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

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree, you have a moral responsibility for all of your actions....

Wrong...your morals don't apply to others. Make it a law and enforce it if you can, but nobody has to live by your "moral" code. Speak for yourself....

[CitizenX]

Why single out Germany? Why not, for example, look back to Britain in the days when Canada belonged to the First Nations?

It was just one example, if you look through history you will find to many examples to list here. My point is that the military is designed in a very specific way. It's all about brain washing.

1) You recruit from communities that are undereducated and have few career options

2) You break these people down physically and mentally to the point that they will follow your orders in

their sleep.

3) You limit interactions with people outside this culture.

4) You create a hierarchy that enables individuals to off-load the blame of immoral acts to an

authority over them.

[CitizenX]

Wrong...your morals don't apply to others. Make it a law and enforce it if you can, but nobody has to live by your "moral" code. Speak for yourself....

Bush Cheney two great examples of amorality. Murder may be immoral but don't push your moral code on me..lol

[Army Guy]

I disagree, you have a moral responsibility for all of your actions. Simply saying "Soldiers are simply servants of the state charged with the obligation of carrying out duties prescribed to them" gives people the excuse to be involved in atrocities. This is one of the main causes of evil in the world. First is the dehumanization of your enemy, second is to remove the responsibility for any horrific action you may carry out by placing the blame for your action on someone of authority over you.

Every soldier has the moral and legal obilgation to follow not only Canadian laws, any inter national laws Canada has signed onto, genva conventions, plus any other treaty or agreement Canada is part of....They also have the Duty, not to follow or obey any illigal or unlawful order or command....Any Canmadian soldier that breaks those laws or agreements is held accountable....unless you have proof that one has not been charged for crimes in which they are guilty of....why continue to bring this up.

Well over 30,000 Canadian troops have served in Afghan how many have been charged with atrocities? In fact why don't you take this back all the way to the boar war if you like....out of the millions of Canadian troops that served how many used it as an excuse to commit atrocities....so much for that myth..... As for it being the main cause of evil wrong again...Man's constant need for power and wealth, and greed is the main source of evil....

Killing someone is alot easier when they are dehumanized, to a few chioce words, but then again training takes most of that away anyways, it's a reaction to constant drills that allows you to squezze the triger if you must know....the hard part is after the battle is over, finding out your kill has a name, a family, kids, he has bills and the same problems you have....and now you've put a end to his life....his only problem was he chose the wrong side in which to fight for....Thats something a soldier lives with for his rest of his life, the nightmares,sweats all the rest of the crap that goes with it....not many have tried to pass the blame up the chain of command...no that is something most soldiers live with by themselfs in quite ...

[eyeball]

Support of something through a referendum doesn't make it any less fickle. Hold another referendum on the same issue a year later and the outcome could easily be the opposite depending on what happened between them.

To bad we don't have more referendums so we as a people could learn to use them more wisely.

So a referendum would make no difference on the way you feel. Who are you to tell others that their support is phony or plastic?

I'm not, I'm telling the government to not imply that support for the troops means support for the mission, which is what the little plastic ribbons do, like photo-ops.

God forbid we show support for our military personnel without a referendum to tell us it is OK.

God forbid we show support for our military personnel with a referendum to tell them they are truly good to go with our clear and unambiguous support.

Not a bit. I have no problem with people voicing their opposition to the war. I don't understand their hostility toward those who are serving their country under severe and dangerous conditions.

I think the hostility stems from the perception they are complicit in serving the interests of those who benefit from extracting resources in conflict regions or manufacturing and selling weapons to these - not to mention the electoral fortunes of the politicians basking in the glow emitted by their heroic service.

I have always been uneasy with the Iraq war because I think some of the reasons for it were contrived and I also have questions about Afghanistan, but not having a crystal ball and unable to see 30 or 50 years into the future, I don't know if these wars will ultimately turn out to be good or bad things in the long term. Neither do you or anyone else.

You should have listened to your conscience. How come I knew damn well this whole moral fiasco would be a divisive controversial quagmire that would forever alter how Canadians view one another?

Evidently.

So you get that do you? Go figure.

