It appears that Canadian soldiers are every bit as bright as their US
counterparts.

================================================== ========
Thirteen Canadian soldiers suffered minor injuries when three armoured
vehicles smashed into each other on the pre-dawn streets of Kandahar on
Sunday, a military official said.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...t.html?ref=rss
================================================== ========





mike

On Feb 20, 9:05 pm, m II wrote:
It appears that Canadian soldiers are every bit as bright as their US
counterparts.

================================================== ========
Thirteen Canadian soldiers suffered minor injuries when three armoured
vehicles smashed into each other on the pre-dawn streets of Kandahar on
Sunday, a military official said.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...t.html?ref=rss
================================================== ========

mike

mike, Mike. MIKE ! - How M II of You.

It's 'nice' to see that you have as much "Love" for your own
Countrymen
who Serve-to-Protect Your Life and Rights : As you do for
Americans.

God {Allah} Bless Our American Soldiers and their Canadian
Brothers-in-Arms in this Fight against Terrorist throughtout
the World - amen, Amen. and AMEN !

m ii - peace-be-unto-you ~ RHF

On 21 Feb 2007 02:00:19 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

On Feb 20, 9:05 pm, m II wrote:
It appears that Canadian soldiers are every bit as bright as their US
counterparts.

================================================== ========
Thirteen Canadian soldiers suffered minor injuries when three armoured
vehicles smashed into each other on the pre-dawn streets of Kandahar on
Sunday, a military official said.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...t.html?ref=rss
================================================== ========

mike

mike, Mike. MIKE ! - How M II of You.

It's 'nice' to see that you have as much "Love" for your own
Countrymen
who Serve-to-Protect Your Life and Rights : As you do for
Americans.

God {Allah} Bless Our American Soldiers and their Canadian
Brothers-in-Arms in this Fight against Terrorist throughtout
the World - amen, Amen. and AMEN !

m ii - peace-be-unto-you ~ RHF
.
.
. .
The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the
troops.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html

David wrote:

On 21 Feb 2007 02:00:19 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:

On Feb 20, 9:05 pm, m II wrote:
It appears that Canadian soldiers are every bit as bright as their US
counterparts.

================================================== ========
Thirteen Canadian soldiers suffered minor injuries when three armoured
vehicles smashed into each other on the pre-dawn streets of Kandahar on
Sunday, a military official said.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...t.html?ref=rss
================================================== ========

mike

mike, Mike. MIKE ! - How M II of You.

It's 'nice' to see that you have as much "Love" for your own
Countrymen
who Serve-to-Protect Your Life and Rights : As you do for
Americans.

God {Allah} Bless Our American Soldiers and their Canadian
Brothers-in-Arms in this Fight against Terrorist throughtout
the World - amen, Amen. and AMEN !

m ii - peace-be-unto-you ~ RHF
.
.
. .
The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination.

Please cite the government documents that say the war is illegal.

And please, use your own words rather than some dumbass Liberal website.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

September 11,2001 NavExpress. www.devilfinder.com blackday 911
The WAR on TERROR is Definetly LEGAL.
cuhulin

X-No-Archive:

In article ,
wrote:

September 11,2001 NavExpress. www.devilfinder.com blackday 911
The WAR on TERROR is Definetly LEGAL.
cuhulin

The, the "war" that "terrorists" fight _against_ the U.S. is also LEGAL. We are,
after all, fighting them in their countries.

The U.S. has not declared war since WWII, but we have invaded and/or bombed into
oblivion many countries. Undeclared wars are illegal. U.S. foreign policy is why
the terrorists fight against us.

Bush is an idiot and/or psychotic (delusional and out of touch with reality). No
responsible person supported the recent and ongoing "surge", which is actually
an escalation of hostilities by the U.S. And "NO"! We never intended to withdraw
from Afghanistan or Iraq. We've built permanent and very large miliatray bases
in both countries and we are there to stay.

MM

"The first casuality of war is truth!"

I just now read that Danske is going to pull out.
www.drudgereport.com Denmark to withdraw.

The Polish people have GUTS.I believe they will stay with us.
cuhulin

On Feb 21, 8:02 am, David wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 02:00:19 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:





On Feb 20, 9:05 pm, m II wrote:
It appears that Canadian soldiers are every bit as bright as their US
counterparts.

================================================== ========
Thirteen Canadian soldiers suffered minor injuries when three armoured
vehicles smashed into each other on the pre-dawn streets of Kandahar on
Sunday, a military official said.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/0...t.html?ref=rss
================================================== ========

mike

mike, Mike. MIKE ! - How M II of You.

It's 'nice' to see that you have as much "Love" for your own
Countrymen
who Serve-to-Protect Your Life and Rights : As you do for
Americans.

God {Allah} Bless Our American Soldiers and their Canadian
Brothers-in-Arms in this Fight against Terrorist throughtout
the World - amen, Amen. and AMEN !

m ii - peace-be-unto-you ~ RHF
.
.
. .

The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the
troops.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath
when I was active duty.

I remember an Oath I took/did when I Joined (serious number,RA 14 808
903) the U.S.Army at the U.S.Army Recruiting Office on Capitol Street in
in beautifull down town Jackson,Mississippi in October,1962.
cuhulin

On 21 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0800, "tack" wrote:


The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to
fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the
troops.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath
when I was active duty.

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors
risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY
disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime
to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.
Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the
disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).

In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who
willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to
death.

Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given,
right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An
order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but
obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one
who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are
accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the
order was illegal.

"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal
defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at
the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't
work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the
"I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the
War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize
ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams
wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that
Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French
port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's
instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying
Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship
sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won,
and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S.
Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when
obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm