Support the mission. You cannot have it both ways. To withhold support for their mission is to advocate their – and our – defeat.
Finally, a poll done in the US demonstrates that a significant percentage of Democrats understand this. Ace of Spades
A full 34% of our troop-supportin’ patriotic loyal opposition flatly wishes failure upon the US military.
I suppose some people may not fully listen to the question, so within that 34% are some respondants who just figure the more “No’s” they offer the more strongly they register their opposition, and some people who add the interpretation “I don’t want the surge to succeed, because I don’t want it to happen in the first place.”
But I don’t think you get to 49% based on misunderstanding the question alone, do you?
I shudder to think what the percentage would be if such a poll were taken here.
Rerun the polls after people listen to Omar Brooks say “when we take over…”.
“I support the troops, but not the mission” is the cowards way out.
Some flower children are so bloody frightened at the mere thought of confrontation or violence, they automatically reject anything military, because those nasty soldiers might actually have to do something. Soldiers represent everything bad in the world.Their (lack of) knowledge of history helps their position.
Likewise, when confronted on home turf by aggressive activists of any cause or religion, they are quick to capitulate, though they call it “negotiation”.
Some bloggers call these folks “sheeple”. I don’t, but won’t argue the point.
Remember Bill Hicks:
“I find myself in the unfortunate position of supporting the mission but not the troops.”
Too bad we can’t separate the leftards from the rest of us, send them all to france and let them be brutalized by whoever conquers them first…
It would be good sport. In fact, it would almost make TV worth watching again!
Perry Jefferies served as a First Sergeant in Iraq:
“I think so, but this question has become a minefield set for political purposes and tends to engender more acrimony than support for anything…I think that often neither side has really thought through what they are saying.”
Marissa Sousa spent a year in Iraq as a Staff Sergeant in a tank unit:
“Supporting the troops is as American as apple pie, or as baseball. I think the best supporter is the one that questions why the troops are sacrificing their lives, their buddies, and their families, to fight. The best supporter is the one that understands the troops, and fights for their rights both on the ground and on their return.”
Monroe Mann is an actor and National Guard Soldier who returned last year after a year in Iraq:
“I think it is completely possible to be against the war, but support the troops…None of the troops decided of their own volition to start the war. They were simply doing a job. I think most Americans realize this.”
Ray Kimball served as an Army Captain in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and mentions Cher, Henry Rollins and others who break the stereotype: “It seems contradictory, but I say yes – you can be against the war, and still support the troops. ‘Support’ doesn’t mean a bumper sticker, and it doesn’t mean an endless litany of praises and recitation of the virtues of those in uniform. It means real, concrete actions to support those tasked with carrying out a dirty and difficult task.”
Keith Klewe served in Afghanistan, and had this to say: “I’m 100% for the troops, whether they are U.S. troops, Coalition troops or Iraqi and Afghan troops. I’m all for fighting for something you believe in. I believe in the individual motivation of all soldiers to do the right thing, support their country, make things better. At the same time, I’m 100% against war with no objective.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/can-you-support-the-troop_b_26192.html
I have many friends who have their family serving in Iraq. Naturally they support the troops. They don’t support the war.
Les
I’ll tell you what Canadian’s should support…we should be supporting a victory for our troop’s mission in Afghanistan. We need to remind the timorous anong us that Canada wnt into the Afghan theater after the US had laegely cleared insugent forces back to the Pakistani border. Canada was essentially peace keeping and facilitaing the new duely elected democratic government in its job of rebuilding public institutions and regaining order and working infrastructires.
Canada’s peace keeping forces were attacked by insurgents who hole up in Pakistan and run every new offensive from that stronghold. This Taliban insugency has no legitimate claim of being “freedom fighters” as the people’s choice of governing regime therefore it is a foreign regime forcing its governnace on Afghanis with geurrila warfare and terroism. Our troops are all that stand between unarmed Afghanis and this terror force.
Our troops have done a masterful job in controlling and repelling these insurgent attacks and baiting and capturing terror cells but there are political road blocks that preclude a fully successful mission in the Afghan theater.
1) The opium trade/poppy crop are being protected by the CIA ( who are in field command of the Afghan theater)Canadian command has repeatedly stated the poppy harvest and production of opium nust be destroyed because they continue to extend the war with the Taliban using heroin poppy crops to fund its war against the elected Afghan government. Canada’s field commander has repeatedly asked for political help in iradicating the poppy crop to end the war sooner.
