I suppose Canada is such a small and insignificant country that this hasn't made anyone else's news - much less the USA's - but last night the United States National Guard dropped two bombs on the Canadian troops in Afghanistan. To be specific, on the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry from Edmonton, which includes my friends Kevin and Rochelle. We don't know the names of the dead yet so I don't know if I've lost my friends, but I do know that I am very, very angry.

Canada is not a big country- 35 million people at the last census- but we gave the US everything we could when it was bombed last year. Millions of dollars were sent to the American Red Cross for the families of the victims. Hundreds of our firefighters flew to New York to help deal with the burning wreckage at the World Trade Centre. Our tiny army sent everybody it could spare to Afghanistan to support our southern brothers and sisters. And we are repaid with this deadly carelessness? For shame. We deserved better.

I cant say anything to you that will ease up with what ever you are feeling. I just saw that report on the news. They say...

That one or two bombs may have fallen one Canadian troops.

I hope that this does not hurt relations with Canada. Their the only country that still likes us besides England.

Actually, Sprite, I just read that myself. From an American news source, no less. And it wasn't buried. It was the headline on CNN.

I do hope your friends are safe and that those hurt make a full recovery.

[Edited to add:]
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/04/18/afghanistan.canada/index.html

It looks like our National Guardsmen were just stupid. It's not like they thought to themselves, "Oh, there're some Canadians down there? Should we worry about where they are? Nah, they're just Canadians."

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited April 18, 2002).]

You think I am an uncaring son of a ***** but PEOPLE DIE IN WAR! Not just the evil enemy but yes the good nice soldiers of the free world too. That is something that every soldier should know, and of course the persons near to the soldiers. No weapon is perfect and no soldier is above making mistakes, so yes sometimes they miss and kill their own troops. Very unfortunate and should be avoided as much as possible but it do happen. We in our northern rich world are horrible upset if even one of our soldiers die but that is what happens in war. If we dont want any casualties we shouldnt go to war. Even if we kill thousands of enemies for every one of ours that die so are some our boys in the fiels going to die if they are in a battle zone, what kills them doesnt really matters. It isnt sling shots they are playing with there.


To Sprite, I sincerely hope that your friends are ok and that no one is hurt. This rant is more generally aimed at our part of the world that expect our soldiers to be perfectly safe in a battle zone.

Brings back memories of the Gulf War:

When the Brits fired, the Iraqis took cover, when Iraqis fired the allies took cover, when the Americans fired - everybody dived for cover.

Questions will no doubt be asked regarding blame, but it does beg the question of whether some of these soldiers have the appropriate training to handle both the hardware and the responsibily involved.

Im sorry to hear about your friends Sprite i hope they are ok:cry:

[This message has been edited by jesper898 (edited April 18, 2002).]

joacqin, I don't think anyone can be in the military and not concern themselves with dying or getting hurt. I've known several people who were in wars or in the service and they all worry about death.

Even if we kill thousands of enemies for every one of ours that die so are some our boys in the fiels going to die if they are in a battle zone, what kills them doesnt really matters.

It does matter because if it was someone in your family who was accidentally bombed by an ally you would be livid.

I don't condone carelessness. America certainly has it's fair share of stupidity. And that's just what this was. Stupidity.
Shralp is right. Noone set out to bomb the Canadians. That would be asinine and pointless. It is ,however, and unforgivable act of carelessness.

[This message has been edited by Xenecor (edited April 18, 2002).]

/me got lost between two countries

I say that your ignorance on something (someone) doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.

So excuse me for dispeling your illusion that outside of your country is nothing but a wasteland to test some nukes on.
Forgive me for my breathing *your* air!

No one has such illusions, Extremist. You just like expressing strong opinions for the sake of having them. Bad Extremist!

Our nukes have all been tested on American soil, despite my repeated requests that we test them on Zagreb.

I don't know where have you tested your nukes "mister who likes to use plural when talking about himself". Whyt do you think I do with my remote when I see the abb "USA" on TV?

I just know that sulfur rain I'm getting here is not result of *my* actions.
Well, thank you for my nice birthday present. Maybe not nice present, but definetly packed originally.

So you admit you're just spouting uninformed nonsense when you make claims about America because you don't even bother reading or listening to news from there.

Acid rain you're getting there isn't a
result of the US either. We send ours to Canada.

