Americans and their treatment of Canadians

Bradly Wiebe wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Bradly Wiebe wrote:
Read some current events before you post there pal. There are currently
approximately 6500 troops in Afghanistan comprised from NATO allies, non
nato partner nations, and others, 35 nations in total. The current US
troop contribution in Afghanistan is 60. That's right, 60. The current
Canadian troop deployment is 1756. There are about 30 Canadian troops
to every 1 american troop. By the way, these numbers are taken from the
NATO site.

Apology accepted.

There are currently about 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan. US troops under
NATO command are only part of the total. Sorry I had to embarrass you in
front of your friends after you were so sure of yourself.

Those ones are around the borders and away from any of the real work. They
don't count worth beans.

The ones on the borders are the ones doing the hard work. Hanging around in
Kabul giving dirty looks to farmers isn't exactly the cutting edge of modern
warfare.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:

Remember though, that even though we have a dismal military, we still
have more troops in Afghanistan than the US does.

No you don't.

Read some current events before you post there pal. There are currently
approximately 6500 troops in Afghanistan comprised from NATO allies, non
nato partner nations, and others, 35 nations in total. The current US
troop contribution in Afghanistan is 60. That's right, 60. The current
Canadian troop deployment is 1756. There are about 30 Canadian troops
to every 1 american troop. By the way, these numbers are taken from the
NATO site.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanist..._contributions

Apology accepted.

There are currently about 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan. US troops under
NATO command are only part of the total. Sorry I had to embarrass you in
front of your friends after you were so sure of yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3631461.stm

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:



Bradly Wiebe wrote:

Miguel Cruz wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote:
"Currently, there are 60,000 troops in the Canadian Military"
http://www.durham.edu.on.ca/grassroo...oversy/html/un.
htm

"There are currently 39,110 police officers in NYPD"
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/ht...pdfaq2.html#41

and you shouldn't really be proud that one city needs that many
cops.

The New York Metro area (from which New York's workforce is drawn)
has 2/3 the population of the entire country of Canada.

Would that not also be the reason you have more armed forces too then?

So on the one hand Canada has a small population which is why the US
has a much larger police population. But on the other hand Canada has
a small population but that's no excuse for having a small military. I
see your point now. (sarcasm)

I did some research. There are 60000 Canadian armed forces, or .002 per
capita. There are 1.4 million US armed forces, or .005 per capita. Not
that much lower than you after all are we? Also, of all of the
Americas, Canada ranks 3'rd in quality and efficiency, and also military
budget. The only two that are larger are the United states and Brazil
with populations of 285 and 172 million respectively. Canada at 32
million even ranks above countries like Mexico at 101 million and
Colombia at 43 million. Face it, we aren't really that bad. It's also
interesting to note that Canada, with a paltry 32 million people ranks
second in the americas for military spending per capita.
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/how.../armies/an.asp

Then why is your military bankrupt?

Miguel Cruz wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Bradly Wiebe wrote:
Read some current events before you post there pal. There are currently
approximately 6500 troops in Afghanistan comprised from NATO allies, non
nato partner nations, and others, 35 nations in total. The current US
troop contribution in Afghanistan is 60. That's right, 60. The current
Canadian troop deployment is 1756. There are about 30 Canadian troops
to every 1 american troop. By the way, these numbers are taken from the
NATO site.

Apology accepted.

There are currently about 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan. US troops under
NATO command are only part of the total. Sorry I had to embarrass you in
front of your friends after you were so sure of yourself.

Those ones are around the borders and away from any of the real work. They
don't count worth beans.

The ones on the borders are the ones doing the hard work. Hanging around in
Kabul giving dirty looks to farmers isn't exactly the cutting edge of modern
warfare.

Oh please. I'm sure that the peasants are just lined up trying to get into
Afghanistan right? I can just see it now, "sir do you have anything to declare?
Any fruits or vegetables? Enjoy your stay in Afghanistan" Yup they are doing
the real work all right.



miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

"Xomicron" wrote in message
...

Most people who bash the Patriot Act usually have no idea what it actually
is.

Then kindly tell us.

