Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 6:45:28 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"My brother is a Marine serving in Iraq right now. How can we judge these men and women who live every day in fear of their lives."

....because they are acting in our name...therefore we have a duty to both know whats going on and to have an opinion on it. Furthermore, just being in harms way does not mean that  rules of behaviour don't apply. If a soldier shoots a civilian for no good reason, or tortures a civilian, or makes a culpable error, they have to be held accountable.
i have heard it argued too often that soldiers should be allowed to get away with appalling errors of judgement just because they are soldiers. The same immunity does not apply to other professions, including professions where they get shot at.....to argue such a special case for the military is one of the steps leading to a military state........


I won't disagree at all.   I know that for every friendly fire incident there is an investigation.   The results of that investigation, who knows.  the reports that I have personally read are classified but I can assure you that these are investigated.  And I know that soldiers misconduct is investigated and prosecuted on a case by case basis (as recently evidenced by the prosecution for murder of some Iraqi civilians).

The Military stesses accountability.  It attempts to hold its personnel to a higher level than most organizations.   I was held accountable because one of my soldiers got drunk off duty and on leave and wound up in jail.  I have never been sure how I could have prevented it, but that is the military.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 7:02:34 AM   
TheTopHat


Posts: 39
Joined: 3/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThickLadyJane

My brother is a Marine serving in Iraq right now. How can we judge these men and women who live every day in fear of their lives. You have children that have run up to convoys looking friendly, only to turn out to be suicide bombers. You have afghani police who are really terrorist in disguise. None of us were there to judge the incident for ourselves. As a member of a community that is often wrongly viewed and judged by others I would hope we would be less judgemental ourselves. I don't dispute the corruption in our government, lack of training and equipment, and i don't agree with the polotics of this war at all. But it disturbs me to see and hear the harsh criticism of our troops themselves. Most of them are young boys, who are putting their lives on hold and on the line, and if they are like my brother they are not doing it for the war on terrorism. They are doing it because they understand that in order for the rest of us to have the freedom to do things like critisize our country, someone has to fight. The corrupt government is the fault of those of us who do not use our right and responsibility to vote for responsible leaders.


It's very simple ThickLadyJane, I have friends who I did my basic training with, who are in Afhganistan now.  They think, then shoot.  US troops, shoot then think.  Fear is not a justification for murder.  Friendly fire in the heat of battle is one thing, but none of these incidents occurred in battle; they occur at guard posts, convoys, air 'support' missions etc.  and the only action taken is cursory and done due to media attention.  Were a British, Canadian, French, German, Indian soldier (I choose these because I have read extensively on them or served and/or trained with them) on duty to panic, fire and kill an American marine; then say 'I was tired, I was scared, they were in a jeep, it had 4 wheels, suicide bombers are sometimes in jeeps with 4 wheels, so I opened fire', they would be charged with murder.  Were a pilot told not to drop ordinance and he acknowledged the command, disobeyed and killed 4 allied troops,  again jail for a very long time.  Were an air force general in any other country to push for bombing a bridge that was to have a civilian demonstration on it he would be relieved of command.

So I will tell you how you can judge them, you can judge them as soldiers and treat them with the honour and dignity that it deserves.  But when someone fails to live up to that responsibility and is negligent to the point of killing innocent soldiers don't insult all of them by hiding it, remove the offending entity in disgrace and preserve the whole.

One last question, and I sincerely hope this never happens, your brother is out in zone designated 'safe' on a training exercise.  A British F-16 drops a 500lb bomb directly on his position.  You later find out that the pilot was told less that 1 minute before that not to fire but chose to over ride the order.  Do you think we should excuse the pilot because he thought they may be armed and could possibly shoot at him?



On a side note to everyone else: The question isn't Should there be no friendly fire or civilian deaths.  The question is why over 60 years has the US consistently been responsible for more (including by percentage), than any other nation?

(in reply to ThickLadyJane)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 7:13:47 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		"I know that for every friendly fire incident there is an investigation.   The results of that investigation, who knows.  the reports that I have personally read are classified but I can assure you that these are investigated."

.......this is eminently sensible. However, a small point...while i concur with classifying such investigations if publicising the results gives an active enemy a tactical advantage, is there never a time when the adage 'justice must be seen to be done' applies to such incidents?

