Support? Forget About It!

Since this is probably going to break out into a debate over the definition of the word support, here's a quick refresher for your perusal: www.answers.com/support

Political clap trap:
Support for the troops (no brainier)
Remembrance day should be a national holiday.
Long term plans needed, to ensure we have the best possible. Not just in times of war, scramble and fill wholes, I think Harper has done a poor job on all fronts.
If you think we should be in Afghanistan or not shouldn’t be an issue, when you are waving your pink ribbons. Please just get a life folks.

Saying you support the troops but oppose the mission would be like saying you support the Leafs, but hope they lose all their games and the best thing that could happen to the players would be for the team to fold.

I actually belive that until these protestors put on a pair of boots, give an afghani kid a chocolate bar, or guard a school so a little girl can learn to read, they will have no idea what they are talking about.

Until then they can support the troops by shutting their pie holes.

I think those of us who oppose "the mission" would be happy to explain why we think it is wrong. What we object to is the implication that since we oppose "the mission" we somehow wish ordinary soldiers ill. We don't.

We?

Exactly, exile. Don't set yourself up as speaking for anyone other than yourself...that is the road of 'hubris'.

And by the way, chris, I don't think the duties of our military are confined to handing out chocolate bars or guarding a school.

Islamic fascism is real. Its agenda is to destroy any and all who are not Islamic fundamentalists, either by murdering them or by enforced submission. If we want to live in a democratic system, based on the rule of law, the freedom of the individual, the acceptance of reason, questions, debate - then - I think the West has to fight for democracy against fascism.

"We support the troops" is leftist double speak for "I just can't stand being called on my bullshit!"

And make sure those GAY pride parades happen every year in T.O. Brings in lotsa $ that GAY tourism.

Bet the Afghanis never heard of it.

I realize the duties of our military are more complex. It's just that the protestors always boil it down to fighting George Bush's War on Terror.

So they say they oppose it because we are killing Afghani's (Taliban) as if that's all we're doing over there.

They say they support the troops while ignoring or minimalizing the good things our troops are doing, and focus on the dirty work.

I can understand hoping our soldiers aren't harmed, but not supporting the mission as unwinnable; provided:

- we don't use idiotic terms like blood for oil and Bush's war (utterly inaccurate)

- specifically can say what is wrong with mission and what can be done to ameliorate the situation (hint: this invariably means more soldiers not less, so be honest that you support that either, and that may be why mission is "unwinnable")

- we don't accuse them of war crimes, or let lefty flunkies like Michael Byers and apologists for Islamofascist terrorists do it for us

- have some faint idea of how a military mission is planned executed and won

- understand and accept that military action has its place (Jack Layton feels there is never justification), otherwise credibility of opinion is zero. I'm sure Layton supports sending troops to Darfur, provided they aren't actually sent there.

Otherwise, not really an informed opinion, eh?

I would really like to know why the leftist are against this mission. If someone said to me that they are against this mission because the people of Afghanistan can rot in hell and the best way to defend ourselves against islamofascism is to deport every muslim and don't let any into the country I could support them because that would at least be logical.

Yet we have complete idiots like Layton saying that we should negotiate with the taliban. What exactly would we negotiate? They would let half the girls go to school instead of none? They would let half of the women see doctors, instead of none? They would either stone all the homosexuals half to death, or half of them completely to death? They whine about civilian casualties. There are always going to be civilian casualties (This is another issue, but who is more culpable, a population who votes to send its soldiers to war, or the poor sucker who is drafted by the state, the person who builds the tank or the person who drives it?) but how many people have been saved because the other half the population is now allowed to see doctors? All the things that we are fighting to give to the Afghans are things that are supposedly sacred to the left.

I don't believe the leftics of the world are against the war, so much as they want us to loose. They are completely brain dead. The same people who say we should pull out of Afghanistan say we should go to Darfur. Whats the difference between these two scenarios? How the hell can you support a Darfur mission and be against Afghanistan? These people are completely brain dead, and they are as much the enemy as the islamofascists.

I'm anti-crime and anti-fire so let's eliminate the police and fire departments.

As you so eloquently elucidate, Mbaron, one of the big questions is why the residents of the extreme left of the isle are so opposed to the defence and promotion of freedom. Personally, I think it's because they are stark raving bonkers, just like those on the extreme right of the isle.