I heard about this last night, on one of my (filtered) american tv news show, at that. It was an accident, and accidents happen in war. Things like this have happend to american soldiers too, and more things will still probly happen. People take these risks when they join the military.

I mostly agree with joacqin. If you go to war, then you prepare to accept the consequences. Even if you're just an ally. And it counts for the innocent people of a country that the war is taking place in too. Sad but true, thus is the nature of war.

There is no way of me knowing, but I would be surprised if in 200 years there is still a United States (if the world can even last another 200 years.) If we keep our shenangins up, someone is going to kick our @$$. Not to sound unpatriotic, but a lot can happen in 200 years, just look back 100 years...

First of all Sprite, if your friends are hurt (which I honestly hope they are not) I offer you my condolences. Second friendly fire (especially with the US who use TONNES of heavy artillery in warfare) is not rare. I'm sure most Americans (and Canadians for that matter) who remember the Gulf War probably remember the Apache pilot who inadverdantly attacked an American outpost. He killed his comrades by accident, thinking they were Iraqi's.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm not so happy about it either (and I have no connection to them, other than my father, who happens to be an officer and a pilot in the AF) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush apologized for the mishap (Chretien would apologize if we acidentally bombed the Americans).

Just to add a clarification. This did not occur in or near any action. The Canadians were running routine training exercises in an area strictly designated for training, just outside of a base in Kandahar. This was not a group of ground troops who got caught in a blast when bombs were being dropped on enemy positions. The F-16 that dropped the bomb (or bombs, that part is still inclear) had no business whatsoever in taking this action, and should have realised what territory he was flying over.

I cross my fingers that your friends aren't among the dead, Sprite.

Alas, humans aren't machines and we make mistakes from time to time. I sincerly hope that with this incidence everything is done to prevent any further ally firing in this war, although it is a long shot. Any war has casualties, but it is the meaningless ones that hurt the most. :(

Anyway what is with you BigB it seems more and more of your post are painted dark and sinister for our future. Have a little faith.

And Joacqin, Soldiers are well aware of the death threaths over their heads. In the army it was made clear on many occasions and in many lectures that if we signed for the real warfare in Balkan we shouldn't expect it to be a sweet ride. Even so as med-soldiers we watched numerous videoclips from the medical-barracks down in Balkan where operations took place. Horror movies are like muppet show next to those. So hardly any soldier from denmark or any other country who are down in real warfare, thinks warfare is casualty free.
Perhaps politicians hope and prey it is so. And tell the public... Reality is far from honky dory. Soldiers know that. So waht the public or you think is for that matter irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by ArchAngel (edited April 19, 2002).]

I'm really sorry for your friends if they were hurt Sprite. But as someone said: "War is hell." But as Winston Churchill said: "If you're going through hell, you might as well keep going." Still, this conflict in Afghanistan has really gone enough even if the U.S. does capture bin Laden. Do they really think they can stop terrorism by killing him?

Ok my two cents worth....

Firstly Joacqin...
No weapon is perfect and no soldier is above making mistakes, so yes sometimes they miss and kill their own troops. Very unfortunate and should be avoided as much as possible but it do happen.

As was said earlier, these soldiers were on training grounds. I also wonder, do American soldiers not look or report what and who they are bombing? Or are they given free reign to bomb where and who they feel like. The people responsible for this were obviously too irresponsible or untrained to care to even look or question before taking action.

Shralp.....
Acid rain you're getting there isn't a
result of the US either. We send ours to Canada.

Acid rain is a global problem, not just one country is to blame. And of course we do appreicate the pollution you send our way Shralp :p

Blaming other people wont get us any where. Your all turning this in to some kind of odd war. I'm sorry to say this but you all should calm down a little.

I guess I should retract my previous statment, I had no idea it occurred within a training zone, that's brutal and pathetic. For those who have died, I guess we can only pray, and remember them (even if we did not know them, we should still pray).

Only the Dead have seen the end of War.

From someone who has been there:

One: you take an oath when you enter the military that pretty much states you are there to protect your country under any circumstances and at any time. Everyone knows that when you make this statement and you enter the military there is a good chance that harm will come to you (whether it be an accident or that someone kills you because they hate who you are and what you stand for.) This is something that you make peace inside yourself about.

