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

[eyeball]

Perhaps you could elaborate on why we need to have referenda before people may express their support for the Canadian Forces?

[c/e]

I doubt it because that's not what I said in response to Wilber's comment about who actually gives our soldiers their jobs.

If it was the people via a referendum with a super-majority there'd be little need for a debate about stickers. I think it would be pretty obvious Canada supports the mission, the state and the soldiers all in one fell swoop.

[CitizenX]

I personally think the Iraq War was a pointless venture. However, was Kofi Annan a judge, and from which court in which jurisdiction was he giving his verdict? Was it the US Supreme Court? Because, as far as I can tell, the United States is still a sovereign country.

The UN Charter is clear that wars of aggression are prohibited. Article 2(4) states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The US-led attack against Iraq constitutes a clear undermining of established Security Council authority in the realm of war and peace.

I think what you are really saying is when you are the most powerful country in the world you don't have to follow international laws.

[M.Dancer]

The UN Charter is clear that wars of aggression are prohibited. Article 2(4) states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The US-led attack against Iraq constitutes a clear undermining of established Security Council authority in the realm of war and peace.

I think what you are really saying is when you are the most powerful country in the world you don't have to follow international laws.

How.

Did the US or coalition annex or change the borders of iraq? No...

Is Iraq politically independant? Yes.

Was the was consistent with UNSC policy? yes...

[Wilber]

I doubt it because that's not what I said in response to Wilber's comment about who actually gives our soldiers their jobs.

If it was the people via a referendum with a super-majority there'd be little need for a debate about stickers. I think it would be pretty obvious Canada supports the mission, the state and the soldiers all in one fell swoop.

When did you get to decide what require a super majority and what doesn't, or does anything you don't like requires a super majority and anything you do, doesn't? If such a referendum did show support for this mission, would you then believe in it? Do you need the results of a referendum to tell you what to think or support?

This war is not over but it will be someday. Only then will we be able to start getting an idea of what our involvement really meant, if at all.

You still make no sense and seem incapable of separating people from policy.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Wilber

[dizzy]

There's a disconnect here. Where and why we engage in conflict is a foreign policy matter. Soldiers are simply servants of the state (voluntary ones, in the case of canada), charged with the obligation of carrying out duties prescribed to them.

If you're against a particular war, then your beef is with the political party in power and its foreign affairs mechanism. At this level of consideration, it has nothing to do with the Canadian Forces or its members.

[g_bambino]

I doubt it because that's not what I said in response to Wilber's comment about who actually gives our soldiers their jobs.

If it was the people via a referendum with a super-majority there'd be little need for a debate about stickers. I think it would be pretty obvious Canada supports the mission, the state and the soldiers all in one fell swoop.

When did this ever become about "Canada" supporting the mission? What is "Canada", anyway, in your statement? And what does "the mission" or "the state" have to do with this at all? How are referenda on foreign affairs (putting aside the inherent inanity of the idea) even relevant? Wilber was clearly only expressing why he thought individuals might display or express support for the Canadian Forces and, if one had a problem with a particular mission, it was towards the Crown, as the employer of soldiers (though, in reality, the Cabinet, as the advisors of the Crown) that one should direct criticism.

[+]

Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The US-led attack against Iraq constitutes a clear undermining of established Security Council authority in the realm of war and peace.

According to what judge in what court?

I think what you are really saying is when you are the most powerful country in the world you don't have to follow international laws.

What I'm saying is a country cannot be simultaneously sovereign and unwillingly subject to the laws of a higher authority. As far as I know, no independent state must follow international laws; participation is completely voluntary.

[sp]

Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[Sir Bandelot]

When did you get to decide what require a super majority and what doesn't, or does anything you don't like requires a super majority and anything you do, doesn't? If such a referendum did show support for this mission, would you then believe in it? Do you need the results of a referendum to tell you what to think or support?

This war is not over but it will be someday. Only then will we be able to start getting an idea of what our involvement really meant, if at all.

