Tension between Canada and the U.S.?

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Be careful. They'll burn your capital again

Or we'll send Celine Dion on a 2 years cross America tour...

[Bereta_Eder]

You are indeed heartless and cruel

[Arrian]

Celine Dion?!? The Horror! Please... no... anything but that! Reparations? No problem, how much do you want? How about New Jersey? Want it?

-Arrian

[Tingkai]

We've already inflicted them with Anne Murray. Isn't that enough.

[Guynemer]

I would like to point out with no small amount of glee that the Detroit teams won both games in question.

[Tingkai]

Enjoy it while you can. The Red Wings are going down.

[notyoueither]

Not to dredge up old wounds (that aren't so old) but as for sound bites, try this:

'There is no absolute sure way to protect ground soldiers from this type of fratricide.' Single quotes because I typed it out after seeing the bite from the CO of the PPCLI in Afghanistan.

OTOH, I had a chance to talk to an NCO in the PPCLI today.

How is the mood on the base?

'Sombre'

What are the feelings about the Americans?

'Pfff. [visible anger, regains composure]. If only they had better training.' Or something to that effect.

For those who do not know. The PPCLI is the regiment of the soldiers killed and wounded. They are based in Edmonton (where I live).

[Tingkai]

I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that it impossible to completely prevent all deaths from friendly fire, but this doesn't mean that these deaths are completely unavoidable, particularly when the deaths occur on a training ground rather than on the frontlines.

Based on the information that we know, I would say that it is reasonable to say the deaths of the four Canadians soldiers should have been avoided.

One question being raised is whether there was technology that could have helped prevent these deaths. A magazine has claimed that US troops are equipped with Friend-or-foe-identification beacons. The PPCLI CO says American and Canadian troops do not have this technology.

[notyoueither]

A few US divisions have the equipment. The CO of the PPCLI said he never heard of it.

Yes, should have been avoided. In a perfect world. Unfortunately, 'perfect' very seldom describes a war zone.

Is one of the problems that not even the Yanks have the equipment fully deployed to keep up with their ability to kill?

[Tingkai]

It's not a question of a perfect world. In a perfect world that would be no fraticide.

What we're talking about is four men dead in an accident that could have been and should have been avoided.

At that very least, I hope the Americans finally learn some lessons from this accident. If their deaths results in changes that prevent future fraticide then their deaths will not have been in vain.

[notyoueither]

TK. Ask yourself this. Given 10,000 situations such as the F16 and the Canadians, how do you ensure that no pilot ever drops the bomb?

The unfortunate truth is that a war zone is 1000's of these situations every day. A human ultimately makes a decision in almost all of those situations. Given enough situations, a human will err and people will die due to friendly fire.

Did the pilot f*ck up? Did he ignore orders? Did he ignore procedure? Was he incompetent? Maybe yes to 1 through 4. In that case there will be a court martial. Maybe no, maybe he made a bad decision for the right reasons. It happens.

The fact is that war offers no comfort for mistakes. People die. It has always been thus. Canadians have killed Canadians due to mistakes.

[Tingkai]

In the months after Pearl Harbor, American pilots were being shot out of the skies by the Japanese.

The Americans could have taken your attitude: "The fact is that war offers no comfort for mistakes. People die. It has always been thus." They could have said: sure we lost 10 guys today, but we did hundreds of sorties.

But the Americans were smart. They looked at what was happening and changed the way they operated. As a result, fewer American pilots died.

Your attitude of "**** happens, let's move on" simply leads to more "**** happening."

When the Airborne had its problem in Somalia, we didn't say "oh it's just a few bad apples, let's forget about it." No, we looked at the situation and found there was a systematic problem and we took steps to correct the problems.

Just because they died in a war zone doesn't mean their deaths could have been prevented.

You seem so wrapped up in defending the Americans that you can't see this basic truth.

Do you really believe the rubbish you're writing or are you just a troll?

[notyoueither]

Relax TK, your panties are in a knot.

I am saying that people will die accidentally in any high risk area. A war zone qualifies as 'high risk' don't you think?

I am not 'defending Americans'. Americans need no defence. 'An American' is on the hot plate. I hope that he was not a f*ck-up. That would be tragic.

