20,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam War...

[Black Dog]

Many Canadians enlisted and served in the British Army. Would you include them among those to be honoured?

Nope. If they were fighting as Canadian soldiers under British Command, then yes. But if they were wearing the uniform of Great Britain, then no. Veterans should be honoured by the country they fight for, not their country of origin. But hey, if we want to honour those who fought for a foreign power, then maybe we should throw a parade or something when these guys get back....

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

I'm still trying to sort out in my head after my 45 years how a killer can be a hero in the name of his country or get the death penalty for doing the same deed in his own name.

It depends largely on who benefits from the death. Killing a gas station attendant for $50 in crack money is deemed different than killing the robber while his gun was raised to the attendant's head. In the first case, only the crackhead benefits, and this is deemed 'wrong'. In the second case, lots of people stand to benefit. If there are enough beneficiaries, perceived or actual, then it is deemed 'legitimate'.

[Argus]

I believe OFFICIAL honors should be reserved for those who fought OFFICIALLY on Canada's behalf.

I know a Canadian vetran who fought in Afganistan for the Russians. Should he be honored at offical ceremonies?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given he was fighting for our enemy I'd say no.

[Riverwind]

Given he was fighting for our enemy I'd say no.

He was fighting muslim extremists that eventually turned into the taliban. If the Russians had won that war there may have never been a 9/11.

[crazymf]

Yeah, the Russians seem to f*ck everything up that they touch.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

He was fighting muslim extremists that eventually turned into the taliban.

Then he was, in a way, fighting against the US (or, at least US funded and supplied 'mujahideen').

If the Russians had won that war there may have never been a 9/11.

The Russians had almost the same chance as the US has of defeating the Afghanis. Virtually zero.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Whther or not VietNam was fought to Canada's benefit seems to be a bone of contention in this thread, but to my mind it was not Canada's war, and benefitted us not at all.

Hence my lack of disappointment that this particular group of "veterans" were not included in the honors this year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see how the Korean armed conflict was any more Canada'a war than the Vietnam armed conflict. Weren't they both very similiar in nature? Beats me why we joined the one but not the other ... maybe the chubby cheeked Koreans were more appealing to us than the scrawny Vietnamese, who knows?

Both of these conflicts were part of the so-called "Cold War", and whether Canadian men were forced into it by their Government, or took the initiative themselves and helped the American side by volunteering, makes no difference to me, ALL of these courageous people are Cold War heroes and worth remembering.

SHAME ON CANADA!

[Black Dog]

I don't see how the Korean armed conflict was any more Canada'a war than the Vietnam armed conflict. Weren't they both very similiar in nature? Beats me why we joined the one but not the other ... maybe the chubby cheeked Koreans were more appealing to us than the scrawny Vietnamese, who knows?

Both of these conflicts were part of the so-called "Cold War", and whether Canadian men were forced into it by their Government, or took the initiative themselves and helped the American side by volunteering, makes no difference to me, ALL of these courageous people are Cold War heroes and worth remembering.

SHAME ON CANADA!

The only difference between the Korean and Vietnam wars is that in the former, Canadians fought as Canadians, in the latter as Americans. Again, veterans should be honoured by the country they fight for, not their country of origin.

[Biblio Bibuli]

If the Russians had won that war there may have never been a 9/11.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I remember Joe Who's musings in the fall of 1979 about going to Afghanistan and straightening out those Russians.

I bet Pierre Trudeau wagged his finger at him over that.

[Biblio Bibuli]

veterans should be honoured by the country they fight for ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed!

[Argus]

Given he was fighting for our enemy I'd say no.

He was fighting muslim extremists that eventually turned into the taliban. If the Russians had won that war there may have never been a 9/11.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was fighting Afghanis, and the Soviets commited more war crimes in that war than any of the anti-America haters could ever dream of.

Here they all are squealing like old women because the US admits it's used WP on terrorists, but how many of their ilk were out howling at the Soviets for dropping toy-shaped explosies around Afghani villages? None.

Not everyone who fought against the Soviet invasion was a "muslim extremist", you know.

[Black Dog]

Here they all are squealing like old women because the US admits it's used WP on terrorists, but how many of their ilk were out howling at the Soviets for dropping toy-shaped explosies around Afghani villages? None.

Not everyone who fought against the Soviet invasion was a "muslim extremist", you know.

For me, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was never an issue. But then, I was three years old when they went in. Honestly, can we move beyond the bullshit about "yabbut, where were you when (insert atrocity here)"? As strawmen go, it's pretty tired. Actually, your formulation is even lamer: now, people are to be held accountable for the action (or inaction) of other individuals on the basis of sharing similar political leanings. I'll have to remember that for next time Montgomery Burns posts some of his crap. Then I can blame it on you.

Also: no one is complaining about the use of WP on "terrorists": rather, it's the indiscriminate use on a city with 50-60,000 civilians that's objectionable. Get a grip.

[Army Guy]

I'm a currently a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces, some of the posts on this subject are disturbing, and disrespectful to those serving now and to those that have served in the past.

Below is from the Veterns affairs web site.

My Webpage

Veterans:

Armed Forces and Merchant Navy veterans who served during the First World War, Second World War or Korean War;

Former and, in certain cases, current members of the Canadian Forces, including those who served in Special Duty Areas and in peacekeeping; and

Allied veterans who lived in Canada prior to periods of war.

Other Clients:

Certain civilians who are entitled to benefits because of their war time services;

Former and, in certain cases, serving members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and

Survivors and dependants of the foregoing groups.

I think this below para from veterns affairs says it all. Does it really matter what nations flag you serve under? This Nov 11 i had the privilege of attending the ceremony held in our nations capital. There i saw dozens of foriegn military members laying down reefs at our National war momorial, on behalf of thier goverments paying tribute not only to Lost Canadian lives but to thier own as well.

Lets not loose sight of why we pay tribute to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and to those that served.

At Veterans Affairs Canada we value our clients' contributions to the development of Canada as a nation and honour the sacrifices they have made in the defence of freedom and the pursuit of world peace. In expressing Canada's gratitude to them, we strive to exemplify the high principles which they have defended.

[August1991]

Again, veterans should be honoured by the country they fight for, not their country of origin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD, your definition is that we should honour anyone who fights for our government whereas ceemus' definition is that if the Canadian government has declared war, then we should honour any Canadian who fights that war.

Uh? Does this matter? Apparently, yes.

I'm a currently a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces, some of the posts on this subject are disturbing, and disrespectful to those serving now and to those that have served in the past.

....

Lets not loose sight of why we pay tribute to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and to those that served.

At Veterans Affairs Canada we value our clients' contributions to the development of Canada as a nation and honour the sacrifices they have made in the defence of freedom and the pursuit of world peace. In expressing Canada's gratitude to them, we strive to exemplify the high principles which they have defended.

...value our clients' contributions...

WT Holy F?

[crazymf]

He's a fed. We are 'clients' aka 'subjects'.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Again, veterans should be honoured by the country they fight for, not their country of origin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BD, your definition is that we should honour anyone who fights for our government whereas ceemus' definition is that if the Canadian government has declared war, then we should honour any Canadian who fights that war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought that what Black Dog meant was that the countries that foreign men came to fight for ought to do the honouring and remembering. Not their country of origin.

Makes sense to me.

[PocketRocket]

BB: This is the gist of what I've been saying all along.

[I Miss Trudeau]

At Veterans Affairs Canada we value our clients' contributions to the development of Canada as a nation and honour the sacrifices they have made in the defence of freedom and the pursuit of world peace. In expressing Canada's gratitude to them, we strive to exemplify the high principles which they have defended.

...value our clients' contributions...

WT Holy F?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds about right.

[Argus]

He's a fed. We are 'clients' aka 'subjects'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's just a word they use. They use it about themselves, as well. A "client" is anyone who consumes the work a department does, or who makes use of the services or systems a department produces/supplies, or on whose behalf that department or group labours. Clients can include other departments, or other agencies or branches of the same department, different levels of governments, crown corporations, private sector companies or individuals, etc. etc.

[August1991]

It's just a word they use.

About ten years ago, they would have said "stakeholder" but it seems more hard-edged to say "client", I guess. I dunno.

Some person in a cubicle someplace churned this out, using the language of the day. In Ottawaspeak, it makes sense:

"...At Veterans Affairs Canada we honour the sacrifices our clients have made in the defence of freedom... "

I find it appalling, and an indication of how Canada has changed, as some 90 year-old guy in Edmonton also seems to think.

I have argued elsewhere that the Left often confuses symbol for reality. In this case, the thinking seems to be that if we use a different word for something we want to change, we can make the change come true. Somewhere along the line, the term "our clients" replaced the word "men".

[Guest eureka]

To say that the Left confuses symbol for reality (and you do like to say iy) os to assume that your perception is reality.

Do you have any scientific evidence to prove your reality is real and not merely the irrationality you ascribe to others? How do we know that you are not simply delusional?

Is it not just possible that the Left is dealing with reality while you may be just cognisant of what is inside your Rightist cocoon?