 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Friendly fire?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,Wee wILLIE. Date: 19 Apr 02 - 05:58 AM Regarding feeling bad about the victims, Lt Calley didn`t seem unduly sorrowful for Mi Lai and I do remember the Commander of the Ship that shot down the Iraqi passenger plane, killing 97, being feted as a hero on his return to the US.Wee Willie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Apr 02 - 06:23 AM Actually it was 290 people killed when the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian airbus in 1988 - and it was an Iranian plane, not Iraqi.
But that can't really be seen as an example of "friendly fire." At that time the USA was effectively on the side of Iraq in its war against Iran, regardless of what Saddam Hussein had already done in the way of using poison gas against his own civilians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST Date: 19 Apr 02 - 06:26 AM They should not have been playing war in a war zone. The US pilot was under the idea it was hostile fire and responded as trained. No blame attached to the pilot but the Canadian and US Coordination should have been comunicating with each other; obviously they did not know what forces were deployed.
Roger Miller Song.. You Cant Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd...
You cant play games in a combat zone |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: kendall Date: 19 Apr 02 - 07:12 AM Doug I did not say, nor did I imply that he dropped a bomb intentionally on friendly troops! He was ordered NOT to drop at all, and he violated a direct order! Of course he will live with it forever, but, he should live with it as a buck private.Bush has promised a full investigation, (for what that's worth) and, I think a court marshal is in order. If a General can be fired by a president for disobeying orders, why should any other soldier be immune? We gotta get over that "My country right or wrong" crap! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:09 AM Hm, there can be a kind of praise that makes me want not to have posted at all. I'm a conscientious objector and proud of it. I guess that my political position is much closer to (Kevin) McGrath's than that of many posters here. But I'm a man who loves numbers and statistics and hates careless use of them. For most people it may be correct to assume that when they attack an argument for a position they do not share that position. This is not true for me. There is a lot more to say about the trend in percentage of civilians killed, why and when it went up, why the trend has reversed since a few years for some types of wars but not for civil wars, why the trend over a century in civil wars has more to do with the methods of counting used than with a real change in the percentage, but I think I rather shouldn't here. At least I know now, what task my students in next Monday's methodology class will have to work on: There's a big increase in the percentage of US soldiers killed by friedly fire from WWII to the Gulf War. Find at least one interpretation for this trend. I hope some like it. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:15 AM Just to say thanks here Wolfgang for coming back and making yourself clear to those who do not know you so well. I figured that you would but it's still good to see your post. Thanks for always being a stand-up kind of person. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:20 AM Now this praise gives me an awkward feeling too, but for a different reason. Thanks. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: jimlad Date: 19 Apr 02 - 08:56 AM My late Uncle Joe was shot in the leg By friendly fire in Italy during WWII US of course. He used to say "when the Germans fly over the British duck,when the British flew over the Germans duck,but when the Americans fly over everybody ducks" Someone should tell the USAAF in Afghanistan that the bad guys have Turbans and beards,the good guys wear steel hats and carry bloody big flags. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Mrrzy Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:13 AM If you're training with allies, aren't the allies supposed to know? Why didn't the Americans know there were Canadians there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Grab Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:18 AM Wolfgang, re your analysis of friendly fire... If I was a general, I'd certainly be happy to see that there were less casualties amongst my troops. However as a civilian, I have to be concerned that reducing casualties amongst troops is achieved by carpet-bombing the entire area from B-52's at 50,000ft, killing both the military and civilians in that area. This is no different ethically from the Palestinian car-bombs. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:45 AM "Even if 90% of all casualties are civilians you still can be safer being a civilian than a soldier. It depends on the proportion of soldiers to civilians." Of course Wolfgang is right, and it was oversimplifying on my part to write something that suggested anything else.
You can have a situation where there are very few soldiers involved, and a lot of civilians; even if all the soldiers were killed along with a much smaller percentage of the civilian population, the proportion of the dead who were civilians would be far higher.
What is beyond doubt is that the numbers of civilians killed in modern wars has increased enormously, and the number of soldiers (etc) killed has been very much reduced, especially in high-tech armies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:01 AM Well I think there are a couple of things here -
1) How does anyone in this room know whether or not Calley felt bad or good about what happened at My Lai 4? I personnally knew two members of his unit and that he felt good or indifferent is pure crap. Christ on a crutch - get real here.
2) First reports indicate the pilot was ordered to not drop lethal ordinance on the area in question. So - did some tired troop hook the wrong connections up to the bomb? Did the pilot honestly have ground fire coming at him from within the demarcation area? Not unheard of bad guys coming into a secure area and raising a little hell to draw fire into a friendly area. Now let's see - could the Taliban possibly sneak into their own back yard and pull that off? Hmmmm - I'd say yes.
3) Could some higher ranking officer be covering their own ass by denying the order they really gave? Hmmmm - has that ever happened? The Air Force has a quite good legal system and if the pilot did something innappropriate he will be tried for it - in a court of law - and not some buffoonish chat board by angry unknowing people. Haven't we learned yet that what is first presented by the media is rarely - if ever - the truth of the matter?
4) And if you don't want to ally with someone then how about we stop trade with that country. Don't want to share the risks then don't share the profit.
5) I can assure you that not all of the artillery and air support I called in my tour of duty went exactly where it was supposed to. It doesn't work that way. We do our best and as humans we make mistakes. God forgive us if all we can do is point fingers and blame someone else for our collective involvement in a disastrous situation.
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: gnu Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:08 AM I say let's learn all we can from every incident and relay the knowledge during training as well as applying it future. As far as busting the bomber, bust him for disobeying orders, but not for killing friendlies because we all know he thought he was engaging the enemy. Ya know, on a lighter note, a buddy of mine was electrical tech on a Tracker once when the pilot put er on auto and he and the co had a snooze. They were awakened by the low fuel alarm, 300 miles south of Bermuda... coordinates are difficult to enter if you are sleepy, I guess. They ditched with no injuries. They were picked up by the Yankee navy, debriefed, and the pilot got a medal and a position attached to the Yankee navy as a Tracker instructor. Who says you can't learn from mistakes ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Amos Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:16 AM Actually, the order he was givern, if I recall correctly, was he should not drop ordnance unless he was under attack; the latter of course was up to his observation as the pilot. In the middle of the night, with no or little combat experience, it is understanddable he could have interpreted the ground fire he saw as attacking him. In any case he is not going to recover from this easily; nor are the widows he made accidentally. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: artbrooks Date: 19 Apr 02 - 10:19 AM Most recent reports say that the Canadian troops were precisely where they were supposed to be, in a designated training area, and that everyone knew it...apparently except for the pilot. He was specifically told that he wasn't clear to fire and did so anyway. There will undoubtably be a hearing followed by a court martial, and I'd be surprised if he (or she...I haven't heard one way or the other) isn't kicked out unless there is information we haven't heard yet. His failure to follow orders is rather different from Mr. Calley, whose deliberate acts resulted in him being stripped of his rank and sentenced to 25 years in a US military prison...the politicians later got that reduced to time already served. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Metchosin Date: 19 Apr 02 - 11:53 AM Norton1, gimme a break. Why would it get up your nose if someone in Canada, a country with roughly 6% of the GNP of the US and only 10% of the US's population, thinks that Canada's limited resources for North American defense could be better spent? Are you disatisfied with the calibre of all those Mexican troops assisting the US in Afgahnistan? Economic blackmail as a big stick to induce your "friends" to tow your line? Not unheard of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Apr 02 - 01:23 PM Calley doesn't really belong in here. "Friendly fire" is when you accidentally kill people on your own side. In any particular case, maybe there's noone to blame, maybe there is some degree of culpability. Sometimes even a high degree.
But none of that is in any way comparable to the kind of slaughter of children and their mothers and grandparents that took place in that little village. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 19 Apr 02 - 02:16 PM Good point Metchosin - my apologies for that - is was an unfair thing to say. I can't speak to your figures but to say the two countries aren't financially intermingled isn't exactly correct either.
And Calley is best left out of this. I certainly am not going to quibble about that. And as an interviewer of two of the men involved in that incident, and some pretty exhaustive research, I'd say the Colonel in the hovering C&C (Command and Control) ship had a lot more to do with what occurred than is presently acknowledged. Hence came my comment about someone covering their arse.
I'm with Gnu about this - what can we learn? I acknowledge I'm pissed about it. And feel pretty powerless about what I can do to prevent it. But I am hopeful that someone will learn something of value. I also believe with all my heart that the pilot is in a very large hurt locker over this - I certainly would be. Things like this are never good. So whomever posted the empathy above - Me too.
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,mg Date: 19 Apr 02 - 02:58 PM Part of the price of freedom, not that we deserve it, is that 23 year old pilots and 18 year old ground troops have to make decisions that they shouldn't have to make. Sometimes they don't have the nerves of steel that perhaps they should have. Sometimes after flying all night or whatever they make errors out of fatigue. Sometimes communications garble or fail. Sometimes to get close enough to the enemy who is destroying your troops you get too close to your troops. He or she's done as a pilot, as an officer,and perhaps as a human being, it is fair to say. Hopefully someone else will take his/her place. Sooner or later they'll all say screw it and the devil take the hindmost. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: John Gray Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:07 PM This reminds me of Vietnam June 68, when oue sister ship, the destroyer HMAS Hobart, was hit by 2 heat seeking missiles fired by a carrier bourne Phantom jet. Two dead and several badly injured. The Hobart wasn't even on the gunline at the time. When mistakes happen with the military its usually fatal due to the tools employed but its the ridiculous excuses that I have trouble with. At the enquiry for the event, the jet pilot said he thought he had a helicopter on his radar. ( It was night-time ) Now, I don't know a helluva lot about radar but I would think a 4500 ton ship sitting in the water would give a different image to a helicopter in the sky. But the point that nobody seemed to pick up on was that the only people to have helicopters in Vietnam were the Americans or their allies. What does this say? Didn't the pilot know something as basic as this? JG/FME |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: John Gray Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:09 PM This reminds me of Vietnam June 68, when oue sister ship, the destroyer HMAS Hobart, was hit by 2 heat seeking missiles fired by a carrier bourne Phantom jet. Two dead and several badly injured. The Hobart wasn't even on the gunline at the time. When mistakes happen with the military its usually fatal due to the tools employed but its the ridiculous excuses that I have trouble with. At the enquiry for the event, the jet pilot said he thought he had a helicopter on his radar. ( It was night-time ) Now, I don't know a helluva lot about radar but I would think a 4500 ton ship sitting in the water would give a different image to a helicopter in the sky. But the point that nobody seemed to pick up on was that the only people to have helicopters in Vietnam were the Americans or their allies. What does this say? Didn't the pilot know something as basic as this? JG/FME |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: John Gray Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:12 PM I'm stuttering again |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:20 PM Canada/UK and the USA should spend more time working on Co-ordination and communications. This pilot acted on visual ground fire, but with no appreciation of how close it was to friendly forces. In all honesty he/she thought it was directed at aircraft and was therefore a legitimate target. Please dont condem them, it is the consequence of a modern war with the Nintendo generation using equipment. Prevention can be expressed by the following words...Practice at home and in field...Communicate, Communicate and Co-ordinate..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Peter T. Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:25 PM Taking all the above into account, it still does not explain why George W. Bush, who is immediately front and centre when Americans are killed by friendly fire did not take the time to apologise in public until he was pressed. Why? He is such an insensitive bastard. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: DougR Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:32 PM The reports I have heard indicate that the pilots there are allowed to disregard orders such as those given this pilot if they feel they are under attack. Evidently that was the case. No doubt communications between the airforces and the Canadian forces were pretty lousy. Steve, I agree with you about mistakes made fairly often by artillery. There were some instances when our 105 Howitzers fired rounds and they became completely lost. Fortunately, this was when we were on the firing range and not in combat. I'm sure it probably happens in combat too though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: kendall Date: 19 Apr 02 - 04:41 PM I have an idea, how about we all go home and mind our own business? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: GUEST,CET Date: 19 Apr 02 - 05:21 PM I have really had enough of statements to the effect that these are the first "combat" casualties since Korea. This is an insult to the Canadian soldiers killed by deliberate enemy action in Bosnia and Cyprus. Of course, we weren't admitting that these were combat zones, but to my mind that's combat. By the way, Canadian soldiers inflicted quite a few casualties in those theaters. This is the first combat since Korea? Bullshit. Edmund |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 19 Apr 02 - 05:27 PM I didn't say that the artillery made a lot of mistakes (and I am talking very gently here). I said that artillery saved my life many times. Yes I made mistakes, the officers coordinating things made mistakes, the FAC made mistakes, but it was no more the norm than this incident was.
GUEST - yes I agree with that statement. Sounds like me in a family therapy session.
I am going home - going to throw the whole weekend away on riding motorcycles and horses with my partner. May you all have the same -
Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: Mrs.Duck Date: 19 Apr 02 - 06:06 PM Best idea yet ,Kendall. Gets my vote!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: DougR Date: 19 Apr 02 - 09:35 PM Just leave 'em alone to duke it out, eh Kendall? Well, that would be one solution, I guess. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: kendall Date: 20 Apr 02 - 08:05 AM Not just them, leave everyone alone. They were fighting before our revolution, and the only thing that has changed is the weapons.(Which are far more efficient thanks to our manufacturers) Have these Muslims forgotten that less than 10 years ago we saved their asses from being wiped out by the Serbs? So much for thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Apr 02 - 03:13 PM In Srebenica, for example, "we" did nothing at all to stop thousands of Muslim men and boys being murdered by Christians, who happened to be Serbs.
Afghanistan got sucked up into the war-by proxy that characterised the stand-off between The USA and and it's client states, and the Soviet Union and its client states. Up until then things had been gradually getting better in all kinds of ways.
Between them the two outside powers devastated the country, and then turned their backs upon it. Then Taliban regime was installed by outsiders from Pakistan.
What has gone wrong in Afghanistan is very largely "our" fault.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: MarkS Date: 20 Apr 02 - 10:33 PM Claymore: Interesting quiz. I won't answer them all except to agree that the Cannon Cocker is the grunts best friend, and say that your number 8, Call Points, used to be called a Delta Tango (defensive target) when I was worried about such things 33 years ago. And Norton: "Repeat" - - - "Say again all after......" We may be the only folks on this site who know that "Repeat" and "Say again" do NOT mean the same thing! Mark ps - got a real good story about Delta Tangos. Basically, they are the reason I am here to tell it! But maybe this site is not the place for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: artbrooks Date: 21 Apr 02 - 12:45 PM "Repeat" Whoops, I Meant "Say again". "Incoming!!!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire? From: kendall Date: 22 Apr 02 - 07:29 AM I guess I "dropped a clod in the churn" with this thread! |