Two: accidents happen, you can have the best military soldier, behind the best piece of equipment known to man and still have an accident. We as human beings are flawed and often make mistakes. The best laid plans often go bad, as does the best equipment, cause it is not flawless either. It was a traing ground-----and it was an accident. America has accidently shot their own down before do to a poor choice that was made, while going off some not so great equipment. We didn't do that on purpose either.

Third: unless you were there, you can't really be certain exactly what happened. The news is not always the greatest source of information, and it certainly isn't the bible (or something you should believe fully in.) And secondly, I can garauntee you that all of the facts are not in yet, cause it just happened, and the military and the news are most likely just speculating at the moment. (The best source of information is your own two eyes, or that of someone who was there.)

Fourth: My dearest Sprite-----I too have friends that are out there this very moment in harms way. I do hope that your friends are alive and well, and I hope they stay that way. As do I hope the same for my friends.

My condolences, Sprite, if yout friends are hurt.

Second, it is getting pretty hot here.... try to curb down the amount of heat in the posts, we're nearing flames here!

Third: Yes, people die in war, perhaps in accident, but I do want to know what the Hell was that plane doing on training area.

/end rant mode

Ara
(Having a bad, bad day)

[This message has been edited by Arabwel (edited April 19, 2002).]

The American pilot thought he was being fired upon and fired back. Pretty standard practice in a war, really.

The idiots who gave him the go-ahead are to blame -- they should have realized that he was in a training area where Canadians were using live rounds.

Sprite, I hope your friends are all right. Please post as soon as you hear anything.

Alas, accidents do happen. I believe that this was a communication breakdown. The pilot should have been informed (by his superiors. I believe that the Canadian military informed the American military) of the training exercises. The same thing happened earlier in the war, except an American pilot killed American troops.

Several of the posts make it sound as if it was intentional. That's sad. Others speak of indifference. Again, sad.

I would not want to be that pilot. The personal hell of knowing you killed innocent people is brutal. A former friend of mine (I was the best man in his wedding) flew a B-52 in the Persian Gulf war. He did not kill any friendly troops, only enemies. This did not help matters for him. Seeing the results of his actions and knowing that hundreds, maybe thousands, of people died due to his actions was overwhelming and has changed him radically. He will never recover. He made the mistake of entering the military to be a pilot thinking that he would never see combat. He was wrong.

Finally, there is not one country that has participated in a war that has not been responsible for friendly-fire casualties. Most of the countries in Europe have not only participated in wars, but have been responsible for atrocities intentionally perpetrated against innocent people. Often this took place during wars and colonial periods (including the colonization of America).

So piss on America all you want. My country screwed up bad this time. No denying it. But unless your country has never done anything of this sort, or worse, then think before you say too much.

[This message has been edited by Jack Funk (edited April 19, 2002).]

I did not know any of the victims.

The men who were killed were:
Ainsworth Dyer, 25
Richard Green, 22
Marc Leger, 29
Nathan Smith, 27

The eight men who were seriously injured are:
Lorne Ford, 33
Stanley Clark, 35
Curtis Hollister, 29
Shane Brennan, 28
Brian Decaire, 25
Rene Paquette, 33
Brett Perry, 26
Norman Link, 24

For those who seem honestly unable to understand why non-Americans are angry about this, let's just say it must be a lot easier to say "c'mon, it was just an accident, nobody's fault" when your people are the attackers, not the ones in body bags.

I realise it would be sensible to leave it at that, but I'm distressed, so- Drunk drivers are often genuinely remorseful when they realise they've accidentally killed someone with their unwise actions- it doesn't make them less guilty. Just so, a man who ignored his commander's order to hold his fire, presumably because he was pissing himself at the sight of live fire, is guilty of the deaths he causes. And whoever so misjudged how he would behave under pressure as to put him in that bomber is equally guilty. Bush offered Canada "condolences"? The hell with that. An apology, please. Although I'd be more likely to accept it accompanied by the pilot's head.

It's nice to hear that your friends weren't injured Sprite. As for the dead, I hope they've gone to a better place.

Just to make note.

I am not trying to get heated nor stir up your typical canada versus america conversation. If it was Canada that had mucked up and killed american soldiers i would be asking the same questions, And i would hope that Cretien offered more then condolences.

