Army Guy

I'm curious into how Canada failed to uphold this treaty. and although you've have posted "SOME" of what the treaty intentions are you have neglected to post some of the other portions. In fact the orginal and current Convention of child soldiers states the same that children can be held accountable for their actions...it is the punishment that differs from adults... International law does not prohibit the prosecution of children who commit war crimes, but the article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child does limit the punishment that a child can receive including "Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age."[11] You also fail to mention that this Canadian Government and US government had come to agreement on the Max sentence to give young mr Omar.... had acted on Omars behalf keeping in mind that Omar is not the only Canadian held in custody by a foreign nation. We also have to keep in mind that Omars situation is not over,and perhaps rehabilitation is still forth coming. So i'd be interested in knowing what specfic act of the agreement did Canada violate ? Many child soldiers fought in the Civil war in Sierra Leone. In its wake the UN sanctioned the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) to try the participants for war crimes and other breaches of humanitarian law. The statute of the SCSL gave the court jurisdiction over persons aged 15 and older, however the Paris Principles state that children who participated in armed conflict: ... who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators. They must be treated in accordance with international law in a framework of restorative justice and social rehabilitation, consistent with international law which offers children special protection through numerous agreements and principles.[12] and this was reflected in the wording of article 7 of the SCSL statute which did not rule out prosecution but emphasised rehabilitation and society's reintegration. David Crane the first Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone tribunal, chose to interpret the statute so that the tribunal's policy was to prosecute those who recruited the children rather than the children themselves no matter how heinous the crimes they had committed.[11] In the United States, prosecutors take a different view from David Crane and have repeatedly stated that they intend to try Omar Khadr, on several serious charges including murder, for offences they allege he committed in Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban against United States forces while he was under sixteen years old. If found guilty under US law such a crime carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.[11] On 25 October 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying.[13][14] This was agreed as part of a plea bargain, which would see Khadr deported to Canada after one year to serve the remaining seven years there.[15] In a letter to the U.S. military commission at Guantanamo after the plea of guilty had been heard but before the announcement of sentence, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN secretary-general's special representative for children and armed conflict, wrote that Khadr represents the "classic child soldier narrative: recruited by unscrupulous groups to undertake actions at the bidding of adults to fight battles they barely understand", and suggested that Khadr to be released into a rehabilitation program.[16] Omar Khadr remained in Guantanamo Bay as of July 2012, and the Canadian government continued to face international criticism for their stonewalling of his repatriation

Kraykrik: Your absolutly right , i could have done a much better job at trying to get my piont across. That being said i got tired of doing just that, as Wyle was not interested in any of the main issue asides from proving my intial statement false which he did quit well.... After that it was well like beating a dead horse to which i gave up.. And i do hope Canada can resolve all our issues peacefully, but history has shown us that is not the case in the majority of these separations, I personally believe that i won't be possiable unless Quebec can make it's demands reasonable and vice versa. And i know that the only current demands we have were ones that were being discussed during the last ref vote, and these had caused some interesting reactions amoungst the Crietien Government but how revelent they are today who knows.

Yes you were right once out of the 17 examples you provided , i think i already manned up and said so. you found the one example. but the list that did not end so well is 10 times. I was not trying to move the goal post , just refruting the other 16 examples you provided. but i guess you can't do that. your right i'm wrong, there was more than one that has ended without violence, But i already gave that to you serveral posts ago, my piont that i was trying to make here was they more often than not DO END in Violence.

Well During the last ref , the Bloc party had recieved a positive response from a small percentage of French speaking Canadian forces pers saying they would except a position in Quebecs new military, That and Quebecs reserve forces which far out number the Reg force and would likly adapt to also forming part of Quebecs forces. The numbers were enough to cause some concern in the federal government. Also there are police forces, other para military forces that Quebec could draw numbers from. Taking the equipment out of Quebec, along with their crews was to ensure A) as you stated they could not be used as leverage, but also to deny them use to Quebec B)and any of it's crew jumping ship and joining the other side....IE getting a F-18 pilot is not much good unless he has a plane to fly....Having them down in the states detered all that, Crietien also mentioned in his book that had Quebec separated the states would quarintine the A/C, and crew... Quebec has plenty of assets that could be used as leverage without using the military .But coming up with people who want to fight has never been a issue always plenty of them , normally people who have not been trained or seen combat.

Your right , why would you care to explain anything, and in your mind it did end in just a vote with no deaths or military action. But history records a very different version and it did not start with and end with a vote.

