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

[Chippewa]

That's not true.

get with the program.

that is a fact. about switzerland.

[M.Dancer]

don't shoot the messenger.

Fact is, Bush is a wanted for war crimes.

Cite one indictment...just one.

He will never leave the U.S.A because of it.

He already has..

[CitizenX]

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?

This is not about whether or not I support our troops in Afghanistan (in this case I do).It's a question about whether a person has to support the troops under any circumstance because they are not responsible for the actions they are ordered to act on. If you don't support the actions of your government why is it acceptable to support the actions of the soldiers that carry out that act. It is simply easier to use the US as an example. Let me use Germany again, if you were living in Germany during the time of world war II and didn't support the actions of your government is it right to support the army that invades other countries. This has nothing to do with whether this is a democracy or if it is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's about your support and where you place it.

[Chippewa]

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

Here is the link

International War Crimes Tribunal

United States War Crimes Against Iraq

Initial Complaint

Charging

George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,

Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,

Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named

With

Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against

Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in

Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,

International Law, the Constitution of the United States

and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

These charges have been prepared prior to the first hearing of the Commission of Inquiry by its staff. They are based on direct and circumstantial evidence from public and private documents; official statements and admissions by the persons charged and others; eyewitness accounts; Commission investigations and witness interviews in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere during and after the bombing; photographs and video tape; expert analyses; commentary and interviews; media coverage, published reports and accounts gathered between December 1990 and May l991. Commission of Inquiry hearings will be held in key cities where evidence is available supporting, expanding, adding, contradicting, disproving or explaining these, or similar charges against the accused and others of whatever nationality. When evidence sufficient to sustain convictions of the accused or others is obtained and after demanding the production of documents from the U.S. government, and others, and requesting testimony from the accused, offering them a full opportunity to present any defense personally, or by counsel, the evidence will be presented to an International War Crimes Tribunal. The Tribunal will consider the evidence gathered, seek and examine whatever additional evidence it chooses and render its judgment on the charges, the evidence, and the law.

[Guest American Woman]

get with the program.

that is a fact. about switzerland.

I suggest you get with the program. That is not a fact, "about Switzerland."

[Chippewa]

The Charges

1. The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.

In 1989, General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief of the Central Command, completely revised U.S. military operations and plans for the Persian Gulf to prepare to intervene in a regional conflict against Iraq. The CIA assisted and directed Kuwait in its actions. At the time, Kuwait was violating OPEC oil production agreements, extracting excessive amounts of oil from pools shared with Iraq and demanding repayment of loans it made to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Kuwait broke off negotiations with Iraq over these disputes. The U.S. intended to provoke Iraq into actions against Kuwait that would justify U.S. intervention.

In 1989, CIA Director William Webster testified before the Congress about the alarming increase in U.S. importation of Gulf oil, citing U.S. rise in use from 5% in 1973 to 10% in 1989 and predicting 25% of all U.S. oil consumption would come from the region by 2000.[6] In early 1990, General Schwarzkopf informed the Senate Armed Services Committee of the new military strategy in the Gulf designed to protect U.S. access to and control over Gulf oil in the event of regional conflicts.

In July 1990, General Schwarzkopf and his staff ran elaborate, computerized war games pitting about 100,000 U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions.

The U.S. showed no opposition to Iraq's increasing threats against Kuwait. U.S. companies sought major contracts in Iraq. The Congress approved agricultural loan subsidies to Iraq of hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit U.S. farmers. However, loans for food deliveries of rice, corn, wheat and other essentials bought almost exclusively from the U.S. were cut off in the spring of 1990 to cause shortages. Arms were sold to Iraq by U.S. manufacturers. When Saddam Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain State Department testimony in Congress about lraq's threats against Kuwait, she assured him the U.S. considered the dispute a regional concern, and it would not intervene. By these acts, the U.S. intended to lead Iraq into a provocation justifying war.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq occupied Kuwait without significant resistance.