2) Pakistan is not politically motivated to actively root out and destroy Taliban military camps in the Pakistani mountains where Taliban forces retreat after each loss to Canadian forces to regroup, rearm, recruit, retrain and relaunch insugency. Canadian Command has also stated that unless these strongholds can be attacked the war will continue.
We need to pressure the government to resolve these roadblocks to Canadian mission success in Afghanistan. Every RCR member I have talked to who has done service in Afghanistan has stated they have won the war there…3 separate times.
Support a victory if you want to honor our troops.
If you do not support a victory you do not have any empathy with our troops as this is why they are there and why they fight.
IF our politicians cannot clear the political road blocks for this victory, then they dishonor our troops and prolong the conflict with their inaction.
Of course it is possible to be in favour of the troops without being in favour of the war.
You can also be opposed to Israel without being an anti-semite.
BUT, it is a lot less likely that you are for the troops when you are against the war and it is the tiny minority who are against Israel but not a bigot.
It’s also statistically possible to win the lottery but it’s still damn unlikely.
I love you Kate and appreciate you a lot, but sometimes I disagree. While I strongly support the Canadian troops, and their mission, I do believe it’s possible to support the troops but not support A mission, or aspects of A mission.
However, any Canadian who does not support THIS mission, especially on humanitarian grounds, needs to snap out of it. Unless, of course, they are overt Taliban supporters, in which case they need to drop dead. Anyone who does not support this mission is supporting the Taliban and their regressive ideas of society – either overtly, or naively.
Anyone who does not support THIS mission need not speak any more of human rights, especially women’s rights. They will have lost any and all real world credibility.
I thought that “support the troops” meant something along the lines of “respect the sacrifice and work that the troops are doing whether you support the war or not”. That is a unifying definition of the phrase that prevents the kind of thing that the troops in Vietnam faced when support for that mission went south, as it has done with the current mission in Iraq.
People on the right have co-opted that phrase for their purposes, trying to turn it into “support the war”. People on the left have to a lesser extent also tried to co-opt the phrase, trying to turn it into “bring our troops home”. Both of those definitions are polarizing, and against the spirit of the original purpose of the phrase.
I understand the argument, unfortunately, the reality of the question is the same. Not supporting a successful mission is to undermine the troops in theatre. And what’s more, it undermines the troops sent to future ones. What we are witnessing in Iraq is an insurgency that is given strength by the knowledge that though US forces won every major confrontation with the North Vietnamese, won the more recent skirmish in Somalia, but were forced to retreat in defeat by a oppositional press and vocal minority at home who successfully rewrote the narrative.
That means that those troops facing the next mission – which you may very well support – are going to pay the price for your actions today, by having to fight all the harder, and die in greater numbers than they otherwise would have needed to.
In the end, if you live in a democracy, and do not support the objectives of a military mission, your best path is still to support doing what it takes to bring them home as victors – and then sort out which politicians and policies you will punish after the fact.
As I said – you cannot have it both ways. Undermine the mission = enbolden the enemy. You will undermine those very men and women you claim to support. It’s a logical contradiction.
as a former soldier, and with very close friends who are serving, or who have served in Afghanistan, I would like to offer this:
1. soldiers NEVER, NEVER want to go to war(except for the very few deranged)
2. war is a political decision, and once that decision is made, it is cowardly and treasonous to undercut, underfund or underequip the troops
3. if you are against the war, protest PMSH, the CPC, the LPC(u know, the ones that sent them), but keep your personal insults to yourselves…you only hurt the families.
many military types frequent this site(most of my buddies), and I must say that, overall, it is very gratifying to see the level of support for the troops that comes from here…GO ARMY!
Well put.
Since your argument is based on saving lives though, I must point out: the easiest way to do that is to bring the troops home.
You’re going to have a tough time arguing that people who disagree with a war ought to support it in order to save lives.
I think both sides of the argument have merit. In a democracy, we should not be forced to support any war, simply because we feel it necessary to “support the troops”.
That said, our troops in Afstan are all volunteers. They are there by choice. There is not one soldier over there who could not manufacture an excuse to not go that would be accepted if they really wanted to.
So, if you do not support the mission, you are telling the troops that they risk their lives for something you do not agree with. Can you say “I support you but you are wasting your life”?