You still make no sense and seem incapable of separating people from policy.

No, not that it would change the opinion of those who oppose the war, but then putting the bumper stickers on public transport would be reasonable.

[eyeball]

When did you get to decide what require a super majority and what doesn't, or does anything you don't like requires a super majority and anything you do, doesn't?

Super-majorities are often reserved for the most important decisions our society makes. Given the way going to this war has bitterly divided us as a people I'd say it stands even taller as a shining example of why a super-majority should be sought before sending troops into another country. You really want to rely on the fickle on-the-fly-support of people that can change like the seasons? You think this is good for our country?

If such a referendum did show support for this mission, would you then believe in it?

I doubt it, but then I'd have that much less of a leg to stand on when it comes to my questioning or doubting that support or suspecting and believing it's a phony contrived 'plastic' support if you will.

Do you need the results of a referendum to tell you what to think or support?

No, I need the results to tell me that there is no doubt that a real tangible majority of my fellow citizens support the question. More to the point though so do the damn troops don't you think?

This war is not over but it will be someday. Only then will we be able to start getting an idea of what our involvement really meant, if at all.

This statement sounds like it's rooted in your sense that in the meantime people should just support the troops and keep their mouths shut.

You still make no sense and seem incapable of separating people from policy.

You often seem like an inscrutable alien to me as well.

[Sir Bandelot]

According to what judge in what court?

What I'm saying is a country cannot be simultaneously sovereign and unwillingly subject to the laws of a higher authority. As far as I know, no independent state must follow international laws; participation is completely voluntary.

[sp]

But once they do agree to it...

[g_bambino]

But once they do agree to it...

True. But, then, shouldn't there be a proper court to declare when a policy or law has been broken by a voluntary member, rather than people's subjective personal opinions? And what are the consequences for flouting the rules?

[Sir Bandelot]

On the other hand we are equally capable of arrexting leaders of state and submitting them for war crimes. Those crimes are defined by us. And when we "the good guys" break said laws in equal proportion, we have excuses from apologists.

Hence undermining the publics "faith" in the justice of our system. When the people no longer believe in the system they live under. They stop making babies, they stop buying. All our failings are self inflicted and stem from the internal corruption and lies we are expected to ignore.

[eyeball]

When did this ever become about "Canada" supporting the mission? What is "Canada", anyway, in your statement?[+]

It's the country that put itself in harm's way by sticking a dog in this race.

And what does "the mission" or "the state" have to do with this at all?

The state, perhaps I should have said government, is what wants the mission. No doubt there is also an established military-industrial complex raring to go too which is another reason I'd like a lot more rein on the state's ability to fly off to war whenever the mood strikes it.

How are referenda on foreign affairs (putting aside the inherent inanity of the idea) even relevant?

See my last comments to Wilber.

Wilber was clearly only expressing why he thought individuals might display or express support for the Canadian Forces and, if one had a problem with a particular mission, it was towards the Crown, as the employer of soldiers (though, in reality, the Cabinet, as the advisors of the Crown) that one should direct criticism

.

Except that it's often soldiers expressing support for their employers by lining up behind them when they seek public support for going to war. I thought I clearly expressed this when I said politicians are trying to use the glow that volunteers emit to put a shine on their war-mongering. Volunteers that whore themselves out in this process don't deserve any support.

[Wilber]

Super-majorities are often reserved for the most important decisions our society makes. Given the way going to this war has bitterly divided us as a people I'd say it stands even taller as a shining example of why a super-majority should be sought before sending troops into another country. You really want to rely on the fickle on-the-fly-support of people that can change like the seasons? You think this is good for our country?

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.

I doubt it, but then I'd have that much less of a leg to stand on when it comes to my questioning or doubting that support or suspecting and believing it's a phony contrived 'plastic' support if you will.

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?

No, I need the results to tell me that there is no doubt that a real tangible majority of my fellow citizens support the question. More to the point though so do the damn troops don't you think?

