Another "FRIENDLY" fire incident

[Baff1 0]

It will be intresting to see how well the Typhoon pilots fare in comparison to their highly experienced U.S. counterparts when they start running the same kind of missions with the same kinds of ordinance on the same battlefields for the first time.

huhu ... erm, sorry

Didn't the typhoon team experience some issues with guided bombs integrations quite recently ?

No idea, I expect they will have issues with just about every element of it for a little while to come.

My point is that Typhoons will increase the RAF's capabilities to on par with the USAF serving in that region, but there will be an experience gap between the Typhoon pilots and the existing USAF pilots.

I think this will lower dependancy on foreign airforces and hence improve direct communications between FST and air units, but at the sametime, it's not obvious this will actually improve anything.

We already have working systems allowing British men on the ground to view through the American pilots bombsights and for the pilots to view through the observers camera on the ground.

How much better can communications get?

Does a text messaged GPS co-ordinate lose anything in translation? Does a NATO issue laser designator shine differently when held by a lad from Cambridge?

Add to this that the F-15's in particular have an extra man onboard to share the workload during the high intensity bit...

Far from getting better, I suspect there will be a small period where this nominally gets worse as Typhoon crews break in their new aircraft and equipment and their pilots build up some operational experience.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]And that they prefer the American airforce even to the RAF. Who have less aircraft, with their lower weapons system flexibility and their lower response times.

This is just speculation. Yes the RAF does have it's shortcomings as do all the other arms. But when the situation occurs there is a commendable push when the Army is screaming for air support and the RAF quickly try to deliver it. One of the main problems is a lack of training between the Army and the RAF, particualrly in communications. Logic would dictate that communication between the British Army and the USAF would be far more problematic considering these forces belong to two seperate nations. But then again I do not know how NATO is commanded in the 'Stan. Like I said, speculation.

For myself, with the bulk of British top cover being provided by the USAF, and having been so for decades, logic would dictate that the British Army has a greater experience of communicating with the USAF than the RAF in situations requiring close air support.

Perhaps training at home outweighs this.... as you say, I am merely speculating.

And while the RAF may do an exceptional job with the materials they have had available, they haven't exactly been given a lot to work with in this role.

They may be able to respond to a scramble as fast as the USAF, (or even faster), but they aren't as capable of remaining close by for as long or with the same variety and quantity of ordinance.

I suggest that the deployment of Typhoons to this theatre will go a long way to enhancing the RAF's capabilites in this role.

[ran 0]

Sure will be a step in the right direction, seeing how short the legs of the harriers are.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]@D@nte - Why should we stay in our country? Do you want the US or Britain to be attacked continuously? I wouldn't, if you want us to get out of the war so fast then maybe we should finish a war and eliminate one of the worst terrorist groups out there.

no countries in the world have attacked the USA since the japanese attack of pearl harbor.

US attacks in the world:

-korea, Vietnam, Irak (2 times) and not to help the people of these countries), Afghanistan (??)

but, yeah, the terrorists should be caught. in france, we have had also a lot of terrorism acts.

[baddo 0]

Last time i checked USA had the best Army in the world... Best trained, motivated, and ready to kick some ass.

It hasn't been tested after WW II. Japan and Germany was a real test for the U.S. military, but after that... well Vietnam was a loss for you... even if it wasn't even nearly as bad as Germany for example... also Iraq doesn't seem to go too well, except that G.W.B., oddly enough, already declared victory... and shouted "We got him!" yeah, sure you did...

okay it's politics which can make even a strong army not succeed, that's what is going wrong in Iraq, I think the U.S. military is really not the right tool to rebuild Iraq. It is doomed to fail and that's not the fault of the U.S. military, it's the fault of your country's leaders.

[sputnik monroe 102]

In the end this thread only strengthens my opinion that civilians should not even be allowed this kind of information. You guys cannot handle it.

Friendly fire is a part of war, soldiers know this civilians and politicians do not. All I see in this thread for the most part is just a bunch of whiney civilians who know nothing about war or it realities. There are a few post that are exceptions but for the most part it's just ignorant civilians or in some cases just people who hate the USAF by virtue of the US in the acronym.

