Friendly fire but what about the war!

bluespoke

Moderator
Joined
Aug 11, 2001
Posts
9,603
From, Ananova.com

Bombing of soldiers was 'terrible accident'

Canadian defence officials say it is a 'mystery' how soldiers serving alongside British forces in Afghanistan were bombed by a US plane.

Four Canadian soldiers have been killed and eight wounded when an American fighter jet mistakenly bombed them during a training exercise.

The plane which dropped the missiles is not thought to have been involved in the training exercise.

"How this can happen is a mystery to us. Without a doubt, there was a misidentification," said Canada's defence chief, Lieutenant General Ray Henault.

Canadian defence officials say their soldiers were on a night-time training exercise about 10 miles south of their Kandahar base when the bombing occurred.

Lt Gen Henault said the area is recognised as a training area and the aircraft were using very strictly controlled routes.

Asked whether the US plane was involved in the exercise, Lt Gen Henault said: "My understanding is that this aircraft was in no way supporting or involved in that particular exercise."

He said some of the injured soldiers will be moved to a medical facility in Uzbekistan and others to Ramstein, Germany, depending on their condition. Two who were slightly injured will remain in Kandahar for treatment.

Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien said US President George W Bush has called to offer his condolences and pledged to cooperate with a Canadian investigation. But there was no immediate word from the White House on the accident.

"As to the circumstances of what appears to have been a terrible accident, clearly there are many questions that the families, and all Canadians, expect to have answered," said Mr Chretien.
============

It is indeed a tragedy that these soldiers have been killed and injured by so called 'friendly fire'.

What beats me is the fact journalists and editors are quite happy for the war against terrorism to trundle along without any proper in depth reporting of what is actually happening until they get a sensational story that they know will cause hurt and anger amongst both the American and Canadian people.

I'm not saying they should not report it but it would be nice if, once in a while, they would tell us what is happening in this war instead of just running with the 'information' spewed out by the White House and Downing Street.

Or do we really get the press we deserve?
 
Sorry.

I do the ostrich thing,head in sand,arse up kinda thing.

If i cant see it,read it,hear it,it aint happening.
I much rather think that all is rosey and peaceful in the world.





And i'll think that way til the mull runs out.
 
If you look at the number of people who vote, read on a daily basis, continue to study, to follow their politicians, then yes, we are getting the press we deserve. If we’re not about to watch the hens, why watch the fox?
 
Thanks, 'Spokie...

Ill get into this one later - gotta get to work.

Guess this proves to the rabid Hawks out there that we "leftist Softies" are willing to put our lives on the line.

I am REALLY pissed off right now - four dead so far, and many wounded.

Apparently an ANG reservist... Friendly fire - Ahhh FUCK!!!!

RVN all over again, I fear. DAMN!

Some prayers for the families might be in order from some of the Moral Majority, one hopes.

Slainte!
 
SINthysist said:
If you look at the number of people who vote, read on a daily basis, continue to study, to follow their politicians, then yes, we are getting the press we deserve. If we’re not about to watch the hens, why watch the fox?


Yep, give the masses what they the journalists want to pour out and ignore those who actually care.

I suppose I should be grateful somebody hasn't buried the story under one about aliens landing in the next street. But there's time yet!
 
OMG [sounding breathless like one of the flirt threads]

Which street?
 
bluespoke said:


It is indeed a tragedy that these soldiers have been killed and injured by so called 'friendly fire'.

What beats me is the fact journalists and editors are quite happy for the war against terrorism to trundle along without any proper in depth reporting of what is actually happening until they get a sensational story that they know will cause hurt and anger amongst both the American and Canadian people.

I'm not saying they should not report it but it would be nice if, once in a while, they would tell us what is happening in this war instead of just running with the 'information' spewed out by the White House and Downing Street.

Or do we really get the press we deserve?

You have some valid questions and concerns here.

