Now, just so you know, all aircraft allied with the USA are sending out an IFF signal which a radar operator can not miss unless he/she is not paying any attention at all.
There have also been reports that some US marines have been having a battle with a US tank…
Also reports that the Australian reporter who was killed may have been killed by the Americans rather than Kurds as earlier reported…
And your point is?
Oh yes, Bush didn’t tell you what to think yet… jk
His point, if I’m not mistaken is that the soldiers of the nations involved in this war are divided in their opinions of the war. As such, they are fighting amoungst themselves.
Hmmm, that’s an even more bizarre line of thought than the one I was expecting.
I’ll be polite to your suggestion, I doubt there’s any intention behind these acts, apart from the case of the marine chucing a grenade in a tent which was more to do with a grudge than an inherent problem with doing his fing job. The Amewricans aren’t firing at Australian journalists because they hate them, it would have been an accident, same as the tornado.
These friendly fire things always happen, no matter how good the techology, as it’s always directed by humans which can be in error.
I was actually waiting to see if Adam calims that friendly fire casualties are another reason we should not be fighting this war.
You see it’s a fallicious argument, as friendly fire would happen in any war ‘just’ or not. You have to be a complete pacifist to maintain that stance, which is an untenable position unless everyone adopts it, which they don’t!
Every time Americans shoot their allies, the supports simply say “It’s a normal part of war, deal with it”.
Sorry, but it’s not. Accidents happen sometimes. But if you’re working with Americans, they happen every day.
Matt, you really REALLY make me wish I has a grenade right now. Urge to kill rising… rising…
Why, because you can’t think of a way of arguing sensibly against that? That’s because there is no sensible argument against it, friendly fire is expected in every war. Your suggestion that there was something intentional behind it is absurd.
This blows a little bit of a whole in the fallacy of “precsion warfare”, and the suggestion that we might have had a conflict with “zero civilian casualites”. That “accidents/mistakes happen” with supposedly reliable systems - planes, helicopters etc. - makes you wonder about the reliability of missles that are by their very nature “disposable”.
Given we are hearing of further US “accidents” involving Syrian civilians, we really should be concerned about the innocent Iraqis actually in the firing line.
Adam-
To say that accidents happen only with Americans “everyday” is a bit unfair. You are Australian. I haven’t heard of any Australians having any accidents. But then again, THERE ARE ONLY 2,000 AUSTRALIAN TROOPS in Iraq. There are over 200,000 U.S troops. Statistically speaking, it is more problable for the U.S to have accidents then the other coalition forces. You might as well start saying that the Australian troops are inefficient, because they haven’t conquered as much land as the Americans have. Don’t forget about proportions. Please note that I am not giving excuses for the accidents. I am just pointing out why only Americans seem to be having them.
Friendly fire is unfortunate. But war is chaotic. It is a lot easier to judge someone’s mistakes then to realize you might have made the same one. Take the convoy of American mechanics that took a wrong turn, and are now P.O.W’s. Have you ever made a wrong turn while driving? Probably so. Odds are you can relate to those soldiers and feel sorry for them. But since you have never been in a battle (I’m assuming) you are unable to relate to the confusion of having people shoot at you. Mistakes in judgement will be made, no matter how well trained you are. It is an unfortunate reality.
Haha Fantastic! What have we here, Matt? Have I perhaps met my match in arrogence? Well maybe not quite my match. It’s a shame you don’t have the common sense or intelligence to back it up, offence completely intended. Oh well, it’s entertaining to watch you make a fool of yourself while you think you’re doing the exact opposite, quite amusing indeed.
Matt, I’m a military man… in a sense (hard to explain), and I’ve been in many, MANY aircraft, marine vessels, etc. etc. The machines radar systems are VERY VERY advanced. If any of them were run by monkeys, the chances of them firing on an allied troop is next to impossible. The fact that they are run by highly trained and usually specialized military personel only reinforces my point. Trust me, it would be very hard to not know who you’re firing upon, even in the confusion of war.
True, friendly fire was a common tragedy in warfare long ago, even as close as a hundred or fifty years ago. Now, the chances of that happening are not common, let alone as many times as it has recently. Fool Matt once, shame on you, fool him four times… well he’s a moron.
That aside, is the idea of conflicting view points on the war escalating (sp.) to this level that ‘absurd’ (rolls eyes). I mean look around you, there are people arguing about it wherever you look, I can see it being worse in the front lines where soldiers might have to fire on people that might not want to.
Slade 7- These electronic jamming devices that Russia is selling Iraq may have contributed to the shooting down of the RAF airplane with a Patriot missle. Also, these devices could have caused the military convoy that was captured to be lost and also the reason so many bombs are straying off course. I think there are more facts that you need to take into account before you begin developing theories that the allied troops are intentionally destroying their allies.
