Harper Government wants to use Clusterbombs.

[G Huxley]

I am so embarrassed at our government at this point.

It will be interesting watching some mental gymnastics from Harper supporters to try to justify this. Next thing these guys will be saying bring back the land mines! We need it defend Canada despite its you know being surrounded by ocean and all.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Former+Canadian+arms+negotiator+blasts+Ottawas+cluster/9206591/story.html

Edited November 25, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest Derek L]

I am so embarrassed at our government at this point.

It will be interesting watching some mental gymnastics from Harper supporters to try to justify this. Next thing these guys will be saying bring back the land mines! We need it defend Canada despite its you know surrounded by ocean.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Former+Canadian+arms+negotiator+blasts+Ottawas+cluster/9206591/story.html

Your title is incorrect. From your link:

Turcotte says the article was designed to allow Canadian troops to participate in a joint operation with the U.S. but not to "aid or abet" the use of cluster bombs.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told the committee last week that the clause is necessary to preserve Canada's unique military relationship with the U.S., which includes giving senior Canadian officers access to high-level exchange programs.

One of the Canada's former top soldiers, retired general Walt Natynczyk, also backed the clause in testimony last week. Natynczyk served as a deputy commander of U.S. forces in Iraq in 2004, even though the Canadian government opted out of the war, because he was part of a high-level secondment.

In other words, our defence relationship with the United States will not be effected…..And for the record, the RCAF hasn’t had cluster bombs in it’s inventory for decades….

[Peter F]

The clause being discussed:

Article 21

Relations with States not party to this Convention

1. Each State Party shall encourage States not party to this Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention, with the goal of attracting the adherence of all States to this Convention.

2. Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention, referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, of its obligations under this

Convention, shall promote the norms it establishes and shall make its best efforts to discourage States not party to this Convention from using cluster munitions.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.

4. Nothing in paragraph 3 of this Article shall authorise a State Party:

1. (a) To develop, produce or otherwise acquire cluster munitions;

2. ( To itself stockpile or transfer cluster munitions;

3. © To itself use cluster munitions; or

4. (d) To expressly request the use of cluster munitions in cases where the choice of munitions used is within its exclusive control.

http://www.clusterconvention.org/files/2011/01/Convention-ENG.pdf

Which seems pretty strait forward that signatories (Canada) shall adhere to the convention even if the USofA isn't a signatory. Also, Canadian troops operating within US units will be able to partake in the use of Cluster Munitions.

Bill c-6 says this for exceptions from the rule:

11. (1) Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under any of paragraphs 60(1)(a) to (g) and (j) of the National Defence Act or who is an employee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet by the armed forces of that state or that may involve moving that munition by those armed forces from a foreign state or territory to another foreign state or territory with the intent to transfer ownership of and control over it;

(b) expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet by the armed forces of that state if the choice of munitions used is not within the exclusive control of the Canadian Forces; or

(c) using, acquiring or possessing a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet, or moving that munition from a foreign state or territory to another foreign state or territory with the intent to transfer ownership of and control over it, while on attachment, exchange or secondment, or serving under similar arrangement, with the armed forces of that state.

Seems to be in agreement with the Convention. But the seemed agreement raises the question why is it necessary for the parliamentary bill? So perhaps I've missed something.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Peter F

[Guest Derek L]

The clause being discussed:

http://www.clusterconvention.org/files/2011/01/Convention-ENG.pdf

Which seems pretty strait forward that signatories (Canada) shall adhere to the convention even if the USofA isn't a signatory. Also, Canadian troops operating within US units will be able to partake in the use of Cluster Munitions.

Bill c-6 says this for exceptions from the rule:

Seems to be in agreement with the Convention. But the seemed agreement raises the question why is it necessary for the parliamentary bill? So perhaps I've missed something.

Reread the article.......It guarantees certain assurances……..As mentioned in the article, Canadian Forces members on exchange with the Americans…..

[G Huxley]

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird told the committee last week that the clause is necessary to preserve Canada's unique military relationship with the U.S., which includes giving senior Canadian officers access to high-level exchange programs.

What a pile of B.S.

If the U.S. was going to go out and massacre a bunch of people would it be appropriate for Canada to hold its hand and take part just to keep its 'unique relationship,' going with it.

