Hello everyone! I am the witness making my first post so bear with me. The efforts of our troops in Afganistan ( men and women whose courage is admirable) amounts to nothing. Taking up arms to make peace does not work. From time to time we hear of the Canadian soldiers killed, but what of the Taliban fighters? I do not support the Taliban, but think of this: Each Taliban fighter is someone's brother, father, son, grandson, husband, ect. Perhaps other family members are not Taliban supporters, but when they hear of their kin being killed in a skirmish with Canadian soldiers how many of the dead man's family do you think turn their grief into anger against the Canadian forces and join the Taliban to get revenge? Two? Three? five?
Canadian soldiers have a reputation as being peace keepers, but really, doesn't peace keep itself? To be more accurate Canadian forces are acting as peace makers and sadly are doing a bad job of it ( no offence to the brave men and women in the Canadian forces)
When one Taliban is killed, two three or five join up to avenge him. Using this logic can one really expect our courageous soldiers to bring peace to the region? I am of the opinion that the mission of Canadian peace keeping in Afganistan is fundamentally flawed. The problem is the responsiblity of the miltary leadership that lacks the vision to see this simple logic, the government, which is more concerned with public opinion then doing the rigt thing, and the general public which is polarized on just two options: bail out or continue with the same plan.
There are other options people!! Think about it!
We've Run Amok in Afganistan
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
-
taxiway_matthew
- Rank 4
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:14 pm
In a perfect world, this would be nice. But appeasement simply does not work in certain situations. Yes Canada is a peacemaker, but when theres no peace, you need to establish peace, and the only way to do so is through force, otherwise it really would be run amok. You kind of shot yourself in the foot too, you say we ought to not fight those who are quick to anger to avenge their deaths? That really makes no sense, you're letting them walk all over you.
Many Afghans are opressed and I think you need to talk first hand with a majority of the soldiers who are over there to find out the truth of the mission, don't rely on leftist media. My cousing just did 3 weeks in Afghanistan to fill in for another soldier, and the day he got back he signed up to go back, they're sending him out in Septemberish.
Unilateral withdrawal is not an option. That puts 50 or so Canadian deaths in vein and shows you don't care to help those less fortunate then you, and it shows you are perfectly find with appeasing the big bad wolf. Appeasement. Research it. Particularily with regards to Hitler...look how far it got us.
I do envy your desire for peace however. Many of us war-supporters view those who want to pull out as crazy and selfish and what not (sans Jack Bin Layton, he's a nut). It shows you care for our troops and don't want them hurt and want them at home safe and sound. But they are soldiers, they know exactly what they are getting themselves into. And the mission needs to be done, for the pre-emptive safety of Canada, for the end to terrorism, and for the good of the Afghan peoples. Life was not candy and bunnys before we showed up, it was a shithole, but NATOs presence there has proved to do a lot for the country.
Bush was already in office when 911 happened. You have to try and seperate Iraq from Afghanistan. In my opinion, AStan is good, Iraq is bad. But notice how we're not in Iraq, so don't even worry about Bush's intentions to go. His intentions for AStan were good, its a UN-sanctioned, NATO led force.
And you say it like 911 wasn't a bad thing. Are these terrorist good guys then?
To me, 911 was a tragedy, a complete change to Western society. And it will not go unnoticed, and those who did it will be brought to justice and those who are planning similar attacks shall be stopped.
Many Afghans are opressed and I think you need to talk first hand with a majority of the soldiers who are over there to find out the truth of the mission, don't rely on leftist media. My cousing just did 3 weeks in Afghanistan to fill in for another soldier, and the day he got back he signed up to go back, they're sending him out in Septemberish.
Unilateral withdrawal is not an option. That puts 50 or so Canadian deaths in vein and shows you don't care to help those less fortunate then you, and it shows you are perfectly find with appeasing the big bad wolf. Appeasement. Research it. Particularily with regards to Hitler...look how far it got us.
I do envy your desire for peace however. Many of us war-supporters view those who want to pull out as crazy and selfish and what not (sans Jack Bin Layton, he's a nut). It shows you care for our troops and don't want them hurt and want them at home safe and sound. But they are soldiers, they know exactly what they are getting themselves into. And the mission needs to be done, for the pre-emptive safety of Canada, for the end to terrorism, and for the good of the Afghan peoples. Life was not candy and bunnys before we showed up, it was a shithole, but NATOs presence there has proved to do a lot for the country.
