Ribbon equals support of Troops

[White Doors]

Toronto Silly council wisely backed down today and passed a unanimous resolution to keep the stickers on the vehicles.

Sanity prevails.

[stignasty]

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.

Nicely stated.

[Mad_Michael]

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

They presently dominate a not inconsiderable portion of the country.

They have thus never been 'effectively' removed since they are still there trying to run the show.

They presently have the power to control a large portion of the country and threaten the rest.

The NATO enclave of Kabul is only a tiny fraction of the country.

[Rue]

no...... Scriblett, you are twisting facts now.

No you are by suggesting if one support troops they support war.

[jdobbin]

One can detest war and be supportive of troops.

I think the poster was equating supporting the troops with supporting the mission, not supporting war itself. It is something different altogether.

[noahbody]

They have thus never been 'effectively' removed since they are still there trying to run the show.

Are you saying our current government is still Liberal?

[Rue]

Toronto Silly council wisely backed down today and passed a unanimous resolution to keep the stickers on the vehicles.

Sanity prevails.

Imagine that. Councilors being cowards. What a concept. Yep its easy being politically righteous and accusing people who support troops with being politically inappropriate, until of course you actually have to put your own butt in the line of fire and defend such assumptions-then of course it is easier to run.

I think we should send David Miller and his councilor supporters to Afghanistan on a municipal junket to study how the Taliban run their municipal governments.

Excuse me if I go puke.

[Rue]

"I think the poster was equating supporting the troops with supporting the mission, not supporting war itself. It is something different altogether."

It's the same assumption. It is the exercise of assuming because one supports the troops, one can then go on to assume it means one supoorts a specific political view. Whether you call it war, mission, or anything else, makes no difference to the fact that it assumes. Whether one uses the word mission or war, the assumption is the same. It is a conotation that assumes because one supports troops one favours certain unacceptable political views.

The fact that I support troops means only that. If someone wants to assume anything else they should keep it to themselves and not presume to know what my political views are.

The ribbon does not mention mission, war, Haper's views or anything else. It refers to them because there is a solidarity between firefighters, paramedics, police and soldiers. They are all in the service of putting their lives on the line on behalf of society. This has nothing to do with a specific political view and everything to do with people who put their lives on the line to keep society safe showing solidarity for one another. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the common risk they all share.

If someone is so insecure about their own political views, that they see everything as an offensive political statement then I say to them-grow up and if you are that intolerant of others remember this-in this country you have the right to be intolerant precisely because someone is dying so you can get all snitty. You want to get snitty, go ahead, enjoy this right but don't you dare tell me I am not allowed to acknowledge the people who die so you can be a snit.

[jdobbin]

It's the same assumption. It is the exercise of assuming because one supports the troops, one can then go on to assume it means one supoorts a specific political view. Whether you call it war, mission, or anything else, makes no difference to the fact that it assumes. Whether one uses the word mission or war, the assumption is the same. It is a conotation that assumes because one supports troops one favours certain unacceptable political views.

If someone is so insecure about their own political views, that they see everything as an offensive political statement then I say to them-grow up and if you are that intolerant of others remember this-in this country you have the right to be intolerant precisely because someone is dying so you can get all snitty. You want to get snitty, go ahead, enjoy this right but don't you dare tell me I am not allowed to acknowledge the people who die so you can be a snit.

You forget that posters of a certain right wing persuasion keep saying that support for the troops is contingent on support for the mission.

I have no problem of you putting a yellow ribbon anywhere you want. But don't pretend that many people putting those ribbons aren't using it as a political statement of support for the troops, the mission and the government. It is called wrapping yourself in the flag. The Tories know that support for the troops remains high. So what they do is say that if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops. Some go as far as to say if you don't support the government, you don't support the troops.

[scribblet]

Toronto Silly council wisely backed down today and passed a unanimous resolution to keep the stickers on the vehicles.

Sanity prevails.

This time: Kudos to Councillor Frances Nunziata’s call to extend the support the troops campaign. She did a great job of pushing Miller’s pals on city council to do the right thing. Not to mention the Sun columnist Joe Warmington who kept this issue alive in the media and rallied strong support to continue this program.

In the end Mayor Miller did the right thing and he should get the credit for that. The sad part is that he only did the right thing because he was pushed to do so.

