What does 'Support the Troops' really mean?

GostHacked · May 8, 2012

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/07/mb-soldier-mental-health-stoesz.html

A Canadian soldier based in Shilo, Man., says he will keep speaking out about what he sees as a lack of medical and mental health services in the military, despite an order from a superior to be quiet.
Cpl. Steve Stoesz said his fight to get proper health services for injured soldiers is worse than the battle he endured in Afghanistan.

We've heard it before where people say that everyone should support our troops. But what really does that mean? Support them for the mission when they are overseas, or support them when they come back from the battlefield. In many cases not many think of the later. Soldiers are returning all the time with these types of injuries and trauma. Some are so mentally distraught that they need full time counseling.

"The country that I fought for now has broken me."
Stoesz returned to Canada in 2008 after surviving three bomb attacks in Afghanistan and suffering speech and balance problems.

He said he is worn down by the amount of red tape he has needed to go through to get counselling, physiotherapy and other medical care.

Stoesz said he had to wait for more than three years to get surgery for some injuries.

As well, he said his depression and anxiety were caused not by his tour of duty in Afghanistan, but by the years of fighting to get help from the Canadian Forces.

I get kind of down when I see the other bumper stickers 'If you don't want to stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them' ...... It seems to me that people who have these stickers really have no idea what they really mean and what it SHOULD mean. I feel the troop ribbon sticker thing is actually an insult to the troops, because many do not know how troubled a good deal of the soldiers are when they return to Canada from places like Afghanistan.

So, how do you support the troops? Our troops are honored there, but treated like crap when they return. Is that a way to thank these people for their service? Is this what our leaders really think of our troops? They want us to support them, when the government really does not support them?

Disgusting and shameful.

Topaz · May 8, 2012

I would say that every Canadian is behind out troops 100% and even though our government say they are, they really aren't by the statements made by the vets themselves so how can we correct this? Canadians have to get on their computers and start e-mailing their MP, especially the Tory supporters, if they want a better life for these people. Right now, it seem the Tories are more interested in the weapons of war than the people who go to war.

fellowtraveller · May 8, 2012

So, how do you support the troops?

Money.

Clear policy.

Rick · May 8, 2012

It's the same old story that you'll find in every Conservative/Corporation...

We support you as long as you're doing our bidding.

Once you've served their purpose...they toss you aside like yesterday's trash.

Michael Hardner · May 8, 2012

"Support Our Troops - BRING THEM HOME"

fellowtraveller · May 8, 2012

Who doesn't yearn for the fabled times of Chretien and Martin, when we could strip our military of funding and send them into harms way armed with rocks and sticks? Ah, the good old days.

eyeball · May 8, 2012

It's a cheap bumper sticker slogan that really means Support the State.

No soldier should be sent abroad without a referendum that yields at least a 70% majority in all of Canada's provinces and territories.

That's what I'd call unequivocal support and if I was a soldier I'd demand nothing less. You'd have to be an idiot to sign up for anything less given Ottawa's fickle record when it comes to completing or living up to anything it commits to.

fellowtraveller · May 8, 2012

It's a cheap bumper sticker slogan that really means Support the State.

No soldier should be sent abroad without a referendum that yields at least a 70% majority in all of Canada's provinces and territories.

That's what I'd call unequivocal support and if I was a soldier I'd demand nothing less. You'd have to be an idiot to sign up for anything less given Ottawa's fickle record when it comes to completing or living up to anything it commits to.

They do have these referendums every four years, but they call them 'elections'.

Would you support every cop and soldier voting before every shift on what they plan to do that day? It would only be fair after all.

mentalfloss · May 8, 2012

"Support Our Troops - BRING THEM HOME"

I like this one.

Is there a bumper sticker?

Edited May 8, 2012 by mentalfloss

eyeball · May 8, 2012

They do have these referendums every four years, but they call them 'elections'.

You can't tell the difference between these two terms used in the context of a post about Canadians deciding to send it's troops abroad?