Everyone seems eager to blame a COUNTRY for this action, it wasn't down to a whole country, just a few individuals who got it a little wrong.

"The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglay."

No one is taking an "it's nobody's fault attitude." In fact, I explicitly said it was the fault of the idiot who gave the pilot the go-ahead to drop the bomb and the idiot who didn't tell the pilot that he was flying over a live-fire training area. I don't know what Canadian media is saying, but he did not drop the bomb against orders.

I understand being rattled by the possibility of your friends being hurt or even killed, but you seem to want vengence, not justice.

Americans have always been careless in wars. In the second world war they *helped out* in the battle of britain but managed to shoot down nearly as many tommies as krauts! In Vietnam there were hundreds of incidents of Americans napalming or shoting their own men by mistake....(it was even included in an american movie! hamburger hill i think). In the Gulf as has been said before they were pretty careless and now this.

Personally i still find this no reason to blame America as a whole for this incident. However in saying that i hope Shralp especially can understand why some people do. It is part of American personality to be unintentionally reckless, they are fiercely patriotic and often volitile around hated enemies. Maybe we should take into account that the two towers scenario has enraged a great deal of americans, and sometimes this can overcome their proffesional judgement.

But as you say, war is war.

If "No one is taking an "it's nobody's fault attitude."", Shralp, why has no form of apology or expression of remorse been forthcoming? No one has accepted responsibility for this. A condolence is not an apology- I know that your English skills are strong enough to understand the difference. The Pentagon quotes we are getting in Canada are to the effect that the pilot twice asked permission to bomb, and was given permission only to mark the target. However, he ignored this directive to bomb. But if, as you suggest, the Canadian media has invented this Pentagon quote and in fact the pilot DID have orders to fire on a Canadian training exercise (about which the United States had most definitely been informed, especially since Canadian troops are under US command) then there is all the more reason why someone in the US Army, or the US president, should formally apologise to Canada. And pay restitution for the cost of training and equipping the soldiers they destroyed with their carelessness.

Perhaps you feel that being asked to apologise is "vengeance" rather than justice, but outside of the United States apologies are in fact NOT considered to be cruel and unusual punishment.

[I retract this statement due to an error in communication]. If a Canadian pilot had screwed up this royally against the US, Chretien would definitely have apologized to the US since, that's one of two things Chretien does (the other is nothing). Bush should definitely apologize, condolences might mean a little to the families of the dead and wounded, but an apology would probably make them feel better (along with the rest of Canada) since it would mean admitting to a mistake (something American politicans aren't very fond of).
On another note, I watched the 4 dead Canadians flown in to Trenton today, but amazingly enough, the only channel that covered it was RDI (a French-Canadian news channel). Were the 4 men brought in today, or was I watching a re-run?

[This message has been edited by Faerus Stoneslammer (edited April 23, 2002).]

Yes, it was today that they returned.

As for this:
The pilot DID drop the bomb against orders(trust me).
What is that supposed to mean?

EDIT: [I retract my previous statement in this slot, there was an error in communication]

[This message has been edited by Faerus Stoneslammer (edited April 23, 2002).]

Americans have always been careless in wars?

Riiiiight, Poodle.

So should we base our opinions of the Brits on incidents like Gallipoli and say that they have always been cowards who hang their allies out to dry?

Sprite, I haven't been reading every statement coming out of the Pentagon to see if they include the words "apology" or "sorry." But even if they don't, would it really make you feel better to suddenly see them? It seems obvious to the entire world as well as the American public and military that the U.S. military screwed up. You really think an apology is going to do anything? I don't understand the modern fixation on hearing those words.

In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon is avoiding using those words in order to avoid international law that require them to pay restitution. I don't know that that's the case, and it would be reprehensible if it were so.

"It seems obvious to the entire world as well as the American public and military that the U.S. military screwed up. "

Really?

I know it's obvious to *me* that the US military screwed up, and it's refreshing to know that it's obvious to a member of the American public such as yourself. But it doesn't sound from any of the news reports we've seen that the US military knows it, and especially not that Bush knows it. That's what's alarming to me, - no official or unofficial statement from the US to the effect that "we recognise this is our mistake, and we're going to see what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen again." All we hear is variations on, "accidents happen", which is not acceptable on its own. It implies that no one was responsible for this reprehensible error, and that no effort needs to be made to make such an accident less likely to happen again.

