"Support The Troops"?

[Susan Steeves]

I found this guy's blog by accident after happening upon a story he wrote. Andres Kahar wrote a thoughtful and irreverent article about "supporting the troops". I doubt everyone will agree with everything he says but it's clear he cares about the subject and Canada. He has a sense of humor too.

http://arkahar.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/do...s-hate-freedom/

Do Canucks hate freedom?

‘Support the troops.’

That’s a recurrent and deafening refrain south of the border, in the United States. It’s become increasingly shrill over recent years, what with Operation Enduring Freedom, the Iraq War and the subsequent Surge.

Alas, “Support Our Troops” has become something of a refrain and issue here in Canada as well.

Traditionally, this kind of unquestioning rah-rah patriotism stoked by pro-war types in the US has helped Canadians differentiate themselves — culturally and politically — from their neighbours to the south.

------

<< edited due to plagiarism >>

Edited July 26, 2007 by Charles Anthony

[Higgly]

I support the troops. The mission in Afghanistan is a just mission. I just wonder why the principle injured party suddenly found something better to do. What would the picture be if Iraq had not suddenly become the priority out of left field? Ask yourselves. Where did this idea come from? Is Afghanistan more chaotic than it should be at this stage? Have more Canadians died than should have? Critical thinking, dear reader. Put a piece of straw in your mouth friend, we are being played for a yokel.

<<edited to add last sentence>>

Edited July 26, 2007 by Higgly

[ScottSA]

I support the troops. The mission in Afghanistan is a just mission. I just wonder why the principle injured party suddenly found something better to do. What would the picture be if Iraq had not suddenly become the priority out of left field? Ask yourselves. Where did this idea come from? Is Afghanistan more chaotic than it should be at this stage? Have more Canadians died than should have? Critical thinking, dear reader. Put a piece of straw in your mouth friend, we are being played for a yokel.

<<edited to add last sentence>>

ummmmm...no.

[Guest American Woman]

I support the troops. I've had a magnet on my car to that effect, and I've noticed more bumper stickers/magents in Canada in the past few months too.

Does supporting the troops mean one is supportive of the war? No. I support the troops, who had no more say regarding war than I did, but I don't support the war. I'm sure a good many of the troops do support the war, but a good many of them don't. Some of them believe in the terrorist threat from Iraq, some don't. Some are there 'to kill the evil doers,' others are there to help the Afghanis and Iraqis. So I support the troops and feel that they deserve better than what they are getting as far as pay, benefits, and rights. I don't think they should be spit on like the Vietnam vets were. I think since they are doing a service for our nation, they deserve our support.

Edited July 26, 2007 by American Woman

[Higgly]

Keep watching Scott. It'll come to you. Just keep your eye on the screen....

[Higgly]

I haven't seen anybody spit on the troops. I've seen a few who would have us believe that criticising the politics behind it is doing that, but those people are naive. The soldiers themselves may believe whatever they please, but once you join the military, that is immaterial.

[Guest American Woman]

The Vietnam Vets were bascially spit on when they returned home after the war was over; once the tide turned to being 'antii-war' in the States. I think that sucks, and I don't want to see the same thing happen again. As I said, one can support the troops without supporting the war.

As for what the soldiers themselves believe being immaterial, yes and no. That's correct in some regards, incorrect in others. But it's correct in that they have no choice really whether to be there or not. I find it interesting that Canada has chosen not to accept the Americans who refuse to serve in this war.

Edited July 26, 2007 by American Woman

[Higgly]

Deserters are not the same as draft dogers. Canada is not accepting deserters, is my understanding. Spitting on the Vietnam vets was a sorry state of affairs. My post meant I haven't seen anybody in Canada do that and I'd be surprised if we did.

[bush_cheney2004]

Traditionally, this kind of unquestioning rah-rah patriotism stoked by pro-war types in the US has helped Canadians differentiate themselves — culturally and politically — from their neighbours to the south.

That's what Americans are for.....to help Canadians "differentiate" themselves. Alas, they have dropped the ball, embracing the very foil that helps define them. Perhaps "Support the Troops" in English and French would do?

[Guest American Woman]

Deserters are not the same as draft dogers. Canada is not accepting deserters, is my understanding. Spitting on the Vietnam vets was a sorry state of affairs. My post meant I haven't seen anybody in Canada do that and I'd be surprised if we did.

Conscientious objectors aren't the same as deserters either. As for the spitting on vets, I was surprised that people in the United States did it. We don't know what people are capable of, I guess. But this is sort of interesting: I've read stories of vets (who were serving at the time-- ie: they weren't vets then) who were in Canada in uniform during the VN war and treated pretty shabbily. It's not the same since it wasn't your war, but I was surprised to hear it.

[Susan Steeves]

"<< edited due to plagiarism >>"

What plagiarism Charles Anthony?

[Charles Anthony]

"<< edited due to plagiarism >>"

What plagiarism Charles Anthony?

You are correct. Your Opening Post t is not plagiarism because you provided full credit.

I should have written << edited due to cross-posting >> in its stead. Cross-posting and opening a thread without any original contribution or commentary of your own is against this forum's guidelines.