Shit happens in war, friendly forces get killed by mistake and civilians who hang around battles or targets also die. It's just the way it is, it sucks but you cannot change the nature of the beast.

The major problem I see in modern warfare is that civilians and politicians have a say in how it is carried out. This leads to one of two major drawbacks, 1. the military cannot wage war correctly and is thus hamstrung and cannot win or 2. The war can be won but it's length and over all death toll are increased.

When ever there are casualties, collateral damage, friendly fire, atrocities or other inevitabilities of war, the civilians and politicians cry and cripple their own forces with new rules of engagement and other insanities.

I believe that once forces are commited to war the politicians and civilians meddling should be removed. Leave war to the warriors and generals.

[Shashman 0]

Hear, hear.

Well said

[Sennacherib 0]

hurrah!! for the new roman empire.

information is the pillar of the democracy

[Gisen 0]

Yes sputnik, it would be a great idea to remove freedom of information and of the press, to have governmental/ military veto against anything they want in the news and to have absolutely no qualms about killing a thousand civilians to kill one suspected terrorist.

Lets get rid of the geneva convention, remove any restrictions on modified ammunition and start putting land-mines everywhere.

The problem is a lack of training in identification of allied vehicles and markers and a gung-ho attitude amongst the american forces. It's not exclusive to the americans by any means but is worst amongst them. That's the opinion of the allied SOLDIERS that are on the recieving end of the blue on blues.

[matt714 2]

Quote[/b] ]@D@nte - Why should we stay in our country? Do you want the US or Britain to be attacked continuously? I wouldn't, if you want us to get out of the war so fast then maybe we should finish a war and eliminate one of the worst terrorist groups out there.

no countries in the world have attacked the USA since the japanese attack of pearl harbor.

US attacks in the world:

-korea, Vietnam, Irak (2 times) and not to help the people of these countries), Afghanistan (??)

but, yeah, the terrorists should be caught. in france, we have had also a lot of terrorism acts.

Nazi Germany never attacked the United States either, so it's right to let them ethic cleanse and oppress the freedom of the populations of their European conquests ?

As for Korea and Vietnam, I bet the North Koreans and North Vietnamese sure are happy under communist oppression. It's okay to let China and the USSR spread their full of love ideologies acrss the globe ?

First Iraq war was motivated because Iraq was becoming a threatening force to world peace. Yay for the fall of Saudi Arabia and ensuing worldwide economical crisis ?

With the second it was information about supposedly active WMD programs in Iraq. The fact that the U.N inspectors were constantly prevented from acceding Iraqi weapon sites didn't really help Hussein's regime cause. didn't really help his cause. AFAIK the evil oppressive U.S could of left the Iraqis in their shithole, but it instated democracy, freedoms, and infrastructure. Damn them ! Sunnis and Shittes have been killing themselves since before Saddam, it's not a U.S invention.

As for Gisen, with what information or authority are you augmenting your so called fact that U.S pilots have abysmal training ?

Seems like other Brits don't resort to unfounded nationalism: clicky

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nazi Germany never attacked the United States

do you have forgotten the UBOOT in the american waters? , and Hitler had declared the war to the USA

Quote[/b] ]I bet the North Koreans and North Vietnamese sure are happy under communist oppression

maybe, but a lot of them were dead before that. Or after the napalm, what life they would have had.

this is the truth.

http://photos10.flickr.com/13385565_6f92177d4b.jpg

finally what was the result? communist government + millions dead. lol

to interfere in a country is never the best solution. take a look at the iraqis situation.

[Hoot1988 0]

the US army should stay in its country. a lot of people would be still alive. (i mean after the ww2).

i'd rather we had just stayed out of all conflicts including both world wars.

But on topic

There are plenty of FF incidents that were done by the British in the Falklands War and in the Iraq war, does the BBC and other report it? No, they don't. I've never once seen any of the British Media air reports of FF caused by their forces on their web site. if they do is certianly is very brief. The usual cluster bombs and artillery strikes landing on civilians sort-of-thing.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/falklands/falklands3.html

wikipedia article about FF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Use_in_British_culture

Quote[/b] ]1461 – War of the Roses: At the Battle of Towton, wind conditions often resulted in arrows falling amongst friendly troops as well as the enemy.