Would you support every cop and soldier voting before every shift on what they plan to do that day? It would only be fair after all.

I would support people completing basic issues comprehension tests before they vote.

fellowtraveller · May 8, 2012

You can't tell the difference between these two terms used in the context of a post about Canadians deciding to send it's troops abroad?

I would support people completing basic issues comprehension tests before they vote.

Cansdisns do decide when to send their troops abroad. We call them Members of Parliament. They then instruct our 100% volunteer military on what it expected of them.

Let me guess, the Council of Canadians could write the questions and grade the tests after?

Tilter · May 8, 2012

The troops join the Armed services with the understanding that whatever will be will be.

This world has n ever been at peace and never will be. If you join the armed services in peace time with the idea that things will remain the same till you leave the service you are very naive and I happen to know how you can get a 1/4 share of the CN tower for less than 200,000 dollars. If you don't want to own prime real estate I know a guy named Madoff who can show huge profits in a year's time.

eyeball · May 8, 2012

Cansdisns do decide when to send their troops abroad. We call them Members of Parliament.

And I'm suggesting we should be subjecting any proposed military missions and operations abroad to the will of the people directly instead.

They then instruct our 100% volunteer military on what it expected of them.

They also leave them high and dry - when the going gets tough they're usually nowhere in sight and especially if voters stop believing the noble reasons they provided for going to war in the first place.

When it comes to Canadians asking volunteers to kill other people in other countries for us soldiers deserve to know we're really and truly committed. In the face of a referendum with a super-majority politicians who then waver or waffle would do so at their peril come the next run of the mill election. I think this approach to war would also result in a lot more attention being given to volunteers who return in such a scrambled up mess.

For those who say Canadians are too stupid to vote on such weighty matters how come we're smart enough to pick people who can?

Let me guess, the Council of Canadians could write the questions and grade the tests after?

Okay.

fellowtraveller · May 8, 2012

For those who say Canadians are too stupid to vote on such weighty matters how come we're smart enough to pick people who can?

After hundreds of years of democratic experiments and several different models, the current system for making national is what we have chosen to be reasonably representative and reasonably efficient. or do you see government-by-referendum as being somehting other than a cumbersome mess fraught with pitfalls?

eyeball · May 8, 2012

After hundreds of years of democratic experiments and several different models, the current system for making national is what we have chosen to be reasonably representative and reasonably efficient. or do you see government-by-referendum as being somehting other than a cumbersome mess fraught with pitfalls?

I think the idea of government-by-referendum for the everyday things it does is silly but not for something like sending troops abroad to kill other people. I don't think politicians have the moral or ethical background it takes to make such decisions on their own.

DogOnPorch · May 8, 2012

I think the idea of government-by-referendum for the everyday things it does is silly but not for something like sending troops abroad to kill other people. I don't think politicians have the moral or ethical background it takes to make such decisions on their own.

But, you and Joe Public do? OK....

capricorn · May 8, 2012

I think the idea of government-by-referendum for the everyday things it does is silly but not for something like sending troops abroad to kill other people.

Sounds good on paper eyeball. We're only getting around a 60% turnout in elections. How many people would bother to vote in such a referendum and would those voting in favour represent the will of the majority of Canadians?

eyeball · May 8, 2012

But, you and Joe Public do? OK....

Yes I definitely think we're better positioned than politicians are for this particular task.

eyeball · May 8, 2012

Sounds good on paper eyeball. We're only getting around a 60% turnout in elections. How many people would bother to vote in such a referendum and would those voting in favour represent the will of the majority of Canadians?

We could make referendums for going to war mandatory and don't forget I said the will of a super-majority.

If this is about giving troops real support it should be as unambiguous and unequivocal as possible.

Edited May 8, 2012 by eyeball

guyser · May 8, 2012

This slogan means people need to support what our troops are doing. So how does one do that. Lean out the window and yell 'I support you troops?'

