Ribbon equals support of Troops

[Fortunata]

Let's just get over the "if you don't support the mission you don't support the troops" BS. It is not necessarily true, it is possible to do both and those of you who use that argument is doing as much to destroy troop morale as those who do not support either the mission or the troops. Why try to be so dishonest about things?

Explain to me how you can increase the troops morale in afghanistan, who are risking their lives for us btw, by saying that mission they are on is 'not worth it'.

You explain to me how you can not support this mission and increase the troops morale?

If you don;t support this mission which is UN mandated, what mission could you support?

Why don't you support this mission?

The troop morale can be increased by knowing people know they are doing what they are being told to do by their political masters and they are doing a damn good job of a damn hard mission. It can be separated and those who don't see that it can be don't want to. It's as simple as that. Those that support the troops but don't want them in the combat role they find themselves in now can do so for many reasons; they want no Canadians dying for a historically impossible mission; that they see the government getting more and more corrupt and see human rights abuses continuing as per Sharia (and other) laws. There are many reasons they don't want to have our soldiers dying for. The least a person could do is make an honest effort to understand the other's viewpoint on this issue. To continually bash those who don't agree with you and parrot the bullshit that Harper and his minions spew is too much when our soldiers are dying there.

As far as my personal agreement or disagreement goes, I do happen to agree with this mission AND I do support our troops. I support both NOT BECAUSE of political partisanship unlike others here. I think it is the right thing to do although I am doubtful of the ultimate success there; not because I don't think our soldiers can't make a difference but because, historically, it has never been successful. The culture is so different and you have to ask yourself, do the people really want to change. Islam is not like other religions inasmuch as it is lived at every aspect of their daily lives. How many generations would it take to change that even if they actually do want to change that.

So, if I, who supports our troops doing what they are doing, can see other's viewpoint I'm sure even those hard nosed opponents of everything non-Harper could.

[White Doors]

the govt of the day (and the decisions made by said govt) does not.

The government that changed the mission was the liberal one. NOT the 'government of the day' in this case.

[White Doors]

Let's just get over the "if you don't support the mission you don't support the troops" BS. It is not necessarily true, it is possible to do both and those of you who use that argument is doing as much to destroy troop morale as those who do not support either the mission or the troops. Why try to be so dishonest about things?

Explain to me how you can increase the troops morale in afghanistan, who are risking their lives for us btw, by saying that mission they are on is 'not worth it'.

You explain to me how you can not support this mission and increase the troops morale?

If you don;t support this mission which is UN mandated, what mission could you support?

Why don't you support this mission?

The troop morale can be increased by knowing people know they are doing what they are being told to do by their political masters and they are doing a damn good job of a damn hard mission. It can be separated and those who don't see that it can be don't want to. It's as simple as that. Those that support the troops but don't want them in the combat role they find themselves in now can do so for many reasons; they want no Canadians dying for a historically impossible mission; that they see the government getting more and more corrupt and see human rights abuses continuing as per Sharia (and other) laws. There are many reasons they don't want to have our soldiers dying for. The least a person could do is make an honest effort to understand the other's viewpoint on this issue. To continually bash those who don't agree with you and parrot the bullshit that Harper and his minions spew is too much when our soldiers are dying there.

As far as my personal agreement or disagreement goes, I do happen to agree with this mission AND I do support our troops. I support both NOT BECAUSE of political partisanship unlike others here. I think it is the right thing to do although I am doubtful of the ultimate success there; not because I don't think our soldiers can't make a difference but because, historically, it has never been successful. The culture is so different and you have to ask yourself, do the people really want to change. Islam is not like other religions inasmuch as it is lived at every aspect of their daily lives. How many generations would it take to change that even if they actually do want to change that.

So, if I, who supports our troops doing what they are doing, can see other's viewpoint I'm sure even those hard nosed opponents of everything non-Harper could.

Thanks for your input. I never brought up Harper. Only the people who are opposed to the mission did.

Ironic, no?

[Black Dog]

If not supporting the mission means not supporting the troops, then I guess I don't support the troops. BFD.

[White Doors]

If not supporting the mission means not supporting the troops, then I guess I don't support the troops. BFD.

Thanks for being honest.

[Black Dog]

Thanks for being honest.

You're welcome. Now, can you tell me what "supporting the troops" actually means? 'cause I'd bet good money that the majority of people who say "I support the troops" don't actually support the troops in any way beyond saying the words "I support the troops."

[jdobbin]

Speaking of partisanship... Again, the mission and goals have not changed since the day the liberals agreed to help Nato with this mission. What does this have to do with Harper? I see, you want to equate Bush with harper. Sorry, I got it now. Carry on.

The extension of the mission is Harper's. The present strategy is Harper's. The failure to explain the mission and the future timetable is Harper's.

I am partisan. I admit it. But I also said when the Liberals committed to the south that they should have an exit strategy instead of a endless commitment. Benchmarks from Afghanistan and our allies should determine the length of the mission.