Now I know Sherlock Holmes doesn't come on this board too often, but thats no reason to let logic take a holiday.Your logic is perfect. 911 affected so many families, it inspired an entire nation to vote for an idiotic but war hungry president.
Bush was already in office when 911 happened. You have to try and seperate Iraq from Afghanistan. In my opinion, AStan is good, Iraq is bad. But notice how we're not in Iraq, so don't even worry about Bush's intentions to go. His intentions for AStan were good, its a UN-sanctioned, NATO led force.
And you say it like 911 wasn't a bad thing. Are these terrorist good guys then?
To me, 911 was a tragedy, a complete change to Western society. And it will not go unnoticed, and those who did it will be brought to justice and those who are planning similar attacks shall be stopped.
Before you get on a soapbox and express yourself to the world, know what Canada's role in Afgahnistan is.
Canadian Forces deployed there are not peace keeping.
And no, not all Jihadist family members runs and straps a bomb or grabs an AK-47 after their brother/father/cousin etc.. dies.
I'd rather not have to worry about eating a 7.62 bullet or shrapnel next time I deploy, but I joined the Military during a time of war. I'm not niave to think I'll be the difference to these people.
Canadian Forces deployed there are not peace keeping.
And no, not all Jihadist family members runs and straps a bomb or grabs an AK-47 after their brother/father/cousin etc.. dies.
I'd rather not have to worry about eating a 7.62 bullet or shrapnel next time I deploy, but I joined the Military during a time of war. I'm not niave to think I'll be the difference to these people.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
taxiway, Firstly, it was a joke. Secondly, yes Bush was president for the attack but he was re-elected for a second term with rather overwhelming numbers. His campaign was based on the war.taxiway_matthew wrote:Now I know Sherlock Holmes doesn't come on this board too often, but thats no reason to let logic take a holiday.Your logic is perfect. 911 affected so many families, it inspired an entire nation to vote for an idiotic but war hungry president.
Bush was already in office when 911 happened.
No Sherlock required there. Hell, you don't even need long term memory for that one.
I think people are forgetting why the Taliban was forcibly removed in the first place. They had turned Afghanistan into the world's largest, nationally funded terrorist training camp. President Clinton threw some missiles at them years ago to try and intimidate them into stopping but we all know how effective that was. Left alone the Taliban will be back in control before the last soldier steps off the plane back in Canada and we'll be right back where we started.
Sadly I don't see an end to it until the people and local government in Afghanistan can (or will) keep the Taliban out of power which is what the reconstruction efforts are really intended to support. With fanatical Islamic extremism so pervasive throughout the world now, and the sheer numbers of them willing to die for their cause, it's hard to see how anything but brute force is going to keep Afghanistan from reverting back to what it was.
We would all love to have a peaceful and secure world, but wishing for it doesn't make it happen.
Sadly I don't see an end to it until the people and local government in Afghanistan can (or will) keep the Taliban out of power which is what the reconstruction efforts are really intended to support. With fanatical Islamic extremism so pervasive throughout the world now, and the sheer numbers of them willing to die for their cause, it's hard to see how anything but brute force is going to keep Afghanistan from reverting back to what it was.
We would all love to have a peaceful and secure world, but wishing for it doesn't make it happen.
Even the NATO commanders themselves have said that you are not going to "win" in Afghanistan militarily.Rockie wrote:...
...it's hard to see how anything but brute force is going to keep Afghanistan from reverting back to what it was.
......
You cannot destroy an ideology with a gun. ( Didn't somebody try something like that in Lebanon last summer??) You are going to have to do it the hard way... the way you train a child...it takes a generation of debate and education and cajoling and rewards, and yes, punishment. But you are not going to do it with punishment alone.
There is going to be a conference in Waterloo next week, on the state of "reconstruction" in Afghanistan. I am going to be REAL interested in its report.
If after 5 years, the people of Afghanistan still do not see the NATO troops as builders, rather than destroyers, then Afghanistan is probably already lost. The Karzai government is not helping. Its lethargy, alleged corruption and recent crackdown on media, is already starting to produce a backlash.