[Topaz]

MY believe in 'supporting the troops" means doing what is right for them and the safety of them. Why are we in Afghanistan? The US went there to take out OBL for 9/11/. Well, OBL IS dead and buried in Saudi Arabia, near Mecca, since 2002 when a US missile took him out that was proven by DNA sample from the family. So why war we there, the only reason is for west, mostly the US, to get control over the area and the oil deposit there. That is one of the reasons Bush wants to go and bomb Iran because he doesn't want Iran to have control over the area and the oil. I think that Canada can produce enough oil for the US and itself and probably the whole world, so that reason doesn't stand and I don't want Canadians soldiers dying for OIL! Until the Afghans have another election and boot out the corrupt government, peace will not come to this area and IF the US does pull out all its troops in the Middle-East, were does that leave Canada and the other NATO troops?? Cheney and Bush have made the area a mess and I'm sure the people would like to see all foreigners just go home!

[ScottSA]

MY believe in 'supporting the troops" means doing what is right for them and the safety of them. Why are we in Afghanistan?

This is your argument? What is the point of having troops if all we're going to do is protect them? The rest of your post simply deals with dire and ridiculous hypotheticals.

[Shakeyhands]

The Vietnam Vets were bascially spit on when they returned home after the war was over; once the tide turned to being 'antii-war' in the States. I think that sucks, and I don't want to see the same thing happen again.

Pretty sure it was determined that this 'spitting' on the Viet Nam returnees never actually occured.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=viet+n...rs+return&meta=

[B. Max]

As I said, one can support the troops without supporting the war.

Undermining their mission is not supporting the troops, in a time of war it is considered treason.

[guyser]

As I said, one can support the troops without supporting the war.

Undermining their mission is not supporting the troops, in a time of war it is considered treason.

No sedition charges as well?

Is "not supporting" the same as "undermining"

[Guest American Woman]

As I said, one can support the troops without supporting the war.

Undermining their mission is not supporting the troops, in a time of war it is considered treason.

How am I undermining their mission by giving them my support? And please tell me you're not saying it's "treason" not to support a war??

[B. Max]

name='American Woman' date='Jul 27 2007, 04:31 PM' post='240399']

As I said, one can support the troops without supporting the war.

How am I undermining their mission by giving them my support?

The way to support the troops is support their mission. Therefore you are not supporting the troops, it's a bunch of leftist lip service. Their mission is the war against the Islamic terrorists, and as Bush said, you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists. You are giving moral aid to the terrorists in order to undermine the mission and the troops. So don't tell us you support the troops when in fact you are committing treason.

Edited July 28, 2007 by B. Max

[capricorn]

I support the mission, hence I support the troops. If Parliament votes not to extend Canada's involvement in this UN/NATO mandated mission beyond our commitment to Feb. 09, then there will be no mission to support. It's really that simple.

[jdobbin]

How am I undermining their mission by giving them my support? And please tell me you're not saying it's "treason" not to support a war??

I think some people throw around the word treason around pretty cavalierly. Next, they will say that elections shouldn't happen during a war because any opposition to the government is treason.

[capricorn]

Opposition to war is not treason. Anyone refusing to be a military combatant can claim the status of conscientious objector. Usually, this objection is based on one's religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

Now how about the anti-war group that distributed letters to Québec soldiers urging them not to follow the government's orders? They even wrote that if the soldiers followed orders they would be participating in war crimes. What are they called?

[jdobbin]

Now how about the anti-war group that distributed letters to Québec soldiers urging them not to follow the government's orders? They even wrote that if the soldiers followed orders they would be participating in war crimes. What are they called?

You would call them idiots. However, idiots can exercise freedom of speech. It doesn't mean they should face a firing squad or be black bagged by the government.

[capricorn]

Now how about the anti-war group that distributed letters to Québec soldiers urging them not to follow the government's orders? They even wrote that if the soldiers followed orders they would be participating in war crimes. What are they called?

You would call them idiots. However, idiots can exercise freedom of speech. It doesn't mean they should face a firing squad or be black bagged by the government.

I'm relieved that everyone involved was level-headed enough not to give this group any more credence than what they deserve. In some other countries, they would have been rounded up and would have disappeared never to be seen again.

In addition to freedom of speech, this is another quality of our country that I cherish. You are free to dissent and you will survive.

[Guest American Woman]

I support the mission, hence I support the troops. If Parliament votes not to extend Canada's involvement in this UN/NATO mandated mission beyond our commitment to Feb. 09, then there will be no mission to support. It's really that simple.

You may support the mission, but that doesn't automatically mean you support the troops. For one thing, you're saying I'm guilty of treason for not supporting the war, yet many of the troops who are there don't suport the war in that they don't believe in the war being just. So obviously you don't support those troops. I support them in that I don't want any more needlessly put in harm's way. I didn't want them there losing their lives in the first place. I'm sure there's a good number of troops who appreciate that kind of support. I also support them in that I don't think it's right to make them keep going back after they've served their time. That's being 'forced' to serve every bit as much as being drafted is, IMO. I also support better benefits, better healthcare when they get back, better treatment while they serve, better equipment as they're sent off to war, etc.

Supporting the troops, not the mission-- the troops, is by no means as "simple" as you claim.

Edited July 28, 2007 by American Woman