But go ahead and equate lack of support for the mission as not supporting the troops. It has everything to do with Harper who has used the same argument as Bush with "you're either for us or against us." Or one of my favourites, the Opposition is more supportive of the Taliban than the troops. We saw how caring the Tories were for our troops by how they attacked on the funeral issue. Nice going there.

And now we have three more Canadian soldiers killed to add to the four NATO soldiers killed since Friday.

But carry on. Harper is about to hang the "Gone Fishin'" sign on Parliament like he did last summer and hope no one notices that the troops are fighting away in Afghanistan while DND makes plans for a commitment to 2012.

[jdobbin]

Thanks for your input. I never brought up Harper. Only the people who are opposed to the mission did.

Ironic, no?

It is Harper who extended the mission. Did you hope that no one would notice that or question that?

[Shakeyhands]

Thanks for your input. I never brought up Harper. Only the people who are opposed to the mission did.

Ironic, no?

Ahhhhh.... who is the Prime Minister right now? I wouldn't feel any differently if it was Martin or some other Liberal leader.

And to that end, if Harper had been PM in 03 we'd find our asses stuck in Iraq too.

[Fortunata]

Thanks for your input. I never brought up Harper. Only the people who are opposed to the mission did.

Ironic, no?

No, that's where you are wrong. I know people that do not support the mission but do support Harper for the large part. One doesn't support the mission because it costs too much. Another doesn't support the mission because they think it feeds into Iraq. Yet another doesn't support the mission because he's a pacifist and he thinks less wars and more peacekeeping is the way to go. There you go, there are many reasons for not supporting Canada being in Afghanistan (edited to correct). And yet you (we?) yahoos on here make it a partisan issue. When it doesn't have to be and shouldn't be.

You're welcome. Now, can you tell me what "supporting the troops" actually means? 'cause I'd bet good money that the majority of people who say "I support the troops" don't actually support the troops in any way beyond saying the words "I support the troops."

This isn't directed at me but what does that mean? Wearing red on Fridays? Writing letters to our troops in Afghanistan? Donating to local charities that send stuff to them? Donating to local charities that donate items to Afghanistani children? Praying for them all? Believing that they do the very best they can for each other and the people they are there to protect? Every person has their own way of support, whether it be your way or not. Or does it just have to be your way before you believe them?

[Drea]

Hey Whitedoor

I said the "governement of the day".

I didn't mention your precious Harper as he wasn't the one who made the decision now was he? DUH.

That being said -- I do support our mission in Afghanistan. Did you miss Question Period the other day where the minister lauded all we've done for Afghanis? Schools, hospitals, etc.

"Damn those Girly-Men Canadian military -- they should be killing children, not building schools!!!

Those little buggers are all gonna grow up to be suicide bombers -- don't they know that!?"

oops, sorry -- lapsed into being a rightwinger -- I'll try to not let that happen again.

[Drea]

Fortunata, bunch of us business folk are getting together to send a "care package". We are inviting members of our community to write letters, send toilet paper, Timmy's, whatever they like and we will send it over as a "*OUR TOWN* SUPPORTS YOU. Some of those soldiers may not have family writing to them and we thought it would be nice.

That is how you support the troops real time.

White's idea of supporting the troops is to detain all muslims in Canada. LOL

[Mad_Michael]

This "support our troops" mantra is ugly propaganda, but not unexpected.

Too many right-thinking citizens don't support the government's warmongering.

So the government sets out to redefine public support in order to justify their policy. No surprise that.

Bottom line is, the pro-war types will ALWAYS take your yellow ribbon of 'support for the troops' as evidence of political support for the war. That is the purpose of the game - trying to create the fiction of political support.

I'm all for supporting the troops. But if one really cares about the troops, one really shouldn't be sending them to die in a war that has become strategically and tactically unwinnable.

[Peter F]

This "support our troops" mantra is ugly propaganda, but not unexpected.

Too many right-thinking citizens don't support the government's warmongering.

So the government sets out to redefine public support in order to justify their policy. No surprise that.

Bottom line is, the pro-war types will ALWAYS take your yellow ribbon of 'support for the troops' as evidence of political support for the war. That is the purpose of the game - trying to create the fiction of political support.

I'm all for supporting the troops. But if one really cares about the troops, one really shouldn't be sending them to die in a war that has become strategically and tactically unwinnable.

I agree, Its propaganda. Support our troops actually means stop bitching about the war. One and the same.

[cybercoma]

I'm all for supporting the troops. But if one really cares about the troops, one really shouldn't be sending them to die in a war that has become strategically and tactically unwinnable.

Our troops aren't trying to "win a war," they have a job to do and that's to maintain security in Afghanistan, so it can rebuild after the United States forced the Taliban out for harbouring a criminal terrorist organization.

The strategy is to make sure schools and hospitals can be built, citizens can vote and children can go to school without being blown up by terrorists. Our military needs to equip and train the Afghani government with the proper tools to look after security themselves.

When our troops are no longer needed, they will be brought home.