On August 3, 1990, without any evidence of a threat to Saudi Arabia, and King Fahd believed Iraq had no intention of invading his country, President Bush vowed to defend Saudi Arabia. He sent Secretary Cheney, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf almost immediately to Saudi Arabia where on August 6, General Schwarzkopf told King Fahd the U.S. thought Saddam Hussein could attack Saudi Arabia in as little as 48 hours. The efforts toward an Arab solution of the crisis were destroyed. Iraq never attacked Saudi Arabia and waited over five months while the U.S. slowly built a force of more than 500,000 soldiers and began the systematic destruction by aircraft and missiles of Iraq and its military, both defenseless against U.S. and coalition technology. In October 1990, General Powell referred to the new military plan developed in 1989. After the war, General Schwarzkopf referred to eighteen months of planning for the campaign.

The U.S. retains troops in Iraq as of May 1991 and throughout the region and has announced its intention to maintain a permanent military presence.

This course of conduct constitutes a crime against peace.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

[eyeball]

Putting aside the incomprehensible idea of a government not supporting a mission it was sending troops into,

[sp]

Sorry I meant government soliciting support for it's mission.

Wilber's comment did indeed have everything to do with people, not any government, expressing support for the Canadian Forces.

Maybe we should ask what Wilber what he meant when he responded to the question How can Americans against the Iraq war support their troops when they are involved in an illegal war and responsible for torture.

Perhaps because the people they are supporting are their sons, daughters, other relatives, friends, sons and daughters of friends or just plain old people who volunteered to do any dirty job their country asked them to.

This is fine for cheap plastic expressions of support plastered on private vehicles but for our purposes it's not what I was responding to.

I responded to this.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with the people who gave them the job.

The government is who gave them the job not the people. If you want to honestly and truly say they did, hold a referendum.

[Chippewa]

2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily.

Without consultation or communication with Congress, President Bush ordered 40,000 U.S. military personnel to advance the U.S. buildup in Saudi Arabia in the first week of August 1990. He exacted a request from Saudi Arabia for U.S. military assistance and on August 8, 1990, assured the world his acts were "wholly defensive." He waited until after the November 1990 elections to announce his earlier order sending more than 200,000 additional military personnel, clearly an assault force, again without advising Congress. As late as January 9, 1991, he insisted he had the constitutional authority to attack Iraq without Congressional approval.

While concealing his intention, President Bush continued the military build up of U.S. forces unabated from August into January 1991, intending to attack and destroy Iraq. He pressed the military to expedite preparation and to commence the assault before military considerations were optimum. When Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael J. Dugan mentioned plans to destroy the Iraqi civilian economy to the press on September 16, 1990, he was removed from office.[7]

President Bush coerced the United Nations Security Council into an unprecedented series of resolutions, finally securing authority for any nation in its absolute discretion by all necessary means to enforce the resolutions. To secure votes the U.S. paid multi-billion dollar bribes, offered arms for regional wars, threatened and carried out economic retaliation, forgave multi-billion dollar loans (including a $7 billion loan to Egypt for arms), offered diplomatic relations despite human rights violations and in other ways corruptly exacted votes, creating the appearance of near universal international approval of U.S. policies toward Iraq. A country which opposed the U.S., as Yemen did, lost millions of dollars in aid, as promised, the costliest vote it ever cast.

President Bush consistently rejected and ridiculed Iraq's efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution, beginning with Iraq's August 12, 1990, proposal, largely ignored, and ending with its mid-February 1991 peace offer which he called a "cruel hoax." For his part, President Bush consistently insisted there would be no negotiation, no compromise, no face saving, no reward for aggression. Simultaneously, he accused Saddam Hussein of rejecting diplomatic solutions.

President Bush led a sophisticated campaign to demonize Saddam Hussein, calling him a Hitler, repeatedly citing reports - which he knew were false - of the murder of hundreds of incubator babies, accusing Iraq of using chemical weapons on his own people and on the Iranians knowing U.S intelligence believed the reports untrue.

After subverting every effort for peace, President Bush began the destruction of Iraq answering his own question, "Why not wait? . . . The world could wait no longer." The course of conduct constitutes a crime against peace.

3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.

Systematic aerial and missile bombardment of Iraq was ordered to begin at 6:30 p.m. EST January 16, 1991, eighteen and one-half hours after the deadline set on the insistence of President Bush, in order to be reported on television evening news in the U.S. The bombing continued for forty-two days. It met no resistance from Iraqi aircraft and no effective anti-aircraft or anti-missile ground fire. Iraq was defenseless.

