Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x2
What about Munich? You seemed to have forgotten about that. Post-war West Germany didn't want to appear militaristic, and had a security force that was entirely unarmed. The wall that separated the Olympic Village from the public was only 8 feet tall and was concrete. The terrorists simply climbed over and there were no armed security in the compound.
The Sarajevo comparison is faulty, Bosnia/Herzegovina was politically unstable in 1982 and we all know what happened soon after the 1984 Games.
|
There is a difference between using the military for standby purposes and having them actively on the streets patrolling, traffic management, and whatnot.
Obviously there are high risk sites, but why would some grunt need to be regulating traffic downtown or just be walking down it with a rifle on his/her shoulder?
That is a outsiders perspective of the current state of affairs back then. Realistically, most of the problem started in the late 80s. Also, the soldiers on the street were an equal mix of people from all the republics of Yugoslavia, and not just locals.
Anyways, that's not the point. The point was that the government didn't want to have that many soldiers with live ammo on the streets due to the potential for something to go horribly wrong. What is some grunt gets overpowered on the street corner and someone takes his gun/ammunition and goes on a wild shooting spree? The army has very little training dealing with civilians in "friendly" zones and they have no knowledge of civil rights of people in Canada (or what they can ask of them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlousa
Hmm lets we trust soldiers to defend our country and our freedom but we don't trust them to be able to patrol in the streets that they've defended? Do I have that right? 
|
Absolutely no trust for them patrolling our streets. They tend to have the "shoot first ask questions later approach"...much like the RCMP; which I don't trust as well. So yes, you have that right