Ribbon equals support of Troops

[Army Guy]

I've got a question, lets say your not a religious man, and your daughter, gave you a golden cross or some medal of a saint, and asked you to wear it because she believes in it....would you....

She sent you that ribbon, not because she thinks there is some hidden message in it, But it shows that you support the troops , that you support her... nothing more...

She's your daughter and she is looking for your approval, thats all, hey we all hung our kids art on the frig, we do it because we love them, not because there actual works of art...and be damned what anyone else thinks...it's your car and that ribbon represents anything you want it to be, in this case it's showing your daughter you approve of her carear choice and that you stand behind her as her father....

[Shakeyhands]

I've got a question, lets say your not a religious man, and your daughter, gave you a golden cross or some medal of a saint, and asked you to wear it because she believes in it....would you....

She sent you that ribbon, not because she thinks there is some hidden message in it, But it shows that you support the troops , that you support her... nothing more...

She's your daughter and she is looking for your approval, thats all, hey we all hung our kids art on the frig, we do it because we love them, not because there actual works of art...and be damned what anyone else thinks...it's your car and that ribbon represents anything you want it to be, in this case it's showing your daughter you approve of her carear choice and that you stand behind her as her father....

That I understand.

[jdobbin]

Really? And why would you say that?

If ignorance makes you question democracy, you already seem well on your way to rejecting the overall idea of it.

[Moxie]

I have no issue with homosexuals and their right to equality but really displaying their flag, why? Do hetrosexuals or metrosexuals get a flag day? NO, it's political correctness run amok to fly a flag to honour someone who has sex. Soldiers die while fighting for their country, the other has same sex. Hardly an equal analogy or cause so spare me the socialist bile and agenda. It's time for the gay community to toodle along and get a life. Their socialist supporters should find a cause worth fighting for-like battered and abused children, elder abuse, the homeless, the mentally ill.

[Alexandra]

Should we turn our back on our NATO treaty obligations because you don't like the party affiliation of the current US President?

Do you really think objection to a war/mission no matter where it is has anything to do with party affiliation?

How could anyone be left with the impression your objection to Canada's mission in Afghanistan has anything to do with party affiliation. <sarcasm off> Does this sound familiar Shakey?

My daughter, who is attending RMC and is currently in St Jean sur Richilieu QC at her BOTP course recently sent me one of these from the Canex store for a new vehicle I have, I'm hard pressed to put it on my vehicle because of the inferece that supporters of displaying these magnets also support Harpers views militarily.

`

[Shakeyhands]

I was refering to Geoff's assertion that we object to a mission based on the current US GOP, not the changes ours have made.

[CLRV]

A failure would have been the lion's share of the flow of gulf oil in the hands of Saddam.

And Saddam was left in charge of Iraq; a top producer (2 million barrels/day). As lions' shares go, that's pretty sweet.

[M.Dancer]

A failure would have been the lion's share of the flow of gulf oil in the hands of Saddam.

And Saddam was left in charge of Iraq; a top producer (2 million barrels/day). As lions' shares go, that's pretty sweet.

Now add Kuwaits 2.4 M BBl per day

after the war though....

Saddam had a wee bit of constraints on his oil revenues after the war...eh? The UN had placed the oil for food programme

[CLRV]

Give me a break, the liberals used to live by the polls, did'nt do anything without one....and when this all started the vast majority of Canadians did support this mission to the hilt...But you still have not mentioned WHY ?

Oh but I did mention it. Quite clearly.

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?

We were lied to. That's how the "majority" got involved (although I wonder how strong that "majority" actually was). At any rate, since then the lies have been exposed. It has become generally accepted by those in the know that the Taliban had no more to do with 9/11 than Saddam did.

Witness the power of those lies. Check out this chapter-and-verse recitation of those lies right here only a few days ago, despite all we've learned. The same old tired regurgitation. For further information, see also the shameful number of Americans who still somehow believe Saddam did it. In this age of disinformation; of shamelessly dishonest governments that peddle lies, is it any use appealing to what the "majority" did or did not do?

At any rate, I have also said the mission in Afghanistan (and Iraq) has turned the entire region into one big terrorist training camp.