1471 - Battle of Barnet: The ‘radiant star’ battle standard used by the troops commanded by the Earl of Oxford was misidentified as an enemy standard (which depicted a ‘brilliant sun’) and were fired on by their own archers.

1809 - Battle of Wagram: French troops mistakenly fired on their allies from the Kingdom of Saxony. The uniforms of the Saxon’s were grey and misidentified as white, the colour of uniform worn by their Austrian enemy.

1815 – Battle of Waterloo: Famously, Marshal Blücher’s Prussians came to the aid of the British, and defeated Napoleon decisively. Lesser known is that Prussian artillery mistakenly fired on British artillery causing many casualties, and British artillery returned fire at the Prussians.

...

...

1974 - Turkish Destroyer Kocatepe was sunk by Turkish aircraft during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

1982

HMS Cardiff shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands Islands.

3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army (UK) Companies A and C engage each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons and artillery strikes. At least 8 UK casualties.

United Kingdom UK Special Boat Service Commando killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service Commandos. Falkland Islands.

British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.[6]

Heres a very recient one from the same wiki article

Quote[/b] ]British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke [12]

at least when we cause FF we usually have the excuse of being up 16,000 feet traveling mach 1. What was the excuse of these tank boys? I could say that all Brittish Tank crews are complete morons and should learn how to opperate a tank just like contry y,x, or Z like what everybody is saying about the US military, but I'd just settle w/ the fact FF is a reality of war and the larger the army or conflict the more likely it's going to happen. that and some certian individuals in britain stop w/ the "We are perfect" attitude. Art

love how you left out alot of US incidents in your post!

Quote[/b] ]#

* .

# 1991 - American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacks British armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers (the same number as were killed by enemy fire in the whole war).

# 1992 - USS Saratoga during a no-notice exercise that included a simulated RIM-7 launch; confusion ensued, and a sailor launched into the bridge of the Turkish destroyer Muavenet killing 5.

# 1994 - In the Black Hawk Incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks over northern Iraq, killing 29 military and civilian personnel.

# 2001 - American F/A-18 dropped 3 Mk-82 bombs on a friendly observation post killing six and wounding 11 at Al Udairi Range, Kuwait.

# 2002 - American F-16 pilot dropped a 500 lb (228 kg) bomb on Canadian soldiers performing a live-fire exercise, killing four and injuring another 8 in the Tarnak Farm incident.

# 2003

* American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & U.S. Special Forces convoy, killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson were injured. The incident was filmed. [11]

* American Patriot missile shot down in error F/A-18C Block 46 Hornet 164974 of VFA-195 50 mi from Karbala, Iraq, killing the pilot.

* American Patriot missile shot down a British Panavia Tornado GR.4A ZG710 'D' of 13 Squadron killing the pilot and navigator, Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams and Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main, both from 9 Squadron

* British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.[6]

* British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke [12]

* 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - March 28, 2003 when a pair of American A-10s from the 190th Fighter Squadron attack four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing Lance-Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, during the invasion of Iraq.

# 2004 - Pat Tillman, famous American football player and friendly fire victim in Afghanistan.

# 2005

* American soldier Mario Lozano is suspected of killing Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari and wounding Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Sgrena had been kidnapped and subsequently rescued by Calipari; however, it is claimed that the car they were escaping in failed to stop at an American checkpoint, and U.S. soldiers opened fire.

* American troops opened fire on a Bulgarian convoy. Junior Sergeant Gardi Gardev was killed.

# 2006

* During Operation Medusa, two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolt IIs strafed their own NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham, and seriously wounding five others when soldiers were trying to seize a Taliban stronghold along the Arghandab River. Graham was a former Canadian Olympic athlete who competed on the Canadian 4x400 Men's Relay Team at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.

* A U.S. machine gunner accidentally shot (from behind) and killed Canadian Pvt. Robert Costall and Vermont National Guard Sgt. John Thomas near Kandahar, in Afghanistan.