[Peter F]

Reread the article.......It guarantees certain assurances……..As mentioned in the article, Canadian Forces members on exchange with the Americans…..

Yes, thats what I said.

[Shady]

What a pile of B.S.

If the U.S. was going to go out and massacre a bunch of people would it be appropriate for Canada to hold its hand and take part just to keep its 'unique relationship,' going with it.

Nope, because we can decide what excersises are worthy of taking action, and which ones aren't.

[G Huxley]

Yes clearly the ones using weapons that massacre as many people as possible indiscriminantly over a wide dispersal area with a history of killing large amounts of civilians are clearly the ones we want to take part in. Why don't we try a bit of napalm and white phosphorous while we're at it?

[g_bambino]

Yes clearly the ones using weapons that massacre as many people as possible indiscriminantly over a wide dispersal area with a history of killing large amounts of civilians are clearly the ones we want to take part in.

What, again, is it that makes that clear?

[Guest Derek L]

Yes clearly the ones using weapons that massacre as many people as possible indiscriminantly over a wide dispersal area with a history of killing large amounts of civilians are clearly the ones we want to take part in. Why don't we try a bit of napalm and white phosphorous while we're at it?

Actually, cluster bombs , and namely the Rockeye II are intended to be used against large armour formations as an area denial tool……..The last major intended target was a Soviet Motor-Rifle Division, and since the Soviets are no more, as are the formations shared by their former client states, the utility of cluster bombs has waned……….As to Willie Pete, the Canadian army, like their NATO allies, still used it when conditions warranted in Afghanistan.

[Guest Derek L]

Nope, because we can decide what excersises are worthy of taking action, and which ones aren't.

Yes and No.......In the case of our former CDS whom spent time as deputy commander of III Corps during the invasion of Iraq, with the willingness of the Canadian Government to exchange officers with the Americans, we then have to also acknowledge the use by Americans of their weapons and doctrine……..No different then the RCN working with nuclear armed USN vessels in the past or our past NATO commitments that would have seen Canadians working with our allies "Weapons of mass destruction".

[G Huxley]

"

What, again, is it that makes that clear?"

“Let me tell you about the cluster bomb raid we saw wipe out a whole bunch of little kids."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00105.htm

And, not all the bomblets explode. One of the issues with the use of clusterbombs in Afghanistan was that the bomblets looked a lot like the food packages were being dropped so innocent civilians were blowing themselves up trying to find food and aid.

"

Cluster munitions are unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, they have wide area effects and are unable to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Secondly, the use of cluster munitions leave behind large numbers of dangerous unexploded ordnance. Such remnants kill and injure civilians, obstruct economic and social development, and have other severe consequences that persist for years and decades after use.

Adopted on 30 May 2008 in Dublin, Ireland and signed on 3-4 December 2008 in Oslo, Norway, the Convention on Cluster Munitions entered into force on 01 August 2010. Currently the Convention has 113 signatories, out of which 84 are also State parties."

http://www.clusterconvention.org/

[Guest Derek L]

"

What, again, is it that makes that clear?"

“Let me tell you about the cluster bomb raid we saw wipe out a whole bunch of little kids."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00105.htm

And, not all the bomblets explode. One of the issues with the use of clusterbombs in Afghanistan was that the bomblets looked a lot like the food packages were being dropped so innocent civilians were blowing themselves up trying to find food and aid.

"

Cluster munitions are unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, they have wide area effects and are unable to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Secondly, the use of cluster munitions leave behind large numbers of dangerous unexploded ordnance. Such remnants kill and injure civilians, obstruct economic and social development, and have other severe consequences that persist for years and decades after use.

Adopted on 30 May 2008 in Dublin, Ireland and signed on 3-4 December 2008 in Oslo, Norway, the Convention on Cluster Munitions entered into force on 01 August 2010. Currently the Convention has 113 signatories, out of which 84 are also State parties."

http://www.clusterconvention.org/

What is your point?

Cluster bombs kill people......like they are intended to

[g_bambino]

“Let me tell you about the cluster bomb raid we saw wipe out a whole bunch of little kids."

That doesn't even come close to answering the question.