I'll give you this one,but it does not mean that they did not have their problems either.... This one have you read any of these break ups, tell me they had a clean break up including the times leading up to it, most of these stories are covered in blood....like most things Russian.....very few if any were clean....as you proclaim.... This is what happens when men can't solve things like adults...and while you have listed one example that has ended without violence , care to take a stab at all those that did end in conflict....

Your talking like i came up with these ideas, no sir, these were ideas that were brought forth during the last ref have you read creitien book read the paras on the ref and tell me it all lunacy, these were questions and actions our government took on our behalf, not army guy making shit up....Why would they close it's borders , because Quebec government at the time suspected Canada would use military force to prevent, or counter Quebec separation....business as usual we hope it is , but thats not what our liberal buddies at the time had planned.

Excited No, fearful yes, after all this is Canada we are talking about. But thanks for the stereo type. I've been doing this stuff for over 32 years now, and as much as i'd like to say it will all be sorted out in a conference room it won't,it never has..... not in the last 30 years anyways.... they have all been sorted out on the battle field, and yes by guys like you ....see not enough army guys around , so they will make up there numbers with guys like you.... My piont was they need to have this discussion before they go to the polls , they need to find a favorable split by all parties ....thinking that this will be decuided after the fact in a conference room is sticking your head up your ass, and hoping fopr the best....maybe you can find the an example of separation that has gone good in the last years, and why Canada / Quebec is going to be the first....

Very few Canadians want to separate, However may be forced to in order to maintain our current standard of living. But everything will change....And Joining the US is one option. You'll have to explain to me how you'll get Quebec to join the eastern half, as i don't think there is a way in hell to do that, making this more of a multi break thing.

Your assuming Quebec is producing exactly the same amount as it's capita, your also assuming everything is going to be the same the day after, and everyone is just going to wake up the next day hoist the new flags and carry on, but what if there is a problem, what if Canada does not want Quebec using our currency, or what if there is a problem with our new borders, nobody has even said what they are yet, everyone assumes everything is going to be OK and yet can anyone name when a separation went OK......but what about the other things such as the drop in our dollar, Quebec even talks about separation our dollar drops, one can only imigine if it did separate what effects it would have. And if the separation goes rough, meaning force is required for some reason, then would our dollar bottom out, so would our trade, not many countries interested in trading with a nation in conflict or troubles...

Wild Bill makes a some good pionts, Canada's finicial situation is going to take a major hit. Assuming that the rest of Canada stays together, and all the Quebec questions get answered by diplomatic means. ( if they don't then our money sit is going to be in the crapper) We are still not going to have the postion we once had, major changes will have to be done to accomadate what we enjoy right now. Just saying nothing will change, we will go on without Quebec like we do today is just sticking your head in the sand. I think Bill is right joining the US might not seem that bad of an idea after some time has passed.

Not much was mentioned to the general public, but it was not a bluff, f-18's did deploy to the US, along with serveral 5 Brig army units also deployed into the states , all so they would be out of the country if something did happen. lets not forget our french naval assets. that part was not a bluff....Crietien also mentions in his book that some of the english ground and air units were placed on standby with specific orders , he does not mention what those orders were but they were not to hand out blankets... Some of the questions i asked need to be solved before Quebec decides to go it's own way, such as borders, what federal instalations , lands, and equipment will be handed over, or taken back. In any case i'm pretty sure Quebec will not look like Quebec does today. Not sure how far this statement is meant to go. be it your willing to take up arms for your cause, and all that it means. But once you go down this road, it can'nt be taken back. And if your not sure what this means i think you should read about a few of the latest nations trying to break free of their govenment chains, Yugoslavia is a good one, and are you ready for all that to be brought into Canada and Quebec. Your wrong both sides have plenty that they could lose, for instance if a direct land route is not secured through Quebec, how will the maritime provinces be be re supplied. this option alone is enough to have one opened via direct force. there are plenty of others. Don't ever think that our government or industry captains are beyond spilling blood in chasing down the mighty buck...Yes we talk a good game but Canadians are no different than the rest of the outside world.