The first issue you bring up is the lack of "hard" news from the front. The reporters are not being allowed access. More or less purposely being kept in the dark. The reason is simple and valid. Almost all news sources are now global and instant. Every move that the military makes could be instantly trasmitted, and that would tell the enemy exaclty what we are up to, where. Surprise and denial of information to your enemy are more important than firepower in war. So as much as we'd all like to have a little more timely information, the safety of the troops and the success of the mission come first.

That brings us to the second issue. Because there is a lack of 'hard' news from the 'front' those events that are war related and sensational, are sensationalized even more. Far beyond their real significance.

Now, this was a horrible event. Especially for the loved ones of the soldiers killed and wounded that are back home. I don't want to diminish that fact.

But, soldiers play with dangerous toys. War is ugly and brutal, there is nothing glamorous about it. Mistakes happen, mortars misfire, coordinates are misread. Is this an excuse? No, these things just happen. They happen in peacetime training. In times of war these are called "friendly fire" incidents, in times of peace they are called accidents. The difference is a moot point to the victims, and of little consolation to the soldier that pulled the trigger, or dropped the bomb, for they are as much a victim of the incident as those injured or killed.

Am I concerned about the way the press sensationalzes these events? You bet, but that's their job and it's really no different than the way your local TV station handles a freeway pile-up that kills a family of four.

"Bulletins as they happen, details at 11."

Ishmael
 
The US has been plauged with Friendly Fire problems since Vietnam. It's always happened, but not as an actual issue like it's becoming these days.

The problem is that we're tech reliant. Tech can't tell the difference between friendlies and hostiles, it can only see potential target.

That and our military is plagued with "careerism" and has become a political institution rather than an actual military. For those unfamiliar with how politicking destroys military readiness, I offer this as an extreme example: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2061/

Put politicking and tech reliance together and you get a large number of CYA situations where people get dead.
 
Yeah, yeah, yeah...

soldiers play with dangerous toys, wars kill, yeah, yeah, yeah...

Platitudes.

The story has been running on UK TV all day as one of the major news items.

But I don't see why it should be considered that important. America has been slowly killing her allies off through 'friendly fire' since the Afghan "war" started. Not counting Afghan civilians, livestock, Red Cross hospitals, food depots, a mosque and sundry other non-targets.

I just think that the American forces need more training in the art of pointing those dangerous toys in the right direction.

ppman
 
The entire US military infrastructure is rotten. Equipment is old and failing, there isn't enough training, and the various branches not only don't work together, they have no idea that they are working together.

I'm surprised more people haven't died.

And if you'd bother to read the whole post you'd see that I made no mention of soldiers playing with dangerous toys and people get killed because of it.

Friendlies are getting killed because the military relies on technology rather than human beings to make certain, and vital, decisions. Like who is friendly and who is not. The military also relies so heavily on technology that they're training to use it, not training to fight war. Add that to politicking and you've got a group of people who not only don't know what they're doing, they're too busy bucking for promotion to care.

This isn't the military as individuals, the people in it do care about who gets dead. This is the infrastructure that makes the military what it is.
 
KillerMuffin said:
The entire US military infrastructure is rotten. Equipment is old and failing, there isn't enough training, and the various branches not only don't work together, they have no idea that they are working together.

I'm surprised more people haven't died.

And if you'd bother to read the whole post you'd see that I made no mention of soldiers playing with dangerous toys and people get killed because of it.

This isn't the military as individuals, the people in it do care about who gets dead. This is the infrastructure that makes the military what it is.

I was being sarcastic to Ishmael not you. The man with the platitudes and the way off centre logic. You submitted your post whilst I was writing mine. I didn't see yours until mine had been posted.

Whew...

Anyway to be reliant on tecnology in a war situation isn't the perogative of the USA. Other countries have the same or similar weaponry but we don't seem to kill off allies on such a regular basis as the US seems to.

And after hearing an American officer this afternoon repeat more or less what Ishmael said (or did Ishmael repeat what he said?" I can only shake my head in disbelief.