Haha, this is America’s get out of jail for free card when they blow up stuff they shouldn’t. “It was those blasted commies! Selling jammers to these towel warn’n terrorist lov’n Iraqis! We pointed the missiles at Saddam! Honest! We didn’t make a mistake, we’re American we don’t make mistakes!â€
Pax-
I am not arguing that the U.S does not make mistakes. Quite the contrary. Who am I to say that the partiot missle operator did not intentionally shoot down the RAF plane? Who am I to say that the “misguided” bombs didn’t actually hit their intended targets? But who is Slade to conclude the opposite? Fact of the matter is, these issues all boil down to intent. We both don’t know. I am only trying to point out to the others that there are many possibilites as to why events occur. It is ignorant to come to a decision without taking all possible angles into account. To make blanketed statements (with no evidence might I add) is ignorant. I don’t appreciate what you insinuated my comment’s message was. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Sorry, Matthew E. I was talking to Matt… I think theres enough Mikes and Matts in this world to rule Iraq and America both. I do agree with you however. Closemindedness never got anyone anywhere, and either of us could be right. I’m just pointing out the improbability of a misfire with modern technolohy.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment as I heard one America commentator saying that the lightly cause of the Missiles going astray was Russian jammers. It just ticked me of that he didn’t say anything about “user errorâ€, which is also quite possible. While I did insinuate that America would us this as an excuse for all mistakes it will make with targeting, I didn’t mean it to be taken literally.
Slade - I think the point is, why the hell would the Americans deliberatly shoot down a British plane?
Firstly, they’re having enough problems as it is without shooting down one of their allies planes for no reason at all, so why would they do such an act. Secondly what possible motivation would they have for shooting down a British plane? And thirdly, if they want to shoot down British planes why have they only shot down one?
Answer all them and maybe you have a case. I’m going out on a limb here, you won’t be able to answer all them without hinting at a big conspiracy.
I was amazed that you even suggested that it was intentional. Are you telling me when you were a military man you got told to shoot your brothers in arms in the back on a whim of your commanders?
In the end it looks to me that it was an accident, be it that their signal was jammed, be it that their broadcast equipment may have been damaged or hadn’t been working properly when they took off, be it that the operator of the radar screwed up, whatever it was, I think it has got to have been an accident.
Techonolgy is just as fallible as man, that it works peachy in peace time is completely different to it working well in the fog of war, when there actually is an opposition AND you also have to integrate your command structure with another country’s which can’t be as easy as you seem to insinuate.
If you’re talking about the American government, and don’t expect to encounter a conspiracy now and then, well you’re probably not as informed as you likely could be. Whether or not this issue is a conspiracy or not, I don’t know, but I don’t discount it. That fact that you do is … discouraging.
Anyway, I never claimed to have the answers as to why the American government would want to fire on an allied troop. I am, after all, not psycic and cannot read Bush’s mind 
There are many possibilities; it might be a threat of some sort, America pressuring Brittain into doing something they want them to do (it is a common tactic of America). Honestly, I don’t know.
My first inclination would be that it had nothing to do with the governments, but the soldiers themselves. My guess would be that there are conflicts of opinion all throughout the American and British mililtaries just as there is in civilian life. There are Americans killing Americans with grenades because of it, why can’t there be Americans killing British?
All of the above is mere speculation, however, with no proof to back it up. ALL I was saying in the first place was that the probability of friendly fire is extremely low, let alone the number of times it has happened in this short amount of time. Some things never change, like infantry units firing on one another by accident (human error), or even some of the basic artilery like tanks. But we’re talking about very advanced war machines that cost the country billions; they didn’t spend all that money to have their equipment destroy each other.
Isn’t half the problem that so much of the fighting goes on at night?
Anyway, this is what happens when you put a drunkard cowboy in the White House!
2/3 of Coalition casualties were caused by friendly fire in the gulf war. So we do suspect friendly fire casualties more than we suspect enemy casualties.
To say the U.S. is causing friendly casualties on purpose is downright stupid. It’s just another attempt to tie all that is wrong in the world to America. Since we are the sole cause of all the world’s problems. It also an attempt to blame Bush for another thing. Since all Bush is is an ediot who wants to kill everyone in the whole world. He couldn’t possiblly be a man with a different opinion than you. Come on, what’s next? Is America also shooting down it’s own planes and helicopters?
I may just be listening to too much sensationalist crap from the media, but they said a couple of days ago that American troops have killed more British troops than Iraqi troops have. Real friendly people, those american are.
American troops also outnumber British troops, so does the proportion of friendly fire depend on the number of troops that could get in the way, or the number of weapons equipped? Itchy trigger fingers it is.
America should just stick only to enormously over sized weaponry, it’s good at that stuff. Maybe more development into Anti-Saddam Giant-Mustache-Seeking missiles. 