Like i said before the liberals did nothing with out polls, and lets just say for augument sake they left you out, I still can not believe they would, being a almost golden soap box winner....you still have a vote, you still have the freedom of speach, freedom to contact your MP, freedom to demostrate, plenty of ways to get your voice , your opinion heard.

As I said, there was no referendum; no way for anyone to vote on the decision. As for demonstrations, they take place on a regular basis. No, the "majority" aren't there. They most likely have jobs and, as you point out, we are not a politically demonstrative people. Still the polls speak for themselves. Is it necessary in a democracy for the people to storm the barracades en masse before the government listens?

As far as the lack of equipment, your right, but like i said if you can't get the majority to stand up and speak as one vioce to save our troops in Afgan, how are you going to get them to agree to spend the bils we need for equipment.

As I said, we are not going to. Even those who still actually believe the lies that got us into this; those who are still driving around with those stupid ribbons on their bumpers, don't have the commitment. The belt-tightening, sacrifice and taxation increase that are necessary to win any war effort will still remain far beyond them. If the troops can't get that from the chickenhawks, how can anyone expect if from those of us who still think the best way to support the troops is to bring their asses home alive?

[CLRV]

Now add Kuwaits 2.4 M BBl per day

after the war though....

Still not a patch on the "lion's share" -- Saudi Arabia's 10.5 million barrels/day.

Saddam had a wee bit of constraints on his oil revenues after the war...eh? The UN had placed the oil for food programme

As I said before, those "constraints" only cemented Saddam's hold on power in Iraq and permitted him some of his worst butchering and repression. To wait ten years and then portray the next invasion as a humanitarian gesture based on our concern for those abuses would be laughable if it weren't so horrible.

[M.Dancer]

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?

That like saying that no one talked about putting a roof on while we were building a basement. Of course the US didn't attack and invade to build schools.....but if you want to make afghanistan a place where the Taleban aren't welcome you have to make the plce better....

[M.Dancer]

Now add Kuwaits 2.4 M BBl per day

after the war though....

Still not a patch on the "lion's share" -- Saudi Arabia's 10.5 million barrels/day.

Saddam had a wee bit of constraints on his oil revenues after the war...eh? The UN had placed the oil for food programme

As I said before, those "constraints" only cemented Saddam's hold on power in Iraq and permitted him some of his worst butchering and repression. To wait ten years and then portray the next invasion as a humanitarian gesture based on our concern for those abuses would be laughable if it weren't so horrible.

Ummm aftyer Kuwait, what would be stopping him from either overthowing the House of Saud of blackmailing him? Ergo he had the lion's share of the Gulf oil in his hands.

It rest as one of the monumental strategic goofs in world history that Saddam did not eliminate the Sauds and instead allowed it to become the staging ground for the colaition.

[CLRV]

Actually, it's more like burning someone's house to the ground on the pretense that they were harbouring a criminal in their basement, and then telling them what sort of house they were allowed to rebuild.

These analogies are so helpful, aren't they?

[Army Guy]

CLRV:

Oh but I did mention it. Quite clearly.

Yes you did, Although not clearly, it's muddie, and dripping with sarcasim, you mention something about our military not up to the task, (i think we've already proven that we are in fact still doing it) and all with a minority of support here in Canada.

You also mention about it being historically not accomplished yet...historically no one stepped foot on the moon before the 60's , but somehow we manged...

other than that , thats all i got out of that post, perhaps you can explain further, some of your real reasons for not supporting this Canadian mission.

Witness the power of those lies. Check out this chapter-and-verse recitation of those lies right here only a few days ago, despite all we've learned. The same old tired regurgitation. For further information, see also the shameful number of Americans who still somehow believe Saddam did it. In this age of disinformation; of shamelessly dishonest governments that peddle lies, is it any use appealing to what the "majority" did or did not do?

The same could be said from the left the same old tied excuses, they don't want to here the truth, any more than you do, WHY is that ? because the majority of Canadians just don't give a shit, atleast about what happens in Afgan, They are more concerned about our reputation, and the embrassment we the military might cause them if we do something bad, like rough up a few bad guys, or send them off to a prison that might be torturing one of those poor bastards....but what they always forget is if it had'nt been for those big goofy soldiers Canada would'nt have a reputation to defend...