The United States reports it flew 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. 93% of the bombs were free falling bombs, most dropped from higher than 30,000 feet. Of the remaining 7% of the bombs with electronically guided systems, more than 25% missed their targets, nearly all caused damage primarily beyond any identifiable target. Most of the targets were civilian facilities.

The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq's infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition. Iraq's civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities. The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war.[8] Among the facilities targeted and destroyed were:

electric power generation, relay and transmission;

water treatment, pumping and distribution systems and reservoirs;

telephone and radio exchanges, relay stations, towers and transmission facilities;

food processing, storage and distribution facilities and markets, infant milk formula and beverage plants, animal vaccination facilities and irrigation sites;

railroad transportation facilities, bus depots, bridges, highway overpasses, highways, highway repair stations, trains, buses and other public transportation vehicles, commercial and private vehicles;

oil wells and pumps, pipelines, refineries, oil storage tanks, gasoline filling stations and fuel delivery tank cars and trucks, and kerosene storage tanks;

sewage treatment and disposal systems;

factories engaged in civilian production, e.g., textile and automobile assembly; and

historical markers and ancient sites.

As a direct, intentional and foreseeable result of this destruction, tens of thousands of people have died from dehydration, dysentery and diseases caused by impure water, inability to obtain effective medical assistance and debilitation from hunger, shock, cold and stress. More will die until potable water, sanitary living conditions, adequate food supplies and other necessities are provided. There is a high risk of epidemics of cholera, typhoid, hepatitis and other diseases as well as starvation and malnutrition through the summer of 1991 and until food supplies are adequate and essential services are restored.

Only the United States could have carried out this destruction of Iraq, and the war was conducted almost exclusively by the United States. This conduct violated the UN Charter, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

[Chippewa]

4. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.

The destruction of civilian facilities left the entire civilian population without heat, cooking fuel, refrigeration, potable water, telephones, power for radio or TV reception, public transportation and fuel for private automobiles. It also limited food supplies, closed schools, created massive unemployment, severely limited economic activity and caused hospitals and medical services to shut down. In addition, residential areas of every major city and most towns and villages were targeted and destroyed. Isolated Bedouin camps were attacked by U.S. aircraft. In addition to deaths and injuries, the aerial assault destroyed 10 - 20,000 homes, apartments and other dwellings. Commercial centers with shops, retail stores, offices, hotels, restaurants and other public accommodations were targeted and thousands were destroyed. Scores of schools, hospitals, mosques and churches were damaged or destroyed. Thousands of civilian vehicles on highways, roads and parked on streets and in garages were targeted and destroyed. These included public buses, private vans and mini-buses, trucks, tractor trailers, lorries, taxi cabs and private cars. The purpose of this bombing was to terrorize the entire country, kill people, destroy property, prevent movement, demoralize the people and force the overthrow of the government.

As a result of the bombing of facilities essential to civilian life, residential and other civilian buildings and areas, at least 125,000 men, women and children were killed. The Red Crescent Society of Jordan estimated 113,000 civilian dead, 60% children, the week before the end of the war.

The conduct violated the UN Charter, the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

[Chippewa]

Cite one indictment...just one.

He already has..

I have about 20 more indictments if you want. Fact is a fact. Can't hide away from facts.

[Chippewa]

7. The United States used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both military and civilian targets.

Among the known illegal weapons and illegal uses of weapons employed by the United States are the following:

fuel air explosives capable of widespread incineration and death;

napalm;

cluster and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs; and

"superbombs," 2.5 ton devices, intended for assassination of government leaders.

Fuel air explosives were used against troops-in-place, civilian areas, oil fields and fleeing civilians and soldiers on two stretches of highway between Kuwait and Iraq. Included in fuel air weapons used was the BLU-82, a 15,000-pound device capable of incinerating everything within hundreds of yards.

One seven mile stretch called the "Highway of Death" was littered with hundreds of vehicles and thousands of dead. All were fleeing to Iraq for their lives. Thousands were civilians of all ages, including Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Jordanians and other nationalities. Another 60-mile stretch of road to the east was strewn with the remnants of tanks, armored cars, trucks, ambulances and thousands of bodies following an attack on convoys on the night of February 25, 1991. The press reported that no survivors are known or likely. One flatbed truck contained nine bodies, their hair and clothes were burned off, skin incinerated by heat so intense it melted the windshield onto the dashboard.

