What's wrong with Support our Troops stickers on government vehicl

[sammykp]

The Council of Canadians says that city vehicles shouldn't have "Support our troops stickers"?!!!!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/calgary-arrives-support-troops-campaign-event-151718611.html

Edited July 29, 2011 by sammykp

[Remiel]

The stickers are " Support Our Troops " not " Save Our Troops " . There is, believe it or not, a difference.

[Remiel]

I am not sure if this is the case for all stickers, but I suspect that the Support Our Troops stickers (and hats) have their source at Canex. If so, any profit generated by their sale goes towards equipment for the military, which is all well and fine.

The problem was, and perhaps still is, that the message " Support Our Troops " was basically co-opted in attempt to, to borrow a term from the Israel debates, " de-legitimize " a huge swath of people on one side of the political spectrum. " Support Our Troops " became, between the lines, " Support Our Military Adventures " ; a message which many could not support, even though everyone was in fact interested in the wellbeing of our men and women in the Forces.

[Sir Bandelot]

The article states that the debate was on putting these stickers on city transit vehicles.

"The Council of Canadians opposes the "Support our Troops" decals because it is unacceptable for public vehicles to carry any political message, let alone one that promotes the views of the governing party," stated a COC press release from 2007.

"This is disturbing considering that the "Support our Troops" message is a political statement of explicit support for the current mission in Afghanistan — support that isn't shared by a majority of Canadians . . . The Council of Canadians is also deeply concerned that the use of public resources to endorse the war in Afghanistan represents a militarization of our society."

Yes I agree. Enough already with the jeering of you mindless fools.

But unfortunately it goes on to say- the City of Calgary has offered a compromise to detractors of the motion — city workers will have the option of opting out of the program by simply removing the ribbon from the vehicle they operate.

The so-called "negative option". You have to make a public political statement, one way or another.

[Oleg Bach]

They should have a sticker that says "Support our troops and do not waste their lives on useless adventures"

[Guest Derek L]

I am not sure if this is the case for all stickers, but I suspect that the Support Our Troops stickers (and hats) have their source at Canex. If so, any profit generated by their sale goes towards equipment for the military, which is all well and fine.

No it doesn’t. Proceeds from CANEX go towards general revenue for the most part, with some funds being made available to the local base/wing commander for “discretionary spending” for such militarising items such as the local Cub scouts/Brownies troop, kids hockey/baseball and “welcome home parties” for service members....

If the forces were allowed to raise funds for additional weapons outside the procurement budget, you’d likely see serving members putting on car washes, bottle drives and bake sales on the weekends...

The problem was, and perhaps still is, that the message " Support Our Troops " was basically co-opted in attempt to, to borrow a term from the Israel debates, " de-legitimize " a huge swath of people on one side of the political spectrum. " Support Our Troops " became, between the lines, " Support Our Military Adventures " ; a message which many could not support, even though everyone was in fact interested in the wellbeing of our men and women in the Forces.

Those on the other side of the “political spectrum”, signed on to the Afghanistan mission, then expanded the war fighting role…..Not too mention the Liberal’s and NDP both supported the Libyan mission….

Are you opposed to wearing poppies on Remembrance Day?

[bloodyminded]

Those on the other side of the “political spectrum”, signed on to the Afghanistan mission, then expanded the war fighting role…..Not too mention the Liberal’s and NDP both supported the Libyan mission….

Are you opposed to wearing poppies on Remembrance Day?

Remiel was merely pointing out that "Support our Troops" not infrequently translates into "Support Political Foreign Policy."

Practically everyone "supports the troops," so perhaps such bumber stickers are as banal as "honk if you're horny."

I have no problem with them whatsoever, just to clarify, and to pre-empt any possible outrage from tantrum-prone quarters.

[William Ashley]

The Council of Canadians says that city vehicles shouldn't have "Support our troops stickers"?!!!!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/calgary-arrives-support-troops-campaign-event-151718611.html

Its a city decision.

However it is also partisan. Municipalities may not like to enter into partisanship. Since over 50% of the population was against the war.