[CitizenX]

Army Guy, most if not all of my comments were directed towards the American forces. One of the reasons to be proud to be a Canadian is the fact that we as a country stay out of most if not all unjust wars (Iraq, and Vietnam for example). Not to mention the fact that for the most part members of the Canadian forces act in a morally correct manner. I was simply pointing out if soldiers don't stand up for what is right when they see something unjust does happen, simply saying i was following orders or I'm not involved doesn't get them off the hook.

[eyeball]

Again, you mean you think they're showing support for their employer's advisors when paricipating in a minister of the Crown's photo-op. Okay; I can't say I particularly like the imagery of politics and the military mixed together; our armed forces members owe their allegiance to the apolitical sovereign, not the prime minister, for an important reason.[+]

Thank you for finally making the attempt to clearly understand what I was saying.

But, firstly, I think you're being presumptuous about why those military men and women are there

I admit you might be onto something here. There is something about the way the eyes of the soldiers and cops and other symbols of state force often scan the back and forth when lined up behind their fearless leaders. They look for all the world like they're just daring someone to disagree with them.

and, secondly, there's still no explanation as to how a few CF members being arranged behind the Minister of Foreign Affairs equates with the need for referenda on military missions before it's okay for individuals to express support for the Canadian Forces.

I thought you were getting this. This is not about individuals expressing support for troops on their own private vehicles it is about governments expressing support for whatever mission they're on. That's certainly the perception I get and I resent paying for it.

[William Ashley]

Canada wasn't attacked in 1939 either...it's the most warmongering, least attacked nation on the planet!

Actually it was, shipping was attacked. Also Canada was still a British Dominion.

Britain and its dominions agreed they were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations

united by a common allegiance to the Crown

Allegiance: I, [name], do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to...

The obligations of a vassal to a lord, loyalty etc..

During homage, the lord and vassal entered a contract in which the vassal promised to fight for the lord at his command, whilst the lord agreed to protect the vassal from external forces. Fealty comes from the Latin fidelitas and denotes the fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord. "Fealty" also refers to an oath that more explicitly reinforces the commitments of the vassal made during homage.

If you didn't know Canada is a constitutional monarchy not a republic.

Edited August 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[Guest American Woman]

Army Guy, most if not all of my comments were directed towards the American forces.

Odd that "most if not all" of your comments "were directed towards the American forces" - on a Canadian forum about "support the troops" stickers on (Canadian) government vehicles......

[CitizenX]

Canada wasn't attacked in 1939 either...it's the most warmongering, least attacked nation on the planet!

WOW Where do I start

1) Canada is a commonwealth nation and allies of Britain when they are attacked we are attacked

2) Canada is the most warmongering nation on the planet????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY&feature=related

3)Canada is least attacked nation in the world because of our foreign affairs policies.

[William Ashley]

Odd that "most if not all" of your comments "were directed towards the American forces" - on a Canadian forum about "support the troops" stickers on (Canadian) government vehicles......

Support the troops stickers are an invention of George Bush's global, war on, terror

Canadians are fighting in American wars for America....

not much unlike the eastern europeans like Bulgarians for Nazi Germany.

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

Edited August 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

Also Canada was still a British Dominion.

Irrelevant.

[CitizenX]

Odd that "most if not all" of your comments "were directed towards the American forces" - on a Canadian forum about "support the troops" stickers on (Canadian) government vehicles......

I'm simply pointing out that you don't have to support your troops just because it is political correct. Most of my comments are directed towards American forces because Canadian forces don't have enough examples of atrocities committed.

[William Ashley]

Irrelevant.

How is a duty to bear true allegiance to the crown at a time they are under attack irrelevant?

It is high treason to wage war against the crown.

Edited August 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

I thought you were getting this. This is not about individuals expressing support for troops on their own private vehicles it is about governments expressing support for whatever mission they're on.

Putting aside the incomprehensible idea of a government not supporting a mission it was sending troops into, Wilber's comment did indeed have everything to do with people, not any government, expressing support for the Canadian Forces.

[sp]

Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

How is a duty to bear true allegiance to the crown at a time they are under attack irrelevant?

Allegiance to the Crown does not equal under British control.

[c/e]

Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Bush is a war criminal.

In your opinion.

[William Ashley]

Allegiance to the Crown does not equal under British control.

