Wilber

Rockets that can carry a 400 lb payload over 40 miles and land close to where they are aimed, aren't home made.

Actually it is Israel's "measured response". Canada does not have the capacity to bomb Middle East targets, no matter how much you would somehow like to blame an oil slick off the coast of Lebanon on Harper.

The parameters of U.N. responsibility versus each countries responsibility is outlined here: https://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Paramet.../1994/baker.htm The problems of getting a political decision to add or remove troops as well as change rules of engagement are outlined in Romeo Dallaire's book. There is already a committee in the U.N. It is called the Security Council. The Secrerary General and the military commanders advise the council about what is happening and they make the decision. Israeli assurances, according to the Chinese, prevented them from removing their people. There lies the problem. These are on the spot military decisions which should be made by person in charge of the mission. We are talking about the deployment of 4 soldiers in the middle of a war zone here, not D Day. Leaving this kind of thing to politicians is bound to end badly. I've read Dallaire's book and since then I've been surprised they can find any officers willing to take the job under those conditions.

Who's talking about them abandoning their post? There is no dishonour in being ordered to leave. It was the UN's responsibility for keeping them there and no one else's. I disagree that it is an ambassadors responsibility to make military decisions. Most of them have no credentials to do so and a lot more people would end up getting killed if they were allowed to. There were four different nationalities at that post. Do you think their ambassadors should have formed a committee to decide whether they should have stayed or left? What if it was a split decision? The decision of whether to keep them there has to come down to one person, the person in charge of the mission. Perhaps Harper is asking himself that question but then he has no military background and relies on the judgment of those who do when it comes to military matters, as he should. Asking why they were left there is a perfectly reasonable question. How they came to be targeted is also a perfectly reasonable question, but different.

It seems that Lt Col Davis wants to know why they were left there as well as Harper. That is a question for the UN to answer. I believe that the UN's ranting about possible war crimes is mostly a smoke screen to cover their own asses for leaving these people exposed when they could accomplish nothing. As for how and why the place was bombed is concerned, that I believe is still under investigation. In our society we investigate first, try second and sentence last. We may or may not be satisfied with the results but at least let's try and do it in the proper order. The most chaotic and unjust endeavor that mankind indulges itself in is warfare. Trying to impose normal standards of justice and order on it is almost always an exercise in futility but I guess we should still make an effort.

If the B test comes in the same, I don't see how he could. The limit is 4 to 1 which is already 2 to 4 times what is normal. He tested at nearly 3 times that limit. Some people will always be looking for a way to cheat. Drugs are just another method. It may be an uphill battle but we need to stick up for those who don't want to cheat.

Sure are a lot of experts on the "fog of war" here.

How could they not know? They get a Defence briefing every morning. Lewis MacKenzie, a Conservative was in touch with the Canadian every day. Fair question but neither of us knows the answer.

There's still lots of soldiers there. Why isn't Harper immediately asking they be pulled out now? Are there and if so how many are Canadian? There seems to be some question as to whether the government knew the victim was stationed where he was.

But the U.N. is the sum of the membership. Our ambassador should have asked they be pulled out. Considering the result, 20/20 hindsight would confirm that.

OK, so if the Israelis had surrounded their base and they were taken out by a Hezbollah rocket they would have been with the Israelis. Glad we got that straight.

If U.N Forces are in danger even now, Harper should ask to have them pulled. Sounds like he is blaming the victims here. He said Canadian soldiers don't cut and run. Well, that's true. They need orders. And those orders had to be initiated by someone. The U.N. responds to motions from its ambassadors. Where was Canada's? I don't think he is blaming the victims but he has every reason to question why the UN left them there. UN missions are just that, UN missions not Canadian missions and the soldiers we send on them are not always commanded by Canadians.

Ask, why would peacekeepers be positioned with terrorists? I assume they were on the Lebanon side of the border because they were not welcome on the Israeli side. That doesn't make them "with terrorists".

Do we even know how much of the economy is underground? So many people don't really have that option. They work for private or public companies that follow the letter of the law. No we don't but those same people often have the option of who they hire and how they pay when it comes to their private lives.

