Derek 2.0

No they can't, a physical indent into metal, made smooth, can't be magically retrieved. It is, but then so to is smuggling firearms in from the States, or using them in the commission of a crime.......doesn't seem to deter criminals within Canada though. No, my idea is to not rely on a database, that costs millions of dollars to create and maintain, that can be thwarted with a $7.50 file from Canadian Tire.........Your idea is far from brilliant.

Nice strawman........a criminal can file off a serial number in minutes, hence making the registry redundant.......Road checks are to catch drunk drivers....are you suggesting gun checks to ensure that criminals both register and maintain the serial numbers on their guns.......now that is brilliant!!!

It did one thing well..........waste money........A Quebec registry, that Quebec guns owners, as per the Federal Firearms Act, have no need to comply with, will waste even more money.

I do, you don't. They can create a registry, but it has no legal bearing, as the Canadian Firearms Act made legalities surrounding firearms ownership a Federal responsibility, governed by the Federal Government and administered by the RCMP's CFC......Quebec, or any Province, can't change Federal law. I didn't......... All guns with serial numbers can have said serial numbers removed with a $ 7.50 file from Canadian Tire though, thus rendering a "gun registry" useless for your suggested use of "tracing guns".

You're missing the point.......there is no gun registry, and under the current Canadian FIrearms Act, only the Federal government can create such a database.......not the Province of Quebec. As to a registry and "gun tracing" itself, here too you don't know what you're talking about.........Most firearms made pre 1968 don't have serial numbers, and for those that do (both pre/post '68) have serial numbers:

I can't fathom how Quebec would create its own registry........ First, any data from the old LGR was useless the day after the LGR was scrapped. Second, under the Firearms Act, the collection of data (or any laws related to firearms) pertaining to ones firearms is a Federal Jurisdiction, as such, the Province of Quebec has no leg to stand on. Third, any person living within the Province of Quebec can simply buy/sell a firearm(s) out of Province, with the out of Province buyer/seller having no legal requirement to report the sale/purchase to anyone. Fourth, the Quebec Chief Firearms Officer, under authority of the Firearms Act, can require a gun owner's info for their Authorization to transport (ATT) permit, but only restricted firearms (Handguns, AR-15s etc) require an ATT.....and restricted firearms are already registered by the CFC.. A Quebec Long Gun Registry is truly idiotic and will be an even bigger waste of money and resources then the previous Federal registry........

What makes you think at party meetings that we're the ones being told anything and not the inverse? I Wouldn't suggest the World as a whole benefited, more so just the "West"......Of course you could say the favor to the World was not being radiated and/or the benefit of being apart of a stable World economy, fueled by a largely secure source of energy. And no, I wouldn't think most involved would be remorseful, or to such an extent as they would be if they hadn't of acted within the West's collective best interests. There's no need.......most within Western countries understand that religious nuts that want to kill them, well sitting atop the energy needed for them to go on with their day-to-day lives, are a bad thing......inversely, most in Western countries show (at best) indifference to less vital regions full of nuts killing each other (see Rwanda, Somalia etc)......

That's doubtful.....Mosaddegh's secular, Communist leanings would likely have either resulted in his overthrow by Shia clerics (several decades earlier than the Shah as per historic) at best, at worse, the precipice to global nuclear war as the balance of control of Middle Eastern oil would have tilted into the Soviets favor.

Why would pollsters ask a moot question? The Canadian Forces have been an all volunteer force for over 70 years...

One key difference is that we're not attempting to create a democratic nation out of a despotic regime........We've been requested by a democratically elected Government to provide assistance in creating stability. Without wading into the successes and failures of both past missions, in this case (as mentioned) we're aiding a Democracy, well expending very little political capital at home, hence no domestic urging to leave prior to the mission being completed...

We've been involved in the ME, fostering peace and stability (with the use of our military), far longer than a decade, dating back to the 1950s But we're already doing that, in addition to providing specific vital skills the Iraqi and Kurdish forces do not have and can't acquire in the short-medium term I disagree........the intent of the mission is very clear: First to halt the spread of ISIS controlled territory, followed by aiding the Iraqi and Kurdish forces in regaining territory lost and restoring a semblance of stability within the region.

Clearly....nor was paying their share or honoring commitments made by the Crown with the natives. Effective Peace treaty...........and of course they chose the later, Quebec was surrounded by British subjects and populated by hostile (to the French) natives.... Backed off from their Empire? You mean like they did Post-WW II?

1. When did a stable Middle East stop being in Canada's national interests? 2. What good is training and humanitarian support without a semblance of security in the region? 3. There are well defined targets and objectives....... Though I disagree with the NDP, I'll give them credit for articulating their position clearly........Trudeau's position makes no sense, well running counter to past Canadian military actions started namely by past Liberal Governments........ Should King and St Laurent have applied the "Trudeau doctrine" to the Second World War and Korea?