If the American public's response is accurately reflected by your posts, and by those of other Americans on this board, then I'm relieved. Your responses have been a lot more sane than what we've been getting officially from the US.

I have just read that more Americans have been killed in Afghanistan by other Americans than by Afghanis. I'm curious- how does the American public feel about that? I know if it was Canadians "accidentally" killing each other at such an incredible rate over there, the Canadian public would scream blue murder and have the Minister of Defence's head on a platter. Are Americans up in arms over this or is there a general sense that soldiers' lives are cheap and/or that it's a small price to pay?

We fully expect that more Americans will be killed by accident than by Taliban fighters. Accidents happen, and they're more dangerous than the rag-tag group of fighters over there.

Oh, and would those of you who long ago posted things like, "The U.S. will get beaten just like the Russian and the British did in Afghanistan" and "Afghanistan will be another Vietnam" please report to your nearest Shralp for verbal humiliation?

I find it very disturbing that the phrase 'accidents happen' has been thrown around so much recently, and with such carelessness. Equally disturbing is the use of the term 'acceptable'. First, this accident should never have happened. This was not a case of a mechanical breakdown, such as a gun backfiring or radar equipment malfunctioning. This incident, the result of negligence and carelessness, was completely avoidable. Second, once something becomes 'acceptable', that means it becomes part of the norm; acceptable standard practise. Whether the incident was the result of a) US air command not informing their pilots that they were over friendly units on training exercises or b) a pilot panicking at the sight of ground fire (Note: ground fire, not ground-to-air fire), the end result is entirely unacceptable.

As for why an actual apology, and even reparations, are warranted, maybe it helps to change perspective a little. Back in the spring of 2001, a US spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter plane over (or near) Chinese territory. The spy plane was forced to make an emergency landing, without permission, at a Chinese landing field. The Chinese plane crashed, and the pilot was killed. For several weeks after the incident, both US and Chinese officials sought apologies from one another, as well as admissions of guilt and acceptance of responsibility. Even though the US refused to apologise, they did offer an official condolense (taken by the Chinese as an apology). Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, outlined the US' stance on why an apology was not forthcoming:

"There was nothing to apologize for. To apologize would have suggested that we had done something wrong and we accepted responsibility for having done something wrong. And we did not do anything wrong. Therefore, it was not possible to apologize."

Now fast forward to the present date. The US does not offer an apology: therefore, the US is not responsible for the bombing, the US pilot/ air command did nothing wrong. The Canadian forces in Afganistan, allied forces under US command, are treated no better and in the exact same manner as the un-allied and un-friendly Chinese forces. So why are the Canadian forces even in Afganistan? Oh, yeah, to show support and solidarity after a terrorist attack on US soil. You're welcome.

Has it occured to you that perhaps an apology is not warranted?

One plane dropped a bomb because it thought that the other was taking fire. In fact, Afghans on the ground report that they saw tracers heading upward.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/04/19/ret.friendly.fire/index.html

If this was indeed a case of an idiot pilot dropping a bomb (I was in error earlier when I said that he had been given the go-ahead by radio), then the families deserve an apology. But maybe we should wait until the investigation is completed before we go pointing fingers.

Or you could just continue to slam America since it apparently is something you enjoy.

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited April 22, 2002).]

Shralp: I never once referred to 'the US people', but to the the state and military command. I am quite certain that the majority of US citizens do feel sorry, and regret at this incident. Also of note, I am an American citizen, born in Akron, Ohio, who happens to live in Canada, and to hold both Canadian and US citizenship.

[My apologies to Gnolyn, who was responding to a different (*****ier) version of my post above while I was editing it.]

And the "accidents happen" attitude I was exhibiting was in regards to our own troops in war. We expect our military to do something about it and fix the mistakes, but realistically it's something that happens when you play with bombs and the like.

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited April 22, 2002).]

Sprite, I apologize. And that's not meant as sarcasm.

I don't think, however, that ANYONE has the right to say, "The US screwed up" or "The US military screwed up" or anything similar! How easy it is for us to point fingers. It's not going to solve anything. I do think that an apology is in order. What happens in "real life" when we make a mistake? We say, "Oops, I'm sorry."