(in reply to TheTopHat)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 7:21:51 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTopHat


The question is why over 60 years has the US consistently been responsible for more (including by percentage), than any other nation?



I am not sure where you got this statistic.  Is it verifiable?  Do you consider insurgents and terrorists as civilian or military?  Does this include the Hutu insurections in Rewanda? Or those in the Philipines or Indonesia?   Or is this just one mans opinion?

(in reply to TheTopHat)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 7:39:33 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"I know that for every friendly fire incident there is an investigation.   The results of that investigation, who knows.  the reports that I have personally read are classified but I can assure you that these are investigated."

.......this is eminently sensible. However, a small point...while i concur with classifying such investigations if publicising the results gives an active enemy a tactical advantage, is there never a time when the adage 'justice must be seen to be done' applies to such incidents?


Oh yes, Absolutely.   However the trials themselves (or portions thereof) may be classified due to the nature of the evidence or to protect the innocents.  You also have to understand that in the military the judicial system is different than in the civilian world.   It is hard for me to explain, but I ask that you accept it, not necessarily to agree with it.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 11:36:54 AM   
TheTopHat


Posts: 39
Joined: 3/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
ORIGINAL: TheTopHat

The question is why over 60 years has the US consistently been responsible for more (including by percentage), than any other nation?


quote:

I am not sure where you got this statistic.  Is it verifiable? 
Yes, but it has been years since and researched it.  If you dig around in a library for a few days you should be able to find it, I shall try and go through some old papers, if I find the report I'll put up my list of sources.
quote:

Do you consider insurgents and terrorists as civilian or military?  Does this include the Hutu insurections in Rewanda? Or those in the Philipines or Indonesia?  
Not sure how to answer this, none of them are a nation and I would have no idea where to find a reliable source for them anyway.
quote:

Or is this just one mans opinion?
It is a private opinion based upon a mountain of empirical data.  Obviously every nation will play with their figures so can I state it as a 100%  fact? No. But I do believe it is an educated and objective opinion.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 11:58:19 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTopHat

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
ORIGINAL: TheTopHat

The question is why over 60 years has the US consistently been responsible for more (including by percentage), than any other nation?


quote:

I am not sure where you got this statistic.  Is it verifiable? 
Yes, but it has been years since and researched it.  If you dig around in a library for a few days you should be able to find it, I shall try and go through some old papers, if I find the report I'll put up my list of sources.
quote:

Do you consider insurgents and terrorists as civilian or military?  Does this include the Hutu insurections in Rewanda? Or those in the Philipines or Indonesia?  
Not sure how to answer this, none of them are a nation and I would have no idea where to find a reliable source for them anyway.
quote:

Or is this just one mans opinion?
It is a private opinion based upon a mountain of empirical data.  Obviously every nation will play with their figures so can I state it as a 100%  fact? No. But I do believe it is an educated and objective opinion.



As long as I know it is opinion.  and it appears your opinion is skewed.  Like in Rewanda, the rulling class tried to commit genicide on the underclasses but since it was also tribal then it can't be considered a state.  And some of the other insurgents claim to be the ligimitate government of their nation but since your point of authority (which I am not going to research for you) doesn't recognize them, they don't count and so on and so on.

Oh   does your point of authoirity also count political sub divisions to blame them too?

(in reply to TheTopHat)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 12:08:14 PM   
TheTopHat


Posts: 39
Joined: 3/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"I know that for every friendly fire incident there is an investigation.   The results of that investigation, who knows.  the reports that I have personally read are classified but I can assure you that these are investigated."

.......this is eminently sensible. However, a small point...while i concur with classifying such investigations if publicising the results gives an active enemy a tactical advantage, is there never a time when the adage 'justice must be seen to be done' applies to such incidents?


Wow, excellent post, it really got me thinking.

And I understand the need to classify certain reports; but justice must also be seen especially when in an international theatre and with coalition troops. Of the top of my head I can think of 2 articles in the paper in the last year or 2.  One was the investigation of a friendly fire incident where US troops killed an Italian agent (again he was driving fast -- the next time I am in the US I will be sure to follow the speed limit).  There was a joint investigation, US investigators found that there was no fault; the Italian(s) refused to sign off on it saying the findings were not supported  by the facts.  No further action was taken.  I can think of a similar situation in which a Canadian investigation did not agree with the US investigators findings.