Not at the incidents themselves but at the way American spokesmen seem to explain them away with words like "We play with dangerous toys"...

ppman
 
p_p_man said:


I was being sarcastic to Ishmael not you. The man with the platitudes and the way off centre logic. You submitted your post whilst I was writing mine. I didn't see yours until mine had been posted.

Whew...

Anyway to be reliant on tecnology in a war situation isn't the perogative of the USA. Other countries have the same or similar weaponry but we don't seem to kill off allies on such a regular basis as the US seems to.

And after hearing an American officer this afternoon repeat more or less what Ishmael said (or did Ishmael repeat what he said?" I can only shake my head in disbelief.

Not at the incidents themselves but at the way American spokesmen seem to explain them away with words like "We play with dangerous toys"...

ppman
Being killed by friendly fire is indeed troubling. There have been other friendly fire kills during this operation, the difference is that they were American lives. Didnt hear your concern then p_p man:confused: I suspect since they were American lives they didnt matter. I wonder how many allied soilders were killed by friendly fire in WW2. This issue will pass in a few days. Then we will be bombarded with another "crisis"
 
SINthysist said:
If you look at the number of people who vote, read on a daily basis, continue to study, to follow their politicians, then yes, we are getting the press we deserve. If we’re not about to watch the hens, why watch the fox?

Damnit man stop making intellitgent comments like that. I might have to hug you :)
 
p_p_man said:



Anyway to be reliant on tecnology in a war situation isn't the perogative of the USA. Other countries have the same or similar weaponry but we don't seem to kill off allies on such a regular basis as the US seems to.


ppman

Ahh but the US is dropping how many more bombs then the UK or any other country?

You need to think of it on a per capita basis.
 
I'm sorry, p_p_man. Teach me to jump to conclusions. Well. Probably not.

I dislike this indiscriminate reliance on tech. Sure, we had friendly fire incidents prior to saturation bombing and remote targeting. But they were nothing like what's happening now.

It's sad, but this all revolves around money. The US doesn't want to spend money to train their forces, in 95 when the Stud left the service he was doing two major field problems a year. That's about three weeks out of the year for actual training in simulated conditions. In 1990 he was in the field at least two weeks out of every month.

They need the money to train the men, but the money is being applied to technology instead of being applied to both tech and the training to use it and the training they need to do their job as soldiers.
 
Whilst I appreciate that 'friendly fire' is tragic for all those involved, it was not the main thrust of my original post.

My point was about the press, national and international.

Ishmael made he vaild point about news being global and anything our side pick up, the opposition pick up. I agree but my problem is not with the press giving out specifics, it's with them not giving us anything at all.

There are reporters out there but all we ever get from them are the official lines. I remember a time where journalists had independent minds and sought out their own stories.

Thanks KM for your informed comment about the military.

p_p go bash the Americans somewhere else, it's not the purpose of this thread. The abilities of journalists are not determined by their passports!
 
Azwed, we need to think of it on an individual basis. Friendly fire should never be considered on anyone's acceptable casualties list. It simply should not happen. It will, that's the nature of the beast, soldiers are human and war has dangerous stuff flying around. However, 1) action should be taken to prevent it and 2) there should be no cover up.

The reason we're having so many problems with accidents like the rash of helicopter crashes and misuse of bombs is that the people running these things are not properly trained.

US soldiers have inadequate training, they are poorly funded, they have a transport infrastructure that's falling apart, they are not enough of them, and they have to have to deal with a military leadership that has to campaign for its needs and for promotion.

Bush Sr. and Clinton fucked the military over and as fast as Jr. is throwing money at it, that still won't fix it. We have a 30% reduction of force in the last 10 years. Clinton year, by the way, and we have a 165% increase in the number of missions. 70 soldiers are asked to do the job of 165. This means more and lengthier deployments and lower standards of living since funding for these deployments comes from funds originally designated for housing, barracks, pay, and benefits.

