such as enforcing the laws, got to suck when the very laws we all agreed to live by actually get enforced....

Let's take a look at how laws are coming from ... full of cheating:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=398876 (This link does not work very well in Google Chrome, I have to paste the original post again:)

I am not sure how CAS become a government granted organization. However I found something about the another law, here is a video:

http://www.vimeo.com/1889117

Toronto lawyer, Walter Fox, discloses during a presentation to the public and the Toronto Police Services how domestic violence inquests are being used to make laws which destroy families and favour government funded women's shelter movement. Hear how our tax dollars are being misused by women shelter advocates to promote their own agenda to have the public believe that all men in Ontario are bad.

Perhaps you should use goggle to do some research on your whinning , sorry informing....the only example you gave was one out of the States...and how old was that...perhaps you could stay on topic and give us a Canadian example...

Canada and US are both democrac countries. What is the difference between the troops of the 2 countries? If solders was ordered to drive poeple away from Ottawa, would they reject?

For the police examples:

1. Police pepper-sprayed boy during standoff with mom: witness

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...pper-spray.html

In Canada, when CAS thinks people perhaps don't do as them think, the process is: ask cops take away the children first or ask cops arrest the parents first. In China, if women's association disagree what parents did, they will talk to them first and ask them to change first.

2. Police use tazer kill Robert Dziekanski

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=397811

If this happen in China, police will ask him to give up first, like with a louder speaker.

You still think the RCMP or troops are people's? My answer is no. They are tools, just like programmed tools, actually, the US are inventing more and more automatic robot killing machines to deploy to future wars. I believe Canada would like to use it if Canada have it.

..of how Canadian RCMP actions even come close to the abuses handed out in say, Iran, Iraq, China, Russia, where the little things in life mean so much, like getting beat for what your wearing, who your with, or speaking out again'st the very governments you compare us with...

I was in China for more than 30 years. I did not find anyone care about what I was wearing except my mother or my wife or my boss.

I have read some news said there was people walk in street naked in China, the police put cloths on them and toke them away without beating.

I did not go to Iran/Iraq/Russia, I don't think your knowledge from mainstream media are all true, Most of Iraq refugee people escape from Iraq only after US invade them, one example is the WMD lie about Iraq, the other one is about Tiananmen 1989: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=409250 (This link does not work very well in Google Chrome, I have to paste the original post again:)

About Tianman 1989, there is a video.

You can watch it, and think what the government will do if it happened in Canada / US / England / France or Germany.

Although you may not understand what it says, you can watch the vidio and you can understand it.

It is far more violence than Lasha(Tibet) last year.

Of cause, CIA is behind that as always.

Most people have no time and no way to check every news item, who knows how many lies are there.

Edited April 29, 2009 by bjre

[Radsickle]

You're close. Her boss.

I know Stephen Harper wears a lot of eye liner but are you saying he's a `queen' too?

Tell me, who is Michaelle Jean's boss?

[Smallc]

Tell me, who is Michaelle Jean's boss?

Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of Canada.

[bjre]

About Tianman 1989, there is a video.

You can watch it, and think what the government will do if it happened in Canada / US / England / France or Germany.

Although you may not understand what it says, you can watch the vidio and you can understand it.

It is far more violence than Lasha(Tibet) last year.

Of cause, CIA is behind that as always.

In Canada, 21 arrested at Tamil protest today in Toronto, when protesters attempted to push north on University Ave. past a barrie at Dundas St.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/626178