[edit] - When I speak about pointing fingers I was addressing how they all targeted broad groups. A few should not cause a hatred to spread towards the many. In a case like this it would be nearly impossible to pull out the specific people who caused the problem, so a general apology seemed appropriate.

[This message has been edited by Sapiryl (edited April 23, 2002).]

I don't think, however, that ANYONE has the right to say, "The US screwed up" or "The US military screwed up" or anything similar!

Sapiryl, that is what an apology implies. It is an admission of wrongdoing. Condolences indicate sympathy and sadness for what happened, but imply no admission of wrongdoing.

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited April 22, 2002).]

I see no reason (so try to make me understad) why the nine hells is Canada involved in the war anyway?

Perhaps because they are a member nation of NATO whose charter states the following:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

I have to say BTA, you took the words right out of my mouth.... :hippy:

Sapiryl, why can't ANYONE have the right to say americans screw up? even if about half of the people who post here think they did.


Kill_Lexington, you ask why canada is in that war but have you ever think why the u.s. is in many war and some of those war have nothing to do with them.


sorry if my statements sounded very critical, i am not and i hold no grudge against any of you (yet!). however, i do admit i did not like what you two have just said. maybe you can explain them further cause i don't like to be displeased with someone simply because i did not completely get their point.

I think that anyone who points to a concrete group and grouses about them, even if they have only had bad experiences with some of them, is a moron. Simply put.

It's like being rascist or chauvanist...I have no right to say that Afghanistan is the refuse pile of civilization just because I disagree with some Afghanistan people. Nor can I say that all Catholics are God's chosen and the greatest people on the planet(if you've been watching US television lately, you know that lie.)

[edit dealing with Sprite's post below...]
--Really Sprite? In every post you've made you've taregetted the US and the US military. Not only that, but regardless of what the thread is based on, there have been blatent posts concerning us as well. And I'm not defending anyone, I just wanted to state my opinions on stereotypes.

[This message has been edited by Sapiryl (edited April 24, 2002).]

Sapiryl, this thread is criticising a specific US military action, not all of the US or even all of the US military.

A message to Sprite: A minor clarification on your first post of this thread: America was not "bombed" last year. Those bastards didn't have the dignity to bomb us.

(\end futile and pointless rant over unimportant fact)

To reply to Poodle's comment: Don't you dare start speaking wrongly of US's involvement in WWII. Without America entering the war, you'd have a lot more to btich about than the Battle of Britain.

That's true, but everyone must admit that the US has a (recent) history of getting involved in things that have nothing to do with them (ie. Vietnam...).
PS-Kill_Lexington, BTA's right, Canada has a *duty* to get involved in this mess.
PPS-I heard on the news a little while ago, that Bush wants to move on to the Mid-East, after Afghanistan, and that the Canadian PM, Jean Chretien ("Cretin" for short...no pun intended) refuses to follow along. Can anyone confirm this? Or is it a load of crap?

Allow me to resurrect an old thread with this news item:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62946,00.html

The Air Force is looking to charge the pilot that dropped the bomb with manslaughter and his lead pilot with aiding and abetting.

This whole makes me think of the bombing of that tiny tiny Afghan village.
During the party some Afghanis (tell me if I spelled it wrong) shot into the air, since that´s a tradition, as much as throwing rice is in the Western countries.

A few minutes later the whole village was bombed resulting in 200+ deaths.

BTW, the Taliban regime was already removed

American response: Eeh, Oops!! Sorry!


Oh, and Slim, We saved your *** during the indepence war, so don´t think Americans have the right to invade Holland because you think you can commit any crime in a faraway country without getting punished


[ September 13, 2002, 20:31: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Hmm well i've been feeling pretty warm towards the USA as of late. Realized how hard America is trying to help people. But, i suppose it is the right thing to do. I know it was a mistake, but it still needs to be punished.

Sorry for all those involved.

Now you see what happens when you're given orders by an ******* !

friendly fire. Horrible, horrible thing. Unfortunately, it is an inevitable part of warfare. Now, there are many steps you can take to minimize the rate of occurance, but people make errors. Whent the people making the errors are using lethal weapons...