This is a scary topic, atleast for myself who has seen first hand separation of nations , and what it cost them. And while most Canadians will think that this will not happen in Canada because we are beyond that, well i hope they are right, but history shows us something very different. Benz you quote above you don't think Main line canada will not use military forces again'st Quebec your sadly mistaken, in fact during the last refurendum Creitien had planed such a use if things did not go to plan. In fact he mentions it in his book. He mentions his plan about what was being done about French Canadian military forces, how most of the important assets such as F-18's were sent south into the states, how some ground forces were also sent south into the states on a major exericise, As they're was a question to they're loyality to Canada, Quebec separatists had already asked french Canadian military members about crossing over and enough had said yes to cause concern, concern enough to move major military assets out of Quebec. Mr Crietien had also place serveral english speaking units on standby if required, for what reason he does not say, but i'm sure it was not to hand out blankets and teddy bears. So if it had been done by a French Canadian Prime minister, what exactly do you think mr harpers plans would be. What scares me the most is the thought of Canadian engaging fellow Canadians, over the years french and english soldiers have developed a close bond, many having developed life long freindships. But both sides knows what at stake here, on one side the creation of the french dream, starting a new nation under complete control of French citizens. On the other the survival of English Canada. What i mean with that is these pionts. 1. What are going to be Quebecs new borders, this question has been asked by alot of posters here.,,,and how are they going to be administered, Martimes provinces have alot of thier goods shipped through quebec. 2. How is this going to effect the rest of Canada, will it spur other separations. 3. How does this effect the rest of Canada in regards to our dollar, will it be as strong as it is now, it's already been mentioned Quebec represents 25% of our GDP, that has got to have some effect on our dollar. just the fact that talks about Quebec separation has an effect. this could mean billions upon billions of dollars to both sides. and money makes the world go round. 4. With the loss of our dollar value in the world market, who does this effect our trade, because of the uncertainity in our country it has to have an effect. and if so less money means less programs....and i'm sure at this time cutting back the military may not be an option....So what suffers and are Canadians ready to accept that. 5. Industry and the nations power people have to much to loss, those that call the shots in Canada are not just going to let this all happen with out some kind of reaction.... 6. Alot is at stake and as much as we all like to down size federal government , have the provinces have more say, it all comes at a price, and are we ready to pay that. Maybe i'm reading to much into this, but i've been in the military for over 30 years and have not seen very many separations go well, civil war is a norm... Nothing has been agreed to yet, such as borders, the use of Canadian dollar, first nations, inuit peoples, etc etc and you say they are not a federal problem, but they are.

Yes the Construction industry is a dangrous place to work no doubt there, But let me ask you this do you have the opition of not working on a site, because you think it is too dangerous ? Police and military members have signed unlimited liabilty agreements, you can never refuse a legal order, that places your life in danger....Unless you tell me competing construction companies have shoot outs and you boss orders you to finish doing the roof with bullets whizzing over head... So your comparison does not work....or does it... Let me ask you this how many of those deaths were preventable accidents ? according to stats can most of them were, in fact almost all were....as long as we are painting everyone with the same brush that could lead to the conclusion that construction workers are unsafe to work with in fact deadly....or it could be that there is more construction workers which drive up there stats....depends on how you bend the numbers... Here is another question for you how many civilians have died due to faulty construction, completed by construction trades persons across Canada. there must be a few, i google searched it and got well over 20 pages of law suits with dozens of deaths attributed to poor workmen ship, or cutting corners....once again painting every construction trade with the same brush they to are responsable for dozens of deaths across canada......one would think not only are they dangerous but they are killers as well... I'm not asking you to pat them on the back, just show them the respect they may deserve...and if they are guilty of doing illigal things i support your post and they should be held accountable.... In 2011, there were 598 homicides in Canada, 44 more than the previous year, marking a 7% increase in the homicide rate (1.7 per 100,000 population) (Table 4, Chart 10). The homicide rate has generally been decreasing since peaking in the mid-1970s. Similar to previous years, violent crimes accounted for about one-fifth of offences reported by police in 2011. Police reported more than 424,400 violent incidents, 14,800 fewer than in 2010. Never said that it does not happen just it was not being carried out by the majority.....

There is a massive cross border wpn market and guess who is buying them "Canadians"

Well there it is ....we have confirmation chucki baby is being a dick.....who is taking part in our national past time slaming Americans.... Stand up give him a hand people....

Research? Have you've read your posts, tell me they paint a postive response in ref to police officers....tell me they match the one you posted above.... "Nost of it has been good and helped me a tremendous amount" Once again have you read your posts and your responses to AM, guess talking down or insulting police officers, americans is only good when your doing it. You have not provided one shred of evidence to back youer claim, making it your opinion....and well we all ready know what opinions are based on. Nice come back, but then again you've assumed everything todate why change, cops, soldiers got anything else.

WWTT It's called research, educate yourself on the topic before you open your lips, your the one that has painted the entire group with one brush, see what you have here is an opinion, and like assholes everyone has one....and they don't count for much... And living up to our true new Canadian past time you jumped on him for expressing his (opinion) "we covered that already in the opening statement" and because his is different and you don't understand it, you had to label it. Because some do it , you automatically paint this police force member....Some whites have killed blacks, all whites are racist, Some whites own guns, ...all whites are gun freaks, Some whites drink....all whites are piss tanks....we could do this all day... Your good, i mean really good, you've read less than a paragraph of what was written by this man and you've made a judgement , you've labeld him....from that paragraph you've made assumptions into everything.... I don't think he should be worshiped , perhaps given the same amount of respect we give most people, or would expect for others to show us. You've made that perfectly clear, in all your posts, you've taken this oportunity to jump on board lets slam Americans, police officers and people who have different opinions from your self.