As Alan Charles Kors wrote, "The cognitive behavior of Western intellectuals faced with the accomplishments of their own society, on the one hand, and with the socialist ideal and then the socialist reality, on the other, takes one's breath away. In the midst of unparalleled social mobility in the West, they cry "caste." In a society of munificent goods and services, they cry either "poverty" or "consumerism." In a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives, they cry "alienation." In a society that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians to an extent that no one could have dreamed possible just fifty years ago, they cry "oppression." In a society of boundless private charity, they cry "avarice." In a society in which hundreds of millions have been free riders upon the risk, knowledge, and capital of others, they decry the "exploitation" of the free riders. In a society that broke, on behalf of merit, the seemingly eternal chains of station by birth, they cry "injustice." In the names of fantasy worlds and mystical perfections, they have closed themselves to the Western, liberal miracle of individual rights, individual responsibility, merit, and human satisfaction. Like Marx, they put words like "liberty" in quotation marks when these refer to the West."

Some people want to defeat our advancement of civilization. Are Canadians not allowed to invoke self defense, in the proxy of our Canadian Forces, in the name of our accomplishments?

And if Canadians do so, are they not then supporting the Canadian Forces, in that role?

Or would you rather be stoned to death without modern due process, such as it is?

An interesting thought, based on aj in Calgary's posting...

Soooner later the lefties are going to demand they have a Gay Pride Parade in Kabul, protected by our military.

That wouold test my commitment to helping instill "Canadian Values".

Unless, of course, our men in uniform just helped them get the parade underway, then moved off to other duties...

Gee, exile...I'm sure glad that those of your ilk weren't around in World War II, when Canada, a country of about 12 million, had over one million people in our armed forces, fighting the Nazis...

Oh wait...your ilk WAS there, opposed to the war...back then, they called themselves members of the CCF, the forerunner to the NDP...

Some things just never change...

And...exile....Given Tommy Douglas' endorsement of eugenics, which included forced sterilization of those who were then-termed "imbeciles"...maybe the "Father of Medicare" had a lot more in common with Hitler than previously thought...perhaps that's another reason why the CCF were nazi apologists...

The major thing that ticks me off is the number of emails and petitions that were shoved in my face by leftists in the 1999-2000 era, demanding that the world act on Taliban atrocities against women and freedom.

Now, those same lefties are demanding that we negotiate with the Taliban, or, failing that, stop fighting and geld our soldiers with jobs away from the front.

You can't have it both ways. Well, if you're a conservative you can't, but apparently hypocrisy is a way of life on the other side of the spectrum.

I fail to see what eugenics has to do with supporting the Canadian Forces. Can we perhaps maintain some semblance of topic here?

There is an apt analogy. The individual saying he/she supports the troops, just not the mission is like the spouse abuser telling his/her partner that he/she loves him/her, just not their behavior, as they beat the heck out of them. We don't buy it from them and, if we're smart, we won't buy it from the mission haters. You cannot separate the two. Cheers.

History has proven you cannot force a set of ideals down an entire peoples throat from the barrel of a gun....Go ask the British and Russian armies that tried just that in Afghanistan prior to Canada giving it a shot. In fact go ask any colonial army that tried to do it in any number of countries over the past 100 years.

and let's try to stay away from the completely ignorant rhetoric like "we're fighting them over there so they don't come here"....

And finally for this fine Friday evening...since when did a Conservative-leaning person ever care about the collective society...for people who would happily applaud the end of state-sponsored social assistance programs right here in Canada, to argue that our government has set themselves up in Afghanistan for altruistic purposes is suspect motive at best. Why don't we spend billions of dollars getting our own house in order first before trying to convince others, by force, that it is what they should be striving for.

Sean S. shows he doesn't have a flipping clue about conservative mindset.

Go back to babble, where people will agree with you about your skewed worldview. You are a wack job, son, so stop telling me what conservatives thing or don't think.

Now, now, Sean, let's not be silly here. Everybody cares about their collective society, because they can't escape it, unless one is a lone trapper like me. Either way, there's no need to throw around irrelevant labels in some sort of attempt to escape responsibility.