Napalm was used against civilians, military personnel and to start fires. Oil well fires in both Iraq and Kuwait were intentionally started by U.S. aircraft dropping napalm and other heat intensive devices.

Cluster and anti-personnel fragmentation bombs were used in Basra and other cities, and towns, against the convoys described above and against military units. The CBU-75 carries 1,800 bomblets called Sadeyes. One type of Sadeyes can explode before hitting the ground, on impact, or be timed to explode at different times after impact. Each bomblet contains 600 razor sharp steel fragments lethal up to 40 feet. The 1,800 bomblets from one CBU-75 can cover an area equal to 157 football fields with deadly shrapnel. "Superbombs" were dropped on hardened shelters, at least two in the last days of the assault, with the intention of assassinating President Saddam Hussein. One was misdirected. It was not the first time the Pentagon targeted a head of state. In April 1986, the U.S. attempted to assassinate Col. Muammar Qaddafi by laser directed bombs in its attack on Tripoli, Libya.

Illegal weapons killed thousands of civilians and soldiers.

The conduct violated the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter and the laws of armed conflict.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

If that isn't enough on War Crimes I don't know what is.

[g_bambino]

Maybe we should ask what Wilber what he meant when he responded to the question How can Americans against the Iraq war support their troops when they are involved in an illegal war and responsible for torture.

I can't answer for Wilber, but maybe people realise they shouldn't expect all soldiers to also be experts in not only domestic but also international law, so as to have the authority to render official verdicts against their own government and thus have the legal right to refuse to follow its orders.

The government is who gave them the job not the people. If you want to honestly and truly say they did, hold a referendum.

We hold referenda on a regular basis. They're called elections.

[+]

Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

He already has..

I have about 20 more indictments if you want. Fact is a fact. Can't hide away from facts.

Those aren't indictments. Those are complaints.

[thepatrickblack]

I support a lot of other things, people, and ideas in addition to the troops. I expect they will also receive funding from the bumper sticker account.

Edited August 2, 2011 by thepatrickblack

[eyeball]

I can't answer for Wilber, but maybe people realise they shouldn't expect all soldiers to also be experts in not only domestic but also international law, so as to have the authority to render official verdicts against their own government.

Maybe, but I'm more interested in exploring the possibility that people are better at rendering a decision to send troops abroad than politicians are.

We hold referenda on a regular basis. They're called elections.

We need to hold them more often, on a more irregular basis, for more than just choosing our politicians that is.

[Chippewa]

I have about 20 more indictments if you want. Fact is a fact. Can't hide away from facts.

Those aren't indictments. Those are complaints.

international court system wants to try him and charge him.

If Canada and U.S.A both hides behind NATO, and the United Nations when they invade and bomb foreign countrys, then why are they not accountable to the laws, and international laws they hold other countrys too, when they don't follow the law themselves. Its 2 face, terrorist tactics. Thats what the governments have done. Become terrorist, while labeling others terrorist. All the while, the use the U.N to hide behind, but never follow the law.

Maybe thats what First Nations need to do. Say, well since they don't follow the law, why should we.

[Chippewa]

Another Option is pull out of the United Nations. Both Canada and U.S.A. SInce they don't follow the Human Rights Declaration anyways. Or even follow international law.

[M.Dancer]

international court system wants to try him and charge him.

Nope. Try again

[CitizenX]

Another Option is pull out of the United Nations. Both Canada and U.S.A. SInce they don't follow the Human Rights Declaration anyways. Or even follow international law.

Please give examples Canada not following Human Rights Declaration or international law. To be trueful the US has completely underminded the the whole concept of the UN so yaa it's probably obsolete now.

[Chippewa]

Please give examples Canada not following Human Rights Declaration or international law. To be trueful the US has completely underminded the the whole concept of the UN so yaa it's probably obsolete now.

Look at residential Schools, and the genocide committed in those residential schools in both Canada and U.S.A. That is clear violation of International Law. Read the Human Rights Declaration sometime.

[Chippewa]

Nope. Try again

They are called the International Warcrimes Tribunal.

So if that isn't an International Court, I don't know what is.

[Chippewa]

Please give examples Canada not following Human Rights Declaration or international law. To be trueful the US has completely underminded the the whole concept of the UN so yaa it's probably obsolete now.