# 2007

* American airstrike killed eight Kurdish Iraqi soldiers. [13]

* U.S. forces kill seven Afghan police officers.[14]

* One of a pair USAF F-15s called in to support British ground forces in Afganistan dropped a bomb on those forces, killing three soldiers of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, and injuring two others.[7]

also note the 2 British ones in 2003 were during the Iraq Invasion when it was a logistical chaos! accidents do happen. they just happen way too often from the US. Im sure their would be uproar if wed bombed some American troops. Youd probably want our government to extradite them and if we refuse bomb us to submission. I just hope with this case their is no cover-up like in the case of Matty Hull.

quoting the great Jimmy Carr

"Oh So You Do Know The Difference Between A British And Iraqi Soldier?"

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Marinecqc @ Aug. 25 2007,06:21)

Last time i checked USA had the best Army in the world... Best trained, motivated, and ready to kick some ass.

The "Best" army in the world is regarded as the Israeli army followed by the UK. The US army probably has the most money thrown at it and they think their good. The more money you throw at a turd, it don't get better!

oh a little off topic but im creating a friendly fire script for use in arma that anyone making US forces can add to their addons, for increase of "realism".

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]n the end this thread only strengthens my opinion that civilians should not even be allowed this kind of information. You guys cannot handle it.

Friendly fire is a part of war, soldiers know this civilians and politicians do not. All I see in this thread for the most part is just a bunch of whiney civilians who know nothing about war or it realities. There are a few post that are exceptions but for the most part it's just ignorant civilians or in some cases just people who hate the USAF by virtue of the US in the acronym.

Shit happens in war, friendly forces get killed by mistake and civilians who hang around battles or targets also die. It's just the way it is, it sucks but you cannot change the nature of the beast.

In my judgement, civilians have the necessary hindsight to judge such situations, much better than 'militaries' do.

Militaries are trained to be proficient in their tasks, it doesn't matter of the nature of their 'speciality' or 'the army they belong to'.

Militaries are so involved in the mission they are assigned to that they are unable to 'properly/neutraly' judge a situation.

The only and the best way to avoid friendly fire incidents, especially in situations implying 'non-state opponents' like Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah is to simply take the necessary time to clarify the situation in order to take the right decision, or at least the decision you would not regret taking.

regards,

TB

[tutmeister 0]

I've read most of the responses here and agree with some of you, possibly the ones who have been out there themselves sometime. This FF incident was a part of a danger close mission, so troops from both sides were within 200 metres of each other. There is an inherent risk in these missions that the commander on the ground takes when he calls in these missions.

So it was life or death out there and by calling in the mission, the F-15 pilot may very well have saved more lives than he killed. It's a hard job, somebody has to do it and the soldiers all volunteer in the British Army. They know the risk and deal with it, it's a tragic incident but yesterday alone, F-15's and other CAS suitable aircraft will have saved more lives for the Brit's out there than they killed in the incident and I think most guys who have been there will tell you that without a doubt.

[matt714 2]

Quote[/b] ]do you have forgotten the UBOOT in the american waters? , and Hitler had declared the war to the USA

Did Switzerland wage war against Germany because Luftwaffe aircraft would involuntary randomly cross the border ? Syria has been at war with Israel since 1973, South Korea and North Korea since 1953, Iraq and Israel since 1959... declarations of war are formalities.

Quote[/b] ]maybe, but a lot of them were dead before that. Or after the napalm, what life they would have had.

this is the truth.

http://photos10.flickr.com/13385565_6f92177d4b.jpg

Ok, a highly sensationalistic image showing five physically unharmed at first sight crying kiddies (who were on a BATTLEFIELD) makes the U.S armed forces responsible for 100% of Vietnamese civilian deaths ? You are aware that that the Tet offensive massacres perpetrated by the NVA claimed around 5,800 (of which we have documentation) non-combattants and prisoners of war ?

Quote[/b] ]In total, from 1957 to 1973, the Viet Cong assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499.

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_atrocities.php

Quote[/b] ]More than 172,000 people died during the North Vietnam campaign after being classified as landowners and wealthy farmers, official records of the time show.

