Canadian Gun Control policies get a little extreme - Page 2

MichaeltheGreat · May 9, 2003, 17:46

Actually, they got into a firefight because we were in a shooting war (remember, everyone says Afghanistan isn't one of those any more), and we failed to mark or secure their route of advance.

The Canucks are presumably sitting in more or less the same place, looking at water drainage, soil bearing pressures, road structural sections, and civil engineering type crap to figure out what they need to do to make the area house 1800 more Canucks without them shitting in their water supply or bottoming their trucks in craters in the goat path that qualifies as their main highway in the area.

Willem · May 9, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
"Recon mission" is the wrong way to describe this group.

The description of what they're doing points to this being surveyors, loggies, quartermaster types, etc., looking to figure out the requirements to base the 1800 troops coming later.

In other words, they're not combat types, and they're not going for combat ops. If the area where they plan to build their base is so unsecured that existing forces in the area aren't adequate, then that's going to make it awful tough to build the base.

Seems more like it's on the non-issue side of the scale than the big issue side.

Well they should at least be able to carry sidearms. Those are terrorists they're dealing with after all, and trigger happy warlords.

Agathon · May 9, 2003, 17:49

New Zealand once sent a detachment of peacekeepers to a Melanesian island armed only with parade sticks.

(The rebels had automatic rifles)

MichaeltheGreat · May 9, 2003, 17:49

So is the deal that they weren't issued weapons, or that they're under standing orders that prohibit them carrying weapons now that they're on the ground?

$200 US at the local market should have them all nicely equipped with regular Kalashnikovs, $300 should get them all the folding-stock paratrooper model.

Ben Kenobi · May 9, 2003, 18:31

"We are thus not only the first country in the world with the capability to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons.''

Heh. That's what we want them to think.

Quote:

"You're kidding, right? Canada has a warship?" asked U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Like for war?

Stealth Nation technology continues to pay dividends.

notyoueither · May 9, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does anyone agree with the Liberal minister that sending soldiers to a war zone without the means to protect themselves is a good idea?

I don't think so.

They are obviously non combatants. As MtG indicated, their jobs should not be dangerous, but funny things happen sometimes. Especially when the enemy is terrorist or irregular.

Personally, I see is as just more of the same from a government that likes to use the Forces for foreign affairs PR, but really doesn't give a sh*t about the people in the uniforms. It started the moment they trounced the previous government. They immediately cancelled a contract for some choppers which were badly needed to replace the ones we have which are all well beyond their useful, and safe lives. They cancelled it for spite as far as I can tell. Net effect, several old choppers have since crashed with some fatalities. Oh, and now they're talking about getting some new choppers.