At any rate, I have also said the mission in Afghanistan (and Iraq) has turned the entire region into one big terrorist training camp

We are not discussing Iraq here, but Afgan, and since spring the largest group of taliban that Canadians have engaged is 40, not bad for the entire region being turned into one big terrorist training camp. but then again maybe you know something i don't ...

As I said, there was no referendum; no way for anyone to vote on the decision. As for demonstrations, they take place on a regular basis. No, the "majority" aren't there. They most likely have jobs and, as you point out, we are not a politically demonstrative people. Still the polls speak for themselves. Is it necessary in a democracy for the people to storm the barracades en masse before the government listens?

Your right no referendum, no way to vote, as for the demostrations give me a break, a few thousand across the country is hardly speaking with one voice...and yet they sure heard the nation speak when Canadian soldiers where accused of roughing up serveral Taliban POW's all that took was one professor and a newspaper outlet...funney how he got all that attention...lets not even mention how Canadians near threw themself off cliffs when they found out we may of given some of those poor bastards to the Afgan government..and yet they can't find it within themselfs to voice that opinion about this mission, other than in polls...So if the people can't get themselfs off the couch to speak with one voice then they should be prepare for the long haul in Afgan...

As I said, we are not going to. Even those who still actually believe the lies that got us into this; those who are still driving around with those stupid ribbons on their bumpers, don't have the commitment. The belt-tightening, sacrifice and taxation increase that are necessary to win any war effort will still remain far beyond them. If the troops can't get that from the chickenhawks, how can anyone expect if from those of us who still think the best way to support the troops is to bring their asses home alive?

I'd just like to know when the left actually started to give a shit what happens to thier soldiers, the military has lobby for dozens of years for better equipment and vehs, using the safety issues and saving lives...to no avail, so why now does our lives mean so much to the left now....

Or is it we may now be on the track to recover for our depleted military that the left is stooping to these levels, to pretend to shed a tear, for the TV ... get on the band wagon we support our troops just not what you do, or how you do it. why is it so important to get us back in Canada ?

[Moxie]

Army guy wrote: I'd just like to know when the left actually started to give a shit what happens to thier soldiers, the military has lobby for dozens of years for better equipment and vehs, using the safety issues and saving lives...to no avail, so why now does our lives mean so much to the left now....

Or is it we may now be on the track to recover for our depleted military that the left is stooping to these levels, to pretend to shed a tear, for the TV ... get on the band wagon we support our troops just not what you do, or how you do it. why is it so important to get us back in Canada ?

That's a good question Army, when did the left start caring about our troops. For the twenty years I was part of the military there only interest was depleating the Military into a Peace Keeping force to brag about. Blue berets were much cheaper than an entire uniform oh and the fridge magnets. They showed no interest in properly equiping the Military, frankly they held us in contempt. Why the group hugs and carring now??????????????

[Mad_Michael]

Save the left-bashing for an issue that deserves it.

If the Canadian military has been shortchanged on equipment (and it has) then the federal politicians are 100% responsible for that.

Indeed, increasing spending on equipment for defense has been in the election platform of almost every winning government going back to Joe Clark. Clearly, one can't blame the voters for this since they keep voting in favour of it. It is the politicans that fail to deliver it.

[M.Dancer]

Indeed, increasing spending on equipment for defense has been in the election platform of almost every winning government going back to Joe Clark. Clearly, one can't blame the voters for this since they keep voting in favour of it. It is the politicans that fail to deliver it.

????

I would disagree.......my memory says that all politicians have virtually ignored the military and made a p[oint of ignoiring the military because there were no votes to be gotten by supporting it. To wit, when thelibs bought the grand father of the LAV, the grizzly, the pundist questioned why an armoured vehicled suited to urban insurgency warfare were needed......

[Army Guy]

Mad_Michael:

Save the left-bashing for an issue that deserves it.

Really, DND has started a major decline not only in status, personal, and equipment for the last 20 years. correct me if i'm wrong but the left has been in control of this nation for the majority of that time has it not. So why not bring bring it up as an issue.