Quote[/b] ]Unofficial estimates of those killed by Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam Labor Party, which later become the Vietnamese Communist Party, range from 200,000 to 900,000.

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/2006/06/08/vietnam_landreform/

Quote[/b] ]As best as I can determine, through all this close to 3,800,000 Vietnamese lost their lives from political violence, or near one out of every ten men, women, and children.1 Of these, about 1,250,000, or near a third of those killed, were murdered.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

Quote[/b] ]to interfere in a country is never the best solution. take a look at the iraqis situation.

The Iraqi situation is a shithole because of Democrats, and sunday jihadists which are the main cause of Iraqi civilian deaths.

Dems (antonym of neocons it seems - I miss intelligent leftists such as John Steinbeck, George Orwell, etc) cannot grasp the following concept and instead vote to withdraw more and more troops.

Quote[/b] ]I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! - Barry M. Goldwater

Attaboy.

[Sennacherib 0]

the figures are useful. but you should also post the number of persons killed by people who should save them.

the real question. who has given to the USA the rights to invade other countries and make its law. hum!! nobody.

the actions in Irak, Vietnam are illegal.

[Commander-598 0]

Quote[/b] ]#

* .

# 1991 - American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacks British armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers (the same number as were killed by enemy fire in the whole war).

# 1992 - USS Saratoga during a no-notice exercise that included a simulated RIM-7 launch; confusion ensued, and a sailor launched into the bridge of the Turkish destroyer Muavenet killing 5.

# 1994 - In the Black Hawk Incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks over northern Iraq, killing 29 military and civilian personnel.

# 2001 - American F/A-18 dropped 3 Mk-82 bombs on a friendly observation post killing six and wounding 11 at Al Udairi Range, Kuwait.

# 2002 - American F-16 pilot dropped a 500 lb (228 kg) bomb on Canadian soldiers performing a live-fire exercise, killing four and injuring another 8 in the Tarnak Farm incident.

# 2003

* American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & U.S. Special Forces convoy, killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson were injured. The incident was filmed. [11]

* American Patriot missile shot down in error F/A-18C Block 46 Hornet 164974 of VFA-195 50 mi from Karbala, Iraq, killing the pilot.

* American Patriot missile shot down a British Panavia Tornado GR.4A ZG710 'D' of 13 Squadron killing the pilot and navigator, Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams and Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main, both from 9 Squadron

* British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.[6]

* British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke [12]

* 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - March 28, 2003 when a pair of American A-10s from the 190th Fighter Squadron attack four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals, killing Lance-Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, during the invasion of Iraq.

# 2004 - Pat Tillman, famous American football player and friendly fire victim in Afghanistan.

# 2005

* American soldier Mario Lozano is suspected of killing Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari and wounding Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Sgrena had been kidnapped and subsequently rescued by Calipari; however, it is claimed that the car they were escaping in failed to stop at an American checkpoint, and U.S. soldiers opened fire.

* American troops opened fire on a Bulgarian convoy. Junior Sergeant Gardi Gardev was killed.

# 2006

* During Operation Medusa, two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolt IIs strafed their own NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham, and seriously wounding five others when soldiers were trying to seize a Taliban stronghold along the Arghandab River. Graham was a former Canadian Olympic athlete who competed on the Canadian 4x400 Men's Relay Team at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.

* A U.S. machine gunner accidentally shot (from behind) and killed Canadian Pvt. Robert Costall and Vermont National Guard Sgt. John Thomas near Kandahar, in Afghanistan.

# 2007

* American airstrike killed eight Kurdish Iraqi soldiers. [13]

* U.S. forces kill seven Afghan police officers.[14]

* One of a pair USAF F-15s called in to support British ground forces in Afganistan dropped a bomb on those forces, killing three soldiers of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, and injuring two others.[7]

This list is missing the incident in or near I "think" Basra where I believe two USMC AAV7s loaded soldiers were destroyed by a pair of A10s...if I recall correctly they claimed that they thought they were enemy armor...

