[quote]fos121 wrote:
They shifted from reconstruction work to COIN operations in a different AO. It’s a different mind set with new dangers that are rapidly evolving. I am IN NO WAY saying that Canadian Soldiers can’t cope. It’s just a big change in OPTEMPO and I’m sure they’ll adjust soon & casualty rates will go down.
I hate hearing these statistics and I’m sorry to hear of the losses. God bless the Canadian troops for all they do.[/quote]
Yeah, I keep hearing the losses are because of more offensive tactics–I’m guessing that would be inline with COIN operations right?
The sharp increase in casualties in the last months is due to the mission shifting from a peacekeeping mission to a combat operation. The Talibans aren’t giving up easily and NATO’s request for additionnal troops aren’t being met.
They’re trying to do a tough job with too little men on the ground. Kinda like Iraq…
Confronted by the Islamist threat on all sides, Europe pathetically caves in
Gerard Baker
LATE LAST YEAR, at the invitation of Nato, and in the company of a small band of globetrotting pundits, I travelled to Afghanistan to witness first-hand the allied operation to reconstruct the benighted country.
After a day of briefings in Kabul, our friendly Nato hosts flew us by military transport to Herat, on the western border with Iran. We were due to spend a day touring a Nato post in the city and then fly back that evening to the capital. But the Danish plane that had taken us developed propeller problems and was grounded. As we cooled our heels outside the airfield , we waited for word of the aircraft that was supposed to come for us: a German C-130.
It soon became clear that the replacement plane was not coming. The reason, it turned out, was that the Germans would not fly in the dark. German aircraft are not permitted by their national rules to undertake night flights.
Now to those who survived the Blitz and Barbarossa, the news that today?s Luftwaffe will not fly at night in potentially hostile environments might be regarded as a welcome historical development. But when you are trying to fight a war against a ruthless band of terrorists who operate 24/7, never pausing to consider the dangers of venturing out in the dark, limiting yourself to daytime operations is a little constraining.
The Germans are not alone. Many of the European nations with forces in Afghanistan are operating under similarly ludicrous restrictions. Though their soldiers and airmen are highly capable and indeed eager to take the fight to the Taleban, their governments are desperately fearful of the public reaction should their soldiers suffer significant casualties. They don?t think that their voters will stomach it. And the tragedy is, they are probably right.
I was reminded of my unscheduled night in Herat, and what it said about Europe?s dwindling commitment to its own survival, by a series of disheartening developments in the past week on the political and diplomatic front.
Last week we had the tragicomic spectacle of European Nato countries lining up to decline politely the request to beef up their forces in Afghanistan, many of whom are now fighting in perilously under-resourced conditions against a resurgent enemy.
Then on Monday Jacques Chirac went to New York to upend the long, delicate diplomacy designed to deny Iran nuclear weapons. He said France no longer thought the UN should impose sanctions if Iran did not end its uranium enrichment programme.
Various explanations were offered by commentators for this volte-face ? from the thought that France might be fearful of the economic consequences of sanctions, to the possibility that M Chirac was trying to curry favour with sanctions-opposing Russia and China, to the suggestion that Paris worries that its new peacekeeping force in Lebanon might come under fire from Hezbollah if France acted tough with its Iranian sponsors.
Whatever the proximate cause of this latest French surrender, the basic reality is that Europeans have been extremely reluctant to press Iran with sanctions all along ? the same noises are coming out of Berlin now ? and are content instead to acquiesce in the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Tehran.
Then, of course, we have had the predictable European outrage following the latest apparent provocation of Islamic extremists by free speech in the West ? Pope Benedict XVI?s remarks last week on Islam.
I actually heard a senior member of the British Government chide the Pope this week for what he described as his unhelpful comments. This minister went on to say that the Pope should keep quiet about Islamic violence because of the Crusades.
It was a jaw-dropping observation. If it was meant seriously its import is that, because of violence perpetrated in the name of Christ 900 years ago, today?s Church, and presumably today?s European governments (who, after all, were eager participants in the Crusades) should forever hold their peace on the subject of religious fanaticism. In this view the Church?s repeated apologies for the sins committed in its name apparently are not enough. The Pope has no right, even in a lengthy disquisition on the complexities of faith and reason, to say anything about the religious role in Islamic terrorism.
It is apt that Pope Benedict should have received such European opprobrium for his remarks. His election last year looked like a final attempt by the Church to revive the European spirit in the face of accelerating secularisation and cultural morbidity.
But the scale of Europe?s moral crisis is larger than ever. Opposing the war in Iraq was one thing, defensible in the light of events. But opting out of a serious fight against the Taleban, sabotaging efforts to get Iran off its path towards nuclear status, pre-emptively cringing to Muslim intolerance of free speech and criticism, all suggest something quite different.
They imply a slow but insistent collapse of the European will, the steady attrition of the self-preservation instinct. Its effects can be seen not only in the political field, but in other ways ? the startling decline of birth rates across the continent that represent a sort of self-inflicted genocide; the refusal to confront the harsh realities of a global economy.
It may well be that history will judge that Europe?s decline came at the very moment of its apparent triumph. The traumas of the first half of the 20th century have combined with the economic successes of the second half to induce a collective loss of will. Great civilisations die not in the end because of external force majeure but because internally the will to thrive is sapped.
The symptoms of this moral collapse may be far away from the affluent and still largely peaceful cities and towns of the old continent ? in the mountains of Afghanistan, the diplomatic reception halls of Tehran and the angry Pope-effigy-burning streets of the Middle East. But there should be no doubt that it is closer to home where the disease has taken hold.
[quote]pookie wrote:
tme wrote:
Yeah, I was just going to comment that from the news reports I’ve seen, Canadian soldiers are much more likely to die from US “friendly” fire than from Taliban. Who’s got yer back, eh?
Not “much more likely,” but the ratio is something like 5:1… for every 5 soldier we lose to the Talibans, we lose 1 to the US. I understand that they provide air support. When you mess up with an F-16, you tend to kill a lot of people very quickly.
I doubt if any of you arm chair generals have ever seen a combat air strike…am I right?
Sit back and pay attention. It is called in by ground troops. It is called in because they need and want the air support. They call it in because they are being overun or have a chance to kill a lot of enemy, in one spot. It’s not called in because the bad old United States wants to bomb someone.
It’s very fast. The plane will often drop it’s ordanance before you hear the sound of the engine. The plane is directed by a forward air controller, they are air force guys assigned to the ground troops… Accurate placement is dependent upon the skill of the air controller as much as the pilot.
US pilots using precision munitions don’t miss very often. Nato troops, with little combat experience unfortunately don’t always call in coordinates accurately. Air support, out of necessity must be called close in. Most of you would piss your pants if you were on the ground during a Close air support operation. That’s not an idle comment. Lot’s of hardened troops get freaked out too.
Much like armored support, close air support is welcomed by anyone who has been a grunt. Combat infantry operations are dangerous. It’s a lot more dangerous without air cover. The Canadians, or anyone with an active brain cell would not choose to operate without it…ever.
[quote]hedo wrote:
I doubt if any of you arm chair generals have ever seen a combat air strike…am I right?[/quote]
And I doubt you read any of the article I linked in… am I right?
Let me quote the relevant part to you; I’ll even bold the important points:
“According to an American report, two U.S. fighters spotted the live fire and asked a command centre for permission to strafe the area. Permission was denied. But the report says the jets thought they were being attacked and one of them bombed the area.”
Those troops didn’t call an airstrike. To put it bluntly, one of the pilot pissed his pants and fired because he thought, mistakenly, that he was being attacked.
That event is already tragic enough without you trying to blame the dead troops for calling an attack on themselves…
[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
I doubt if any of you arm chair generals have ever seen a combat air strike…am I right?
And I doubt you read any of the article I linked in… am I right?
Let me quote the relevant part to you; I’ll even bold the important points:
“According to an American report, two U.S. fighters spotted the live fire and asked a command centre for permission to strafe the area. Permission was denied. But the report says the jets thought they were being attacked and one of them bombed the area.”
Those troops didn’t call an airstrike. To put it bluntly, one of the pilot pissed his pants and fired because he thought, mistakenly, that he was being attacked.
That event is already tragic enough without you trying to blame the dead troops for calling an attack on themselves…
[/quote]
First of all it’s an old story. Second you know the reasons behind it and if you don’t, read up on it further. The investigation was very thorough and public and done by both sides but you fail to mention it. The pilots were not charged or even court-martialed.Why do you fail to mention that?
The troops were in an area they should not have been in and did not identify themselves to the theatre commander as to where they were or what there intentions were. The US pilots had been fired on before from the same area the Canadians were practicing with their artillery. That’s the public information as I recall.
You imply that either the pilot or the command structure is incompetent which it was not. Friendly fire incidents are not intentional and they are tragic but you assume that the troops were somehow vicously attacked by a rogue pilot to score some sarcastic political point…and resent being called out on it. Why do you assume I would share your bias and not read your linked article before disagreeing with it?
As I stated before lot’s of opinions…little understanding of the dynamics involved. You’ve formed your opinion…why let facts get in the way right?
[quote]hedo wrote:
First of all it’s an old story.[/quote]
I fail to see what the age of the story has to do with anything. Relevance does not fade with age.
Do I need to write a complete reference document everytime I want to mention something in a discussion?
I didn’t imply it in any way either. Why are you picking nits about stuff that’s not even relevant?
Do you have URLs you could provide as reference?
Asking for permission to fire, being denied such permission and still firing is a working command structure?
I agree that friendly fire is unintentional and tragic, but you’ve got me all wrong. I was actually arguing, in one of my previous posts, that friendly fire involving F16 will make large casualties count, and not in an intentional way. I was trying to explain that our “heavy” losses to American fire were not because of American incompetence or negligence, but simply because an F16 can kill a lot of people simultaneously in one single friendly fire incident.
Although in the incident presently discussed, I have little sympathy for the plight of the American pilot. Maybe you can provide me with better references to correct my understanding of the incident.
Why not just say so then, instead of getting up on a soapbox and lecturing us on the finer points of an airstrike? No airstrike was ever called in by the troops in that incident, so how was your reply relevant?
We can’t guess what your thoughts are if you post on some completely parallel topic. Do you really want to clear up some perceived confusion, or do you just want to brag about “been there, done that?”
I’ve formed my opinion from what I’ve read about the facts. I haven’t written a thesis about the incident, so I might have missed some of the nuances revealed by the investigations.
If you have better and/or more complete references to provide, please do so.
[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
First of all it’s an old story.
I fail to see what the age of the story has to do with anything. Relevance does not fade with age.
Second you know the reasons behind it and if you don’t, read up on it further. The investigation was very thorough and public and done by both sides but you fail to mention it.
Do I need to write a complete reference document everytime I want to mention something in a discussion?
The pilots were not charged or even court-martialed.Why do you fail to mention that?
I didn’t imply it in any way either. Why are you picking nits about stuff that’s not even relevant?
The troops were in an area they should not have been in and did not identify themselves to the theatre commander as to where they were or what there intentions were. The US pilots had been fired on before from the same area the Canadians were practicing with their artillery. That’s the public information as I recall.
Do you have URLs you could provide as reference?
You imply that either the pilot or the command structure is incompetent which it was not.
Asking for permission to fire, being denied such permission and still firing is a working command structure?
Friendly fire incidents are not intentional and they are tragic but you assume that the troops were somehow vicously attacked by a rogue pilot to score some sarcastic political point…
I agree that friendly fire is unintentional and tragic, but you’ve got me all wrong. I was actually arguing, in one of my previous posts, that friendly fire involving F16 will make large casualties count, and not in an intentional way. I was trying to explain that our “heavy” losses to American fire were not because of American incompetence or negligence, but simply because an F16 can kill a lot of people simultaneously in one single friendly fire incident.
Although in the incident presently discussed, I have little sympathy for the plight of the American pilot. Maybe you can provide me with better references to correct my understanding of the incident.
and resent being called out on it. Why do you assume I would share your bias and not read your linked article before disagreeing with it?
Why not just say so then, instead of getting up on a soapbox and lecturing us on the finer points of an airstrike? No airstrike was ever called in by the troops in that incident, so how was your reply relevant?
We can’t guess what your thoughts are if you post on some completely parallel topic. Do you really want to clear up some perceived confusion, or do you just want to brag about “been there, done that?”
As I stated before lot’s of opinions…little understanding of the dynamics involved. You’ve formed your opinion…why let facts get in the way right?
I’ve formed my opinion from what I’ve read about the facts. I haven’t written a thesis about the incident, so I might have missed some of the nuances revealed by the investigations.
If you have better and/or more complete references to provide, please do so.
[/quote]
Pookie wrote:
Q: What’s the difference between a Taliban and a Canadian soldier?
A: None. Welcome to the US Army.
"Those troops didn’t call an airstrike. To put it bluntly, one of the pilot pissed his pants and fired because he thought, mistakenly, that he was being attacked. "
I’m sure those comments were meant to be insightful and thought provoking weren’t they. Soapbox?
Well I googled the incident and found lot’s of references. The Air Force Times had a thorough story. Might try starting your search there if your interested.
The age of the story is relevant because you linked the initial story and ignored all of the information that came out after it. That’s either being naive or because it din’t fit your conclusion. I can only assume you had to look up a story that was over three years since it’s not exactly current news.
The reason I schooled you and the other comedians on close air support was because of your mocking tone regarding a subject you know nothing about. Your common interest is resentment of the US, nothing more. US forces have been killed by friendly fire too. You learn from it and move on or find another line of work.
And by the way the pilot you accused of pissing his pants was a top gun instructor at the Navy Fighter School. Rent the movie if you don’t know what that is. In other words your statement is comical to the extreme. I don’t know a lot of fighter pilots but I’ve met a few and I seriously doubt “pissing their pants” is a common occurance.
Your implications and inferences were quiet clear. Pointing out that they were not charged is quite important to balance the mocking intent of your posts, whether you intended them to be
or not.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Pookie wrote:
Q: What’s the difference between a Taliban and a Canadian soldier?
A: None. Welcome to the US Army. [/quote]
Come on, that’s a joke. I was commenting on lothario’s (pathetic) attempts at a poutine joke, and clearly said “Here’s one” (ie, a joke) Are you telling me you took that entirely seriously as my opinion?
What about the posts where I mentioned that 1) our troops are spread too thin and that 2) the mission has shifted from being a peacekeeping effort to an active combat mission. Those are the serious posts of mine in this thread. Notice anything anti-American about them?
Well the pilot did fire after being explicitely denied permission. He thought he was being fired up, which he wasn’t. There was another F16 that followed the “stand down” orders.
You can disagree with my opinion that he got scared, but you’d help your case a lot more if you could give me more better references about the investigations.
Come on hedo, you’re way too smart to confuse a joke with “an insightful and thought provoking” comment. You’re trying to pick a fight over piffles.
Is it that hard to cut and paste a few URLs? Most of what I’ve read about the incident was not supportive of the pilot’s reaction.
Like I said, most of the sites I’ve read give a similar account to what I’ve posted. You’ve implied many times that you have other references that reveal additional facts about the incident. What’s so hard about giving those references?
Don’t make me go Pulp Fiction on you.
You assume I worked hard to find that story… wrong. I’m a lazy bastard and that story is one of the first that comes up if you put “canadian soldier killed us” in Google.
I think you were simply looking for another excuse to expound on your personal combat experience.
Personally, I like your contributions because we often learn things that we can really get from pencil pushers writing articles on the internet.
But in this case, the anatomy of an airstrike is not relevant in the least, because what was being discussed was the high number (ratio wise) of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan and someone brought up American friendly-fire incidents.
So unless you’ve got concrete proof that the Canadian troops that were killed had just called in an airstrike as part of their exercises, I don’t see how your post was relevant in any way.
Interesting, yes. Relevant, no.
You’re reading meaning that’s not there. I’m not anti-US in the least. I am critical of your current administration, yes, but that does not equate to anti-American sentiment. Don’t tell me you’re in that black-and-white “you’re with us or you’re against us” crowd too?
Exactly. That was the point I was initially trying to make to tme (I think) who commented that we were losing more troops to American fire than to the Taliban, which is ridiculous.
You didn’t like my joke, that’s ok.
Being a top-notch instructor says nothing of how you’ll react when you’re exposed to live fire. You can be exquisitely talented as a pilot and instructor and still crack under pressure in actual combat.
Well bomber pilots have little choice in the matter when they fly 18-hour missions…
All kidding aside, I’d like your opinion on why the F16 ignored the “permissioned denied” order. It seems you’ve commented on everything else, but that. You’ve even stated that the command structure was competent. What is it I’m missing when I imply less than standard-issue cojones on the part of the trigger happy pilot?
[quote]Your implications and inferences were quiet clear. Pointing out that they were not charged is quite important to balance the mocking intent of your posts, whether you intended them to be
or not.[/quote]
Are charges common in friendly fire incidents?
Has the pilot been redeployed in a combat theater?
[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
Pookie wrote:
Q: What’s the difference between a Taliban and a Canadian soldier?
A: None. Welcome to the US Army.
Come on, that’s a joke. I was commenting on lothario’s (pathetic) attempts at a poutine joke, and clearly said “Here’s one” (ie, a joke) Are you telling me you took that entirely seriously as my opinion?
What about the posts where I mentioned that 1) our troops are spread too thin and that 2) the mission has shifted from being a peacekeeping effort to an active combat mission. Those are the serious posts of mine in this thread. Notice anything anti-American about them?
“Those troops didn’t call an airstrike. To put it bluntly, one of the pilot pissed his pants and fired because he thought, mistakenly, that he was being attacked.”
Well the pilot did fire after being explicitely denied permission. He thought he was being fired up, which he wasn’t. There was another F16 that followed the “stand down” orders.
You can disagree with my opinion that he got scared, but you’d help your case a lot more if you could give me more better references about the investigations.
I’m sure those comments were meant to be insightful and thought provoking weren’t they. Soapbox?
Come on hedo, you’re way too smart to confuse a joke with “an insightful and thought provoking” comment. You’re trying to pick a fight over piffles.
Well I googled the incident and found lot’s of references. The Air Force Times had a thorough story. Might try starting your search there if your interested.
Is it that hard to cut and paste a few URLs? Most of what I’ve read about the incident was not supportive of the pilot’s reaction.
The age of the story is relevant because you linked the initial story and ignored all of the information that came out after it. That’s either being naive or because it din’t fit your conclusion.
Like I said, most of the sites I’ve read give a similar account to what I’ve posted. You’ve implied many times that you have other references that reveal additional facts about the incident. What’s so hard about giving those references?
Don’t make me go Pulp Fiction on you.
I can only assume you had to look up a story that was over three years since it’s not exactly current news.
You assume I worked hard to find that story… wrong. I’m a lazy bastard and that story is one of the first that comes up if you put “canadian soldier killed us” in Google.
The reason I schooled you and the other comedians on close air support was because of your mocking tone regarding a subject you know nothing about.
I think you were simply looking for another excuse to expound on your personal combat experience.
Personally, I like your contributions because we often learn things that we can really get from pencil pushers writing articles on the internet.
But in this case, the anatomy of an airstrike is not relevant in the least, because what was being discussed was the high number (ratio wise) of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan and someone brought up American friendly-fire incidents.
So unless you’ve got concrete proof that the Canadian troops that were killed had just called in an airstrike as part of their exercises, I don’t see how your post was relevant in any way.
Interesting, yes. Relevant, no.
Your common interest is resentment of the US,
You’re reading meaning that’s not there. I’m not anti-US in the least. I am critical of your current administration, yes, but that does not equate to anti-American sentiment. Don’t tell me you’re in that black-and-white “you’re with us or you’re against us” crowd too?
nothing more. US forces have been killed by friendly fire too. You learn from it and move on or find another line of work.
Exactly. That was the point I was initially trying to make to tme (I think) who commented that we were losing more troops to American fire than to the Taliban, which is ridiculous.
You didn’t like my joke, that’s ok.
And by the way the pilot you accused of pissing his pants was a top gun instructor at the Navy Fighter School. Rent the movie if you don’t know what that is.
Being a top-notch instructor says nothing of how you’ll react when you’re exposed to live fire. You can be exquisitely talented as a pilot and instructor and still crack under pressure in actual combat.
In other words your statement is comical to the extreme. I don’t know a lot of fighter pilots but I’ve met a few and I seriously doubt “pissing their pants” is a common occurance.
Well bomber pilots have little choice in the matter when they fly 18-hour missions…
All kidding aside, I’d like your opinion on why the F16 ignored the “permissioned denied” order. It seems you’ve commented on everything else, but that. You’ve even stated that the command structure was competent. What is it I’m missing when I imply less than standard-issue cojones on the part of the trigger happy pilot?
Your implications and inferences were quiet clear. Pointing out that they were not charged is quite important to balance the mocking intent of your posts, whether you intended them to be
or not.
Are charges common in friendly fire incidents?
Has the pilot been redeployed in a combat theater?
Those are actual, serious questions.
[/quote]
Pookie,
I’ll try and answer your questions.
I try not to dwell on my own military experience but frustration builds listening to some of the posters here. I felt it was relevant to the conversation if at the very least to bring balance.
Yes it is my understanding that friendly fire incidents often lead to a court martial. Not always but often. Negligence being the common reason. This pilot was allowed to retire out of the military.
My two cents on this F-16 pilot. I don’t like the rigid structure that the air force operates under. “Permission to attack” is not something a pilot should have to ask in a dynamic changing environment. Hindsight being twenty twenty it would have benefited these soldiers and I am sure the pilot in question wishes he witheld his attack. All that being said rules of engagement that are too restrictive don’t kill a lot of the enemy. If he thought he was being shot at and returned fire then the incident appears justified but still tragic. I think he violated the order because his clearance to fire was taking too long and he thought the enemy was going to get away. Again, in the clear light of day he turned out to be wrong but do you want your trained warfighter playing it safe or killing the enemy.
I’ll take issue with your opinion on the top gun pilot. I don’t know what his combat record was but that school is designed to give these guys a huge edge. They fly dozens of air to air missions against the best pilots in the world and it takes years to get there. I’d argue that freaking out in combat is not one of the possibilities for this guy. Overly agressive perhaps but I doubt he lost it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
I try not to dwell on my own military experience but frustration builds listening to some of the posters here. I felt it was relevant to the conversation if at the very least to bring balance.[/quote]
Fair enough. Tone is often difficult to convey in writing and something said in jest can be taken in a more serious manner than intended.
The articles you linked mention two pilots: Schmidt and Umbach. Umbach is being allowed to retire with a reprimand.
In the case of Schmidt, the article states: “A date for Schmidt’s court-martial has not been set.”
Is the matter still ongoing, or has that been settled since?
When dropping massive bombs on target you can barely see, I think a minimum of restraint is called for. In this case, a mistake killed 4 men and injured over a dozen others.
I’m also curious as to how ground troop get away from a supersonic jet fighter? Split up and disperse? There’s no way they’ll outrun a jet plane.
Unless they train with live ammo, which I don’t think is the case, there will always be a difference between training and combat. No matter how realistic training gets, if you can’t get (or have very little chance of being) killed by “the enemy” you might still react badly when put in a real combat situation.
That said, I think you’re probably right and the pilot was quite capable of doing his job. The wikipedia article mentions amphetamines and the fact that they were coming back from a 10-hour patrol. These factors probably weigh more in making a bad call than any fear.
That’s for one of the pilots, presumably the one who didn’t fire.
Upon rereading the wikipedia article while keeping in mind the distinction between the two pilots, we get to this part:
On July 6, 2004 U.S. Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson found Schmidt guilty of dereliction of duty in what the U.S. military calls a “non-judicial hearing” before a senior officer. Schmidt was fined nearly $5,700 in pay and reprimanded. The reprimand, written by Lt. Gen. Carlson said Schmidt had “flagrantly disregarded a direct order,” “exercised a total lack of basic flight discipline”, and “blatantly ignored the applicable rules of engagement.”
So while it might not be because he got scared, even the US Air Force seems to agree with my position that the pilot basically fucked up.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The troops were in an area they should not have been in and did not identify themselves to the theatre commander as to where they were or what there intentions were.[/quote]
Not to belabor the point, but previously you implied that the Canadian troops were partly to blame for the incident.
The wikipedia link you provided states:
The Board found that the Canadian troops engaged in the night live-fire exercise had conducted their operations as authorized and in accordance with the established range procedures for the types of weapons fire. The Board concluded that the American F-16 pilots contravened established procedures and were the cause of the incident.
[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
The troops were in an area they should not have been in and did not identify themselves to the theatre commander as to where they were or what there intentions were.
Not to belabor the point, but previously you implied that the Canadian troops were partly to blame for the incident.
The wikipedia link you provided states:
The Board found that the Canadian troops engaged in the night live-fire exercise had conducted their operations as authorized and in accordance with the established range procedures for the types of weapons fire. The Board concluded that the American F-16 pilots contravened established procedures and were the cause of the incident.