But that's a general statement. In this case, the article makes it seem pretty clear that it was simply a case of neglence on the part of the pilots.

as for the wedding, I seem to recall Shralp saying that they found functioning anti-aircraft weapons in the village. Shralp, got a link handy?

as for the wedding, I seem to recall Shralp saying that they found functioning anti-aircraft weapons in the village. Shralp, got a link handy? They did, probably layed down there by US Army afterwarths to have a "good" excuse for genocide

So, if the Americans found more weapons in another village, they would be pretty justified to nuke the place. Right?

Morgoth, stop being so anti-America all the time. If the USA didn't exist, the world would be in ****. The Germans would have likely one the first world war if they hadn't helped. And the Nazis would deffinatley have one the second if America hadn't joined. If America collapsed now, the world would be in sh**. The world's economy thrives through the USA. You probably wouldn't be sitting at your computer if they didn't exist. You can't get all anti-USA over one pilot's silly mistake.

The thing that I´m pissed about is that America tries to squeeze themselves out the International Law thing.
A few months ago Bush threatened to invade Holland as soon as American soldiers were arrested and brought to court in Den Haag.
It´s like they feel themselves above the law, just because the world thrives around America doesn´t mean they can commit crimes without being punished.

BTW, not just one pilot mistake, makes me think anti-USA-government, just everything between Vietnam, Communisthunting and Iraq comes to mind

For those who seem honestly unable to understand why non-Americans are angry about this, let's just say it must be a lot easier to say "c'mon, it was just an accident, nobody's fault" when your people are the attackers, not the ones in body bags. So true, so true, but that's the nature of humans right? :D

Z - you're point about the First World War is debatable. You are correct that Germany was about to win the war. However, while US involvement was important, the main factor was an internal collapse within Germany that forced them to surrender, similar to the outbreak of civil war in Russia which lead to their withdrawal from that war.

On the Second World War, there are two important factors which lead up to the defeat of Nazi Germany. The first, and foremost, was the decision to invade Russia. This placed Germany on three war fronts: English Channel, although mostly an air battle; North Africa; and finally Russia. It was a disastrous mistake, as it called for an immense amount of troops and resources, and the Russian retreat to Stalingrad forced the German forces to march very long distances over land, pushing their supplies lines to the limits and placing them far from any reinforcements. While Stalingrad was under seige, the remainder of the entire Russian army was able to regroup and then surround the Germans in a massive pincer movement. That was the beginning of the Red Army's advance on Berlin.

The second factor was the defeat of Rommel by the British (with some US troops, but must of the US was involved in the Pacific at that point). Rommel had not lost a single battel and had virtually secured all of Africa under German control - Italy controlled large parts of North Africa (Ethiopia for one) for Germany. However, a series of miraculous and stunning victories by the British in the Fall of 1942 forced Rommel into an extended (and devastating) retreat across the North African desert. This paved the way for Allied (US and British) forces landing on the coastal regions of North Africa (Algiers and Casablanca). Rommel was hemmed in by the British to the east and south and the Americans to the west. The British knocked Rommel out of E. Africa early in 1943 with a complete victory. The Americans took west Africa in the spring of 1943. This allowed the Americans to advance through the Mediterranean against the Germans and into southern Europe, and area that was previously believed unreachable, and it began with the British victories against Rommel in the fall of 1942.

However, had Germany never invaded Russia and split its forces, they would have won the war hands down, regardless of American involvement or not. It's generally viewed as Hitler's greatest military mistake - and to some, a sign of his insanity.

:yot: I know, but Gnolyn, would it be too much to ask for you to mention Canada a little bit in your next war speech? After all, Canada did play a rather interesting part in WW1, and we helped out in WW2, (Juno Beach, for example)...
Anyways, to be honest, I think that those pilots should indeed be charged and court-martialed, but I'm oof mixed thoughts when it comes to throwing them in jail. They did risk their lives just by going into Afghanistan, and they're not really criminals, so much as incompetant and over-eager boys with rather dangerous toys.