Not everyone is prowar, some people are pacifist, and some city workers may not feel comfortable driving a vehicle that carries a political ideology.

Lately, the yellow ribbon has taken a new face since the war on terrorism was declared by the United States after the infamous 9/11 attacks. First seen in the US because of the history of the yellow ribbons by military families, the yellow ribbon has nearly exploded into a international fashion accessory demonstrating support for active military personal.

Why the hell would you support the human rights abuses that happened in Afghanistan, or are ongoing in Libya today?

Edited July 29, 2011 by William Ashley

[Guest Derek L]

Remiel was merely pointing out that "Support our Troops" not infrequently translates into "Support Political Foreign Policy."

Practically everyone "supports the troops," so perhaps such bumber stickers are as banal as "honk if you're horny."

I have no problem with them whatsoever, just to clarify, and to pre-empt any possible outrage from tantrum-prone quarters.

If that’s the case, then I agree……like teachers or letter carriers, DND members are just regular people doing a job and for the most part, don’t set policy.

[William Ashley]

The Council of Canadians says that city vehicles shouldn't have "Support our troops stickers"?!!!!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/calgary-arrives-support-troops-campaign-event-151718611.html

Its a city decision.

However it is also partisan. Municipalities may not like to enter into partisanship. Since over 50% of the population was against the war.

Would you put a support the Gas Chambers sticker on your car?

[Guest American Woman]

Its a city decision.

However it is also partisan. Municipalities may not like to enter into partisanship. Since over 50% of the population was against the war.

Do you think those who were against the war don't support the troops?

[bloodyminded]

If that’s the case, then I agree……like teachers or letter carriers, DND members are just regular people doing a job and for the most part, don’t set policy.

True, which is why they deserve very little of the blame when policy goes wrong (unless there are specific failures which are only theoer own...but I don't think that's generally the case).

[dre]

I definately dont think the government should be an active part of any sloganeering designed to promote the idolitry of the governments own security apparatus.

People should just decide for themselves what they support, and buy their own bumper stickers as they see fit.

The last thing we need is idiotic political posturing over who "supports the troops".

Edited July 29, 2011 by dre

[M.Dancer]

The last thing we need is idiotic political posturing over who "supports the troops".

Why not? there is even more idiotic posturing from idiots who don't support the troops

[Guest American Woman]

As described in the National Post, in every city that has discussed the issue, the debate follows a pattern — "the pro-camp sees support for the troops as a matter of patriotism, while opponents see the ribbons as endorsement of a controversial war."

How about just seeing it as support for the troops who are there on behalf of their country? The troops aren't some inanimate ideal - they are people who are part of a federally funded organization whose purpose is to serve Canada/the people of Canada. What could be wrong with the government supporting them under the circumstances? And why not show that support? Seems to me it's deserving whether one agrees with the war or not. As I said, the troops are people with families and lives that they leave behind to serve. They are not some political ideal.

[dre]

Why not? there is even more idiotic posturing from idiots who don't support the troops

All the reason to not let this pathetic refrain to become a prominent part of politics. We dont need politics to generate into two gangs or retards sticking their toungues out and yelling "we support the troops more than you do! - Na na."

I doubt most of the troops appreciate it either.

Edited July 29, 2011 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

All the reason to not let this pathetic refrain to become a prominent part of politics. We dont need politics to generate into two gangs or retards sticking their toungues out and yelling "we support the troops more than you do! - Na na."

I doubt most of the troops appreciate it either.

Actually the “troops” and their families appreciate the recognition and support shown by the majority of the population…….this is in sharp contrast to the indifference and in some instances, disdain shown towards serving members throughout the late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s……….What isn’t appreciated, is when political parties shine a negative light on the Forces for purely political reasons (EH-101, Somalia, the CAR, Afghani detainees, JSF) and/or utilises them, well at the time not funding them fully and members lives are lost (Ross Rifle, Lab replacement, Sea King replacement, Victoria class SSK, Iltis jeep)

[Scotty]

The problem was, and perhaps still is, that the message " Support Our Troops " was basically co-opted in attempt to, to borrow a term from the Israel debates, " de-legitimize " a huge swath of people on one side of the political spectrum. " Support Our Troops " became, between the lines, " Support Our Military Adventures " ; a message which many could not support, even though everyone was in fact interested in the wellbeing of our men and women in the Forces.