I really think the USAF needs to up it's eye exams...AAV7s are pretty distinct and to misidentify them while flying low and slow like they were should be nigh impossible.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

What I seriously wonder is why F-15s are issued CAS missions... I thought they were strike planes only... CAS should be left to planes slow enough to be able to take a good look at the battlefield they're being ordered into... I think the european air forces need something like the A-10 so as not to rely too much on american air power in terms of CAS missions... Hmm, how about importing the Su-39?

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

the figures are useful. but you should also post the number of persons killed by people who should save them.

the real question. who has given to the USA the rights to invade other countries and make its law. hum!! nobody.

the actions in Irak, Vietnam are illegal.

Vietnam was a US response to the French's inability to contain their old-imperial holdings, it just lasted longer than anyone wanted because they lost sight of the objective.

Further, the invasion of Iraq was illegal because.....? It was legal according to US law because the president made the order deploying the soldiers and Congress approved the bill allowing the war to continue past the limits imposed by the War Powers Act. So what international law limits a soveriegn nation's ability to wage war on another?

Was the invasion of the Ivory Coast also illegal? Or was it legal because it was an operation that didn't involve US forces?

The war was also a US victory because the objective was to stop the spread of communism, and after the retreat of US forces from Saigon, no other countries in the area fell to communism. It's a fairly weak argument, I know, but if objectives are met..then objectives are met.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]So what international law limits a soveriegn nation's ability to wage war on another?

that

Quote[/b] ]Was the invasion of the Ivory Coast also illegal? Or was it legal because it was an operation that didn't involve US forces?

yeah, the interference is illegal especially when it is a question of protecting its financial interests.

Quote[/b] ]Or was it legal because it was an operation that didn't involve US forces?

i'm not against the us forces, but against the foreign politics of some countries, France including

the UN should be the only authority having the authorisation to intervene in other countries.

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]Was the invasion of the Ivory Coast also illegal? Or was it legal because it was an operation that didn't involve US forces?

French troops have been requested by the ivorian president Gbagbo to support his troops against rebels, in order to stop hostilities and establish peace.

It wasn't an invasion 'A la US' in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Vietnam was a US response to the French's inability to contain their old-imperial holdings, it just lasted longer than anyone wanted because they lost sight of the objective.

This sounds more like 'a matter of opinion' than a 'common argue'.

This question raises a lot of issues that would take a long time to fully explore.

But I think it's slightly getting away from the thread's subject.

regards,

TB

[Baff1 0]

Yes sputnik, it would be a great idea to remove freedom of information and of the press, to have governmental/ military veto against anything they want in the news and to have absolutely no qualms about killing a thousand civilians to kill one suspected terrorist.

Lets get rid of the geneva convention, remove any restrictions on modified ammunition and start putting land-mines everywhere.

The problem is a lack of training in identification of allied vehicles and markers and a gung-ho attitude amongst the american forces.  It's not exclusive to the americans by any means but is worst amongst them.  That's the opinion of the allied SOLDIERS that are on the recieving end of the blue on blues.

Coming from a country with no freedom of the press, where the government not only has, but regularly uses, it's press veto; that was involved in the writting of the Geneva Convention and upholds it often if not always, that upholds a moratorium on the use of landmines and modified ammunition, I think I can safely say that your connection between freedom of the press and military genocides is not directly linked.

Who knows what's going on in Afghanistan, the press isn't reporting it. The military aren't accepting any indentured journalists and neither are the Taliban.

I don't see a lot of free press coming out of Afghanistan. Maybe my troops are killing a thousand civilians to every terrorist, but if I was a betting man, I'd have to bet that they are not.

While I agree that the U.S. does have a reasonably justified reputation for friendly fire and collateral damage, I do not believe that we have seen any especial evidence of it in this case.

Later evidence may come out to further support this stereotype, but currently it has not.

They are fighting men and they are allied fighting men.

Like our civilians, they are at the very minimum entitled to the presumption of innocence under the precepts of our culture.

They are not guilty by association alone.

Further to this as allied fighting men they are worthy of a little respect.

The U.S.A.F. has saved far more British lives in Afghanistan than they have taken. Iraq too for that matter.

