Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Personally, I've always hated the idea of using your military to break up riots, and protests, first of all it seems so dictatorist. Second of all, soldier's make lousy police men, and they're trained even in a riot situation to use overwhelming force.
So its easy to say, go in use your riflebutt, or tear gas, or an armored vehicle.
But the armoured vehicle that charges over a baracade might crush some kid.
A soldier who feels threatened and is surrounded in a riot is going to open fire.
A group of soldiers getting molotov tails or heavy rocks thrown at them is going to protect itself.
Even the use of non lethal weapons, in the right situation are likely lethal.
An army shouldn't be arresting people.
|
I tend to agree, but given the choice between the hapless RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces, I trust the army to be better capable of controlling the situation. Now, if we're talking highly trained Calgary/Edmonton/Winnipeg Police Riot Squad... thats different. From what I have seen/read/heard about the RCMP in these rural detachments (which would likely be the location of one of these attacks) they are horrifically trained, and likely to be casualties if this gets ugly (and based on Oka, it could require the army at some point anyway).
Like you said, soldiers being attacked with rocks/molotovs are likely to defend themselves (rules of engagement, and all that)... regular RCMP are likely to end up dead.
I guess I'm thinking in an act of insurgency and light-terrorism, the lives of the protectors are more valuable than the lives of the aggressors, regardless of ethnicity, religion, color, etc. (so please people, don't try to paint me as bigoted... I'd be demanding the same response regardless)