10. President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.

President Bush caused the United Nations to completely bypass Chapter VI provisions of its Charter for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes. This was done in order to obtain Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of all necessary means, in the absolute discretion of any nation, to fulfill UN resolutions directed against Iraq and which were used to destroy Iraq. To obtain Security Council votes, the U.S. corruptly paid member nations billions of dollars, provided them arms to conduct regional wars, forgave billions in debts, withdrew opposition to a World Bank loan, agreed to diplomatic relations despite human rights violations and threatened economic and political reprisals. A nation which voted against the United States, Yemen, was immediately punished by the loss of millions of dollars in aid. The U.S. paid the UN $187 million to reduce the amount of dues it owed to the UN to avoid criticism of its coercive activities. The United Nations, created to end the scourge of war, became an instrument of war and condoned war crimes.

The conduct violates the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution and laws of the United States.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

[CitizenX]

Look at residential Schools, and the genocide committed in those residential schools in both Canada and U.S.A. That is clear violation of International Law. Read the Human Rights Declaration sometime.

I totally agree, but since this is a post about military action it's not the example I'm looking for.I'm not saying there isn't any just none that I'm aware of.

[Chippewa]

I totally agree, but since this is a post about military action it's not the example I'm looking for.I'm not saying there isn't any just none that I'm aware of.

Well to support the troops is always the right choice. Why we send our troops to war is another. What happens next time when the world doesn't believe us about our aspirations for war, and they turn against our government. The people will suffer, but the government lives on. Who is really the victim. The government who decides to send our kids to war for no real reason, other then economy drive, and economy stability. Or the people that we have to go to war against.

So for instance, why did the U.S.A sell Germany 24 million gallons of fuel to go to war, when the U.S.A had to go to war against them later on.

Why did we arm Iraq, then make the choice to go to war 2 times since after.

Why is canada in Afgahnistan. The Poppy Industry, or the Heroin Industry has since went from a 5 billion dollar market, to a 15 billion dollar market. That was 2 years ago, who knows how big it has grown since. We are doing nothing but protecting the Heroin World Market with our troops, and letting it grow in Afgahnistan.

Maybe the fact war is bad, but driving governments of the world market need it for stability, and a driving force in the economy.

Things need to become so tough to go to war, the world should agree on one thing, and one thing only. If countrys decide to go to war, then everything that country imports should be cut off. Make sanctions against building weapons, guns, missles, and testing of weapons of mass destruction. If anybody fails, then cut them off, and make the governments who are oppressing a people, left on an island to deal with things enternally.

War should be so difficult to do in the world, that countrys who are in wars need to know that they can't operate without an economy. look at whats going on in North America. Jobs leaving, because big corporations know the is no money here, and they are leaving with all the money in there pockets. War is like 2 kids at a playground, although the driving economy force is really the industrial military complex in disguise.

[dizzy]

This is not about whether or not I support our troops in Afghanistan (in this case I do).It's a question about whether a person has to support the troops under any circumstance because they are not responsible for the actions they are ordered to act on. If you don't support the actions of your government why is it acceptable to support the actions of the soldiers that carry out that act. It is simply easier to use the US as an example. Let me use Germany again, if you were living in Germany during the time of world war II and didn't support the actions of your government is it right to support the army that invades other countries. This has nothing to do with whether this is a democracy or if it is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's about your support and where you place it.

You're making the point that the hyper-politicized tone actually has to do with people's attitudes surrounding the more controversial matters, such as our involvement in afghanistan. Also, some people are uncomfortable with the very notion of an armed force. Those are both fair positions and the former may have been partially the fault of Gen Hillier, who used the movement politically, to fight for improvements in equipment and other operational fronts.

For those confused about supporting the troops v. supporting their actions in specific operations, consider their contributions outside of Afghanistan, such as in Haiti, and the many domestic operations in response to natural disasters and for events such as the Olympics. Or consider the chapter 6 peacekeeping operations. I don't have data on the work of our SAR techs, but I imagine more than a few lives have been saved from wilderness environments or the open sea. Do we forego acknowledgement of the risks taken and the time away from family for these operations because Afghanistan is still on the radar?

That said, supporting the troops is just an attempt to funnel a collective appreciation for all of the unique challenges CF Members and their families make, which has the side effect (through funds raised) of improving the programs and services developed to alleviate some of those issues.

Edited August 2, 2011 by dizzy