It is important to maintain that perspective and in many ways quite offensive to overlook it.

[Baff1 0]

Nazi Germany never attacked the United States either, so it's right to let them ethic cleanse and oppress the freedom of the populations of their European conquests ?  

Not a single nation declared war on Germany because of ethnic cleansing or the oppression of it's conquered populations.

Not one.

Not America or anyone else. All of our nations chose to ignore it. Jewish slave labour was used in the Ford factories in Germany with not a hint of American complaint.

Nice sounding fairey tale, but not history.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nazi Germany never attacked the United States

do you have forgotten the UBOOT in the american waters? , and Hitler had declared the war to the USA  

Quote[/b] ]I bet the North Koreans and North Vietnamese sure are happy under communist oppression

maybe, but a lot of them were dead before that. Or after the napalm, what life they would have had.

this is the truth.

http://photos10.flickr.com/13385565_6f92177d4b.jpg

finally what was the result? communist government + millions dead. lol

to interfere in a country is never the best solution. take a look at the iraqis situation.

I was in total agreement with you until your very last statment.

To interfere with a country is never the best solution?

So Iraq has gone badly? Shall we judge all wars on the evidence of just one?

Signing any number of diplomatic agreements with Hitler didn't stop him.

The best solution available was war.

What nonsense, intervention is often the best solution.

It was the best solution with Germany, the best solution with Sierra Leone and Libya.

The best solution with Yugoslavia. Kuwait. The Falklands. Borneo. Sri Lanka. Haiti.

How many other times in history?

P.S. the U.N. has failed to call for any number of successful and applaudable military interventions.

Just because it got it right with regards to Iraq doesn't mean that it hasn't made plenty of mistakes of it's own.

The U.N. has no "authority" it is a diplomatic institution.

The U.N. provides a great opportunity for co-operation amongst nations.

Where each country can voice it's concerns on the issues of the day, so that we each understand each-others positions more clearly in advance of any action. This prevents world wars.

We do not use the U.N. to seek "world approval" for our actions, we use it to seek alliances.

While conscensus is often good, the search for it is often crippling.  

There is equally a lot to be said for leadership and standing up when all others idly stand by.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]n the end this thread only strengthens my opinion that civilians should not even be allowed this kind of information. You guys cannot handle it.

Friendly fire is a part of war, soldiers know this civilians and politicians do not. All I see in this thread for the most part is just a bunch of whiney civilians who know nothing about war or it realities. There are a few post that are exceptions but for the most part it's just ignorant civilians or in some cases just people who hate the USAF by virtue of the US in the acronym.

Shit happens in war, friendly forces get killed by mistake and civilians who hang around battles or targets also die. It's just the way it is, it sucks but you cannot change the nature of the beast.

In my judgement, civilians have the necessary hindsight to judge such situations, much better than 'militaries' do.

Militaries are trained to be proficient in their tasks, it doesn't matter of the nature of their 'speciality' or 'the army they belong to'.

Militaries are so involved in the mission they are assigned to that they are unable to 'properly/neutraly' judge a situation.

The only and the best way to avoid friendly fire incidents, especially in situations implying 'non-state opponents' like Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah is to simply take the necessary time to clarify the situation in order to take the right decision, or at least the decision you would not regret taking.

regards,

TB

I do think rules of engagement can go a long way to reducing this kind of incident. And I do see some militaries with better systems than others.

While I agree with the core of your sentiments I also expect there to be situations where "taking the necessary time" is not a practical reality. Where the enemy has not afforded you this option.

Where decisions, correct or incorrect must be taken in a split second.

Where inaction could be everybit as regretable as the incorrect action or even more so.

If we are going to judge with hindsight, we must be aware that without the benefit of hindsight we can only expect people to take their best shot.

This was not an incident where no enemies were present. This was mid battle in direct infantry engagement with the enemy.

Not dropping this bomb would not necessarily guarentee the survival of those killed by friendly fire. If the people on the ground had not felt their lives to be in immediate danger they would not have requested an airstrike within 300 metres (effective rifle range) of their position.

They knew the risks, in the end you have to trust everybody involved to take their best shot.

Success is not guarenteable.