- Yet there are to high profile anti-terror trials going on presently, that entail planned attacks predating the rise of ISIS -We've been increasing resources to combat radical Islam since 9/12 -As I asked in the C-51 thread, what civil liberties are being curtailed? -To date, the cost in blood and treasure has been less than our first 6 months in Afghanistan. Going forward, due to the nature of the current mission versus our past mission in Afghanistan, both costs (blood/treasure) will be significantly cheaper. -Again you frame our contribution as small....why? I would suggest (cost) effective and resulting in positive gains that are a benefit to both the Iraqis and Kurds............One could also point to past Canadian military actions and reflect if Canada helped create those problems too. -I would add to goodwill the morality of helping a democratically elected Government, found within a economically vital region of the World, halting the genocide of its people

Right, but the Parliament of Great Britain, circa 1700s, wasn't. The conflict between the French and British was very much so over each nations colonies in the Western Hemisphere......The decades long Carnatic conflicts over India represented only a small fraction of forces committed, with the British having more Red Coats in the West Indies then in India (In which the majority of the British troops were comprised of private solders of the British East India Company) Of course this doesn't change the fact that the British were broke after the war, in turn, raised taxes dramatically at home, well attempting to tax/tariff goods in the 13 colonies to pay for the conflict and their Empires defense......Again, I fail to see what the British could have done differently, hence my questioning of your claim to their stupidity.

Supporters of radical Islam are PO'd and want to kill everyone already that doesn't share their perverted interpretation of the Quran...... And why do you feel our contribution is small? Its on par with that of the British, French and Australians..... What factors do you include in your analysis?

But its context, during that period, only Protestant males in England, Wales and Scotland had MPs in the British Parliament.......Britons throughout the rest of the Empire did not.....but in the 13 Colonies, they did have Continental Legislatures that allowed for local governance, much like our Provinces today. The Seven Years' War was fought in the defense of the then British North American colonies.........and nearly bankrupted the British........Some in the Colonies, the "Patriots", felt with the French no longer posing a threat (thanks to a war paid for by the British) they had no requirement to pick-up some of the tab for past and future defense......likewise, when King George partitioned British colonies in North America with the Proclamation of 1763, granting the land West of the Appalachians to the numerous native tribes for their service against the French, this angered rich American "nobles" that had laid claim to much of "Indian territory", in turn, said "nobles" later became "Patriots".....of which Ben Franklin and George Washington are counted among...........

Was it bone headedness though to require English subjects in the 13 colonies to pay through taxation for a portion of the previous Seven Years' War, that defended the colonists from the French and to a lesser degree the Spanish? Why, in that time period, should the 13 colonies have been treated any better, with seats in Parliament (then less than 70 years old), than any other British colony? Likewise, when sea voyages between North America and England were measured in months, how effective would a Member of Parliament for New York, Boston or Charleston have been versus a Governor as historic? Likewise, say that they had MPs in Parliament, but the still large Tory Government tabled and passed the various taxation acts, would the colonies still have rebelled?

Its subjective, as the old saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There are certainly "rules" in terms of International conventions and unspoken understandings between foes, but said rules can and will be tossed, much like pre-war planning, once being tested by actual combat.

Perhaps, but under some circumstances that isn't an option, be it the British during the later 1700s or again during the Second World War........hence the loss of the 13 colonies and most of the Empire East of the Suez....

A little more to it then that........fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch during the same period was far more of a factor, fore if they weren't fighting three other "superpowers", the British could have hired even more Germans to fight the 13 colonies.......and the Americans would be speaking Canadian today

Not so much as "fair", but implementing the tactics of war from Continental Europe, be it through Redcoats or European mercenaries......The "American" forces, due in part to its smaller size and less modern (and shortages of) weaponry were forced to counter by using differing tactics........of course, as the Americans advanced in the decades ahead, the same tactics used by the British, were also used by the Americans through to the First World War.

Right, but for the most part, domestically, indifference is the name of the game at home or support that is a mile wide, but an inch deep.

Without a doubt the use of social media makes information more obtainable, but with that, new rules on what members can post/share from their personal accounts.......clearly some don't adhere to said rules, be it through negligence or (more likely) ignorance, but it returns to the adage of:

I think the story referenced in the OP is both overstating the threat, well also acknowledging a type of threat that is hardly new........The concept of force protection for a military has been a shared and practiced concept for centuries......The Romans practiced it for their Legion's baggage caravans against rearguard actions by various barbarian groups several thousand years ago........Likewise, the Canadian Armed Forces practiced it in the 70s & 80s against threats posed by radical Communist terror groups in Germany, continuing into the 90s with threats from the Saddam regime during Desert Shield/Storm, and further increasing protection through the War on Terror, from the USS Cole bombing upwards to last Fall's attacks. As mentioned in the OP article though, said Service Members names were pulled from media articles, no databases were hacked, as the Americans, like most Western Forces, limit information that could be accessed through the civilian internet. Aside from nuclear weapons, military families from Western Forces living in military housing are safer statistically then average citizens.......not to say there shouldn't be prudent steps taken...... As to moral implications..........meh, if given the chance, said groups would kill as many non-believing citizens as possible.