Bradly Wiebe wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
There are currently about 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan. US troops under
NATO command are only part of the total. Sorry I had to embarrass you in
front of your friends after you were so sure of yourself.

Those ones are around the borders and away from any of the real work. They
don't count worth beans.

The ones on the borders are the ones doing the hard work. Hanging around in
Kabul giving dirty looks to farmers isn't exactly the cutting edge of modern
warfare.

Oh please. I'm sure that the peasants are just lined up trying to get into
Afghanistan right? I can just see it now, "sir do you have anything to declare?
Any fruits or vegetables? Enjoy your stay in Afghanistan" Yup they are doing
the real work all right.

1) Now that Afghanistan is somewhat more settled than it was in years past,
there's a steady flow of returnees from Pakistan and Iran.

2) The soldiers are there to look for Taliban and al Qaeda folks trying to
slip in and out. The borders are rough and historically poorly patrolled,
hence porous.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...


1) Now that Afghanistan is somewhat more settled than it was in years
past,
there's a steady flow of returnees from Pakistan and Iran.


According to Refugees International around 3 million refugees
has returned to Afghanistan in the 2 years since the fall
of the Taliban government

2) The soldiers are there to look for Taliban and al Qaeda folks trying to
slip in and out. The borders are rough and historically poorly patrolled,
hence porous.


The same source indicated that security was the number one concern
of returning refugees.

Keith

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

Dave Smith wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

I believed we cleaned it up all ready. Besides, you need a
military for peace keeping.

You believed that did you? That would explain why the American
soldiers are dying at an increasing rate over there. Our
soldiers have been peace keeping around the world for a long
time,

You're also the first modern democracy to have its military go
bankrupt.

Yet, still a modern democracy who hasn't managed to **** off the
rest of the world :-) Our armed forces have kept American troops
out several times,

Heh, yeah right. I like how the Canadians try to take credit for
British accomplishments.

Actually the Canadians successfully defended the American invasion.
The US was busy with fighting the British troops on their eastern
seaboard when they invaded Canada. It was a mistake because they
were then spread too thin, which allowed for the Canadians to push
the Americans back and eventually get to and burn down the
whitehouse.

No Canadians were involved in the burning of Washington. They were
troops with Admiral Cochrane's fleet in the Atlantic.

Those crazy Canucks, they are like the Arabs of North America, driven
crazy by their lack of accomplishment.

This ones gonna hurt the old ego. Well, here it goes....

You are right, I was wrong. There were no Canadian troops involved in
the burning of the whitehouse.

Now for the suckup...

Isn't it nice of us Canadians to not take part in the burning of a
national treasure of yours? To respect what you hold dear and not take
part in the defamation of such even in a time of war shows great
character and virtue in your friendly neighbors to the north, who'm had
only gone to war with your country because yours invaded ours.

I wouldn't say the White House was a national treasure in 1812. It wasn't
even called the White House until after the war.

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:



Xomicron wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

Bradly Wiebe wrote in
:

Remember though, that even though we have a dismal military, we
still have more troops in Afghanistan than the US does.

No you don't.

Read some current events before you post there pal. There are
currently approximately 6500 troops in Afghanistan comprised from
NATO allies, non nato partner nations, and others, 35 nations in
total. The current US troop contribution in Afghanistan is 60.
That's right, 60. The current Canadian troop deployment is 1756.
There are about 30 Canadian troops to every 1 american troop. By the
way, these numbers are taken from the NATO site.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanist...op_contributio
ns

Apology accepted.

There are currently about 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan. US troops
under NATO command are only part of the total. Sorry I had to embarrass
you in front of your friends after you were so sure of yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3631461.stm

Those ones are around the borders and away from any of the real work.
They don't count worth beans. And it's you that should be embarrassed
at the fact that you have so few troops where the real terrorists are,
yet one small town in Iraq is getting so much attention, yet your
military can't seem to get control over it.

The conflict in Falluja could be over in a day if we didn't care about
civilian casualties.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:52:26 +0000 (UTC), Xomicron wrote:

I wouldn't say the White House was a national treasure in 1812. It wasn't
even called the White House until after the war.

It wasn't called the White House until Teddy Roosevelt was president. Before
that, it was called the Executive Mansion.

-- Larry