That said, I find myself disagreeing with, not the mission, but the way this war is being fought, although my criticisms mostly belong in the “faster, please” category.
Yet I still consider myself supporting the troops and the mission.
People can offer constructive criticism and still be supporters.
Kate said… ‘As I said – you cannot have it both ways. Undermine the mission = enbolden the enemy. You will undermine those very men and women you claim to support. It’s a logical contradiction.”
It’s a logical contradiction only under your chosen set of assumptions, Kate. I expect that you recognize that.
If some Canadians feel that a given mission is doomed to fail, or is misguided, or is just plain wrong, should they pretend otherwise? Which views or political positions of your own are you willing to keep silent on while others speak out against them?
Is it me, or does it seem that sometimes the line between Iraq and Afghanistan gets a little blurred?
As said many times before, Canadian soldiers were deployed on a humanitarian mission. They came under fire. They returned fire. Some people died. Taliban is running. Stability is returning to area. ….We are not conquering crusaders trying to force our way of life down anyone’s throat. We are doing what Pearson would expect of us(he was no pussy). If we leave Afghanistan now, the death toll would be staggering. Therefore, by staying, we are protecting life. That is what REAL peacekeeping is all about.
Am I against Bush’s plan to let radical Shiites take over Iraq via “democracy”? Hell yes I am and I don’t care what neo-cons cry over that position. This is global foreign policy, not “team spirit” night at the high school football game. Neo-cons need to take their heads out of their *sses.
I support the Saskatchewan Roughriders, I just don’t want them to win. Make sense?
The sad truth is that the west has to win this war. The credibility of the west is at stake here. Just how many allies do you think the US, Britain, Australia, etc would have if they went in to help people only to leave them high and dry? “trust me, I’m your fair weather friend”. Thousands of Iraqis died after the first gulf war because the US didn’t protect their Iraqi friendlies from Saddam like they said they would.
Another pathetic fact is that a lot of Canadians don’t know the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq.
I’m not sure there is a whole lot of difference between Iraq and Afghanistn.
I think there are many people in both the US and Canada that tend to display a loss of support for the war against Islamofascism on the 2 battlefronts at the moment .. Iraq and Afghanistan, not because they don’t support the mission but because they want victory now. However , victory seems so elusive.
The lack of support for the Iraq “surge” may not be what it seems, it may simply be that people don’t think it will win the day. This is about winning not losing.
My worry is that if you look at historical decisive victories ….how did they happen in Japan and Germany for example?
Unfortunately I’m beginning to think it will take a Harry S Truman kind of bombing decision to flatten out these terrorists sufficiently to let the locals take over their own defense and let us get out of there.
My conversations with people, mothers especially, reveals not so much that they are squeamish about a military offensive, in fact they are more inclined to say why don’t we pull out all the stops, send in the Stealth Bombers and get this thing over with and not put our young people in so much danger.
Unfortunately, that may not work. Because what has to happen is for enough democracy to take hold such that the locals can learn to defend themselves against the Taliban and Al Q etc. Only democracy and the related institutions of courts and Central Banks and free commerce are going to replace the poppy trade and oil funding and create real jobs and a real middle class in the hell holes of the Middle East.
So this is a very long war. But a large proportion of our public just isn’t prepared psychologically for supporting the mission one step at a time for a decade or so.
So what do we do? … Knowing we’re really fighting Pakistan and Iran and Hezbollah and the Taliban and on and on … I think we need to at least put on the table some Harry S Truman potential solutions. Maybe that’s what Taliban Jack means by negotiating with the Taliban? Maybe Jack wants to tell them to disarm or we send in the bombers. .yethink?
Again with the football analogies. Do you clowns ever stop to think what you mean when you say “win”?
I didn’t think so. Our position in the world will be greatly improved when we stop trying to control via flashing our big military c*ck all over the place and start taking foreign policy seriously.
nomdenet:
Nuke ’em. Now there’s a policy that will make us and the world a safer place. No one would ever try to get revenge for that. As for the “10 year” plan (sounds like Stalin was behind that), your idea of “democracy” is no different than what they have in Iran. Gee, that would be great for us and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s put the radical Shiites in charge. Super.
“In the end, if you live in a democracy, and do not support the objectives of a military mission, your best path is still to support doing what it takes to bring them home as victors – and then sort out which politicians and policies you will punish after the fact.”