Again: what is it that makes it clear "the [exercises] using weapons that massacre as many people as possible indiscriminantly over a wide dispersal area with a history of killing large amounts of civilians are... the ones we want to take part in"?

[Topaz]

The Tories are playing both sides of the fence, first they are against clusters and pay big money to cleanup Nam, then they turn around and put wording in, so Canadians troops can harmonize with US or other NATO troops. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/30/canadas_bill_on_cluster_bombs_seriously_flawed_say_critics.html

[PIK]

The Tories are playing both sides of the fence, first they are against clusters and pay big money to cleanup Nam, then they turn around and put wording in, so Canadians troops can harmonize with US or other NATO troops. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/05/30/canadas_bill_on_cluster_bombs_seriously_flawed_say_critics.html

I think I asked this before but never seen a answer, did you serve in vietnam?

[Argus]

Yes clearly the ones using weapons that massacre as many people as possible indiscriminantly over a wide dispersal area with a history of killing large amounts of civilians are clearly the ones we want to take part in. Why don't we try a bit of napalm and white phosphorous while we're at it?

Killing large groups of people is what the army is SUPPOSED to do. As long as the targeted group is the appropriate one there's nothign wrong with cluster bombs, or various other area weapons like napalm and fuel-air explosives.

[hitops]

I am so embarrassed at our government at this point.

I think you get embarrassed at just about anything.

This issue is a red herring, it changes absolutely nothing and will not result in the increased use of cluster bombs.

[Topaz]

I think I asked this before but never seen a answer, did you serve in vietnam?

What do you think?? http://www.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20131015/NWPRINTBAIRDLAOS1014ATL

[PIK]

What do you think?? http://www.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20131015/NWPRINTBAIRDLAOS1014ATL

I don't know? As I said before vets use the term nam, so I was wondering if you did. That all.

[G Huxley]

hitops lacking shame isn't something to be proud of.

BTW Canada is a signitory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. So the cons are violating a convention we are signatory to.

Signatories

Ratifications

*

Convention on Cluster Munitions

The impetus for the treaty, like that of the 1997 Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines, has been concern over the severe damage and risks to civilians from explosive weapons during and long after attacks. A varying proportion of submunitions dispersed by cluster bombs fail to explode on impact and can lie unexploded for years until disturbed. The sometimes brightly colored munitions are not camouflaged, but have been compared to toys or Easter eggs, attracting children at play.[10][11] Human rights activists claim that one in four casualties resulting from submunitions that fail to explode on impact are children who often pick up and play with the explosive canisters well after the conflict has ended.[12] The 2006 Lebanon War provided momentum for the campaign to ban cluster bombs. The United Nations estimated that up to 40% of Israeli cluster bomblets failed to explode on impact.[13] Norway organized the independent Oslo process after discussions at the traditional disarmament forum in Geneva fell through in November 2006.[14]

The cluster munitions ban process, also known as the Oslo Process, began in February 2007 in Oslo. At this time, 46 nations issued the "Oslo Declaration", committing themselves to:

Conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument that prohibits the use and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians and secure adequate provision of care and rehabilitation to survivors and clearance of contaminated areas.[15][16]

The Oslo Process held meetings in Lima in May 2007 and Vienna in December 2007. In February 2008, 79 countries adopted the "Wellington Declaration", setting forth the principles to be included in the convention.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

[G Huxley]

Killing large groups of people is what the army is SUPPOSED to do. As long as the targeted group is the appropriate one there's nothign wrong with cluster bombs, or various other area weapons like napalm and fuel-air explosives.

Well then let's bring back land mines, use napalm, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and every other weapon of mass destruction we can devise as killing large groups of people is what the army is SUPPOSED to do according to you.

[PIK]

If a treaty of some sort can cause harm to our troops, then I would not bother with it.

[g_bambino]

[T]he cons are violating a convention we are signatory to.

...[A] legally binding international instrument that prohibits the use and stockpiling of cluster munitions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Muitions

Where's your evidence that the government is using and stockpiling cluster munitions?

[Guest Derek L]

Where's your evidence that the government is using and stockpiling cluster munitions?

Don’t hold your breath……they were pulled from the deployable inventory once our air force returned from Germany, stored in Saskatchewan, and started being disposed of in the late 90s, finishing by about 2003 or 2004.….