Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why do we "have to" support our troops?

Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

19 Oct 2010, 2:38 am

ruveyn wrote:
Chevand wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
The 9/11 attacks were on AMERICANS, not Canadians.


Well... actually, that's not entirely accurate. Although the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated on U.S. soil, foreign nationals of several other countries were also killed, including 24 Canadian citizens.


The intended target was the United States and its interests. The non-U.S. folks who got killed were collateral damage.


That word, if there's one word I hate it's that word. My uncle knew that word so well and told us all about it.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Oct 2010, 2:47 am

MissConstrue wrote:

That word, if there's one word I hate it's that word. My uncle knew that word so well and told us all about it.


First of all, it is two words. Second it is a valid concept. Very few attacks kill all and only the intended target. In any warlike situation there is so-called friendly fire (which is a kind of collateral damage) and there are unintended victims. Given the capability of modern weapons such casualties are unavoidable (unless all war is given up ---- fat chance of that).

ruveyn



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Oct 2010, 5:00 am

ruveyn wrote:
Chevand wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
The 9/11 attacks were on AMERICANS, not Canadians.


Well... actually, that's not entirely accurate. Although the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated on U.S. soil, foreign nationals of several other countries were also killed, including 24 Canadian citizens.


The intended target was the United States and its interests. The non-U.S. folks who got killed were collateral damage.

The al Queda operation apparently was to make plain to people in the U.S. that they are not safe at home. In that regard it was a very successful operation.

ruveyn


It's obvious that al-Qaeda's primary target was the United States. However, this doesn't diminish my point. The OP was wondering why Canada would go to war in Afghanistan alongside the U.S., because it "wasn't their war". Aside from being one of the U.S's biggest allies and trading partners, Canada actually lost civilians in the attacks, regardless of whether they were "collateral damage" or not. Wars have been waged over much less. I don't particularly agree with the policy behind the war now, but I'd say that, at the outset of the war, Canada had just as much a justifiable case for entering Afghanistan and avenging its own citizens as the U.S. did.



Ambivalence
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)

19 Oct 2010, 9:02 am

jc6chan wrote:
The 9/11 attacks were on AMERICANS, not Canadians. The reason why we are on Bin Laden's hit list for terror attacks is because we invaded Afghanistan.


Wahhabi Islam is out to turn the entire world into copies of themselves. If you aren't their own type of religious nutjob, you're a target. By demonstrating a willingness to stand against their muppetry you earn a higher priority, that's all.


_________________
No one has gone missing or died.

The year is still young.


GreySun369
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

21 Oct 2010, 11:41 pm

Maybe my views on war are too simplified, but i don't support our troops in the US because I'm angry with them. Ever since I read about Abu Ghraid where American soldiers raped and tortured iraqi POWs and pretty much got away with it (only a few of the soldiers actually served prison time and didn't even get charged with murder), I just don't trust our millitary anymore. I'm not saying I support what the Taliban is doing, but it makes me sick to think that our soldiers can do such a thing and not even get the death penalty or a life sentence for it. What's worse is that most Americans in this country either deny it ever happened or just don't care. People like my own Mom...

If Americans are so indifferent towards our millitary and government violating basic human rights in foreign countries, it won't be long before they start condoning torture on our own soil and not even care because the government still has them convinced they're the most free nation in the entire universe. It'll be the Dark Ages all over again. :roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Oct 2010, 5:55 am

Chevand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Chevand wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
The 9/11 attacks were on AMERICANS, not C

It's obvious that al-Qaeda's primary target was the United States. However, this doesn't diminish my point. The OP was wondering why Canada would go to war in Afghanistan alongside the U.S., because it "wasn't their war". Aside from being one of the U.S's biggest allies and trading partners, Canada actually lost civilians in the attacks, regardless of whether they were "collateral damage" or not. Wars have been waged over much less. I don't particularly agree with the policy behind the war now, but I'd say that, at the outset of the war, Canada had just as much a justifiable case for entering Afghanistan and avenging its own citizens as the U.S. did.


If Canadians or most Canadians do not think they have a dawg in that hunt, then they should tell their government to keep Canadian troops out of that fight.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

22 Oct 2010, 9:52 am

Ruveyn, you should also know that politics play into all this. =.= Being there when the "war" started was mostly a gesture of goodwill towards the USA, as with most european countries. It is mostly the USA's war, which is why most of those countries, and slowly, even Canada, are thinking about pulling out of it. =/ It was also to be on good terms with the States. As you've seen, France was boo'ed when it objected to it and was made fun of for their decision.

edited for typo and clarity. :p



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

22 Oct 2010, 3:15 pm

"support our troops" is such a wonderful and terrible phrase. so over/under used.

can you support a man for his actions while denouncing those actions?

it aught to be easier to explain but it's not. it's a failing (or great success) language. with what we spend to carry out our wars, we all "support" our troops. the job of a soldier is to serve as a weapon and a shield for his nation. he/she represents you on the battlefield. as such, why would you support a soldier who acts against your interests? because when they act in your interest, they're acting against someone else's. democracy isn't about everyone getting what we want. it's about figuring out what works best for everyone and trying to go forward from there.

don't support war at all? when everyone else has come over to this side, we can consider not killing eachother. maybe.

until then, remember that a soldier is a tool in the hand of your government and that this soldier represents you. it is not the job of a soldier to determine international relations. american soldiers take an oath to defend the country and the constitution from threats without and threats within and "just following orders" doesn't save you from the hangman, but "this isn't right" doesn't save you from warmongers and "i'm out of here" is illegal.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)