Now I understand that this is not a statistically significant sample.  I also know however that the US is loathe to subject any of its troops to any form of 3rd part legal system.

I have seen a video of a US fighter firing missiles at a bridge (not military positions know to be transporting civilians) in Bosnia.  After the missile was fired a train appeared and it is quite plausible that in that split second the pilot couldn't call it of.  What I don't understand is having just accidently hit this train why they felt compelled to fire at it a second time.  There are a number of well documented incidents in Bosnia and the information recorded by media, individuals, troops and the military themselves.  Yet the Pentagon tells us there was not 1 charge filed.

Watch the history channel and you will find plenty more examples.  So perhaps, just maybe US forces are under the impression that foreign lives aren't worth as much as theirs.  Perhaps that idea is why the few incidents where we know the facts and there have been independent witnesses get investigated and are found to be normal.

Sorry I started rambling, I think a big part of the problem isn't that justice needs to be seen, it is that as far as policing itself the military has managed to create the effect of injustice.  I can understand this, military personell are rightly proud of 'taking care of their own' and rightly so.  Now I am not sure, but when I think about it I don't recall reading a single report of any coalition troops in Iraq or Afghanistan killing any US personell.  And as the contact period for the group has to equal that strikes me as strange.

So to sum up, US troops regularly kill foreign troops 'by accident', foreign troops (who are obviously presesnt for these encounters) haven't killed US troops.  Yet investigations consistently show that the US soldiers weren't at fault.  If group A keep committing the act, and Group B never commit it, we must conclude that some fault lies with Group A.  So the comfort that an investigation was carried out for the umpteenth time does little for a 3rd part observer or indeed the family of the victim.

Wow, sorry, went on a tangent there, but I shall put it up anyway.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 12:15:44 PM   
TheTopHat


Posts: 39
Joined: 3/12/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

As long as I know it is opinion.  and it appears your opinion is skewed.  Like in Rewanda, the rulling class tried to commit genicide on the underclasses but since it was also tribal then it can't be considered a state.  And some of the other insurgents claim to be the ligimitate government of their nation but since your point of authority (which I am not going to research for you) doesn't recognize them, they don't count and so on and so on.

Oh  does your point of authoirity also count political sub divisions to blame them too?


You are saying that the ruling class, in the process of committing a genocide, may have a greater rate of friendly fire incidents? Sure, if you like I will concede it is possible, that by percentage, any one of a number untrained militias had a higher rate of friendly fire than the US military.  The point is moot.  Empirical data shows that there is a systematic problem in the US forces -- they kill the wrong people more oftent than other 'professional' armies.  I am not sure what your point is, the question (for which I can wildly speculate but have no real answer) is why do US personel have more friend fire incidents than anyone else in their theatre.

Fun Fact (verified): In the first Gulf war the US had more friendly fire casualties than the casualties actually inflicted by the Iraqi's.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 12:19:03 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		In the first Iraq war 50% of the British killed were killed by Americans.

(in reply to TheTopHat)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 12:30:43 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		This is getting flippant but there is a serious point. American soldiers are overly protected. I remember about ten years ago a US soldier knocked down and killed a girl in the north of England in a hit and run accident whilst he was driving on the wrong side of the road. Easily done, one can easily subliminally pull onto the wrong side of the road if one is not used to driving abroad. By the time the police had traced the car back to the American soldier the US military had slipped him out of the country so he couldn't face justice. I think there is an agreement that protects US soldiers from prosecution anyway which pisses me off. But what sort of justice system do they think we British have, sharia law? If he went on trial in America for the same offence he would have got a much heavier sentence than in Britain. However, such obvious conivance by the soldier's senior officers to protect him left a bitter taste in the mouths of the locals. The ill feelings created against Americans in the camp wasn't necessary and wouldn't have existed if the soldier was forced to face the consequences of his actions.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 12:54:46 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		I agree that soldiers should face the consequences of their actions.   If there was undue command/political influence to taint the investigations then they should be prosecuted as well.  In the name of politics I have seen some pretty strange stuff.   I believe in personal accountability for your actions.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 12:55:06 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		..following on from MC's story of the girl in the UK, there is the far more shameful episode of the US Air Force smuggling two of its pilots out of Italy to avoid having them face trial for an incident involving a cable car......i'm sure some of us remember the incident. It is an example of justice failing to be seen to be done in matters military, and given in happened in peace time had no excuse on operational grounds........