Describe many for me, 10%, 50%, 75% of all officers, just so we are on the same page many to me means the majority, really is that what you meant. I get it there are Some bad cops , just like there are bad professionals in any trade, or in our our neibourhoods. would you say that these cops that have killed someone , have they been charged, and had their day in court. GH i now alot of good soldiers who have been on the job to long and suffer from some form of depression or PTSD, and yes this infliction makes them assholes, but do we throw them away,i mean after all they got this way from serving us....and while treatment is getting better sometimes it's not available to everyone, or nobody forces them to get help...I'm not saying they should not be accountable for there acts it should be a consideration thats all. I Nobody does, but there are some including you that have painted the entire force with the same foul smelling brush, how about we target those that need targeting is all i'm saying. Because i'm sure for every bad cop out there there is three cops that are good with good deeds behind them.

This is well thought out response, even if Harper had all the military vote it would only be worth 100 k, that will get him a majority won't it....

No it's call being an idiot, and painting an entire group of people with one brush, that and being to frigging lazy to do any serious research. good luck with that.

Canuckistani This police officer your talking about has the same training, and has years of experience to top that off if he said they were being aggresive i believe him. and he also knows he falls under much the same laws and is responsiable for his actions... A police officer can pull his wpn if he thinks there is a danger...the key is WHEN HE THINKS there is a danger....A RCMP officer is on duty 24 and 7 and can carry a firearm the entire time.... Just one question, how does the criminal know if i have a wpn or not, you just said he is just going to pull out his wpn and shoot me....regardless if i'm armed or not....If he has already made his mind to use his wpn and kill someone, why would it be so unfounded to atleast be able to defend yourself with a gun.... your logic makes no sense to me....we should just allow the crinimals shoot us because they think we are armed... It's not an escaltion of violence it's an equalizer of violence....

cybercoma: WHy is he a coward, because he perfers to be armed, are all police officers cowards, or for that matter any one that uses a firearm as a tool....or is he a coward because you don't understand the why and anything we don't understand we label.

But they have been there have they not, was your wife or girl friend been there at the same time, because that changes everything does it not. Diploomacy and tact, yes they are key, but when that fails and alot cases if they are drunk and being beligerent they are looking for trouble, and you can't tell me thats never happened in a Canadian city.... this guy is a trained professional and can spot those situations in a few seconds, so i tend to believe him when he says they approached in agressive manner...at this piont you have to make a decision fight or flight. he chose to stand his ground inform them he was not screwing around or wanted to be screwed with...the look of biwilderment, was them shocked someone called them on their antics... Yes it is pretty low, but it is not non existent to the piont you shopuld not take any precautions or atleast be alerted that it may happen. however according to states Can, Calgary has 800 violent crimes per 100,000 making it close to 8800 violent crimes per year. and while not the worst city in Canada it's actually one of the lowest, all that being said, how many violent crimes a day, is that....and when walking in the park with your wife it's not the first thing on your mind, but when you do get confronted by some aggresive punks what does come to your mind.... And if you and your wife were attacked, what would be going through your mind then...why does something have to happen before we take precautions...and why is it so bad to want to have some additional protection....

You and the others are making way to much of this. And i can say,its embrassing, i've been to most major Canadian cities and have felt very uncomfortable in some situations were the freindly local lovable Canadain population has been aggresive, confrontational, looking for a scrap,to cut the BS....lets take the US sailor who i think last year was stabbed outside a bar in Halifax...Take a look at the murder rates in all the cities , then tell me this shit does not happen. all this guy is guilty of is trying to protect his wife, and i can tell you having a pistol gives you more options to do just that... He was out with his wife, enjoying what the city had to offer and these punks ruined that experience....someone approaches with an aggresive tone, it's time to put your game face on i don't care where your from...or what your trade is...He is a trained police officer does this for a living and would know when someone is being a dink or aggressive, and the fact his wife is with him adds to that as he snaps into protection mode...something most of us would do. or should do...you assume that his mentioning he normally has a wpn on him that he would automatically go into guns ablazing mode....RCMP have wpns,.. they break bar fights up all the time how many of those result in someone pulling out their guns and shooting first...you assume because he is American that he is not professional enough to use the right escalation of force...your the one making doing all the assuming ....and its making an ass out of you and me....