Went to the rally at the Toronto Sun today for the troops and listened to Jody Mitic, who lost his legs stepping on a mine in Afghanistan, tell how when he joined the military in 1994 they were treated poorly by the politicians and the Canadian public. They were ignored and felt isolated from society. He feels the support both in logistics and public feeling is much stronger now and he and the troops appreciate the warmth and caring they now see. They see from the field how the home front is reacting.

It sickens me when I see leftists like Layton, Miller and their fellow travellers living in the freedom and comfort provided by the courage of our troops yet undercutting them at every turn. I would give all I have to see Layton dropped by helicopter in front of the Taliban and start negotiating. Sure they could put his little pursed lips to good use before they cut his head off, still talking of course.

Layton doesn't have the guts to visit Afghanistan...I'm not sure what he would be more afraid of...the response of the Taliban, or the reception he would get from our troops...

Cbc supports our troops. Stories on schoolgirls slaughtered this month by taliban-3,2 on cbc radio,1 in print, online world news.Cbc is against the taliban,stories on thier "possible" abuse while detaind, OMG,way too many to count,last I checked over 400. Hmmm.Where do I write the ombudsman?

Sean S is not expressing things illogically.. It is just that he starts from a false premise. We simply do not believe that state sponsored programs are the best way to help 'collective society'. In most cases they are the bane of collective society. Faith based groups (think churches), individual charity and philanthropy (think rich capitalist pigs) have always been far more efficient at 'giving a hand up rather than a hand-out.' State sponsored programs seem to be designed to keep people down, thereby ensuring the job-security of the social workers, et al that rely on this for their own livelihood.

One of the biggest fallacies is that we are over there as conquering force when in fact we are there to support the legitimate Afghanistan government. Leftoids probably believe that we (the west) are just trying to push our way of life upon the rest of the world.

BTW, it is like the racism card: we are always accused of being racist (us white anglo-saxons that is) when in fact most of the other world has some discrimination.

Exactly Wayne.
Conservatives simply recognize that the best way to improve the collective is through individual endeavour. Socialists think that any individual endeavour takes away from the collective wellbeing. What the socialists fail to understand is that the generation of wealth required to improve the lot of the collective is always through individual endeavour.

Sean S. you are a friggin idiot. I get a kick out of how you say "History has proven you cannot force a set of ideals down an entire peoples throat".

Maybe if you *ACTUALLY* knew some history of the region you *WOULD* get proven something.

The British went into Afghanistan only for the purpose of protecting thier trade routes from the bandits that roamed the area. They had no desire for a permanent colony there and had no designs on ANYTHING Afghanistan had. Read what some of the Lords and military men of time wrote about that dump. It was merely an inconvenient gap between Europe and the far East which THEY WERE interested in.

As far as the Russians go. They felt they had little choice but to go in. Iran was formenting revolution in the Afghan government and it was threatening to spill over with muslim unrest in the USSR's southern (muslim dominated) republics. Russia couldn't have nutcase muslims on their southern border inciting revolt within the USSR itself so they went in.

Afghanistan is an infected hemmoroid on the asshole of the world. Nobody in their right mind has ever *WANTED* to conquer the place on its value alone. They've only invaded when the opium addicted, low life scum losers that live there start making trouble for everyone else. Hmm . . . kind of sounds like Sept. 11/2001 doesn't it?

So you little left wing dickless wonder if you're going to give history lessons, try to actually *READ* some history first ok?

Here's a post from someone named Sheldon Maerz that appeared on one of the Globe and Mail free for all boards in response to this story. Suspect this fellow is in the CF:

The instant gratification society of Canada wins again - we are not going to fix Afghanistan in 2 years or even 5 years - try at least 20. The hope is we stay long enough so that the Afghan young can see a better way forward than grabbing a gun and settling scores - or joining some terrorist training camp and then setting out to strike at the west, as terrorists did prior to 2001, and will do again if NATO collapses and leaves. And don't any of you dare lecture me and say if I was so commited,why don't I rush down the to the local recruiting center. All you brilliant minds here should be able to figure out who has first hand experience in Afghanistan and who doesn't, and is merely blowing smoke out of their ass. If Canada, and by extension, the western powers give up on Afghanistan, we will never be trusted in much of the world again. Much of the population there supports our presence and desires it. To turn on them now, will mean we are complicit in one of the biggest slaughters that will follow. To turn on them now will mean that the people of Canada are okay with not assisting fellow human beings on their ascendency to a future where their children may have the chance to live in peace, or how about just live. How about you naysayers get off your asses and travel to Afghanistan to find out some facts for yourselves. It can be done, and until then, why don't you seek out someone who has served there, whether with the military, Foreign Affairs, CIDA over even an INGO or NGO and ask them if we should leave instead of posting your smug bluster here. If we leave in 2009, we will disgrace ourselves as a Nation in the fact that we failed to stand for some of the most basic principles of humanity. If that disgraceful day comes we, as a Nation, better learn to shut up lecturing others on how they should conduct themselves, world-wide.

"Simple really, no decent human can ever claim to support another if they don’t consider the dreams, aspirations, thoughts, and philosophies of that person. In other words, you can’t claim to support the soldier, when you leave the soldier out of the equation. To do so is incredibly paternalistic and insulting ... yet so perfectly leftist."

That may be the most naive and simplified statement I've read in a long while. Not to mention horribly partisan. I support our troups. I support what we are doing in Afghanistan. But... wow. Think of a few examples otherwise, I'm sure that you can.

*
Funny, CTV completely missed this

They went instead, with with the video closeups
of soldiers grieving family members slumped
over their loved one's caskets.

There's not supporting... and there's aiding &
abetting the enemy.

*

Come to think of it, it would be nice if "I support the troops but oppose the war" changed to "I oppose the war, but will consider respectfully the opinions of soldiers who disagree with me."

Chalk that up as Semester 2 of Remedial Patriotism.

A side thought: The slogan "I support the troops but oppose the war" would have a certain kind of credibility if the antiwar Left was full of taxpayers...

"Why don't we spend billions of dollars getting our own house in order first before trying to convince others, by force, that it is what they should be striving for."

Because most of the people in Afghanistan WANT to be free and are willing to work thier tails off to achieve that. On the other hand most of those in Canada would just like to sit on their ass collecting pogey.

Horny Toad

"Because most of the people in Afghanistan WANT to be free and are willing to work thier tails off to achieve that."

I'll trust you know the collective sentiment of the Afghani people.
Probably developed from your observations while on patrol with the military, otherwise you would be merely another apocryphally confident armchair warrior.

Chris

You have it right. Let them walk a mile with our men in A--------n and until they do " shut their pieholes"is a proper response.

GLOBE AND MAIL RETRACTS HEADLINE
June 19, 2007

Today the Globe and Mail retracted a significant headline about Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay from June 15, 2007 with a tiny, 42 word correction on page two.

http://conservative.ca/EN/2874/82189

GLOBE AND MAIL RETRACTS HEADLINE
June 19, 2007

Today the Globe and Mail retracted a significant headline about Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay from June 15, 2007 with a tiny, 42 word correction on page two.

http://conservative.ca/EN/2874/82189

Posted by: Andrew at June 23, 2007 2:40 AM

Andrew...would be nice if the site gave a link to the ACTUAL article to prove it! I just want to capture it for later...thanks

"Why don't we spend billions of dollars getting our own house in order first..."

Yes, we do that so well don't we? Gun registry. HRDC. AdScam. Native Affairs.

Shall I go on?

This is just another sad excuse from someone who really doesn't give a s**t about the Afghani people.

No nation ever "gets it's house in order" to the satisfaction of the left - therefore, they need never concern themselves with the plight of others.

I'm all right, Jack (Layton).

CJUnk: In the end, it is possible to oppose the mission yet support the troops ... there are any number of reasons why soldiers may be wrong in their belief in the mission.

Tell that to Kate: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005370.html.

Remember when PM Harper said that no deadline would be set for withdrawing Canada's forward military presence from Afghanistan, and that the mission would not end until we achieved "success"? Well, change of plan: 3w.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5385ad59-4588-4357-998e-eb8e1b896f3a&k=28482

To his credit, he gets something that certain folks here do not: "My own sense, listening to the comments of some leaders of the opposition, of the Liberal leader, the Bloc leader is that I don't think they are suggesting, based on recent comments, that we would simply abandon Afghanistan in 2009."