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 6:21:46 PM   
Dtesmoac


Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline 		Something I was recently told in the US was interesting and may explain some of the difference with US forces. Some of the US posters may be able to comment with more knowledge and direct experience.  
1) Many of the US troops active overseas are National Guard who joined in order to recieve a substantial initial payment and to have their school / college fees paid - combined sum in region of $ tens of thousands. The joining fee is rising because of a shortage of recruits, 50% on joining 50% paid on serving full term. Compare this with the TA and UK reserve who are generally in it for "fun" or are x-professional soldiers. Bulk of force is Professional full time services.  
2) The initial National Guards sent in were from poorer educated and to the US economy less valuable personnel and took higher casulaties. Once the initial forces were rotated units from better educated more technical units were rotated in because their skills were required and there loss would be a bigger financial impact.
This strikes me as an over simplificaion but with grains of truth. Young kids wanting a free education expecting to serve in floods and fires sent to fight a shooting war somewhere on a map they can't find, followed up by more kids who want a free education who find $10000 dollars instant cash a fortune and think the Guard will be like a PC shoot em up game.
Level of training whilst high compared to many forces is too short and therefore not adequate, net result high freindly fire cases. 

????????????

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 7:16:19 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Something I was recently told in the US was interesting and may explain some of the difference with US forces. Some of the US posters may be able to comment with more knowledge and direct experience.  
1) Many of the US troops active overseas are National Guard who joined in order to recieve a substantial initial payment and to have their school / college fees paid - combined sum in region of $ tens of thousands. The joining fee is rising because of a shortage of recruits, 50% on joining 50% paid on serving full term. Compare this with the TA and UK reserve who are generally in it for "fun" or are x-professional soldiers. Bulk of force is Professional full time services.  
2) The initial National Guards sent in were from poorer educated and to the US economy less valuable personnel and took higher casulaties. Once the initial forces were rotated units from better educated more technical units were rotated in because their skills were required and there loss would be a bigger financial impact.
This strikes me as an over simplificaion but with grains of truth. Young kids wanting a free education expecting to serve in floods and fires sent to fight a shooting war somewhere on a map they can't find, followed up by more kids who want a free education who find $10000 dollars instant cash a fortune and think the Guard will be like a PC shoot em up game.
Level of training whilst high compared to many forces is too short and therefore not adequate, net result high freindly fire cases. 

????????????


There are some elements of truth to this.

The Army requires at a minimum a HS education for its forces, however, it will allow a 17 yr old to join the reserves and I think the national guard. while s/he is still in HS.

Reserve and National Guard units train one weekend a month and 2 weeks during the year (usually in the summer).   I know the roundout brigade for one of the divisions (an active division usually has 2 active brigades and one national guard) and my son's active brigade had to fill it during gulf 1.

It is true that they pay enlistment/renlistment bonuses to young people for their service.  the bonus is paid according to the position they are trying to fill with combat arms specalities generally getting more than service support positions.  I don't know whether guard or reserve soldiers get them but probably, just on a lesser scale.  Enlistment bonuses are a direct result of the all volunteer military trying to get qualified soldiers.   It is also a direct result of those my age (the hippies) and the stigma that was given to those in uniform.

there is a GI bill.  It covers college expenses to some degree (I don't know how much).

To achieve promotion college degrees are required for some ranks.  not the private soldier but the senior enlisted, warrant and commissioned officer positions I know it is.  It wasn't when I was in, and I think this has created an improvement in the quality of leadership.

Hope this helps answer some of your questions.

(in reply to Dtesmoac)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 9:19:45 PM   
Dtesmoac


Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks KenDckey.
I've seen some Natinal Guard Air elements, are the pilots full time professional sodiers or also part of the guard, and if so do they only fly support aircraft or also front line armed aircraft?

The person I was talking to had three sons that had gone through the forces and with each of them the main driver had been "school" expence, with two of them now serving over seas. There also appaeared to be an issue of people loosing their business because their unit had been sent to Iraq which woudl perhaps indicate that when joining the Guard they had not anticipated over seas posting.