Canadians want to help, but we have to have some reasonable chance at success. Even the rescuers run out of the building when all the floors start to collapse. The floors might not let go right away, but we should be keeping an eye on them.
...
I couldn't agree more. It will take generations in my opinion and a dramatic shift in Islamic thinking before Afghanistan could be considered "safe". In the meantime though the only thing we have to deny extremists the use of Afghanistan as a training ground is force. Leave Afghanistan and the radicals take over immediately. Then like I said it's back to square one.Icebound wrote:Even the NATO commanders themselves have said that you are not going to "win" in Afghanistan militarily.Rockie wrote:...
...it's hard to see how anything but brute force is going to keep Afghanistan from reverting back to what it was.
......
You cannot destroy an ideology with a gun. ( Didn't somebody try something like that in Lebanon last summer??) You are going to have to do it the hard way... the way you train a child...it takes a generation of debate and education and cajoling and rewards, and yes, punishment. But you are not going to do it with punishment alone.
There is going to be a conference in Waterloo next week, on the state of "reconstruction" in Afghanistan. I am going to be REAL interested in its report.
If after 5 years, the people of Afghanistan still do not see the NATO troops as builders, rather than destroyers, then Afghanistan is probably already lost. The Karzai government is not helping. Its lethargy, alleged corruption and recent crackdown on media, is already starting to produce a backlash.
Canadians want to help, but we have to have some reasonable chance at success. Even the rescuers run out of the building when all the floors start to collapse. The floors might not let go right away, but we should be keeping an eye on them.
...
Rockie wrote:
...snip...
In the meantime though the only thing we have to deny extremists the use of Afghanistan as a training ground is force. snip
Oh, I don't know.
We denied them the use of Afghanistan by force 5 years ago.
What good did that do us?
We will win Afghanistan the same way we won the breakup of the USSR.... by the will of the people.... so we better start on that education process now.
All that our "force" does is create another two extremists for every one we kill. It is one thing to use force to create a safe perimeter for the will of the people to be realized. It is quite another to occupy the land of a population which doesn't want us. Which of those are we today????
...
...
Good post, ice, but our troops are officially a PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team). Their role is not the hunt for Talibans. They are supposed to contribute, with all agencies, to the reconstruction, and security in their area.
Yes, that involves some military operations, but the Afghan government is responsible for the overall security in the province. The police and ANA are catching a lot more of bad guys than the CF does.
Of course they have less protection, and suffer heavy losses.
NATO is acting as a lightning rod for the Talibans.
With over one million refugies returning, without a livelyhood, when Taliban recruiters show up with a pile of cash, they have no problems finding people...
There is a lot of covert activities, here and a lot of cash is changing hands. War on Talibans is the official excuse to be there, but a lot more is going on. Neighbouring countries have sealed their borders, but the drugs leave the country quite easily. There are scary stories going around here...
This country is like an iceberg. We only see the tip!
Yes, that involves some military operations, but the Afghan government is responsible for the overall security in the province. The police and ANA are catching a lot more of bad guys than the CF does.
Of course they have less protection, and suffer heavy losses.
NATO is acting as a lightning rod for the Talibans.
With over one million refugies returning, without a livelyhood, when Taliban recruiters show up with a pile of cash, they have no problems finding people...
There is a lot of covert activities, here and a lot of cash is changing hands. War on Talibans is the official excuse to be there, but a lot more is going on. Neighbouring countries have sealed their borders, but the drugs leave the country quite easily. There are scary stories going around here...
This country is like an iceberg. We only see the tip!
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
Which is why Canadians (including myself) think that we should support it.Expat wrote:Good post, ice, but our troops are officially a PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team). Their role is not the hunt for Talibans. They are supposed to contribute, with all agencies, to the reconstruction, and security in their area.
... which is why Canadians (including myself) wonder about whether we should not.Expat wrote: There are scary stories going around here...
This country is like an iceberg. We only see the tip!
By the way: Have you any comments about the veracity Arthur Kent's stuff at skyreporter.com??
...
Dex:
Yes, the US Marines Corps would participate in NATO exercises and operations.