If the Canadian military has been shortchanged on equipment (and it has) then the federal politicians are 100% responsible for that

Thats a good place to start, but then again i would put the Canadian people on that list as well. right and left.

Indeed, increasing spending on equipment for defense has been in the election platform of almost every winning government going back to Joe Clark. Clearly, one can't blame the voters for this since they keep voting in favour of it. It is the politicans that fail to deliver it.

being a citizen does'nt stop with with your one vote, there is plenty of opitions to make your opinion heard.

[Mad_Michael]

Really, DND has started a major decline not only in status, personal, and equipment for the last 20 years. correct me if i'm wrong but the left has been in control of this nation for the majority of that time has it not. So why not bring bring it up as an issue.

You have a short memory (or are just a young'un). The major systematic drawdown of the Canadian military began during the 1960s and early 70s, though one can argue that it began in the 1950s under Deifenbaker.

So, if you include Joe Clark's government and Brian Mulroney's two terms (let alone Deifenbaker's) then your attack on the left is spurious and reeks of selective partisanship.

being a citizen does'nt stop with with your one vote, there is plenty of opitions to make your opinion heard.

I have. And if I were going to become an activist on an issue, buying guns for the Canadian military is very, very low on my priority system. I've voted in favour of the policy and watched a dozen governments reneg. Not a big issue to me until someone comes along and tries to use it as a partisan weapon to attack the left. That's when I get annoyed since that is just rabid partisan bullshit.

[Army Guy]

Mad_Michael:

You have a short memory (or are just a young'un). The major systematic drawdown of the Canadian military began during the 1960s and early 70s, though one can argue that it began in the 1950s under Deifenbaker

Ok your right, i did'nt want to go back that far but since we are here, lets say it all started with unification, in the 60's and all that stood for. If i remember correctly it was under the liberals lester pearson, and Mr hellyer.

unification

As for the 50's that would be a hard argument to win, but Diefenbaker has been accussed of killing our nations military by some of our countries historians. but the below piece of history is hard to argue again'st.

The late 1950s saw a dramatic increase in the Army's size and Canada's largest ever standing army was created, largely through the vision of General G.G. Simonds the Chief of the General Staff. A new regiment, The Canadian Guards was created and both The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada and the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada became Regular Force regiments.

CDN Army

So, if you include Joe Clark's government and Brian Mulroney's two terms (let alone Deifenbaker's) then your attack on the left is spurious and reeks of selective partisanship.

Well if we have agreed on the start of the decline then lets add up the years shall we...

Years PC party was in command total 10 years

Years liberals were in command total 27 years...

Yes that reaks of selective partisanship

PM's

I have. And if I were going to become an activist on an issue, buying guns for the Canadian military is very, very low on my priority system

Believe it or not it's not on the top of mine either, but it does make the top 5. And if something does not happen in the near future it will become a major issue for Canadians, one that will change our nation forever.

I've voted in favour of the policy and watched a dozen governments reneg. Not a big issue to me until someone comes along and tries to use it as a partisan weapon to attack the left. That's when I get annoyed since that is just rabid partisan bullshit.

Actually it all stemmed from the someone on the left side arguing about "support your troops stickers" and the post grew from there. But i'm not the only military person on this forum that can trace our nations defense capabilities or the lack of, back to the liberal party, with PC's help thrown in there as well. It's not bullshit but the sad trurth.

[AngusThermopyle]

First off, to the person whose daughter sent them a ribbon. Display it. She is your daughter, you are supposed to love her unconditionally. To allow silly political assumptions to interfere with your support of your daughter seems rather callow and craven.

Based on personal experience I can state that in the past a significant number of Canadians did not support our troops. It's good to see this attitude is changing. When I served in Somalia some bright spark leaked our names and addresses to some very left leaning folks. Imagine my wifes delight the morning she woke up and discovered a fake body bag with my name on it outside our front door. Upon my return to Canada I was perplexed by the fact that younger Canadians reviled me as a baby killer. In fact the opposite was actually the case. The whole point of being there was to ensure the women and children weren't gunned down and received adequate food and medical supplies.

I still find it horrendous that the entire mission was sullied by the actions of one psychotic person and a cowardly commanding officer.