One last question - anyone have any idea of the % proportion of Guard in the Iraq / Afghanistan US forces vs full time soldiers? The British TA (part time / reserve soldiers) have sent forces predominantly specialist such as medics, logistics or other specialist operatives to support the regulars and some from the TA/reserve of the more specialist combat units, rather than supplying a large quantity of the infantry.     

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 9:47:29 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Okay as a flaming commie liberal do I REALLY have to come in here and scold liberals about facts and statistics?

quote:

  Fun Fact (verified): In the first Gulf war the US had more friendly fire casualties than the casualties actually inflicted by the Iraqi's.


quote:

  In the first Iraq war 50% of the British killed were killed by Americans.


These are meaningless statistics if you know anything about statistics.

We represented the vast majority of troops and thus will committ the vast majority of fuckups PERIOD.

Since the total numbers of casualties are small, and the amount killed by friendly fire are tiny, saying we acounted for 50% is meaningless, the same isn't big enough to show anything.

Since we completely outclassed the Iraqis, they were unable to kill many of us because we were using more lethal weapons.  Gee, what happens when you fuck up with a more lethat weapon, you kill more people.

SO, you are in a war with relatively few casualties and you accidentally shoot down a troop helicopter with a squad it and that one incident with one trigger pulled suddenly doubles your body count.

I bought into this at the beginning of the thread but looking at the numbers they don't show squat although I do think a couple of the A10 ones and I think a helicopter one may well have been incopetence but the Air Force has long been known for that.   I bet if anyone looks there isn't anything similar from Marine aviation units but again, they are a vastly smaller force and you can't draw any conclusion.

(in reply to Dtesmoac)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 9:59:23 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		That argument is a pass pal, sorry.

Now I can't follow the convoluted logic of this fuckin' thred, but can tell you from experience that friendly actons (lets call it that as opposed to this shit you people got in your mind about friendly fire) probalby are the worst harrangue in any war.

World war ! was the spanish flu.

WW2 they called it friendly fire.

Here is a statistic to hunt up, since we are measuring by statistic......

How many people in this mutherfucker were ran over by a vehicle backing up?  Wrong place Wrong time?  answer is greater than zero, ok? Certainty.


Everybody who saw this shit on tv in the old days saw the little bomb go down the chimney, thousands of times a day and saw a week of the poor schmucks in the tank going out in the desert (albiet, thru a mirror darkly) to go out and hit the bhong, and some warrant in a helicopter ,maybe 23 years old kegging them to hell.  None of this got much to do with nothing.





_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 11:33:49 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		50% = 9. I did say later the thread was getting flippant. But the serious point is that many times friendly troops get fired on there are no casualties. I've seen two episodes recorded on TV, one when a convoy was being fired upon and someone on the film says, 'They can't really believe we're the enemy this far back."

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/7/2006 12:34:57 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Thanks KenDckey.
I've seen some Natinal Guard Air elements, are the pilots full time professional sodiers or also part of the guard, and if so do they only fly support aircraft or also front line armed aircraft?

Can't say for sure.  Some units have AGR (active guard and reserve) personnel assigned.  they are full time and a cross ssection of all ranks and jobs.   When I was in Cali our air national guard base could put up 3 fighters in just a few minutes.

The person I was talking to had three sons that had gone through the forces and with each of them the main driver had been "school" expence, with two of them now serving over seas. There also appaeared to be an issue of people loosing their business because their unit had been sent to Iraq which woudl perhaps indicate that when joining the Guard they had not anticipated over seas posting.

The school training (depending on the service) may include the sound and look of combat, but the feel and smell of combat doesn't come till you are being shot at.

One last question - anyone have any idea of the % proportion of Guard in the Iraq / Afghanistan US forces vs full time soldiers? The British TA (part time / reserve soldiers) have sent forces predominantly specialist such as medics, logistics or other specialist operatives to support the regulars and some from the TA/reserve of the more specialist combat units, rather than supplying a large quantity of the infantry.     


Your last question I have no clue, however, you can watch the pentagon briefings, etc on the Pentagon Channel http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/
 
They might answer your question


(in reply to Dtesmoac)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.172