[/quote]
Fair enough. When I first heard about this that was what I remember hearing, that they were live firing weapons without the knowledge of the theatre commander.
Situational awareness is most difficult for new troops who may or may not know the lay of the land and who to notify about activities.
But back to our original point. I would still maintain that Canadian troops are dying at a higher rate do to the missions they are undertaking as opposed to any other reason I see.
The Board found that the Canadian troops engaged in the night live-fire exercise had conducted their operations as authorized and in accordance with the established range procedures for the types of weapons fire. The Board concluded that the American F-16 pilots contravened established procedures and were the cause of the incident.
Fair enough. When I first heard about this that was what I remember hearing, that they were live firing weapons without the knowledge of the theatre commander.
Situational awareness is most difficult for new troops who may or may not know the lay of the land and who to notify about activities.
But back to our original point. I would still maintain that Canadian troops are dying at a higher rate do to the missions they are undertaking as opposed to any other reason I see.
[/quote]
Hedo, as I’m sure you realize at this point, your long lecture about air support really had nothing to do with this particular incident. Again, given the nature of the incident, I really didn’t see much finger pointing going on in this thread. Friendly fire happens… and pointing out the facts of the matter isn’t undue griping.
Rainjack, was there any purpose to your post? You really have nothing say and nothing to add… sad. Perhaps, one of these days, you’ll learn to address the topic of conversation instead of hurling stones at people you don’t appreciate like the little bully you are. Do you think that might ever happen?
What are the chances that a thread in the poli forum would go off topic? I must say I am surprised at you guys.
So did we come to some kind of consensus here? My poor choice of humor aside (another surprise!) is it because the Canadian troops are deployed in more dangerous areas? Are they not supported well enough? Not wearing armor? Not equipped well enough?
There’s got to be a reason for such a large discrepancy in the statistics of the wounded. We don’t see Australians four and a half times more likely to die in Afghanistan.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, was there any purpose to your post? You really have nothing say and nothing to add… sad. Perhaps, one of these days, you’ll learn to address the topic of conversation instead of hurling stones at people you don’t appreciate like the little bully you are. Do you think that might ever happen?[/quote]
Does yours? Do you?
Perhaps one of these days you will grow a pair of nuts and quit crying everytime I respond to one of your posts.
When was the last time you ever did anything useful here? Really?
I know - I know - you try to take in all the information and think about shit. Guess what - nobody cares. You are not the person you wish you were when you look in the mirror.
On the other hand -
Whether you like what I do or not is of no concern to me. I drive up hits. People look to see if I have posted because I draw a reaction. Good, bad, or ugly - peole know I have posted, and they are either pissed or laughing, or in agreement.
Yours…well…I didn’t even know you had taken a break from down here.
Call me whatever name makes you feel less insignificant.
I have always disliked your particular brand of bullshit. You have every right to sling it - but try to stop the fucking waterworks when I exercise my right to reply.
Besides - about the only way your are going to get anyone to read what you wrote is if I come in and post behind you.
The Board found that the Canadian troops engaged in the night live-fire exercise had conducted their operations as authorized and in accordance with the established range procedures for the types of weapons fire. The Board concluded that the American F-16 pilots contravened established procedures and were the cause of the incident.
Fair enough. When I first heard about this that was what I remember hearing, that they were live firing weapons without the knowledge of the theatre commander.
Situational awareness is most difficult for new troops who may or may not know the lay of the land and who to notify about activities.
But back to our original point. I would still maintain that Canadian troops are dying at a higher rate do to the missions they are undertaking as opposed to any other reason I see.
Hedo, as I’m sure you realize at this point, your long lecture about air support really had nothing to do with this particular incident. Again, given the nature of the incident, I really didn’t see much finger pointing going on in this thread. Friendly fire happens… and pointing out the facts of the matter isn’t undue griping.
Rainjack, was there any purpose to your post? You really have nothing say and nothing to add… sad. Perhaps, one of these days, you’ll learn to address the topic of conversation instead of hurling stones at people you don’t appreciate like the little bully you are. Do you think that might ever happen?[/quote]
Well I enjoyed it and it added a little real world balance to a topic that was way off course. At least Pookie and I formed and reformed opinions.