I think the fundamental issue for the leftards is that they can't stand the fact that the Canadian troops are very good at killing the enemy.....everything is "kumbaya" when they are handing aid over to tin-pot dictators, but soon as the work gets a little dirty, look out....I suppose they think that there would be no violence in darfur???are these people complete retards????as my vegan, tree-hugging, arts degree'd daughter-in-law found out when she went to Ethiopia, if not for the armed soldiers guarding her, she would not be here today

The undeniable truth is the Leftasses are loath to war for ANY reason. They're time warped in the Peacenik era in the 70's.

They hate the present mission to fight terrorism and contain it at it's source, they say they support the soldiers, THEY'RE LIARS, they say support them because of public outcry only.

We have the best suited person as Defence Minister in memory, the Leftasses and their Media extension are bent on getting him canned. They forget some of the useless tools the Liberals had in that Ministry, McCallum comes to mind, he didn't know VIMY FROM VICHY.

It's a difficult task to govern with the Left and their fifth column in the media constantly spinning and pushing their opinions as facts.
We have to go to the various members ourselves to get the truth, it's not difficult, they all have emails and telephones.

To all those that say they support the troops but not the mission, I call BULLCRAP! Sorry you can't have it both ways.

The job of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy. If you maintain that you support the troops then this is what you are supporting. To maintain anything else is the purest form of hypocrisy.

Everytime I hear this "I support the troops but not the mission" tripe I want to hurl. Imagine saying I support firefighters but not putting out fires or I support the police but not the enforcement of the law. It is the same thing. You cannot support someone without supporting what it is they do.

I'm sorry but I have to call BULLCRAP on your BULLCRAP, Jim. If PM Jack Layton (yeah, I know, a nightmare, but for the sake of argument...) unilaterally sent our troops to Holland to crush democracy and instill socialism, I would NOT support the mission, even though I support the troops.

In the particular case of Afghanistan, I support the mission whole-heartedly. If the mission were "wrong", then how could I support the mission? The troops are fighting at the direction of the politicians, not necessarily for the good of Canadians...if the politicians have the wrong perspective or philosophy, how can the war be "right" or "justified", no matter how honourable the troops?

The dispute in Afghanistan is "right"...UN-approved and NATO-led, intended to drive an oppressive and brutal theocracy out of the country and allow a "free" society to develop and flourish. The "right" mission for the "right" reasons...and they have the support of the Afghani government and apparently that of the citizens.

Lefties oppose the war seemingly because war is bad and nothing more in depth than that. Well, war IS bad, but sometimes necessary...and that is the point that they miss.

Its cheap and intellectually lazy to label the Afghanistan mission as George Bush's war. The reason NATO is in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of the events of September 11, 2001.

How different would this domestic debate/polling be if an equivalent attack had been staged in Toronto or Montreal in 2001? Canadians witnessing other Canadians jumping out of skyscrappers or being crushed by concrete en masse might have changed this debate a bit, don't you think?

If the West (including Canada) doesn't physically and intellectually challenge Islamic Facism on all fronts, it will utimately be destroyed by it and subjugated. There won't be any protests in our cities and towns, just a mass daily call to prayer.

Sean S-re not being able to force ideas down a peoples throat. HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF TRUDEAU AND HIS CHARTER. That was forced on cdns by liberals. It has been abused by leftists for years. Every hear of SSM, same thing.

Not supporting the mission encourages the enemy and costs lives. One either supports the troops and the mission, or one doesn't. There's no in between.

To say one supports the troops and not the mission is to say one supports more dead troops.

I seem to be the only one that noticed Helen Thomas' nuclear leftist meltdown yesterday. Maybe it's just because she always does this?
It's extremely moonbatish, at any rate:
http://no-libs.com/?p=1811

Q What are they charged with? What are they — what did they do?
MS. PERINO: These are unlawful enemy combatants that intended to harm the United States or other Western civilization —

Q That we have designated — were they defending their own country?
MS. PERINO: No, I don’t think they were. They were intending to hurt innocent people.

Q This isn’t a matter of thinking. Do you know?
MS. PERINO: Mark, you’re on this topic?