I was merely commenting on deskgo’s witty post.
For those who can't tell, it's photoshoped to add "own3d." We do write on EPW (enemy prisoner of war) foreheads to pass info down the line. Usually there is a giant card they wear around the neck, but for whatever reason, he doesn't have one.
Yes, the US Marines Corps would participate in NATO exercises and operations.
I was merely commenting on deskgo’s witty post.
For those who can't tell, it's photoshoped to add "own3d." We do write on EPW (enemy prisoner of war) foreheads to pass info down the line. Usually there is a giant card they wear around the neck, but for whatever reason, he doesn't have one.
Last edited by Nark on Mon May 14, 2007 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Were you required to give up your Canadian citizenship for some reason Nark? I only ask because citizenship in almost any country, but especially Canada, is a very valuable thing. If I were fortunate enough to have dual citizenship in Canada and another country like the US or Great Britain I would not give up either very easily, and certainly not willingly. Unless you felt your loyalties were contradicted by being a Marine (maybe I'm answering my own question here). If that's the case then I can respect that.Nark wrote:If by "us" you mean Canada, then yes. I have renouced my citizenship. I have the certificate framed.
... which is why Canadians (including myself) wonder about whether we should not.Expat wrote: There are scary stories going around here...
This country is like an iceberg. We only see the tip!
By the way: Have you any comments about the veracity Arthur Kent's stuff at skyreporter.com??
...[/quote]
I certainly do not follow international news about Af. We have daily reports about everything that goes on: criminal, political, military and covert...
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
What absolute shit to think that the changes that occurred in the former Soviet Union the West had anything to do with .
All Empires change in time usually from within.The changes from a Soviet regime in the Kremlin to a Russian one is because the Russians wanted their country back.In fact the Christian Russians to be precise .The Kremlin was built by God loving people and when the communists took it over it was only a matter of time before the foundations that the Kremlin was built on showed the true strength of the faith that built the Kremlin.
As for running amok in Afghanistan that is probably the dumbest post that i have ever read on here that i did not post.
Running amok is what the Red Army did in Berlin when the Soviets declared Berlin an open city .They made it illegal to lock any doors .
Ask any German what happened to the women during those weeks while the Red Army raped and pillaged their way through Berlin.
While the allies hanged men who done a similar crime,the French army shot on site men doing crimes against civilians as they did not want to give the germans an excuse to start another war and they were trying to be as chivalarious as possible .
Witness do you get your news from 6000 on the hf???
All Empires change in time usually from within.The changes from a Soviet regime in the Kremlin to a Russian one is because the Russians wanted their country back.In fact the Christian Russians to be precise .The Kremlin was built by God loving people and when the communists took it over it was only a matter of time before the foundations that the Kremlin was built on showed the true strength of the faith that built the Kremlin.
As for running amok in Afghanistan that is probably the dumbest post that i have ever read on here that i did not post.
Running amok is what the Red Army did in Berlin when the Soviets declared Berlin an open city .They made it illegal to lock any doors .
Ask any German what happened to the women during those weeks while the Red Army raped and pillaged their way through Berlin.
While the allies hanged men who done a similar crime,the French army shot on site men doing crimes against civilians as they did not want to give the germans an excuse to start another war and they were trying to be as chivalarious as possible .
Witness do you get your news from 6000 on the hf???
Rockie ----with regards your comments directed towards Nark, I might be able to help.
I too, have duel citizenship with the US and I too served in the American Military. What I state now you may want to read twice because it's greatly misunderstood by "Joe Public" on BOTH sides of the border.
As far as Canada is concerned, they will recognize dual citizenship with any other country on this planet. The US government has NEVER recognized any such thing as "dual citizenship". You are either 100 % American or you are considered a "Foreign National". You may jopin the American Armed Forces as a "Foreign National", BUT you are restricted from rising about a certain rank, depending on the Service. This is because of the required "Security Clearances" that you must meet in order to hold that given rank. The duel citizenship the Americans will acknowledge only begrudingly and they are uncomfortable with the terminology.