So, is this a 'flip flop' on the part of council or is it simply hearing the people and doing the right thing - I go for the latter.

[White Doors]

"I think the poster was equating supporting the troops with supporting the mission, not supporting war itself. It is something different altogether."

It's the same assumption. It is the exercise of assuming because one supports the troops, one can then go on to assume it means one supoorts a specific political view. Whether you call it war, mission, or anything else, makes no difference to the fact that it assumes. Whether one uses the word mission or war, the assumption is the same. It is a conotation that assumes because one supports troops one favours certain unacceptable political views.

The fact that I support troops means only that. If someone wants to assume anything else they should keep it to themselves and not presume to know what my political views are.

The ribbon does not mention mission, war, Haper's views or anything else. It refers to them because there is a solidarity between firefighters, paramedics, police and soldiers. They are all in the service of putting their lives on the line on behalf of society. This has nothing to do with a specific political view and everything to do with people who put their lives on the line to keep society safe showing solidarity for one another. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the common risk they all share.

If someone is so insecure about their own political views, that they see everything as an offensive political statement then I say to them-grow up and if you are that intolerant of others remember this-in this country you have the right to be intolerant precisely because someone is dying so you can get all snitty. You want to get snitty, go ahead, enjoy this right but don't you dare tell me I am not allowed to acknowledge the people who die so you can be a snit.

Very well put.

[AndrewL]

The fact is if you pay taxes you support the troops, whether you want to or not.

Andrew

[CLRV]

Why would anybody object to a yellow ribbon embossed with the slogan "Support The Troops" on a public emergency vehicle? Let me count the ways.

First off: it's a stupid symbol. This is an image gleaned from a song by Tony Orlando and Dawn. Have we all forgotten that? This is the level of intellectual commitment. The song is not about remembrance. It's about a *criminal* getting out of *prison* and wondering if his girlfriend is still willing to see him after he's done the crime and done the time. Yet without a trace of irony, these idiots are foisting this association upon us as representation of our troops.

Next, we have the fact that this symbol was invented during one of the most cowardly and certainly the most ultimately pointless military invasions in recent history: the First Gulf War. Techniques of sophisticated propaganda and deliberate disinformation were perfected during the runup to this war. What's worse is they got that part right. Canada rallied behind America, lending a hand wherever we could. From safely out of range America flattened Iraq, destroyed its infrastructure, killed thousands of Iraquis and then, right at the point where they could actually have done some good, they turned around and left for home, threw themselves a big, fat tickertape parade, called themselves heroes and went on to enjoy artificially low gasoline prices for the next decade. But Saddam was left in absolute power, even freer than before to kill, maim, torture and rape the Iraqui people; exacting reprisal killings of Shiia in the thousands (the same Shiia for whom we now claim an abiding concern). The 90's went blissfully by, while Saddam entroned himself on a golden toilet and skimmed from conscience-salving "oil for food" scams. A generation of Iraqui children died of typhus and cholera epidemics caused by destroyed water and medical systems. That was the legacy of Gulf War One. A yellow ribbon was wrapped on that and see how pretty it is.

Then we have the mindless mantra itself; Support The Troops. Naturally the majority of those who support the war parrot this. They are used to hiding behind these brave men and women who put their bodies and lives in peril for our safety (or in this case the *illusion* thereof). Why not hide behind them rhetorically as well? You'll see a lot of yellow ribbons on chickenhawkmobiles. The sad thing is the growing number of people who do not support the war but are still afraid to question this slogan for fear of being accused of "hating" the troops; who are actually affixing these things to their own bumpers for fear of being called out. And who can blame them? It's an easy point to score by shameless jingoists and most western liberals are still too wishy-washy to stick to sensible, logical, factual discussion and not allow themselves to be side-tracked into defending themselves against unjust personal attack.