As somebody who was skeptical of Iraq going in, I would agree that this statement nails it. People should try to debate the strategies of how to win in Iraq rather than the supposed causes of the war…
I think the biggest problem in Iraq is the fact that the Americans are perceived either as weak(ie. they don’t torture Iraqis) and that the Iraqis don’t trust the Americans (pulling out in 1990).
The best way to break down skepticism is deal ruthlessly with the insurgents(allow the Iraqi army to torture them) and to use an oil spot strategy (which is now the case) against the insurgents.
Concentrate troops around key cities with friendly locals (Basra, Shia Baghdad) and flood the area with reconstruction aid, then enlist the support of said locals in the Iraqi army. The provisional elections last summer showed that there are promising signs.
This strategy is very time consuming but it ultimately worked against N. Vietnamese insurgents from 1969-1972.
S. Vietnam essentially fell due to regular Northern army units – not due to insurgents. Sadly I don’t think most Americans have the stamina or the stomach to follow through with this strategy for the next 5 years (which is what it’s gonna take).
Even if Iraq fails, the Americans might still be able to win in the sense that it’ll buy time for other Arab states to democratize (Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al.).
Afghanistan is a completely different kettle of fish and totally justified unless you’re a pacifist. We have strong local allies (the Northern Alliance), it’s a NATO mission, it’s in self-defense (the US was directly attacked on 9/11), etc. The insurgents are coming in over the Pakistani border areas. To deal with it, we’ll need old fashioned bribery, air power, and ground troops just like the successful invasion of Afghanistan.
Stability in Iraq was lost the day that Al-Sadr was allowed to walk away at the start of the insurgency. The Mosque and whole area around al-Sadr should have been levelled as a warning to other warlords.
When you make opposition risk-free, you encourage it.
As for support for war, you can be against the war and for the troops after the war, before the war but not during the war. During the war you either root for the win or keep it shut. People who cut the legs out from under the military during wartime used to be referred to as traitors. They were formerly hung for it.
You minimize death and conflict by being seen as an insurmountable obstacle. When the other side thinks that there is nothing to gain from going up against you but death, they’re less likely to do so. If they see benefits, they will do so. Al-Sadr’s power was greatly enhanced by being allowed to live. It was a win and he was then seen as the “strong horse.” Other warlords followed suit and now we have a problem. Take the gloves off, kick out the vermin in the press. Prosecute the NYT and other media for leaking state secrets, and start f’ing things up in Iraq real good. Make the locals fear you or the local will kill you instead.
You have to be willing to be brutal in order to maintain control and ultimately minimize deaths overall. The West no longer understands this.
We often hear of “Marshall Plans” and other such things. Fine. Win first, rebuild after. The problem is that in order to rebuild, you have to win. Wining means crushing the fight out of the enemy. That means killing the enemy to such an extent they no longer have the will to resist. In Japan that meant nuking a few cities and firebombing most of the rest. Germany was rubble. Iraq has (comparatively) suffered very little and what of it they have suffered they have suffered at the hands of the warlords wrecking the stability and sabotaging the new government.
The other problem is that the Americans are so good at fast, precision warfare that not enough of the enemy and its infrastructure are destroyed to take the fight out of the enemy. Kind of a conundrum… you have to fight less precise and do it slower in order to destroy enough stuff that the enemy acknowledges his loss and gives up the fight.
I think the bottom line for people who don’t support the mission in Afghanistan (schooling for girls, for instance)is that despite all their flowery rhetoric about human rights, peace and understanding, they couldn’t care less what happens to the Afghan people if we pull out.
People are entitled to hold views. That’s democracy; however, reality is less accomodating. Vocal negativism (we can’t win anyway, our eqpt is crap), is without doubt of use to the enemy (yes we have one, of that we must be sure). It’s the price of free speech.
Even so, some good news would be welcome. Our military has proved itself the best in the worldat this new peacemaking role.
While providing valuable reconstruction (at half our casualties), we have, not only fought, we have engaged a hostile and ruthless enemy, familiar with the terrain, with an easy escape route – and hurt them badly. The Canadian combats arms soldiers are the devil to the Taliban.
Once we defeat the Taliban (when we get Pakistan sorted out), the Afghan people, with out further help I hope, will for the first time in generations, have an opportunity for peaceful existence, something we take for granted, and never should.