You will be offered and/or asked at some point, if you would prefer to obtain your American citizenship in order to prevent all the foregoing. If you say "Yes", that application will be expidicted and then you become American. This is where the misunderstanding now arises. If you were BORN Canadian, you will ALWAYS remain Canadian until you die as far as the Canadian government is concerned. You may have duel citizenship as I do, BUT the second that I cross back over the border into Canada, I am Canadian again. Having said that, there are certain features of being "Canadian" that I don't automatically get and must live in Canada for a small period of time in order to have them re-established once more.
This matter has raised it's ugly head many times over the eons because of where American Servicemen have been stationed in time of peace and war. The normal "happenings" have taken place and children have been fathered in foreign countries by those Servicemen. Bottom line is that the US government has never been comfortable with any of their citizens also have citizenship with another country. Upon taking the Oath of Alleigance to the US flag and Constitution, one is expected to renounce all other alleigances to other flags and countries and one might even do so loudly and firmly. In the case of Canada, you may yell or scream it out as much as you want, BUT the second your ass crosses north over the 49th parallel, Canada still considers you one of THEIR OWN and you don't have to take-out citizenship once again in Canada. To compound the problem, whether you have duel citizenship of not also depends on what year you were born. As an example, I have that duel citzenship, but my brother seven years younger, does not.
The above has been a "festering sore" between the US and Canada and that goes back long before anyone on this board was born. As a result, Canada had no problem whatsoever telling the world that the Captain of the Presidential 747 was Canadian from Hamilton, Ont. The Americans would state that he was a USAF Officer and was a full-fledged American citizen......at one time born in Canada.
Call it badly raging hormones or whatever you wish to call it, but this "duel citizenship"with the US is a subject well-known in my family because it applied to me, my mother AND my grandmother.......so we all had "duel citizenship" going all the way back to 1894.
I too, have duel citizenship with the US and I too served in the American Military. What I state now you may want to read twice because it's greatly misunderstood by "Joe Public" on BOTH sides of the border.
As far as Canada is concerned, they will recognize dual citizenship with any other country on this planet. The US government has NEVER recognized any such thing as "dual citizenship". You are either 100 % American or you are considered a "Foreign National". You may jopin the American Armed Forces as a "Foreign National", BUT you are restricted from rising about a certain rank, depending on the Service. This is because of the required "Security Clearances" that you must meet in order to hold that given rank. The duel citizenship the Americans will acknowledge only begrudingly and they are uncomfortable with the terminology.
You will be offered and/or asked at some point, if you would prefer to obtain your American citizenship in order to prevent all the foregoing. If you say "Yes", that application will be expidicted and then you become American. This is where the misunderstanding now arises. If you were BORN Canadian, you will ALWAYS remain Canadian until you die as far as the Canadian government is concerned. You may have duel citizenship as I do, BUT the second that I cross back over the border into Canada, I am Canadian again. Having said that, there are certain features of being "Canadian" that I don't automatically get and must live in Canada for a small period of time in order to have them re-established once more.
This matter has raised it's ugly head many times over the eons because of where American Servicemen have been stationed in time of peace and war. The normal "happenings" have taken place and children have been fathered in foreign countries by those Servicemen. Bottom line is that the US government has never been comfortable with any of their citizens also have citizenship with another country. Upon taking the Oath of Alleigance to the US flag and Constitution, one is expected to renounce all other alleigances to other flags and countries and one might even do so loudly and firmly. In the case of Canada, you may yell or scream it out as much as you want, BUT the second your ass crosses north over the 49th parallel, Canada still considers you one of THEIR OWN and you don't have to take-out citizenship once again in Canada. To compound the problem, whether you have duel citizenship of not also depends on what year you were born. As an example, I have that duel citzenship, but my brother seven years younger, does not.
The above has been a "festering sore" between the US and Canada and that goes back long before anyone on this board was born. As a result, Canada had no problem whatsoever telling the world that the Captain of the Presidential 747 was Canadian from Hamilton, Ont. The Americans would state that he was a USAF Officer and was a full-fledged American citizen......at one time born in Canada.
Call it badly raging hormones or whatever you wish to call it, but this "duel citizenship"with the US is a subject well-known in my family because it applied to me, my mother AND my grandmother.......so we all had "duel citizenship" going all the way back to 1894.
You didn't say so, but was this in reply to my "We will win Afghanistan the same way we won the breakup of the USSR" post?2R wrote:What absolute shit to think that the changes that occurred in the former Soviet Union the West had anything to do with .