What does this mean, Support The Troops? Reading this thread, we'll sure never know. Four pages so far and not a single note of agreement on terms. That's because it really DOESN'T mean anything, least of all to those who use it the most; those who probably have one of the damnable things stuck to their S.U.V. right now. During the world wars people supported the troops. They sacrificed. They went without for the sake of the troops. You don't see any of these people rallying for fuel rationing to support the war. You certainly don't see them calling for something that would demonstrate TRUE support for the troops: an increase in taxation to offset the enormous cost of funding a war effort. Oh dear no. What are these guys sending our troops? TOILET PAPER? Are you even serious? Another nice ironic symbol perhaps, but do you really want to impress us all with your magnanimous, selfless support of the troops? Have a whip-round and send them a few ARMOURED VEHICLES . Is a magnet on your bumper the extent of your grim resolve? Apparently so, because the corpulent orgy of over-indulgence that characterizes so much of our western culture goes merrily unabated.

Gee whiz, what's wrong with putting it on a public vehicle? Who could object to that? So what if it's obviously been hijacked as a pro-war slogan? It's all good, right? Well look at it this way. Arguably the best way we could support the troops would be to bring them home alive with all their limbs intact. What if a firefighter put a sticker saying something along the lines of "Bring the Boys Back Home" on the pumper truck? How many seconds would it be before some bunting-encrusted flag-waver was on the phone to the city about this obvious political statement -- gesture of support for the troops though it surely is? That's because "Support the Troops" is NOT a neutral political statement and it never has been. Claiming it as such is dishonest or blinkered or both.

Bring the troops home? Scandalous! Unthinkable! Imagine how *DEMORALIZED* the poor lads will be if they had to come home in one piece, alive, with all their arms and legs and hands and feet and eyes, back to the arms of their wives and children and mothers and fathers. Imagine the weeping on that day. The sense of loss. Anybody who knows anything about the troops will tell you that they would be soooo much happier if we left them on an impossible treadmill of futility, imposing "order" and "freedom" on a 15-way sectarian boodbath that has been raging on-again/off-again since before the time of Alexander the Great. The Mongols, the British empire, the Soviets. Everybody has taken a kick at this can and gotten their asses handed to them each and every time. Now here comes Canada, with it's brave but dreadfully underfunded and underequipped military, and we're going to make it all right or by God we're not leaving. What monumental hubris. The mouse that roared. This is not a "mission". It's a fantasy cooked up by wannabe Americans -- Canadians who want to be like America, with a population base one-tenth the size and a geography three times as large, but still somehow able to flex Charles Atlas military muscle all around the globe like their heroes to the south; people who, remember, have no interest in making the kind of financial committment it would take to even come close.

If the troops were even asked; if they were offered the freedom to speak openly (remember that soldiers have no more right to express their political opinions than cops or firefighters), how many would admit this sense of futility? How many would admit their sense of betrayal at being lied to from the beginning? For just like Iraq, Afghanistan was started on a lie. Osama Bin Laden was holed up in Tora Bora waiting for the final battle, remember? The "building schools" business only came about *after* we discovered that he was never actually there at all. Has everyone besides myself forgotten this? Have the troops forgotten this? Sadly we shall never know. We'll be sure to hear from those carefully selected soldiers who remain buoyantly optimistic, but don't count on equal time for grumblers and nay-sayers. Even if we did, they would only be dismissed by our self-appointed troop support system as just that: cowards and whiners, malingerers and layabouts. That's their inevitable reaction whenever a soldier exercises his right to conscientious objection. Support the troops?

Well hurrah. Metro Council saw "sense" and voted to keep the annoying, meaningless magnets. What a surprise. What a principled decision. I'm sure the situation in Afghanistan will continue to improve as a direct result. But hey Toronto! While we were all bickering over this crucial issue, the Council passed a by-law charging you between $41 and $151 a year for your garbage removal. You don't suppose that was on purpose do you? This ultimately pointless but emotionally charged issue raising its head in council precisely when they were voting approval on what is sure to be a severely unpopular by-law? No. Now I am going too far. Somebody stop me.

[White Doors]

someone needs some midol.

[M.Dancer]

First off: it's a stupid symbol. 1)This is an image gleaned from a song by Tony Orlando and Dawn. Have we all forgotten that?

2)Next, we have the fact that this symbol was invented during one of the most cowardly and certainly the most ultimately 3)pointless military invasions in recent history: the First Gulf War.

Wrong on all counts

1)

Around her neck she wore a yellow ribbon

She wore it in the springtime

In the merry month of May

And if you ask me why the heck she wore it

She wore it for her soldier who was far far away

Song pre date Tony and Dawn by over 100 years

2) The symbol was first used 10 years earlier to help people remember that Iran was holding american hostages.