Our military is a hideously huge beast and it has to be to meet the demands we make on it. We're demanding more and making it work with less.

This is not how you prevent accidents from happening. This is how you increase the odds of a fatal accident. If we want to cut military spending, we need to cut military usage not increase it.
 
really very sad.........

the really sad point in all of this................war, and similar aggressions against others serves no useful purpose.....and it brings out all our worst traits..........

sometimes I just get so weary...............

greybeard
 
bluespoke said:
p_p go bash the Americans somewhere else, it's not the purpose of this thread. The abilities of journalists are not determined by their passports!

Sorry. I've gone back and read your opening post. It was so long and so involved in the "friendly fire" issue I actually missed your main point at the bottom.

Just to contibute to that point though. The purpose of the Press is to report. Unless the Press involved are tabloids of the gutter press type which pander to readers more interested in sensational headlines and bare breasted women than hard news.

However as the news coming out of Afghanistan has become humdrum and routine and which, although still reported in the broadsheets, has been relegated to column footnotes, news of this calibre instantly becomes headline news.

If there were constant stories of similar subject material they too would be dropped from their positions on the front pages.

You may have noticed that apart from very few news items about Afghanistan the bulk of the reporting has been relegated to articles of interest in the colour magazines.

I don't think it's a matter of the readers getting the Press that they deserve but rather the Press getting the readership it deserves.

ppman
 
bored1 said:
Being killed by friendly fire is indeed troubling. There have been other friendly fire kills during this operation, the difference is that they were American lives. Didnt hear your concern then p_p man:confused: I suspect since they were American lives they didnt matter. I wonder how many allied soilders were killed by friendly fire in WW2. This issue will pass in a few days. Then we will be bombarded with another "crisis"

Well, I for one hope the issue DOESN'T pass in a few days... we are a small country, with an even smaller military - and FOUR deaths is a VERY big deal for us.

Let there be no mistake - I understand clearly that war is a dangerous business - but our boys were in a clearly defined "No-fly Zone", fer fuck's sakes... :mad:
 
Azwed said:


Ahh but the US is dropping how many more bombs then the UK or any other country?

You need to think of it on a per capita basis.

Like fuck you do.

You, young friend, are generally balanced and logical in your posts - I'm a bit surprised that this was your response to peepee - as inflammatory as he can be at times. :)

Unfortunately, there's a glimmer of truth in what peepee spews, this time. The bigger and more complex the organization, civilian or military, the more chance of an eventual SNAFU, in my view.

These were Canadians that were killed - not Brits. i'm upset enough today to do a bit of "spewing" of my own. :mad:

Peace, Az...
 
p_p_man said:
Sorry. I've gone back and read your opening post. It was so long and so involved in the "friendly fire" issue I actually missed your main point at the bottom.

Thank you. I agree with your comments on this post. It may be that the press do in fact get the public they deserve.
 
Some real ignorance.......

...starting to hit the fan now!

Jimi6996 said:


Well, I for one hope the issue DOESN'T pass in a few days... we are a small country, with an even smaller military - and FOUR deaths is a VERY big deal for us.

Let there be no mistake - I understand clearly that war is a dangerous business - but our boys were in a clearly defined "No-fly Zone", fer fuck's sakes... :mad:

Your boys were not in a no fly zone! . They were in a designated training area, in the middle of a very dark night and in a country with no landmarks to reference to. The pilot of the F 16 reported taking ground fire from the area and was given permission to "illuminate" the target. Upon returning to mark the area and investigate, he once again took ground fire. He exercised his self defense option and released his weapon. Jimi, exactly for what do you fault this pilot? There are no "no fly zones" in Afganistan because there are no safe areas in the country! Even today, I'm sure the Canadians over there are praying that Combat Air Support aircraft are overhead and weapons free when they need them.

Maybe it would be wise to cease the "posts in gross ignorance" and determinewhat happened, why and what can be done to minimize reoccurrences.

More to follow.

RhumbRunner:mad:
 
Back
Top