[Alexandra]

Speaking of partisanship... Again, the mission and goals have not changed since the day the liberals agreed to help Nato with this mission. What does this have to do with Harper? I see, you want to equate Bush with harper. Sorry, I got it now. Carry on.

The extension of the mission is Harper's. The present strategy is Harper's. The failure to explain the mission and the future timetable is Harper's.

Not necessarily jdobbin. According to the NDP.

Yesterday, NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) presented the New Democratic Party’s dissenting opinion on the Conservative-Liberal mission in Afghanistan.

“The report lays out a concise background of Canadian and NATO involvement in Afghanistan, a solid analysis of the issues faced by Canadian troops and Afghan citizens and sets out concrete steps Canada must take in relation to our mission there,” said Black.

Black stated, “Our report explains how the Liberals got us into Afghanistan, the nature of the international community's involvement, the challenges to peace, and what it will take to stabilize the country.”

In contrast, “you cannot expect Canadians to take seriously the Liberal’s hastily cobbled-together report that even contains spelling mistakes,” concludes Black.

The NDP'er, Dawn Black, is carping at the Liberals 'who got us into Afghanistan' in the NDP's Action Plan for Afghanistan. The NDP'ers must be incensed over the NATO non-peacekeeping mission; didn't read their whole 'manifesto'.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5462

[jdobbin]

Not necessarily jdobbin. According to the NDP.

Yesterday, NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) presented the New Democratic Party’s dissenting opinion on the Conservative-Liberal mission in Afghanistan.

“The report lays out a concise background of Canadian and NATO involvement in Afghanistan, a solid analysis of the issues faced by Canadian troops and Afghan citizens and sets out concrete steps Canada must take in relation to our mission there,” said Black.

Black stated, “Our report explains how the Liberals got us into Afghanistan, the nature of the international community's involvement, the challenges to peace, and what it will take to stabilize the country.”

In contrast, “you cannot expect Canadians to take seriously the Liberal’s hastily cobbled-together report that even contains spelling mistakes,” concludes Black.

The NDP'er, Dawn Black, is carping at the Liberals 'who got us into Afghanistan' in the NDP's Action Plan for Afghanistan. The NDP'ers must be incensed over the NATO non-peacekeeping mission; didn't read their whole 'manifesto'.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5462

The NDP have pretty much been complicit in there being no deadline. They voted against having the mission end in 2009.

[capricorn]

The NDP were in a catch 22. They couldn't vote on the Feb. 09 deadline motion because they want the troops brought home NOW. Not an enviable position but one their supporters understand. Plus, kudos to them for being consistent on their stand.

[Remiel]

Well, as far I know, profits from Canex go to materially supporting the troops, do they not?

Personally, I would not stick a magnet or sticker of that kind on any vehicle I owned...

But I got the two hats when Cherry was pimping them...

[jdobbin]

The NDP were in a catch 22. They couldn't vote on the Feb. 09 deadline motion because they want the troops brought home NOW. Not an enviable position but one their supporters understand. Plus, kudos to them for being consistent on their stand.

And now there is no deadline.

[runningdog]

The NDP were in a catch 22. They couldn't vote on the Feb. 09 deadline motion because they want the troops brought home NOW. Not an enviable position but one their supporters understand. Plus, kudos to them for being consistent on their stand.

And now there is no deadline.

how soon before Canada is back to being heavily in debt?

[White Doors]

how soon before Canada is back to being heavily in debt?

How soon can you get off your ass and get a job?

[Mad_Michael]

I'm all for supporting the troops. But if one really cares about the troops, one really shouldn't be sending them to die in a war that has become strategically and tactically unwinnable.

Our troops aren't trying to "win a war," they have a job to do and that's to maintain security in Afghanistan, so it can rebuild after the United States forced the Taliban out for harbouring a criminal terrorist organization.

Right. The Taliban has been forced out?

So who is it that is killing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan? Methinks you aren't seeing this issue very clearly because there are a heck of a lot of Taliban in Afghanistan killing Canadian soldiers.

There are no schools or hospitals being built. The troops are too busy fighting Taliban for that.

When our troops are no longer needed, they will be brought home.

The 'need' for troops in Afghanistan will likely never end, given the parameters of the present engagement.

[Mad_Michael]

how soon before Canada is back to being heavily in debt?

Huh???

The Canadian National Debt is over $600 billion. Who told you we weren't in debt?

The fact is, Canada's national debt may be the lowest in the western world (per capita), and thankfully we're running a surplus and not adding more debt at the moment, but $600 billion is still a big chunk of debt and it is still there.

Near as I can figure it, right now a significant portion of our taxes go to pay for old age-pension cheques mailed out during the 1970's. Your grandchildren will have the honour of paying for the 1980's.

[noahbody]

Right. The Taliban has been forced out?

So who is it that is killing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan? Methinks you aren't seeing this issue very clearly because there are a heck of a lot of Taliban in Afghanistan killing Canadian soldiers.

There are no schools or hospitals being built. The troops are too busy fighting Taliban for that.

He meant "forced out of power" as they were in 2001.

Here's a good summary of the reconstruction effort:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/fac...st_develop.html