Hmm, there is a reputation for American soldiers having 'itchy trigger fingers' it comes from the Gulf when they missiled two Brit tanks and shot down an RAF chopper. But, this dosn't make any sense to me as they are trained equal to any other modern army...? :confused:

[ September 14, 2002, 22:08: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Gnolyn Lochbreaker:
Sorry but what you write about German defeat in WWII is not right. The three front war was indeed a great strategical mistake but Germany could win the war even with three fronts. Africa front was a side-front and Germans got involved there because of the Italian failure (same as in Balkans). They never sent a huge military force in Africa (the most axis forces in Africa were Italian) and they never sent the supplies, which Rommel desperetaly wanted. Stalingrand was a major destruction for Wehrmacht but according to many historians not the one,which turned the tide.This was Kursk.
In my opinion the reasons of German defeat are the following:
1)Hitler's strategical mistakes. Just think about the famous "Halt order" in Dunkirk, which allowed to 300000 experienced British and French troops to flee to England or the fact that he did not let Paulus to break out from Stalingrand and unite with von Manstein's forces.
2)The russian winter
3)The size of the soviet army
4)The industrial capabilities of USA and the fact that Luftwaffe could not bomb USA.

The most important of the above reasons is the first one. Just think of the military genius in the German army (Rommel, Von Manstein, Guderian etc) and what they could have achieved, if they don't have a stupid amateur like Hitler above them.

Faerus - I know exactly what you're talking about. I just thought I would focus on clearing up one misconception at a time. Trying to separate the difference between British involvement and Canadian involvement is a whole other ball game. For example, how many people are actually aware the the RCAF (Royal Canadian Air Force) was almost solely responsible for the successful defense of Britain during the Battle of Britain? I've posted this article (http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2002%2F04%2F21%2Fdo210 6.xml) before, but it's certainly worth mentioning again.

As for the two pilots, I think of their actions to criminal negligence. IIRC, they are both reservists, so being court-martialed might not be as big a blow to them as it would be to a professional military pilot. I think it also goes a long way to show the good faith of the US military system, as well as laying down the 'law': these types of actions are not exceptable, period. Although perhaps the use of part-time reservists in international combat zones needs to be re-considered to some extent.

BOC - just saw your post. As I said, and I think we agree on this although not necessarily on the specifics, the invasion of Russia was probably the key mistake - and this was Hitler's decision. Several of his general's tried to persuade him against it, but to no avail. With regard to North Africa, the main point was that the Germans *lost* Africa. And yes, in part it was lack of support (reinforcements, etc) for Rommel. Once the German (and yes Italian, but it was Rommel's tanks that were the key) forces in NA surrendered the whole of southern Europe was exposed. If Rommel had been able to hold Africa, then southern Europe would have been completely out of reach for the Allies. Instead, Italy fell and the German forces had to go on the defensive in Europe, which hadn't happened before. This bought the Allies time to plan and build up their invasion force. The year 1942 was the most difficult for the Allies, and it was the closest that the Axis powers came to complete and total victory. These strategic mistakes and key Allied victories are what gave them the time for the US' industrial capability to become a factor.

[ September 14, 2002, 22:03: Message edited by: Gnolyn Lochbreaker ]

Morgoth :"They did, probably layed down there by US Army afterwarths to have a "good" excuse for genocide"

:nono:
Do you honestly believe this, or are you just trolling? If you do believe it, WHY?

AM theyre using that as excuse!!

If you bomb a village that´s bad!!
If you found some weapons afterwards then it´s "okay"!!

P.S. I´m not anti-America, I´m anti-America-government. OK, big difference between that.

[ September 15, 2002, 12:44: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Morgoth, how the heck can "shooting guns in the air" be a wedding tradition? These nutjobs didn't have guns until we armed them to fight against the Russians. It's no ancient tradition.

And you honestly believe that they just kind of happened to fire into the air and didn't realize a jet was flying overhead? You're aware that even if they didn't see the jet that it does, in fact, make noise when it moves, right? They don't have Air Wolf's whisper mode just yet.

Yes, anti-aircraft guns were found in the village. I don't have the link anymore, but search www.washingtonpost.com. (http://www.washingtonpost.com.)

Shralp is dead right. Firing guns into thre air is no tradition I've asked an Afghan Assylum seeker who just came to my school. He's quite a nice guy actualy. He said that although America and Britain killed some civilians during the months of the war, that is a small sacrafice to what the Taliban were putting these people through. These are his exactact words btw. He also said that firung guns into the air at a wedding was certainly no tradition in his villiage. He said that very few were harmed. There was some fighting in the hills and countryside. But all the Taliban in his villiage left for the south. Then in came the British soldiers without a shot fired. Now this is from a first hand source so i don't think even the heaviest anti-American could argue with this.