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

This statement sounds like it's rooted in your sense that in the meantime people should just support the troops and keep their mouths shut.

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 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 often seem like an inscrutable alien to me as well.

Evidently.

[g_bambino]

Except that it's often soldiers expressing support for their employers by lining up behind them when they seek public support for going to war. I thought I clearly expressed this when I said politicians are trying to use the glow that volunteers emit to put a shine on their war-mongering. Volunteers that whore themselves out in this process don't deserve any support.

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

[+]

Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[CitizenX]

According to what judge in what court?

What I'm saying is a country cannot be simultaneously sovereign and unwillingly subject to the laws of a higher authority. As far as I know, no independent state must follow international laws; participation is completely voluntary.

[sp]

My Point is the US and Britain were happy to subject Iraq to the laws of a higher authority (UN) as far as inspections went. But when Iraq said enough is enough you have found nothing, this gave the US the excuse to make a case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq. The UN Security Council adopted a compromise resolution,which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for non-compliance. This wasn't good enough for Bush and Blair so they went it alone. So it's OK to subject other countries to international laws but don't try using it against us.

Bush is a war criminal

Edited August 2, 2011 by CitizenX

[Guest American Woman]

There's a disconnect here. Where and why we engage in conflict is a foreign policy matter. Soldiers are simply servants of the state (voluntary ones, in the case of canada), charged with the obligation of carrying out duties prescribed to them.

If you're against a particular war, then your beef is with the political party in power and its foreign affairs mechanism. At this level of consideration, it has nothing to do with the Canadian Forces or its members.

Agreed. The troops can't question the validity of a conflict based on their political views and refuse to serve - and how effective a military would any nation have if that were the norm? Furthermore, a lot of them are over there doing whatever they are able to do to win the hearts and minds of the people - to help them in so many ways - because they truly care about them. But of course a few troops engaging in wrong behavior here and there makes for so much 'better' press ... and for so many who object to the war, it's so much 'better' to focus on that rather than the whole.

Edited August 2, 2011 by American Woman

[CitizenX]

Agreed. The troops can't question the validity of a conflict based on their political views and refuse to serve - and how effective a military would any nation have if that were the norm?

Now look back at Germany from 1939 to 1945.

[bush_cheney2004]

My Point is the US and Britain were happy to subject Iraq to the laws of a higher authority (UN) as far as inspections went. But when Iraq said enough is enough you have found nothing, this gave the US the excuse to make a case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq....

The case was made based on violations of the surrender instruments for Gulf War I. Mandated WMD inspections only resumed because of the UK/US massed threat in Kuwait. As for US policy, the invasion was approved and funded by the Congress based on a continuum of actions going back to 1991.

Bush is a war criminal

Very well....we will arrest him just as soon as you arrest former PM's Chretien (Kosovo) and Martin (Haiti).

Edited August 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Now look back at Germany from 1939 to 1945.

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

[William Ashley]

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

1. Some very much do not. Those are the types that don't support war spending. Peace lovers.

2. Some do not. Those are the ones who don't like the conduct of the past 10 years of wars.

3. Some may but in these particular wars such as Afghanistan, they don't support the idea of war in Afghanistan, that Canadian forces are still deployed to that warzone, and they don't support them there period. They if given the oppourtunity would cut funding to that operation and them.

4. There are those who want a smaller military, and in that respect do not support the troops.

I think you need to understand that, a military for defensive operations, or operations within a prior defensive alliance such as NATO, can have support if they are actually fighting a defensive war.

Iraq was a "preemptive assault". What that means is it was an attack in which the invader was the Coalition, it was not a "pure NATO" operation, even the 1st Gulf war was not a pure NATO operation, because NATO hadn't been attacked. The US even gave permission for Saddam to invade Kuwait the day before, then Kuwait paid the US to protect it. That is the official line. Why support hired mercenaries. They also employed mercenaries and contracters to commit violations of international law, some of these which got attention, many not.