Everyone? I've had plenty of discussions with those who are on the left of center who hadn't the slightest interest in the well-being of our men and women in the Forces. In fact, you don't have to search far to find people of that side of the political fence who presume anyone in the military is an ignorant, socially backward illiterate with violent tendencies, and that we shouldn't be spending any money on the military at all. The "council of Canadians" is a group made up largely of that sort of people.

[Scotty]

Do you think those who were against the war don't support the troops?

Most of them.

[eyeball]

What's wrong with Support our Troops stickers on government vehicles?

It means support the mission obviously. Support it yourself with War-Bonds if you think it's such a good idea. I think it's a stupid and criminal one myself and I feel like I've been ripped off.

I resent every dime of mine that was squandered on this fiasco.

I'll be really pissed off if my dimes start going towards purchasing these pathetic stickers.

Edited July 30, 2011 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

It means support the mission obviously. Support it yourself with War-Bonds if you think it's such a good idea. I think it's a stupid and criminal one myself and I feel like I've been ripped off.

I resent every dime of mine that was squandered on this fiasco.

I'll be really pissed off if my dimes start going towards purchasing these pathetic stickers.

How does it “mean” support the mission as opposed to the troops? Are you suggesting that 19-year-old privates set the Government of Canada’s foreign policy?

[AngusThermopyle]

As described in the National Post, in every city that has discussed the issue, the debate follows a pattern — "the pro-camp sees support for the troops as a matter of patriotism, while opponents see the ribbons as endorsement of a controversial war."

How about just seeing it as support for the troops who are there on behalf of their country? The troops aren't some inanimate ideal - they are people who are part of a federally funded organization whose purpose is to serve Canada/the people of Canada. What could be wrong with the government supporting them under the circumstances? And why not show that support? Seems to me it's deserving whether one agrees with the war or not. As I said, the troops are people with families and lives that they leave behind to serve. They are not some political ideal.

So very well said. Thank you.

[eyeball]

How does it “mean” support the mission as opposed to the troops?

It's just too damned sappy for the pagan ethos invading other countries requires. It's obviously some idea the establishment has invented or hijacked to cloak it's naked empire in a warm fuzzy blanket of family-like values. It's a little nauseating actually.

Are you suggesting that 19-year-old privates set the Government of Canada’s foreign policy?

Nope. Canadians should vote in referendums requiring super-majorities before we send soldiers outside our borders.

[dre]

Actually the “troops” and their families appreciate the recognition and support shown by the majority of the population…….this is in sharp contrast to the indifference and in some instances, disdain shown towards serving members throughout the late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s……….What isn’t appreciated, is when political parties shine a negative light on the Forces for purely political reasons (EH-101, Somalia, the CAR, Afghani detainees, JSF) and/or utilises them, well at the time not funding them fully and members lives are lost (Ross Rifle, Lab replacement, Sea King replacement, Victoria class SSK, Iltis jeep)

the “troops” and their families appreciate the recognition

The "troops and their families" are not a monolithic group. And I didnt say people should not express their appreciation for what members of the armed forces do - I would just rather public property and money was not used for this purpose.

[dre]

How about just seeing it as support for the troops who are there on behalf of their country? The troops aren't some inanimate ideal - they are people who are part of a federally funded organization whose purpose is to serve Canada/the people of Canada. What could be wrong with the government supporting them under the circumstances?

The government DOES support them. The question is whether or not the government should take public money and use it for PR efforts on behalf of their own security apparatus. I just dont see any compelling reason why tax payers should pay for stickers, or tv adds, or anything else if the purpose of increasing the respect or love or reverence we feel for any one part of the government.

The government SHOULD support them though. They should pay their salaries, make sure they are properly equipped, make sure they are fighting smart fights against the right people.