[c/e]

Dude the crown is the same body that the bombs are falling on. An attack against a head of state is an act of war.

The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion

Meaning as you should know all laws before regarding the nature of the crown would very much still be in forced circa 1938

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Laws_Validity_Act_1865

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/britnatsummary?view=Binary

Canadian citizenship didn't even exist yet.. they were still British Subjects!!! British Subject status is to the crown not to the nation. Citizenship is a national association... subject status is a relation with the crown. (head of state)/state

see 10.2

10.2 However, in 1946, the Dominion of Canada created a separate

"Canadian citizenship" apart from the status of British subject. As

a result, in 1947, an Imperial (or Commonwealth) Conference was

convened of all the self-governing Dominions (i.e. Australia,

Canada, Ceylon, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Pakistan,

Southern Rhodesia, and the Union of South Africa) to resolve the

growing confusion.

10.3

The 1948 Act, which came into force on 1 January 1949,

introduced the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and

Colonies whilst retaining the term British subject to cover every

citizen of a Commonwealth country, including the United Kingdom

and the Colonies. Between 1947 and 1951, the 9 Commonwealth

countries which became independent (for nationality purposes) on

1 January 1949 introduced their own citizenship laws.

The issue of British Subject status is a crown / nationality divide. But there is no doubt there were no "Canadians" in WWII, only British Subjects.

Canadian Citizenship started " 1 January 1947"

However subject status is a little weird as it is seen as equal to commonwealth status...

Canadians born before 1982 are both Commonwealth Citizens (British Subjects and Canadian Citizens), those born after the charter are only Canadian Citizens.

As a matter of British law, Canadians "stopped becoming" British as of 1 January 1949 (s.1(3)).

So Canadians started 1947 and they stopped also being British 1949.

Nationality is not the same of crown allegiance. They are two separate ideas, since Nationality is a construct that post dates allegiance. Allegiance still exists aside from Nationality. The nationstate does not replace monarchy. It is all the rule you choose to live by.

Edited August 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

An attack against a head of state is an act of war.

And the sky is blue. What's your point?

[dizzy]

Army Guy, most if not all of my comments were directed towards the American forces. One of the reasons to be proud to be a Canadian is the fact that we as a country stay out of most if not all unjust wars (Iraq, and Vietnam for example). Not to mention the fact that for the most part members of the Canadian forces act in a morally correct manner. I was simply pointing out if soldiers don't stand up for what is right when they see something unjust does happen, simply saying i was following orders or I'm not involved doesn't get them off the hook.

I don't know where to start. Your fingers are aimed southward in a discussion that has no reference point in the US.

It's important that you understand representative democracy before you read the following.

1. If you believe your government is following along an unethical trajectory, it is your responsibility to organize and speak out to correct the path. One notable option is by exercising your right to vote.

2. Soldiers act on the orders given to them, triggered through the democratic mechanism and based on an assumption that its governance framework is well-functioning. If it is not, you are responsible for correcting the problem.

See where I'm pointing the finger? Not at the US, not soldiers. I'm pointing at you.

With that cleared away, let's get back to the OP. Do you have any issues with yellow ribbon magnets designed to raise funds and demonstrate support for the people you have placed in harm's way?

[Chippewa]

In your opinion.

They wanted to charge Bush, and place him under trial in Swizerland for warcrimes. Which is why his flight never dropped in there.

So opinions may very, but the fact of the matter, he is wanted for warcrimes in other countrys, and countrys like Swizerland are willing to place him under trial.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Chippewa

[g_bambino]

They wanted to charge Bush, and place him under trial in Swizerland for warcrimes. Which is why his flight never dropped in there.

So opinions may very, but the fact of the matter, he is wanted for warcrimes in other countrys, and countrys like Swizerland are willing to place him under trial.

Perhaps. But, until he's been tried and convicted as a war criminal, he isn't, except in some people's (mostly amateur) opinions.

I believe he's an idiot, which, I recognise, is my personal and subjective opinion. I wouldn't dare, though, to say he's a war criminal, given that I'm in absolutely no position to say such a thing.

[c/e]

Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

They wanted to charge Bush, and place him under trial in Swizerland for warcrimes. Which is why his flight never dropped in there.

