Canadian Gun Control policies get a little extreme

DinoDoc · May 8, 2003, 16:20

Quote:

Unarmed in Afghanistan
Tuesday, May 6, 2003 --Canadian soldiers are back in Afghanistan, but this time, they don't have any weapons to help protect them. In Ottawa's rush to put Canadian troops on the ground, 25 elite Canadian soldiers arrived in Afghanistan only to find that they are not allowed to carry guns. What makes the situation particularly embarrassing is that the troops have been assigned German bodyguards to protect them. A Global National exclusive report.

Does anyone have more info on this situation?

Oerdin · May 8, 2003, 16:21

This would be hilarious if it wasn't for the ****ing islamic militants which run around shooting people.

Asher · May 8, 2003, 16:22

Sava · May 8, 2003, 16:23

Global Nation? Is that some sort of right-wing rag?

Asher · May 8, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Global Nation? Is that some sort of right-wing rag?

CanWest Global owns Global, CanWest is run by one of Chretien's good friends.

Here's more info: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...21/?hub=Canada

Quote:

McCallum defends unarmed troops in Afghanistan

CTV.ca News Staff

The government was on the defensive again Wednesday, as the Opposition took the Liberals to task over a Canadian military reconnaissance team that's on a mission in Iraq unarmed.

In the House of Commons Wednesday, Canadian Alliance MP Leon Benoit pressed Defence Minister John McCallum to explain why the soldiers travelling to Afghanistan aren't allowed to carry firearms.

"Was it a deliberate decision on the part of this government to deny our Canadian soldiers the weapons they need to protect themselves or was it an oversight?" Benoit asked.

"Yesterday, I said it was a non-issue and I repeat that," McCallum replied. "While the government has every concern for the safety of our troops, a small reconnaissance mission unarmed as is often the case… this is normal."

On Tuesday, Benoit said the decision to send a 25-member team to Afghanistan without weapons was "shameful." But McCallum told the Commons the issue was "no big deal," as the team would be well-protected by German troops while there.

Repeating his assurances Wednesday, the minister accused Benoit of "talking nonsense."

"This group is well-protected by the Germans who are currently deployed. The same is true for a small group of NATO soldiers," McCallum told the House.

The Canadian team is in Afghanistan to prepare for the arrival of 1,800 other Canadian troops expected in August. They will be part of a 5,000-member force sanctioned by the UN but not led by it. NATO agreed to assume that role last week.

Sharing his analysis from Ottawa, CTV's Mike Duffy says that the team travelled to Afghanistan on commercial carriers.

"As they tell me at National Defence headquarters, you can't get on a plane with a gun today. And to bring a gun to do what is essentially a bureaucratic mission. They see it as unnecessary, a lot of hassle and extra trouble," Duffy said.

The issue is likely drawing steam from worried relatives of the unarmed soldiers, who are putting pressure on the Alliance to "carry the banner," Duffy said.

In the House, Benoit was indeed raising the issue.

"The families are worried," Benoit said in a question for McCallum.

"Afghanistan, in case he doesn't know it, is a very dangerous place. Just 11 days ago, two American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in a surprise attack. How can this minister fail so badly in his obligation to our Canadian serving men and women?"

But the minister was unmoved.

"It is the opposition which is causing unnecessary worry for the families. It is the opposition who by raising these non-issues is casting aspersions on the fine work done by the Canadian forces," McCallum shot back.

"I would suggest that they support our forces and talk about the fine achievements rather than raising these non-issues."

Sava · May 8, 2003, 16:28

so what does that mean? u have 2 dumb it down 4 me

Asher · May 8, 2003, 16:29

If anything, CanWest Global is biased towards the Liberals.

Sava · May 8, 2003, 16:30

why would a left wing rag attack gun control policies?

Asher · May 8, 2003, 16:31

It's not about gun control policies, it's about sending unarmed troops to Afghanistan who need to be accompanied by German bodyguards.

Sava · May 8, 2003, 16:31

why would the canadian government do that? sounds stupid to me!

Asher · May 8, 2003, 16:32

I thought that's why they did it.

You have nooooo idea all of the stupid things the Canadian government has done recently.

Sava · May 8, 2003, 16:33

yup!

DinoDoc · May 8, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
why would a left wing rag attack gun control policies?

That was just a trollish title to get people to read the thread.

Thanks for the additional article Asher.

