Canadians are the best soldiers in Afganistan

Tribute to competence

PETER WORTHINGTON wrote:
The fact that the U.S. military, under four-star Gen. Stanley McChrystal, seems not only willing but eager to have his troops under Canadians command is recognition that the Canadians are, arguably, the best allied soldiers in Afghanistan.

PETER WORTHINGTON wrote: That U.S. troops in the Kandahar region of Afghanistan are under the overall command of a Canadian general is a tribute to the
professionalism and competence of Canada's army.
Americans are traditionally wary of anyone but Americans commanding their troops. But in the present Afghan "surge," troops of the 82nd Airborne Division are under the command of Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard in the Kandahar sector.

Canadian Troops were probably the best soldiers in WW1 and WW2.

I've heard former military personnel from Canada, England and USA all say that USA has the best equipment, Germany has the best commanders and Canada has the best soldiers.

I appreciate all that our armed forces do for our country, You guys are my hero's.

Here here...

ditto

where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

Just don't pay your income tax. Be sure to let us know how that works out.

Where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to pay for people who refuse to get off their ass and go to work?

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

Well you can start by moving to a better country.

Try Iran, I hear their human rights record is the best on the planet. They are fair, and extend to all its citizens a charter of rights and freedoms equal to or better than our own.

Move to Iran, You'll love it there.

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

Arabs? We are not stationed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ohhhh, maybe you are confusing complexions and religion for nationality? Oh for certain there are a few "Arabs" operating as mercs or some other such splinter group attached to Al Qaeda or the Taleban but the majority of folks our military forces are dealing with in Afghanistan are Pashtun, Dari, Waziri, Pakistani, Uzbeki - in other words, a wide variety of Central Asian tribes and dialects. The only time Arabic is used is when the Koran is being studied.

And FYI the Canadian forces are not "your" soldiers.

You are a very ignorant and uneducated man. You bring little of substance to this forum.

Miz point wrote:

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

And FYI the Canadian forces are not "your" soldiers.

Who's soldiers are they then? The people who don't pay taxes? Or only the people who don't have an opinion contrary to your own?

Freeman wrote:

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

Where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to pay for people who refuse to get off their ass and go to work?

There should be a checkbox on the tax form. "Sign here if you want to support laziness".

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Miz point wrote:

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

And FYI the Canadian forces are not "your" soldiers.

Who's soldiers are they then? The people who don't pay taxes? Or only the people who don't have an opinion contrary to your own?

Actually, they are the Queen's soldiers, thats who they take an oath of allegiance to.

Freeman wrote:

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Miz point wrote:

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

And FYI the Canadian forces are not "your" soldiers.

Who's soldiers are they then? The people who don't pay taxes? Or only the people who don't have an opinion contrary to your own?

Actually, they are the Queen's soldiers, thats who they take an oath of allegiance to.

That is symbolic, but of a completely illegitimate authority. They would never obey the Queen if she ordered them to do something. Since the '82 constitution there really is no more link to Britain or the Queen other than symbolic convention.

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Freeman wrote:

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Miz point wrote:

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

And FYI the Canadian forces are not "your" soldiers.

Who's soldiers are they then? The people who don't pay taxes? Or only the people who don't have an opinion contrary to your own?

Actually, they are the Queen's soldiers, thats who they take an oath of allegiance to.

That is symbolic, but of a completely illegitimate authority. They would never obey the Queen if she ordered them to do something. Since the '82 constitution there really is no more link to Britain or the Queen other than symbolic convention.

The "Crown" is the legitimate authority.

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Miz point wrote:

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

And FYI the Canadian forces are not "your" soldiers.

Who's soldiers are they then? The people who don't pay taxes? Or only the people who don't have an opinion contrary to your own?

Firstly darling if you are gonna try and pick a fight with me you best be brushing up on your English skills in terms of spelling and comprehension. I was directing my remarks at the quoted poster as if to say to him that he did not have exclusive ownership over the Canadian Forces.....secondly, your use of "who's" is wrong....it is "whose".....LD, earlier, made a similar mistake with the word heroes.....

Lastly, WTF exactly do you mean by your remark as you directed it at me? You may well find better places to direct your misplaced ire.

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Freeman wrote:

usedtoliveinstb wrote:

Miz point wrote:

tick wrote:where do I vote to quit spending my tax dollars to kill.
I'm tired of paying my soldiers to kill Arabs.
.
.

And FYI the Canadian forces are not "your" soldiers.

Who's soldiers are they then? The people who don't pay taxes? Or only the people who don't have an opinion contrary to your own?

Actually, they are the Queen's soldiers, thats who they take an oath of allegiance to.

That is symbolic, but of a completely illegitimate authority. They would never obey the Queen if she ordered them to do something. Since the '82 constitution there really is no more link to Britain or the Queen other than symbolic convention.

Really? Then why do we have Crown Land, Crown Corporations and still honour treaties that were established by a Royal authority?

Cause the goverment owns them and the treaties are now enshrined in Canadian law . The Queen is purely figure head to appease the monarchist.

Miz point wrote:Really? Then why do we have Crown Land, Crown Corporations and still honour treaties that were established by a Royal authority?

Because in 1867 the BNAA established the Canadian constitution in the spirit of British law. Thus, since in the Common (English) Law there is no absolute ownership of any land, except for the feudal reminant of possession in the name of the Crown (simple fee, life fee, trust, etc.), in Canada we have the same type of titles.

In 1931, the British parliament passed the Statute of Westminster which permitted colonies to establish their own laws and were no longer bound by future British laws. In 82' we established our own means of constitutional modification, thus fully emancipating us from British rule. The only legacy of the symbolic conventions that remain in our system, like Parlimentary Privilege, "Crown" assets, and the GG, etc. In fact, there is no mention of any of these things, not even the Prime Minister anywhere in our constitution, the only indicator of these rules are the 1867 constitutional preambule.

I'm pretty sure they said Arabs.
19. .. with boxcutters.
attached us US ..
Thus we kill them.
by we ,I mean our braindead taxpaid peacekeepers. .

why are we fighting Pashtun. ?
for the pipes and poppies.

tick wrote: by we ,I mean our braindead taxpaid peacekeepers. .

You're a complete fricking ass. Please take your ignorant posts to another forum.

I know we believe in self moderation in the sandbox but me thinks Tick should get the boot.

Let's see what other members think...

hell no... dont like what the guy is saying, simply use the foe feature.

All ticks are pests and should thus be removed.

He's said he doesn't support the war. Move on.

Tick: No need to take shot at soldiers, they work hard to do a job that most would prefer 'somebody else do'. Frankly, if it were up to me there would be mandatory military service for those who fail to be productive, just to teach them a work ethic.

Everyone else: Not everyone has admiration for troops. Just like not everyone here has admiration for NDPers. No need to censor the opinions of those who defer from your own. If you do, then you're not a freedom lover at all.

I concur. Freedom of speech means sometimes hearing things you don't want to hear.

usedtoliveinstb wrote:He's said he doesn't support the war. Move on.

Tick: No need to take shot at soldiers, they work hard to do a job that most would prefer 'somebody else do'. Frankly, if it were up to me there would be mandatory military service for those who fail to be productive, just to teach them a work ethic.

Everyone else: Not everyone has admiration for troops. Just like not everyone here has admiration for NDPers. No need to censor the opinions of those who defer from your own. If you do, then you're not a freedom lover at all.

This forum is under the jurisdiction of the Benign but Totally and Always Right Dictatorship of Grumpy.......freedom? You gotta be joking right? hahahahah