Errant U.S. Bomb Kills 4 Canadian Soldiers......crap

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This is bad, very very bad. Friendly fire tords our own troops one thing, but this is a whole 'nother can o worms. Going to look very bad for the U.S. and gonna spark some major outlashing from the Canadians, and embarrisment all around.



Now I want to know who the **** messed this up.



<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/04/18/afghanistan.canada/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/04/18/afghanistan.canada/index.html</A>;

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    We hit Afghan "allies" and ourselves with a 2000 pound bomb a few months back. And if I'm not mistaken a few British or German troops were killed a while back.



    In Desert Storm, our helicopters fired on British cavalry (tanks) as well.
  • Reply 2 of 14
    That's why they call them "accidents".



    [quote]Friendly fire tords our own troops one thing, but this is a whole 'nother can o worms<hr></blockquote>



    Uh..what "another can o worms" is it? Read the whole article and you would have seen this:

    "Henault said the American fighter pilot could not visually identify the troops because the exercise took place in the middle of the night"

    "Without a doubt, there was a misidentification of the Canadians and what they were doing on the ground and that was obviously the cause of this accident," Henault said.





    So please...read the article before jumping to conclusions. Yeah, the deaths are sad..but they do happen. My condolences to the families.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,937member
    Exactly. This is war and accidents happen. It is a very sad thing, but those are the risks.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    jesperasjesperas Posts: 524member
    Friendly fire isn't.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Isn't what?



    How's this for a complicated situation: The pilot's orders were not to fire on the target (that he reported receiving ground fire from). When he received more fire, he invoked his right of self-defense and ropped his ordinance. He obviously does have that right but it makes the situation that much more murky. Just goes to show why war is always bad, however necessary.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    jesperasjesperas Posts: 524member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>Isn't what?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Isn't friendly. Yeah, I know that's a pretty obvious thing to say, but a lot more people have been killed by "friendly fire" than you'd think in previous wars and conflicts. Advances in communications have cut that down drastically in recent times, but it isn't something that will likely be eliminated completely.
  • Reply 7 of 14
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    I think 'friendly fire' is a constant that evolves as military technology progresses. In medieval battles, 'friendly fire' would have been common in huge chaotic battles...you start hacking away with your claymore and you'll strike down your ally every once in a while...or you'll be forced to use your archers in a mix of allies and enemies.



    In foot battles, this is always a risk. You can replace the arrows with artillery and the swords with guns and apply the same to WWII.



    And with modern military warfare, the increased reliance on remote targetting, long range weaponry, bigger weaponry, stealth and timing only increases the chances of friendly fire.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    Well..what the U.S. forces have done to help decrease friendly fire is to have some type of indicator..whether it's an infrared beacon or something like that on vehicles to (not sure exactly) on personnel. Granted, friendly fire won't stop, but it should decrease.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    falconfalcon Posts: 458member
    [quote]So please...read the article before jumping to conclusions. Yeah, the deaths are sad..but they do happen. <hr></blockquote>



    Dude you tottaly misunderstood me, maybe I should have elaborated. Killing an allies soldiers instead of ours is another can o worms becuase of the diplomatic and foreign complications. Canadians (just go to cbc.ca) are outraged at the incident. It errodes our standing with our allies, and turns public sentiment abroad against us even more. What conclusions where I jumping to?

    Not to mention our close relationship with the Canadians, plus they are not exactly happy with us right now, do to the border problems and the North American Security Zone.



    Oh and saying "Sorry shit happens" is the most inconsiderate thing you could every say. How responsive would you be if someone said "damn well shit happens" when WTC was hit?



    [ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Falcon ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 14
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    I went to <a href="http://www.cbc.ca"; target="_blank">www.cbc.ca</a> and didn't notice much. There are quite a few articles on the matter but none seem to be trying to stir up anything.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Our president and such apologized profusely. I don't think Canada will care much what a few people say on an internet message board.



    And it was a damned shame, very regretable.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    [quote]Originally posted by Falcon:

    <strong>

    Oh and saying "Sorry shit happens" is the most inconsiderate thing you could every say. How responsive would you be if someone said "damn well shit happens" when WTC was hit?

    ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Uh..please show me where I said "sorry shit happens" because I know I didn't say it! And comparing what happened there to 9/11 is really crude. Two totally different type of incidents.



    You should have just compared it to say if Canadian troops accidently fired at our troops.



    Enough from me. Yes, it was tragic and sad. Wouldn't want it to happen to any friendly forces, regardless of nationality.
  • Reply 13 of 14
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    hmmm...



    What can anyone do about it now? Friendly fire continues to be a big problem for modern military. Especially because of the whole 'killing at a distance' psychology put in play by modern weaponry. It's sad. I'm sure the respective militaries will try to learn what they can from these incedents and devise protective measures. But that's really the difference: "Friendly Fire" -- we're working together here, it coulda easily gone the other way. The people actually doing the fighting know that.



    As long as there isn't any blatant and extra risk imposed on non-American soldiers, or evidence of 'less' care taken to avoid friendly fire on allies than would normally be taken for the protection of American soldiers, I don't see cause for strained national relations. Frankly, I see a heck of a lot of American contribution, and American boys taking just as much risk (in greater numbers) than the boys from other ally countries.



    I know people are upset, but what do they expect out of war?



    [ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 14
    falconfalcon Posts: 458member
    [quote]Uh..please show me where I said "sorry shit happens" because I know I didn't say it!<hr></blockquote>

    my last statement was not targetted to you, but anyone who says something to that effect.
Sign In or Register to comment.