Sava · May 8, 2003, 16:34

u r evil DD

Japher · May 8, 2003, 16:40

Why would the Canadians need guns anyway? No one hates them enough to take any shots at them, and if the Canadians wanted to do any real harm they'd just start flying their helicopter-kamakazies around

"Let's go to war, eh."
"Ok, eh."
Land in BFE
"Ok, were here."
"Give me a gun, eh"
"Yeah, eh"
"You for got the guns! You nob."
"No way, you forgot, you hoser!"
"eh!"

Enemy shoots self due to the excessive use of the word "eh".

We are the Knight who say Eh!

BeBro · May 8, 2003, 16:47

Even we pacifist Germans allow our ISAF soldiers to carry weapons there....

Lefty Scaevola · May 8, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
why would the canadian government do that? sounds stupid to me!

The question contains the answer.

Kuciwalker · May 8, 2003, 18:08

The Canadian's have guns???

What's the world coming to?

DinoDoc · May 9, 2003, 02:30

bump.

notyoueither · May 9, 2003, 02:38

Seems like a good place for it...

http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml

Quote:

"Canada Warship Seizes Tanker in Arabian Sea" -- Reuters, Feb. 8, 2002

CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT...
CANADA HAS A WARSHIP?
Oh Right, and Switzerland Has Nuclear Weapons

Arabian Sea (SatireWire.com) — Canadian television reported Friday that a Canadian warship in the Arabian Sea had seized a tanker suspected of smuggling oil from Iraq, leading many to suspect that the report was a hoax.

The Halifax Class frigate Vancouver.
Honest.
"You're kidding, right? Canada has a warship?" asked U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Like for war?

"Does Canada know?" he added.

"Nobody was more stunned than we were," said Kali Omari, first mate of the seized vessel. "We saw this frigate steaming toward us, and we were worried, but then we saw the maple leaf on the flag, and we thought, 'Oh, Canadians. What the hell do they want?'"

When an officer of the HMCS Vancouver announced that the tanker was about to be boarded, the crew of the detained ship was confused, said Omari, but their confusion quickly turned to anger when they saw what the Canadians sailors were carrying.

"They were armed. With guns," said Omari. "Canadians. With guns. And a warship. What is this world coming to?"

"They were pretty rude, too," Omari added. "They started asking us all sorts of questions, like 'Where did that oil come from?' But first we wanted to know who gave them the damn warship."

According to Canadian defense officials, the Vancouver is one of four frigates deployed in the region to assist in the U.S.-led Afghanistan conflict. The tanker was stopped, officials said, because its cargo of crude oil violated United Nations sanctions, which prohibit Iraq from selling oil unless in exchange for food and medicine.

The U.N. said the incident is already under investigation, and promised swift action against those found responsible for giving the Canadians guns. Initial findings indicate that the Vancouver crew may have been watching too many American television shows.

RECOMMEND
THIS PAGE
Copyright © 2002, SatireWire.

St Leo · May 9, 2003, 16:00

Oh Right, and Switzerland Has Nuclear Weapons

Don't make me nuke Alberta.

'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.''

Pierre Trudeau,
United Nations,
26 May 1978

DinoDoc · May 9, 2003, 16:04

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

Willem · May 9, 2003, 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
why would a left wing rag attack gun control policies?

It's not a left wing rag, it's a middle of the road rag. Big difference. And it has nothing to do with gun control issues, it's just some stupid decision by a government bureaucrat dealing with a military protocal. I guess someone figured that a team not involved in an offensive capacity doesn't have any need to protect themselves, simply waving a Canadian flag would be sufficient.

There are idiots in every government.

Willem · May 9, 2003, 16:23

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 suspect only other Liberal ministers.

gsmoove23 · May 9, 2003, 16:37

He seems to think they were sent for a largely admistrative purpose, without knowing exactly what their mission was I'd have to say I really don't care.

Lancer · May 9, 2003, 16:58

If the Canadian military doesn't have the right to bear arms, this may be the moment to strike...

Canadians, this is pretty bad.

Very funny though.

Oerdin · May 9, 2003, 17:13

I feel sorry for those poor guys who have to risk their lives because some assinine politician doesn't want to offend a P.A.C..

The politicians should get

.

Lancer · May 9, 2003, 17:16

It's a good thing. Highlights the idiocy of the left. Not that it needs much more highlighting...

MichaeltheGreat · May 9, 2003, 17:34

"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.

DinoDoc · May 9, 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In other words, they're not combat types, and they're not going for combat ops.

Don't we let our noncombat units carry weapons? I remember one noncombat unit getting into a firefight before being captured in Iraq.