That would be good news.
Gee Mikey, football analogies hit a sore spot? Personal attacks and name calling are sure fire signs that a leftie is losing a debate.
Oh, I just saw this tidbit:
thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/553561.html
A bit OT but not when you consider “supporting the troops”. It seems one of those selfless Canadian entertainers is bitching she hasn’t been paid for an Afghanistan tour. Am I the only one who thought these people did it to entertain the troops, and not for the money?
Hey Texas,
Q: What’s the definition of a racist?
A: Someone winning an argument with a liberal.
(I’m not sure who thought this one up but it’s a good one.)
Just what the hell does ‘support the troops’ mean? If I don’t support them, does that mean I wish they would die?
Fallic obsessed Mike sez: ” Our position in the world will be greatly improved when we stop trying to control via flashing our big military c*ck all over the place and start taking foreign policy seriously.”
How hollow is your skull man!? Do you think it was diplomats and marxist poli-sci profs that gave you the right to free speech? Did Nevil Chanberlin stop Hitler’s aggression and Holocaust? It was some nameless soldier who went to war against tyrants and agresasion in 1812, 1914, 1944, etc.
The UN was a pitiful peace keeper because it did not have (and could rearely mobilize) a cohesive army to intervene in large conflicts….subsequently we had Somali massacres as well as Kosovo and the Cambodian killing fields….maybe the democratic nation’s coalition can do better…Afghanistan is a proper humanitarian military intervention…to deny this is to be a craven fool.
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue–and thoroughly immoral–doctrine
that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The Ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.
Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
– Robert Heinlein
anon,
Well to start, you probably don’t support the troops if you sneeringly look down the end of your nose at them like liberals tend to do. If you see them as stupid and brutish, if you think them uneducated rubes, you most likely don’t support the troops. If this discribes you, you would also be a sanctimoneous liberal who is more than likely not 1/10th as smart as you think you are.
Mike
Let’s keep this real simple:
Are you for fascism or against it?
Warwick says
“destroy enough stuff that the enemy acknowledges his loss and gives up the fight.”
Exactly, I think the best way to support our troops is for Canadians to start letting Ottawa know we want this war won …. fund it , equip it , get on with it, be vocal about it, let the enemy know Canadians don’t ever ever go to war to lose.
WL Mac,
I always liked these:
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
– John Stuart Mill
“Canadian politicians, unlike Americans or those who’ve actually lived under oppression, value peace higher than freedom. Peace-seekers need reminding that cattle on a well-run farm have the ideal peaceful existence: abundant food, warm accommodation, no threats – until the day they go to the slaughter house. That’s not the sort of peace most of us value.”
– PETER WORTHINGTON Toronto Sun January 12, 1999
Warwick: If supporting the troops means having respect for them, then there is no contradiction in saying you support the troops but not the war.
Anon,
Respect is only one part.
You don’t respect people when you make their job harder. You make that job harder by opposing the war they are fighting during that war.
If you oppose a war, feel free to voice that either before or after the war. During the war you only respect the troops doing the job by making it easier for them to win and harder for the enemy to maintain their fight. You don’t do that by opposing the war DURING the conflict. You also make the next conflict harder and more likely if you cut the legs out from under the troops.
If you support the troops but not the war, you will wait until afterwards before calling for heads to roll.
Respect also follows the troops into the future. If and enemy sees a force that is not willing to stay one the going gets tough, they will make the going tough in the hopes that the force won’t stay. It’s more likely that a potential enemy will decide against conflict if your force is seen as credible. A force loosing credibility when it runs from a fight. Diplomacy is only possible if it can be backed up with force. Seems self-explanatory.
It isn’t your support or lack thereof that is the problem but the timing of any opposition.
Damn. The spell checker brutalized that last post…
Warwick: Are you seriously saying that anyone who voices dissent during a war does not respect the individual soldiers on the ground? How is that not a recipe for facism or authoritarianism? What does voicing dissent have to do with not liking the soldiers? Can someone not voice dissent about the logistics, or the purpose, or the outcome, or the impact, or the long-term benefit/harm, or the cost, or the focus of the mission, and not be considered contemptuous of the men and women fighting?
‘Supporting the troops’ seems to mean whatever someone wants it to mean at the moment to make their opponent sound like they are elitist, contemptuous snots who shouldn’t ask questions otherwise the soldiers die.
