Responses to JTF2 Violates Spirit of Landmine Treaty Editorial

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
. I'm sure that getting an interview would be quite easy, and would allay most of your concerns.

....and you would be wrong, all we could get was a lecture from his riding president who basically just scolded us about beating the Liberals being more important than anything.[ including good opposition]
He is now a member of the site so if he would like to answer here......?

 

[kcdist]

Hmmmm.....This is something new. A politician who refuses to address an editorial board that in turn spreads an opinion to thousands of readers? Either he's very poor at his new chosen profession, or the request did not go through the appropriate chain of command. I would guess the latter.

Here's a challenge: Give me authority to speak on behalf of Army.Ca and I'll have an interview scheduled within the week, or I'll forever vote Liberal. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

 

It's time for a new editorial.

How about one berating the Liberals ... ?

Or perhaps criticize how about during the last election, the Liberals deliberately ...

Or perhaps call on the Liberals to explain ...

Or maybe discuss Martins embarrassing 'flip-flop' on missile defence.

Before passing sweeping generalizations what many serving and retired military personell will not - cannot - do ...

I think the editorial just below the one we are discussing - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33760.0.html : Lack of Leadership - did take on Prime Minister Martin and the Liberals.

As both Bruce Monkhouse and I said we - some of us, me included - did contact O'Connor and Harper and, with Mike Bobbitt's permissions, offered an opportunity to rebut: the same offer made to and taken up by Carolyn Parrish.  I don't think too much of Ms. Parrish or her response but at least she had the what, guts? integrity? to show up and respond.  I don't know about Mike or Bruce or any of the Mods/Staff but I, despite being a card carrying Conservative, am not going to chase after Gordon O'Connor and beg him for his views â “ I can read them in the Hansard and I, like the editorialists, find them second rate.

I think army.ca has demonstrated that it is apolitical and fair in both its criticisms and its readiness to publish rebuttals.  Maybe O'Connor and the Conservatives think that the military community is solidly in their pocket and there is no need to consider the views of a few people on a web site; if they do I suspect they are making an error in judgement â “ but I guess that's what prompted the editorial in the first place, isn't it?

 

[043]

Just want to say something here:

If you make a Hand Grenade into something other than a Hand Grenade, it is not a Land mine, it is a Booby Trap.

 

[redleafjumper]

My grandfather used to make handgrenades (WW1 Mills bombs) into cigarette lighters...  (I once heard he also used them for fishing but that might be a family myth)
While I have some problems with the landmine treaty in terms of it removing a defensive weapon that has clear military purpose, the real implication is that when there is a war in which these items are needed there will need to be a sharp learning curves to re-establish the ability to use them (not that they are particularly complicated).  The land mine treaty is likely not going to view a booby trap as significantly different in effect from a land mine.  Properly laind minefields and booby traps are supposed to be marked clearly on maps, as are booby traps.  The problem with employment of booby traps, and in some cases mines, is that they are not always clearly marked for later removal and thus don't get removed.  That is where the hazard comes in for non-combatants.