Penne and Bruce Laingen with the yellow ribbon Mrs. Laingen tied around the oak tree in her front yard in 1979 when her husband was held hostage in Iran. Mrs. Laingen donated the ribbon to the Library of Congress in 1991. Photo by Greg Jenkins

http://www.loc.gov/folklife/ribbons/ribbons.html

3) Iraq was expelled from Kuwait.

Thanks for coming.....

[AndrewL]

First off: it's a stupid symbol. 1)This is an image gleaned from a song by Tony Orlando and Dawn. Have we all forgotten that?

2)Next, we have the fact that this symbol was invented during one of the most cowardly and certainly the most ultimately 3)pointless military invasions in recent history: the First Gulf War.

Wrong on all counts

1)

Around her neck she wore a yellow ribbon

She wore it in the springtime

In the merry month of May

And if you ask me why the heck she wore it

She wore it for her soldier who was far far away

Song pre date Tony and Dawn by over 100 years

2) The symbol was first used 10 years earlier to help people remember that Iran was holding american hostages.

Penne and Bruce Laingen with the yellow ribbon Mrs. Laingen tied around the oak tree in her front yard in 1979 when her husband was held hostage in Iran. Mrs. Laingen donated the ribbon to the Library of Congress in 1991. Photo by Greg Jenkins

http://www.loc.gov/folklife/ribbons/ribbons.html

3) Iraq was expelled from Kuwait.

Thanks for coming.....

Yeah and mothers day was invented in protest to collateral damage. Now its just a cheap marketing scam. Things often become cheap and meaningless, that once were powerful symbols.

Andrew

[Army Guy]

CLRV:

Seems you got it all figured out, that was some speach, might even get you a golden soap box award.

This is what Canadians do, they forget the main issue and debate the shit out of topics like this one, the actual meaning of a yellow ribbon....What does all those yellow ribbons mean to me, it's a show of support for all our military men and women and what they do, it's a pat on the back, Canadians way of saying thanks for all you've done...thats it...no hidden message, no magical hidden theme just "hey thanks"...

when we got off the Plane in trenton and to constantly see those stickers felt good, it also felt good to see thousands lining the roads waving, with huge banners saying welcome home, ..made me fell proud of what i accomplished in thier name... To those that have them i say thanks, to those that do not have them for what ever reason i respect that as well.

As for the letters and boxes of goodies, etc, they are well appricatied as well, the letters took me out of the war for a brief moment, the goodies and toilet paper were well recieved by troops and locals alike, i for one have used many roles of donated toilet paper on many occasions and was damn glad for it..

Can Canadians do more sure they can, but don't get the impression that the soldiers are not greatful for what they recieve now...because it does make a difference a big difference.

As for bringing the troops home, WHY...because you've lost your nerve, because we've spent to much money, because you think it's unwinnable, because history has shown us it can't be done...i'd like to see that crystal ball, Yes , would could debate this for years, and years, but one thing is for sure this is a canadian mission, a task that the majority of Canadians agreed to, a combat mission from the beginning and a combat mission today, regardless of who is in power...Canada has a nation stood up and said "YES" we will contribute our soldiers and our resources...Now soldiers in afgan turn around to find out only a minority of Canadians stand behind us, behind a commitment that has taken 60 of our lives todate...and Canadians still don't get it "we are still commited to this cause".

Like a smaller brother standing behind his big brother during a fight, yelling and jeering go get him big bro...until someone bigger joins the foray, then the little brother turns and runs leaving big bro to fend for himself....

If the troops were even asked; if they were offered the freedom to speak openly (remember that soldiers have no more right to express their political opinions than cops or firefighters), how many would admit this sense of futility?

The troops have access to media outlets, there are tonnes of Canadian web sites dedicated to our military, soldiers speak freely and will answer any question you ask them. And yet very few will give you the answers you are seeking. Not because they are afraid, because they believe in what they are doing. Most Canadians don't get what it feels like to help someone or group of people in attaining something as simple as fresh water supply. to offer them something they have never had before...

Don't just take my word for it, write to the troops ask them the mail is not censored, if you want i'll give you the e-mail address.

[AndrewL]

Now soldiers in afgan turn around to find out only a minority of Canadians stand behind us, behind a commitment that has taken 60 of our lives todate...and Canadians still don't get it "we are still commited to this cause".