Of course, the only who doesnt really have to support them are the same people who put them there, the govt. They pay our guys very little , oh but they do get danger pay...woot!

Then when they get permanently injured, or suffer extreme distress, or heaven forbid, killed, the govt pretty much abandons them.

The govt pays a death benefit (while in fighting) of $260G's. Gosh, govt, thanks for that. Remind me again what your pension is? You know, the one thats not funded by anything?

Oh yeah, lets see.....

Gilles Duceppe $145,000

Stephen Harper (from 2015 eligible) $224,000......per year

So, Yes ...support the troops , but for heavens sake, please dont look into our pensions. Hell the Reformers all balked at collecting them and said no way.....and of course now they are collecting.

Funny, I cant fathom why people think politicians are slimy

Edited May 8, 2012 by guyser

GostHacked · May 9, 2012

I agree with your points Guyser. As in another thread, I talked about my pal who did a couple tours in Bosnia as well as a couple in Afghanistan. Something happened on his last tour in Afghanistan, it changed him forever. I've tried to stay in contact with him... i'll have to wait for him to come around.

fellowtraveller · May 9, 2012

I agree with your points Guyser. As in another thread, I talked about my pal who did a couple tours in Bosnia as well as a couple in Afghanistan. Something happened on his last tour in Afghanistan, it changed him forever. I've tried to stay in contact with him... i'll have to wait for him to come around.

our military is 100% volunteers. The terms and conditions of employment are not secret. But.... just like any workplace injury, ongoing physical or mental trauma suffered on te job should be covered, as it would for a workers comp[ensation case.

fellowtraveller · May 9, 2012

We could make referendums for going to war mandatory and don't forget I said the will of a super-majority.

If this is about giving troops real support it should be as unambiguous and unequivocal as possible.

well, for that process to occur we'd have to abrogate all existing alliances and treaties that require our action since it would take about 2 years to get any proposed involvement to a ballot, what with Parliament yakking it up, politicians of all stripes posing and preening, committees and subcommittees holding hearings, Elections Canada gearing up to spend a couple hundred million on the referendum. Then of cvourse it would take the miliatary another six months or so to gear up, since they culd not spend a penny in advance on a political issue.

In World War Two, we'd have gotten to the assistance of our allies about mid-1947 with a boatload of German-English dictionaries to aid the new Teutonic regime in London.

eyeball · May 9, 2012

well, for that process to occur we'd have to abrogate all existing alliances and treaties that require our action since it would take about 2 years to get any proposed involvement to a ballot, what with Parliament yakking it up, politicians of all stripes posing and preening, committees and subcommittees holding hearings, Elections Canada gearing up to spend a couple hundred million on the referendum. Then of cvourse it would take the miliatary another six months or so to gear up, since they culd not spend a penny in advance on a political issue.

In World War Two, we'd have gotten to the assistance of our allies about mid-1947 with a boatload of German-English dictionaries to aid the new Teutonic regime in London.

Well, we'd just have to pick up the pace a little wouldn't we.

Speaking of the golden age of going to war issuing war bonds might be a good idea to revisit so those of you who wish to have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware and troops sitting around on standby could invest in these to your heart's content.

g_bambino · May 9, 2012

well, for that process to occur we'd have to abrogate all existing alliances and treaties that require our action since it would take about 2 years to get any proposed involvement to a ballot, what with Parliament yakking it up, politicians of all stripes posing and preening, committees and subcommittees holding hearings, Elections Canada gearing up to spend a couple hundred million on the referendum. Then of cvourse it would take the miliatary another six months or so to gear up, since they culd not spend a penny in advance on a political issue.
In World War Two, we'd have gotten to the assistance of our allies about mid-1947 with a boatload of German-English dictionaries to aid the new Teutonic regime in London.

These points have already been presented to eyeball's eyeballs more than a few times. Still, he holds to his unworkable proposal. One has to give him points for tenacity (or is it stubbornness?).