Supporting the Troops and Supporting the War are inextricably tied. It doesn’t necessarily mean you supported the circumstances that led to their mission, but once its started you have to fall to one side or the other, no room for fence sitters. If your soldiers are at war and your not supporting them (which is to hope they have minimal casualties and accomplish their mission), that means you want them to lose, which always comes with a load of coffins.(hence if this is your position your pretty much saying you want our soldiers to die, I think i’d call that treason). You either want the soldiers to have a successful mission or you are cheering for the enemy.
These soldiers have been sent to another country to protect our freedoms. Make no mistake if we allow people that seem weak today to advance in technology and power they will be a grave threat tomorrow.
Supporting the troops and supporting their mission is so important, even from the standpoint Canada’s very existence. Canada is a political region and the canadian forces are the supreme political force of canada and as such they are the chief representative of our country. If they are defeated it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country.
(to be forced to pull out, is to be shamed and is a giant psychological blow to any nation)
Victory is so important in fact that if the country needs to be re-ordered (as in a war measurs act) to be victorious then that should be done.
The supporting the troops and supporting their mission are one and same. And the only time it is acceptable not to support either is in a civil war and God forbid that that should ever happen here.
Just saw an ad for the Canadian forces:
“fight fear”
“fight chaos”
“fight with us”
clips of Afghanistan ect. Man was that powerful.
Kate, (or reader) somebody’s got to link to a clip of that.
No blue helmuts there, some rescue stuff, but pure “fight”.
I’ve heard all this before. “We just LOVE you, but we think what you’re doing SUCKS.”
Let me tell you a little story.
Once upon a time, there were a bunch of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who had been trying to subdue a small southeast Asian country.
Everybody had hitched a ride with the 7th Fleet and was headed back to the world.
There was a lot of ecumenical talk about the pleasures of warfare. The stories all started with phrases like “So then mama-san went and got a basket. Look — I’ve still got the hicky!”
Arriving back in the world after a prolonged absence we found things had changed. In our absence, America had filled up with Beatles, hippies, and LSD.
Well sir, it turns out that a whole bunch of anti-war activists filled to the brim with sentiments like “We LOVE you, but we think what you’re doing SUCKS” had assembled themselves in front of the gate and decided that none of us baby-killers could leave the confines of the base.
We didn’t know what any of this was about. Hondo looked at them, and then looked over at me and said, “Hey, WTF?”
Well, seein’ we were all genuine, bona fide, baby-killin’ war heroes and all, they decided to let us all mosey on into town anyway.
In the middle of the melee, just before I clocked one of the goofballs, I looked around at all the retreating hippies and thought to myself with a faint smile, “Hey, lookee here, we’re back in the world and it’s another gore-splattering adventure.”
The moral of this story is that if these leftards want to mosey into any of our hangouts and start telling us about how much they love us, but what we are doing sucks, they’d better be ready to throw down.
And don’t think that these Canadians can come down south and stumble into any of our hangout and think they are free to start trashmouthing any of our Canadian brothers in Afghanistan. If you do, you’d better be good because we’re gonna lite ’em up.
You’d better be careful whose face you get into telling us you LOOOOVE us but you think what we’re doin’ SUCKS, because we might have to dance on your sombrero.
Debes apoyar la misión. No puedes tenerla ambas maneras. Si no apoyas la misión entonces tú deseo para su – y nuestro – derrota.
General Leopoldo Galtieri 1982
There are some excellent vids of Canadians in action on Youtube, like the one posted on Garth.ca. ALL who post here, no matter which side of history you feel that you are on, should go view them. And any who post the pap that you “support our troops, but not the mission”…. haven never been shot at….yet. Show some respect!
Ex: III RCR
As Jack Layton would say:
“SARS has exacted a terrible toll on our troops in Afghanistan, particularly through roadside attacks.”
For the vast majority of Canadians, the statement “Support the Troops” is 100% abstract. Most have no real connection to it’s meaning. In our house, it’s entirely different, my stepson’s trade is generically known as “Combat Arms”. In the nicest terms, he’s at the pointy end while the good people in logistics are part of the shaft making the thrust. Why do I even mention this? When someone is that close to the nasty end of the stick, you had better understand that supporting the troops really means supporting thier actions. Those actions sometimes involve doing nasty things to some truly nasty people. To us, supporting the troops isn’t just a yellow ribbon on the lapel or wearing a red shirt on Friday. In our house, supporting our trooper has meant making sure he knows that we’re 100% behind him, no questions asked.