Then maybe you should pay for it out of your own pocket, and stop displaying the Canadian flag. You could become a mercenary and do it for massive profits even.

Andrew

[Army Guy]

AndrewL:

Then maybe you should pay for it out of your own pocket, and stop displaying the Canadian flag. You could become a mercenary and do it for massive profits even.

What are you sugesting here andrew that soldiers don't pay the same taxes as you, or that our commitment to this Canadian mission insults you, or that soldiers should not have opinions and should not be heard from. or would it be to much to ask that before Canadians ask me to risk my life that they show the same level of commitment.

[AndrewL]

AndrewL:

Then maybe you should pay for it out of your own pocket, and stop displaying the Canadian flag. You could become a mercenary and do it for massive profits even.

What are you sugesting here andrew that soldiers don't pay the same taxes as you, or that our commitment to this Canadian mission insults you, or that soldiers should not have opinions and should not be heard from. or would it be to much to ask that before Canadians ask me to risk my life that they show the same level of commitment.

None of that. You said yourself only a minority of Canadian actually support the mission (i have not seen any recent polls, so this could be wrong). If the soldiers want to do it, but it is not something Canadians want their soldiers to be doing, than i think it would be more appropriate if you were a private for profit organization hiring yourselves out to Afghanis who want you there.

I personally dont think it is worth it. Im not insulted by it, just angered over it. I think are security is far worse because of it.

I dont think Candians asked you to risk your life at all. You are a volunteer. I could personally care less if Canada had any armed forces at all.

Andrew

[CLRV]

Wrong on all counts

(...)

Song pre date Tony and Dawn by over 100 years

2) The symbol was first used 10 years earlier to help people remember that Iran was holding american hostages.

http://www.loc.gov/folklife/ribbons/ribbons.html

An excellent article linked. Thank you.

Of course you did read that article, so you know what it really says. Were you counting on my not reading it?

The author clearly says that as an example of a connection between yellow ribbons and the Civil War, it is "a rather weak one". This "putative association" is taken very lightly by the author and he makes clear he includes it more for completeness of information than in any real belief that people were tieing yellow ribbons to everything in sight during the Civil War. He also includes a tale about yellow *hankerchiefs* and another about *white* ribbons. Quaintly similar but ultimately unrelated.

I did not, however, know that the hit song had been penned by Irwin Levine and L. Russell Brown in June 1972, rather than by Tony Orlando when he sold three million copies in three weeks in 1973, and that James Earl Jones played the returning ex-con in the T.V. dramatization. Nor did I know that the first arguably popular usage of the yellow ribbon in the way we use it today was in fact by the families of American hostages during the Iranian crisis of 1979. Thank you for that information.

The song's theme of imprisonment was indeed more appropriate to the Iranian crisis, since people were actually being held prisoner. I would still have to say, however, that trotting it out for soldiers invading another nation is in poor taste and dramatically ironic in the worst possible way.

3) Iraq was expelled from Kuwait.

Yes indeed. And as I just said the petro-dollars were kept flowing the proper way for another ten glorious years. It kept us riding high through the 90's. But if you are offering that as an example of the war's "success", don't come around now with a sob story about the pains of the Iraquis under Saddam or those of the Afghanis the under Taliban. It can't be an example of success THEN and a justification for war NOW. It was either wrong then and now, or not.

Which do you believe?

[Shakeyhands]

the last few posts have been entertaining!

here is what a right wing website is publishing...

It is CFP’s ardent belief that by agreeing to pull the decals, Miller was reinforcing the political agenda of his personal friend and former council colleague.

Layton’s calls to bring Canadian troops home from Afghanistan have never ceased.

Does Layton not wanting Canadian troops involved in Afghanistan not supporting them? This single paragraph proves to me what the right wing think, support for the troops equals support for the mission.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover062007a.htm

[CLRV]

CLRV:

Seems you got it all figured out, that was some speach, might even get you a golden soap box award.

Well you're quite the speechifier yourself, A.G., if your subsequent response is any indication.

What a convenience that this board has its very own returning soldier. Just returned, I infer, from the Afghanistan theatre to cheering throngs and a field of yellow ribbons, row on row. I'm glad this vision gave you pleasure and continues to do so. It certainly gives me a warm glow. Glad the t.p. was a boon as well. As I said, it makes a more appropriate image than a yellow ribbon anyway.

