Toronto's decision to remove the "Support Our Troops" ribbon from EMS vehicles actually clarifies something for me. Council is afraid that supporting our troops might be confused by the public with supporting the war in Afghanistan. Heaven forbid that someone get the idea that if you support the person performing a particular job, that you also support the job they're working at.
Often we'll hear people like Jack Layton and David Miller say that they support the troops, but not the war in Afghanistan as though the two ideas were not inconsistent. Maybe it's time we stop pretending to believe them. It's one thing to have questions about the mission and how it's progressing, its end date etc. but these are guys who are ALWAYS anti-war and have always been against any military action that was not exclusively a peace-keeping mission.
I'm sorry -- but I find it difficult to believe that you can 'support the troops' but not the war. It seems like one of those mantras people recite because they don't want to be seen as being as cruel as Americans were to their soldiers during Vietnam.
How can you support the troops if you don't support their work?
Can you support Wade Belak in a hockey fight if you are against hockey fights on principle?
Can you support the Pope if you are against Roman Catholicism and what it stands for?
Can you support abortionists if you are anti-abortion?
It doesn't mean to say that anyone wishes ill-will toward Belak, the Pope, abortionists, or the troops if they don't support their work, but it stands to reason you can't support the employee if you are morally opposed to his job. You might not want him to die, but that's not the same as 'supporting' him.
Say it Mr. Mayor, Mr. Layton and all of you who have pretended to support the troops -- you think war is wrong. And if this war is wrong, so are the people who are participating in it. Just own up.
As for me, I support our troops.
canadianna
23 comments:
Anna, I am livid over this. Your post came up just as mine did and I wanted to point out that Lowell Green is starting a boycott Toronto campaign.
One one day Miller raises the rainbow flag to start the gay pride and on the next day he takes down the support our troops decals.
I, for one, have decided to join the campaign and I hope you and your readers do as well.
Toronto has quickly become the Sodom and Gamorrah of the western world.
Nice post. It's the hypocrisy of the situation that riles me up.
Canada Free Press has also started a "Boycott Anti-Troop Toronto" Campaign. The story can be found at the following link.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover062007.htm
The premise of an economic backlash is the only way the out of touch Toronto city council will stop pandering the "Surrender Crowd" and shut the hell up.
Lets get the campaign a great start by spreading the story over the net via the Blogging Tories.
Yet another reason why those of us lucky enough not to live in the Centre of the Universe shake our heads when Toronto re-elects politicians like Miller.
In my view, it is completely disingenuous to say you support the troops but not the war, for all the reasons you list but also for this.
If you support the troops, but not the war, you are essentially saying that either the troops (who you support) are wrong-headed in being in Afghanistan, or else are simply a bunch of potato-heads blindly following orders without thinking. Either way, I think it is very disrespectful to the troops, especially given the comments by the families of the fallen soldiers about how their son or daughter really believed in the mission.. If you support the troops, it follows logically that you believe that they believe in what they are doing, and therefore you must support that effort also.
*
Miller the spineless marxist and his impeccable timing.
" -- KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- Three more Canadian soldiers have been killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan."
*
I'd join the Boycott Toronto campaign except that I only go to Toronto to pass through (ie. change planes).
I have noticed that many people are unable to be honest with themselves when they describe their feelings for our troops and their mission. On one hand they claim to support our troops; on the other, they claim to oppose their mission. How is this possible? The troops embody the mission.
If you oppose the war, you oppose our victory in that war. And if you oppose our victory, you support our failure. And anyone who supports our failure cannot possibly support our troops. To suggest such a thing is the height of hypocrisy.
Sorry folks, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. It's time to be honest with yourself and make a decision. When it comes to our troops and their mission, you either support both or you support none. Which will it be?
Is it cynical of me to think that this, was a direct result of this?
*
Yup... Marxist Miller's about as principled as a feral cat.
"Although Mr. Miller had indicated he wouldn't support the motion, he said today the death of three more soldiers in Afghanistan brought the issue home for him."
Well, that... and the likelihood of being tarred & feathered in front of Nathan Phillips Square."