So opinions may very, but the fact of the matter, he is wanted for warcrimes in other countrys, and countrys like Swizerland are willing to place him under trial.

That's not true.

[William Ashley]

And the sky is blue. What's your point?

My point is thus... subjects have an allegiance to the crown, while also in WWII there was only the crown. Nationality came AFTER the war. Still government ministers all owe allegiance, as well the military has allegiance or attestation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Laws_Validity_Act_1865

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/britnatsummary?view=Binary

Canadian citizenship didn't even exist yet.. they were still British Subjects!!! British Subject status is to the crown not to the nation. Citizenship is a national association... subject status is a relation with the crown. (head of state)/state

see 10.2

10.2 However, in 1946, the Dominion of Canada created a separate

"Canadian citizenship" apart from the status of British subject. As

a result, in 1947, an Imperial (or Commonwealth) Conference was

convened of all the self-governing Dominions (i.e. Australia,

Canada, Ceylon, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Pakistan,

Southern Rhodesia, and the Union of South Africa) to resolve the

growing confusion.

10.3

The 1948 Act, which came into force on 1 January 1949,

introduced the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and

Colonies whilst retaining the term British subject to cover every

citizen of a Commonwealth country, including the United Kingdom

and the Colonies. Between 1947 and 1951, the 9 Commonwealth

countries which became independent (for nationality purposes) on

1 January 1949 introduced their own citizenship laws.

The issue of British Subject status is a crown / nationality divide. But there is no doubt there were no "Canadians" in WWII, only British Subjects.

Canadian Citizenship started " 1 January 1947"

However subject status is a little weird as it is seen as equal to commonwealth status...

Canadians born before 1982 are both Commonwealth Citizens (British Subjects and Canadian Citizens), those born after the charter are only Canadian Citizens.

As a matter of British law, Canadians "stopped becoming" British as of 1 January 1949 (s.1(3)).

So Canadians started 1947 and they stopped also being British 1949.

Nationality is not the same of crown allegiance. They are two separate ideas, since Nationality is a construct that post dates allegiance. Allegiance still exists aside from Nationality. The nationstate does not replace monarchy. It is all the rule you choose to live by.

---------

In WWI you would likely agree Canada went to war automatically when Britain did. Yet no changes of citizenship had occured. The statute of westminister gave Canadian parliament to make external law... or declare war but Canadians were already at war as British Subjects.. Parliament may not have been, but the parliamentarians were because they were all British Subjects at war.

http://www.1914-1918.net/msa1916.html

The act even included

Schedule of Exceptions (i.e. categories of men who were not deemed to have enlisted)

1. Men ordinarily resident in the Dominions abroad, or resident in Britain only for the purpose of their education or some other special purpose

To further reinforce the fact that the law would have applied to the dominions at the time.

Under DORA..

Alcoholic beverages were watered down and pub opening times were restricted to noon–3pm and 6:30pm–9:30pm (the requirement for an afternoon gap in permitted hours lasted in England until the Licensing Act 1988 was brought into force).

well after westminister... DORA was never repealed in Canada.

On 8th August 1914, the House of Commons passed the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) without debate. The legislation gave the government executive powers to suppress published criticism, imprison without trial and to commandeer economic resources for the war effort.

Edited August 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[Chippewa]

Perhaps. But, until he's been tried and convicted as a war criminal, he isn't, except in some people's (mostly amateur) opinions.

I believe he's an idiot, which, I recognise, is my personal and subjective opinion. I wouldn't dare, though, to say he's a war criminal, given that I'm in absolutely no position to say such a thing.

[c/e]

don't shoot the messenger.

Fact is, Bush is a wanted for war crimes. He will never leave the U.S.A because of it. I think he made his own prison, which may be hell enough for any individual.

If a neutral country like Switzerland is willing to place Bush in prison, and charge him for war crimes says alot about the situation. Maybe this subject is a matter for the International Courts.

Look at Canada, First Nations, and other Human Rights groups have been asking International Courts to hold all people involved with Residential Schools accountable for the Genocide commited in Canada. Still nothing is done, and in eyes of people, some like yourself, would never consider those people criminals, because nobody can hold them accountable.