Who needs adequate kevlar and body armour anyway? Who needs vehicles that can stand up to an IED? An experienced foot soldier like yourself, fresh from battle and still dusty, would know the value of a ribbon and a bog roll when faced with a screaming Taliban warrior better than a poor civvie like me who just wouldn't "get it".

Can Canadians do more sure they can, but don't get the impression that the soldiers are not greatful for what they recieve now

And when, exactly did I call the troops ungrateful? Oops. There I go, defending myself from an unwarrented attack instead of ignoring it as it should be ignored.

As for bringing the troops home, WHY...because you've lost your nerve

MY nerve? When did *I* get a say? It wasn't MY nerve that got us into this.

because history has shown us it can't be done

Now you're catching on.

but one thing is for sure this is a canadian mission, a task that the majority of Canadians agreed to,

Oh really? Did we indeed? Was there a referendum or something that I just missed? Some democratic process where the "majority" of Canadians got a say? That's news to me, because I'm almost certain nobody even asked me.

Like a smaller brother standing behind his big brother during a fight, yelling and jeering go get him big bro...until someone bigger joins the foray, then the little brother turns and runs leaving big bro to fend for himself....

So, the smaller brother isn't a pussy just for standing behind the big bro, shouting and jeering like the chickenhawks and their pathetic little ribbons. He's only bad when he realizes that big bro has once again gotten himself into more shit than he can handle with his big mouth and sensibly advises him on the better part of valour? I see. Schoolyard analogies are so helpful when talking geopolitics. They're almost as good as sports terms like SLAM DUNK!

The troops have access to media outlets

Do they really? "WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Pentagon has no constitutional obligation to provide the media access to U.S. troops during combat."

Who knew?

"OTTAWA (CP) - Canadian military officials removed four journalists accompanying troops on an Afghanistan operation earlier this year after complaints from allies, newly released documents show."

At any rate, the issue in war was never about what the soldiers think. As someone has already pointed out in this thread, they do what they are ordered. Theirs not to question why. Theirs but to do or die. That's why it's important for those of us back at home, whose freedoms they are being killed and maimed to protect, should USE those freedoms to challange lies and deceit whenever we can. Especially since the troops get lied to so foully. They were told OBL was there waiting for a fight. He wasn't. They were told they were going to destroy terrorist training camps and ended up watching the entire region transform into one big terrorist training camp. THEN they were told it was all about schools and clean water. Thank God they finally got something to believe in.

Odd that you would bring up clean water, though. How soon we forget the international laughing stock Canada became because of the deployment of our DART water system to tsunami victims two years ago. Re-read what I said above about the hypocrisy of "supporting the troops" in the face of such poor equippage.

[Argus]

If you don't support the mission then you do not support the troops.

So if Harper mismanages the mission, people still have to support it because to do otherwise shows lack of support for the troops?

Can you enunciate any way in which Harper has "mismanaged" the mission that your party accepted and begun? Any deviation from police or procedure in any way, shape or form?

Go ahead if you like and see if the tact of painting everyone who doesn't support the mission as not supporting the troops. That is the majority, the vast majority of Canadians. Get their back up and see what happens

I don't think you oppose the mission for any other reason than your party does - crass political opportunism. If Martin had been re-elected you'd be sneering at those questioning the mission and questioning their patriotism.

As for supporting the troops - the Liberal Party has never supported our troops, anywhere. Liberals have a knee-jerk reflexive dislike and contempt for military people.

[Argus]

the last few posts have been entertaining!

here is what a right wing website is publishing...

It is CFP’s ardent belief that by agreeing to pull the decals, Miller was reinforcing the political agenda of his personal friend and former council colleague.

Layton’s calls to bring Canadian troops home from Afghanistan have never ceased.

Does Layton not wanting Canadian troops involved in Afghanistan not supporting them? This single paragraph proves to me what the right wing think, support for the troops equals support for the mission.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover062007a.htm

Layton doesn't give a shit about the troops. He and his party are mortally offended that we have military people involved in a military confrontation with "brown people" on the side of the United States. They despise the United States, and don't want us allying ourselves with them in any way.