Afghanistan, is a very foggy and muddy situation, there were mass lies and fog of war, it is a 10 year operation (it actually started under Bill Clinton when he authorized cruise missile strikes and CIA support for the Northern Alliance in the 1990's) going on 13. There is NO WAY that the Taliban had anything to do with 911. They also offered to turn Osama over to Pakistan for trial immediately on the request. The US said that handing him over to a US ally wasn't good enough. In other words the US wanted a war there, and their demands were all war propaganda. The US also knew where Osama was long before they did anything about it, in the supposed captured.. THEN killed him, and dumped him into the pacific.. sound strange? None the less that was said to be re-installing an international government in Afghanistan. Canadian forces were complicit in torture, murder of children, rape, destruction of villages, bombing of civilians amongst very many other activities. The conduct of ISAF was criminal.. countless instances of rape, sport murder, violations of the geneva convention such as non uniformed blackops, of which the Austrailians were asked by the US to also break the Geneva convention. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU SUPPORT WAR CRIMINALS?

There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting liars, rapists, murderers and war criminals. Unfortunately that is what NATO operations are.

When was the last time a NATO country was attacked by a foreign state?

No they don't. Much like lots of people don't support the cops out there beating up on them and repressing them.

Libya is looking even worse if it was a French and US joint operation dating back to at least October 2010, to create the coupe which has lead to thousands of deaths, maimed individuals, and orphans.

You can't support militaries that are conducting illegal wars, and utilizing non humanitarian methods, that are de jure and de facto war crimes. The leaders and military of NATO are war criminals.. no sane person would support that.

People who do are either stupid or morally baseless, why tag yourself as stupid or morally baseless...

The image of being patriotic and supporting your country is one thing.. but it is highly unfortunate if people are willing to support something far worse than the NAZI war machine or stalinist Russia.. what they are doing and capable of is rather unfortunate.

I'd very much fight to protect peoples rights... in my own country.. but these are invasions, and illegally conducted offensive wars.. they are two very different things.

NATO is a changing stream, its mission has changed from collective defence to:

-defending its "territory" (why does territory require a seperate catagory to collective defence?)

-collective defence (makes sense)

-control of the internet (where did net neutrility go? A military organization controlling the internet?)

-missile defence (makes sense)

- Fighting EU and UN wars. (UN wars???)

- having nuclear forces (didn't say nuclear deterent)

- expanding the alliance through Europe, with a concentration on former soviet states Ukraine and Georgia

-global war on terrorism --- (illegal war)

-global war on drugs (illegal war)

-global war on piracy

- "international security" (creating puppet regimes) (violates UN charter)

- individual members "take on roles" and fully fund "deployability" (sacrifices national sovereignty by making individual militaries incapable of full spectrum defence)

Some of SUPPORT THE troops is supporting foreign takeovers of sovereign states, breaking of international laws, supporting a militarized UN, and a number of very questionable things like control of the internet, fighting wars against "individuals" (often war crimes - such as assassination that involve violation of state sovereignty), fighting wars that are covered by civil law... and civil policing. The US even has the posse comitas act.. that prohibits many of these nato operandi's from being within the US because they are police operations, that are being performed by the military. While some people support a police state... I don't, and it is unfortunate that NATO's role has shifted from a defensive alliance to a police state apparatus. It is way to invasive in civil life, and it is conducting itself contrary to established norms of international law. That is why the troops don't deserve support. If you have to lie to your own people and black out information.. then clearly there is a problem.

The conduct of the troops doesn't deserve support, and whether that comes from their moral character or the character of their superiors.. that is it right there..

I've known many people associative with the military, and they are generally good people, although some very twisted, and the bottom line is that it is the command that is to blame. Unfortunately the military as well as police attack people who really don't care about human rights, and are willing to violate individuals well being to get their way, that is just the nature.. but it is perfectly ok not to support that. Defending yourself and damaging others are two very different things. It is not to say NATO is the only body of soldiers who would rape and murder people blow up someones home and poison the wells all for cheaper petrol. But there is no need to pick a side when both are the bad guys. I've heard and researched a lot of war stories.. and I know they are inhumane bastards who don't deserve the skin they got. They are part of the cause of the stench ruining the world.