Why were so called "Peace Keepers" sitting on top of a hill in a war zone between two parties who were doing their best to kill each other, when at least one of those parties is known not to have wanted them there? Any idiot should know that something bad is likely to happen whether it is premeditated or not.

I don't think so but the penalty is often much greater than most sentences for dealing drugs.

And now California is constantly in deficit. Propositions have limited their abilility to raise revenue and have limited the areas that they can cut. True, but the underground economy generated by the GST is the closest thing Canada will ever come to a tax revolt. I don't think Canadians would ever do it up front, they will just find ways of doing it under the table.

In the US maybe (California did it once) but not in Canada.

I believe the legal test is "reasonable doubt". Lets hope it never becomes "a shadow of a doubt".

How do you know a person is a convicted felon until you find out who he is and run a check on him? Canada is one of the most under policed countries in the developed world. They just don't have the people. Up until last year the size of the Vancouver police force hadn't increased since 1992. They call for backup in just about every case and it is usually there very quickly but if Canadians want their police to double up they will have to be prepared to pay for it.

I'm the father of a police officer. You don't think I am concerned about this stuff or ever talk to him about it? I don't pretend to speak for him but I have a pretty good idea of how he feels about this and I know he wants to carry a Tazer in spite of the fact he has other options up to and including an assault rifle.

Good PR for sure but it also makes sense. At lot more sense than coming home on a nearly empty aircraft. The A310 is a Canadian Forces transport aircraft. Isn't this one reason we have them, to evacuate Canadians from danger areas?

Of course no police officer wants to shoot anyone. The situations I fear is when someone pulls a gun and the officer needs to take time wondering if the fatality inquiry will question his use of his sidearm when he has a tazer. Remember, cops always have the whole nation looking over their shoulder ever move, more options they have, the more people expect for them to unduly risk their lives to save a criminal's. It's problems like this that create potential for disaster. I have no idea what happened in Saskatchewan but I can't imagine any police officer having to consciously make a decision between his Tazer and the biggest nastiest gun he had if someone pulled a gun on him. Hopefully something can be learned from this that will prevent it from happening again. I have little interest in the conjecture of amateurs which includes me. The only good that can come out of this is from professionals finding out what actually happened and by professionals making any necessary changes to prevent it from reoccurring. Tazers were not something foisted on the police by a politically correct public or politicians, they are used by police forces world wide because they want them and believe they need them. The police are required to use reasonable force. Only they have the background and training that qualifies them to use that kind of judgment on the scene. That is not you or I. As things change, that training will be found lacking at times and will also need to be changed. Besides having their actions critiqued by their peers, they will always be second guessed by those who think they know better but do not. It's just part of their job that they have to live with. By taking away things like Tazers, you are telling a police officer he has two options. He can either physically grapple with that berserk addict who may have some sort of weapon like a knife or club, may be unarmed but have AIDS, Hep C or some other nasty affliction, or shoot him. My son has told me of incidents where they have had some berserker who's brain is so fried by crystal meth that four cops pointing their guns at him makes no impression at all. It's the fifth cop with the Tazer who finally gets his attention. They can either put themselves in harms way by wrestling with anyone who is violent because they are under extreme emotional distress, or shoot them. The police encounter situations where they need to use force on a daily basis. Because they have several options available to them, the actual use of a firearm other than as a threat is very rarely needed. Around here when you hear of a police officer using his gun in anger, it is usually defending himself from a big nasty dog protecting a grow op or meth lab.

Post deleated

I think you're right about how it may be approached by many American forces but I'm not sure it already hasn't happened. When I was growing up in Vancouver during the 50's and 60's a patrol officer was armed with a 38 Police Special revolver and a baton. That's it. Today when my son goes on shift he has a semi automatic handgun, Tazer, pepper spray and an baton on his person. A twelve gauge shotgun and assault rifle (a type used by the SAS among others) in his car. And the apologists for our system say violent crime is down. Balls.