A few points:
Am I against facism? Yes, that’s why I’m posting here. Are you or aren’t you against a foreign policy that succeeds? No, we better nuke ’em that’ll make us feel all better. Good thing Americans know better than that crap. Now you can get back to questioning my patriotism.
Who gave me the right of free speech? I think that was a group referred to as “insurgents” by the British government.
That’s all for now. You can all get back to hiding your failed foreign policy behind “support the troops”. Good luck with that.
It depends on what you mean by “support”. I support our troops, as in supplying them with all the necessary and up to date equipment, and I support the mission ( in this case the war in Afghanistan ).
Most of my friends are Americans and they have relatives in both Afghanistan and Iraq. All of them support the troops ( as in giving them the equipment they need and they support increased pay and veteran services, etc. ) but not all of them support both missions. If a friend of mine has a grandson in Afghanistan and supports the troops and the mission but has a son in Iraq and supports the troops but not the mission, then does she support the troops and the missions or not? She feels the mission in Iraq was totally screwed up by a unrealistic President that won’t listen to advice. She supports the mission in Afghanistan because the 9/11 terrorist camps were there.
So how would a person like that be classified?
You can’t say that you have to support the mission to support the troops. It’s a political game played aimed at making those that don’t support the Presidents/PM’s decision unpatriotic by insinuating that not supporting “their” mission is not supporting the troops. That’s unfair of course. One does not have to support everything the gov’t does or says to be patriotic.
Les
Can’t remember where I read it but something to the effect of:
When a leftard frenchiepants starts explaining how evil war is there is no way to explain to him in words how wrong he is. The best education you can give him is to fire a right cross across his jaw. When he gets up give him another one. Eventually he will try and hit you back. This is war.
Thanks to all the troops past and present who have somehow, despite all the Tommy Douglas’s, Pierre Trudeaus, Neville Chamberlains, Jack Laytons and John Kerrys, managed to keep us free.
Johnboy. I support the war in Afghanistan but perhaps instead of quoting things you can’t remember with added name calling for effect, you should read Mark Twains The War Prayer.
Les
Kate writes: In the end, if you live in a democracy, and do not support the objectives of a military mission, your best path is still to support doing what it takes to bring them home as victors – and then sort out which politicians and policies you will punish after the fact.
It is a perverted notion of democracy that would see, during times of war, the will of the people be made subordinate to military necessity. It leads one to ask: if “doing what it takes to bring them home as victors“–however that’s defined–entails committing troops to a foreign hotzone for 10 years, then must all public dissent towards the military campaign be suppressed for that entire duration of time? What if “victory” comes only after 20 years? 100 years? What if it never comes?
Is it not a contradiction to state on the one hand (as Jared does, above) that, “These soldiers have been sent to another country to protect our freedoms,” while also demanding on the other hand that those same freedoms–of speech, of protest, of dissent–be suspended in the interim?
Mike the term “nuke em” is yours not mine
“Good thing Americans know better than that crap”
Actually Clinton bombed the “crap” out of Kosovo for weeks on end, without the permission of his “oil for food” holiness Koffi and the WW II relic of the UN.
Not one American soldier got killed during that period. Plus no one questions if Clinton won.
The heading of this post is “if you support the troops”
You say you’re against fascism. Ironically Pakistan has nukes, is fascist, does harbour our enemy the Taliban, and does put our troops at more risk.
Job 1 is to win and to do it in a way that puts our troops at the least amount of risk.
My point is, isn’t a Harry Truman or a Clinton-like solution of using heavy force of some kind (smart bombs??) a legitimate tactic?
Its a conundrum isnt it?
On one hand, carping against our military actions gives aid and comfort to the enemy, and on the other hand we are free to criticize as we wish.
But what about press reports that are dishonest, and opinions are formed based on these reports?
What is the purpose in the endless polls that show the enemy that the will isnt there to finish the job?
What about the blatant hypocrisy of some politicians who were for this military action before they were against it?
When we elect a government, we give them much power, including the power to do as they see fit with the military.
Time to get behind the program folks. If we show a resolve to finish this job, it will be over much sooner.