*
There's a hilarious article on theonion.com which says "I support the Occupation of Iraq, but not our troops." I love that kind of humour.
I've responded to this small minded and patently fallacious view in a post called "Small Minded Conservative Thought".
And I've responded to you in the comments, Peter.
I'll try and tackle this.
I do support our troops. Wherever they go, I know they will do their job with dispatch and professionalism, and I admire the hell out of that.
What I don't support are (a) our politicians, who send our troops into war zone often without adequate equipment, and usually with no clear-cut objectives or, for want of another phrase, an exit strategy;
(b) the governments of other nations, who seem content to let Canada do the majority of the heavy lifting in this case;
(c) *ESPECIALLY* the government of the United States, for inexplicably abandoning Afghanistan long before their job was done.
I don't believe the war in Afghanistan is winnable using our current tactics and strategies. I'm not sure it's winnable using *any* tactics or strategies: for every Taliban you kill, it seems as if two more pop up in his place.
But I'm not a military man, and those who are do, as people have said, very much believe in their mission. So I would say I do support our troops...but I have serious misgivings about the situation they find themselves in.
Often we'll here people like Jack Layton and David Miller
"Here?"
Go back to school, you dumb cunt.
Anonymous -- Thanks for catching my typo.
You should have said: "here"? You were questioning my grammar; there was no question mark in the original phrase so the question mark should not be part of the quote. Your way has worked itself into common usage because people are too lazy or stupid to know how to correctly use quotes -- you clever boy.
You've resorted to aggressive, vulgar language in order to insult a stranger. Maybe you should seek psychiatric help. Getting that worked up over a simple typo is kind of crazy.
Hi. My name is Eugene Gershin. I'd like to welcome you to Obadiah Shoher's blog, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict.
Obadiah is a pen name of a politician. He writes extremely controversial articles about Israel, the Middle East politics, and terrorism.
Obadiah advocates political rationalism instead of moralizing. He is economic liberal and political conservative.
Google refused advertising our site and Amazon deleted reviews of Obadiah's book. Nevertheless, Obadiah’s is the largest Jewish personal blog, read by more than 100,000 people monthly. 210,000 people from 81 countries downloaded Obadiah’s book. The blog was voted the best overall in People’s Choice: Jewish and Israeli blogs Awards, received Webby Honoree and other awards.
Please help us spread Obadiah's message, and mention the blog in one of your posts, or link to us. We would greatly appreciate your comments at www.samsonblinded.org/blog
Best wishes,
Eugene Gershin
Jewrusalem.net – Israeli Uncensored News
Oh, shut the fuck up, Anna, you under-fucked cunt. Just because everyone who knows you can't fucking stand you, doesn't mean you have anything to say.
You're a hateful bitch. Change or get used to it.
anonymous -- I sense hostility.
Your animus towards someone you don't know (you really don't know me -- it might be hard for you to understand, but you don't actually know people just because you read a blog, despite communicating via comments etc. We are actually strangers). Anyway, your malice . . . it's positively psycho. You really should get that checked.
Why don't you see if you can find something more productive to do like getting a life and maybe you won't feel the need spew your verbal sewage. I'm worried about you. Take care now.
Canadi-anna - it is very evident that you hit a sore spot with our anonymous commenter.
I am sure a lot of non-catholic people respected and admired the late Pope John Paul II. Check your facts before saying something like this !!
Anonymous -- I'm not RC, but I respect and admire both JPII and the current pope.
You've misunderstood the question. The question wasn't could you be a non-Catholic and still support the pope, but could you be anti papacy (ie anti-Roman Catholic) and support the pope. Support for a person who holds an office implies support for the office. If a person is anti-Catholic and also anti-abortion, it doesn't mean that that person supports the pope -- it means they coincidentally hold the same opinion.
If a person thinks the papacy is an archaic, patriarchal institution, then it's highly unlikely that person is going to support the man chosen to be in charge of the continuity of the Catholic church.
This in no way suggests that non-Catholics cannot like or admire the pope.
Maybe you will want to place a facebook button to your blog. Just marked down this blog, however I must do this manually. Just my suggestion.
Post a Comment