There is a lot of guts and glory out there, but it is really a total failing of faith and depravity that shows humans unable to cooperate.

The bottom line is you can wait until you are disarmed before you choose to fight, but then it is to late. But to take first blood shows yourself to be the threat.

I choose good-faith and rightful authority. That is authority over myself and my actions. There are many I would put to death given authority over them, I kid you not - because they are stains and threats to good morals, but the bottom line is god has the power to kill, I'm not god, and I can only hope that god is my shield and sword.

I don't like the conduct of the wars or the backstory and for that reason I don't hold it against others if they don't have a support the troops sticker.

Although I can understand how people might have information I don't, or don't have information I do. My father for instance had a support the troops sticker on his vehicle. I know his personality, and in that way I know why. Fact is that I would support someone protecting my rights, I don't see NATO's recent operations as having anything to do with my values.

Also the stickers reemergence is tied to the global war on terror... and it is an illegal war that violates the standards of international law... things like assasination cannot be supported especially when they are clearly acts of murder and violations of domestic laws of the states they occur in.

The sticker is a giant "support the war crimes sticker."

There are way to many "accidents" and stray missiles. It is like just walking into a stadium and throwing grenades to maybe hit a criminal. The violations of sovereignties is paramount of making war.. which the UN charter specifically counters... war is suppose to be illegal.

It is totally backward to enforce your standards on another state, totally disrespectful. It seems "right" from your view.. but the bottom line is people are different.. it is all how we are encultured. This is why people should stick to their own groups and mind their own business. People should mind themselves. I shouldn't be telling you how to live your life unless you assent to that.

People deserve their freedom of conscience, belief and practice. Likewise people deserve their right to free association and the practices there of. People should not be slaves to the majority or force.

Right of passage and right of carriage should be global, and everyone should have their basic needs not denied from the land in access to water, and harvest.

Unfortunately resources are limited.. and that is where cooperation ought exist in insuring basic provisions for the population of humanity.

The wars are nonsense.... and counter productive.

It is just going back to Bolshevism vs Capitalism/Imperialism et al

I think there are enough problems at home, but capitalism demands expansion and conquest to maintain because all the capital is acquired locally you must expand to maintain, else you have to redistribute the wealth you have gained else others are unable to survive and the social equity is destroyed.

Libya and Iraq without war were prosperous states, it is the need to destroy models of Bolshevist success to deny the system the merits of good function it deserves.

The wars appear just to be about social equity. But the morals involved are immoralities.

I think the main issue is that you ought to keep your fingers in your own pot.

BTW the war plans date back to 1988 (and are the result of ongoing middle east issues of the 60's and 70's, and the conclusion of the Iran/Iraq war), and WTC was a conspiracy by various high ranking individuals in the US, but there are multiple stories on that.

"The war" ain't over yet either.

Edited August 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[CitizenX]

There's a disconnect here. Where and why we engage in conflict is a foreign policy matter. Soldiers are simply servants of the state (voluntary ones, in the case of canada), charged with the obligation of carrying out duties prescribed to them.

If you're against a particular war, then your beef is with the political party in power and its foreign affairs mechanism. At this level of consideration, it has nothing to do with the Canadian Forces or its members.

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.

[Wilber]

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.

No it doesn't. See Geneva Convention.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

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

[Guest American Woman]

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 very interesting coming from someone who said The law is the law is the law. So one doesn't need to question the law? - In fact, shouldn't question the law? One *must* abide by the law? In Iran it's the law to give an eye-for-an-eye sentence - doctors are ordered by the court to put drops of acid in the eye of a guilty man who threw acid on his victim. The law is the law is the law, so without question, it should be carried out. Right?

Edited August 2, 2011 by American Woman