All Empires change in time usually from within.The changes from a Soviet regime in the Kremlin to a Russian one is because the Russians wanted their country back.
I may have worded it poorly, but that was precisely my point... just as you said, we had nothing to do with it......
Any substantive change in Afghanistan is going to have to come about as a result of THEIR will..... we might, at best, point them in some desirable direction, but that's about it.
...
-
taxiway_matthew
- Rank 4
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:14 pm
One must not forget we are not just in Afghanistan for their sake, we're in it for our sake. Afghanistan was a huge terrorist breeding ground.
there are 13 men in a Toronto jail for planning to attack Canada, whether they trained in Afghanistan or not is beside the point I'm sure some of you will make, point is, Canada is a target, we must protect ourselves.
there are 13 men in a Toronto jail for planning to attack Canada, whether they trained in Afghanistan or not is beside the point I'm sure some of you will make, point is, Canada is a target, we must protect ourselves.
LH wrote:
...The US government has NEVER recognized any such thing as "dual citizenship".
.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocume ... p_2004.pdfU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Policy and Strategy wrote:..
In the United States, dual citizenship is not explicitly prohibited; the United States has no laws or policies addressing this issue.
...
Thanks for your post LH. I can't say that I disagree with the American military policy at all, or the Canadian policy. I was only curious why someone would willingly give up citizenship to their country of birth. I actually didn't make a comment directed at Nark, I was only asking him a question which he graciously answered in a PM. I won't repeat what he said but his reasons were sound, it wasn't a rash decision, and I respect him for the difficult choice he made.LH wrote:Rockie ----with regards your comments directed towards Nark, I might be able to help.
I too, have duel citizenship with the US and I too served in the American Military. What I state now you may want to read twice because it's greatly misunderstood by "Joe Public" on BOTH sides of the border.
As far as Canada is concerned, they will recognize dual citizenship with any other country on this planet. The US government has NEVER recognized any such thing as "dual citizenship". You are either 100 % American or you are considered a "Foreign National". You may jopin the American Armed Forces as a "Foreign National", BUT you are restricted from rising about a certain rank, depending on the Service. This is because of the required "Security Clearances" that you must meet in order to hold that given rank. The duel citizenship the Americans will acknowledge only begrudingly and they are uncomfortable with the terminology.
You will be offered and/or asked at some point, if you would prefer to obtain your American citizenship in order to prevent all the foregoing. If you say "Yes", that application will be expidicted and then you become American. This is where the misunderstanding now arises. If you were BORN Canadian, you will ALWAYS remain Canadian until you die as far as the Canadian government is concerned. You may have duel citizenship as I do, BUT the second that I cross back over the border into Canada, I am Canadian again. Having said that, there are certain features of being "Canadian" that I don't automatically get and must live in Canada for a small period of time in order to have them re-established once more.
This matter has raised it's ugly head many times over the eons because of where American Servicemen have been stationed in time of peace and war. The normal "happenings" have taken place and children have been fathered in foreign countries by those Servicemen. Bottom line is that the US government has never been comfortable with any of their citizens also have citizenship with another country. Upon taking the Oath of Alleigance to the US flag and Constitution, one is expected to renounce all other alleigances to other flags and countries and one might even do so loudly and firmly. In the case of Canada, you may yell or scream it out as much as you want, BUT the second your ass crosses north over the 49th parallel, Canada still considers you one of THEIR OWN and you don't have to take-out citizenship once again in Canada. To compound the problem, whether you have duel citizenship of not also depends on what year you were born. As an example, I have that duel citzenship, but my brother seven years younger, does not.
The above has been a "festering sore" between the US and Canada and that goes back long before anyone on this board was born. As a result, Canada had no problem whatsoever telling the world that the Captain of the Presidential 747 was Canadian from Hamilton, Ont. The Americans would state that he was a USAF Officer and was a full-fledged American citizen......at one time born in Canada.
Call it badly raging hormones or whatever you wish to call it, but this "duel citizenship"with the US is a subject well-known in my family because it applied to me, my mother AND my grandmother.......so we all had "duel citizenship" going all the way back to 1894.