You're arguement about the American conduct of the air war in the Pacific in 1942 is non-sequitor. Not worth talking about. It does not apply.

re the Airbourne in Somalia. Yes, an enquiry can be useful. But no amount of enquiry ever will render a war-zone a safe place. Mr. Rogers doesn't live there.

[Tingkai]

Tell you what little boy. Go talk to the PPCLI and tell them that "Oh well, people will die accidentally in any high risk area. **** happens nothing can be done about it." Ask them if they think the US military should review its procedures to try to prevent this from happening again."

If you get a bit older and if you get wiser, you will learn that there is something called acceptable risk. An aircraft on active duty killing four men in a designated training area is not an acceptable risk.

As for your panties comment, it clearly indicates a difference between us. I care about the men and women who volunteer to serve our country. You, for reasons I cannot even fathom, obviously do not.

[notyoueither]

"If you get a bit older and if you get wiser" OK junior.

Well, actually, bud. I know quite a few of them. Care to have me relay a message? In fact, most soldiers know they are in for some risk when they sign up. Either that or they are brain-dead.

Yes, the members of the regiment are a little raw right now on the subject of American training. Can't say I blame them. Do they think they should be given a 'get out of service free' card? I doubt it.

The funny thing about this whole dialouge is that if you knew your *ss from a stump you would have shut up a long time ago.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
"If you get a bit older and if you get wiser" OK junior.

Well, actually, bud. I know quite a few of them. Care to have me relay a message? In fact, most soldiers know they are in for some risk when they sign up. Either that or they are brain-dead.

Yes, the members of the regiment are a little raw right now on the subject of American training. Can't say I blame them. Do they think they should be given a 'get out of service free' card? I doubt it.

The funny thing about this whole dialouge is that if you knew your *ss from a stump you would have shut up a long time ago.

The sad thing about this whole dialogue is that you are using a tragedy to troll. You are quite pathetic. How old are you? You're acting like an ignorant little snot.

If you know some of them, go tell them what you're saying here, but don't expect them to agree with you. Don't expect them to ever agree with you.

If you do talk to them, you can pass on the word that Canadians in Hong Kong like myself and my friends are sadden by their deaths. I was in the CF reserves so this feels like family members have been killed. A friend of mine covered the military for a Canadian newspaper and wonders whether he ever met the men who died. We appreciate what they have done for our country and for the world. Unfortunately, there are far too many Canadians who couldn't care less about the peacekeeping work done by the CF, and just ask your PPCLI friends about that.

But I don't think you will talk to them. I think you're lying. You don't know any of the PPCLI. If you did, you would not be using their deaths as material to troll.

And what do you know about the risks we accept when we sign up?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The sad thing about this whole dialogue is that you are using a tragedy to troll. You are quite pathetic. How old are you? You're acting like an ignorant little snot.

If you know some of them, go tell them what you're saying here, but don't expect them to agree with you. Don't expect them to ever agree with you.

If you do talk to them, you can pass on the word that Canadians in Hong Kong like myself and my friends are sadden by their deaths. I was in the CF reserves so this feels like family members have been killed. A friend of mine covered the military for a Canadian newspaper and wonders whether he ever met the men who died. We appreciate what they have done for our country and for the world. Unfortunately, there are far too many Canadians who couldn't care less about the peacekeeping work done by the CF, and just ask your PPCLI friends about that.

But I don't think you will talk to them. I think you're lying. You don't know any of the PPCLI. If you did, you would not be using their deaths as material to troll.

And what do you know about the risks we accept when we sign up?

Said safe and sound... from Hong Kong.

TK. Forgive me, but you get kind of over-wrought easily don't you think? I mean, I'm discussing realities of being a soldier in any army, and you're freaking out about how I don't hate the Americans. What's your game?

Yup. I'm lying. I live in the same city that they do, but I've never met a one of em. Oh gosh, you've discovered me! Oh my. Actually, I live in Montreal. Don't tell anybody.

As for wondering... nah. You don't rate knowing that much about me. You are quaint, but not serious.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Said safe and sound... from Hong Kong.

TK. Forgive me, but you get kind of over-wrought easily don't you think? I mean, I'm discussing realities of being a soldier in any army, and you're freaking out about how I don't hate the Americans. What's your game?

Yup. I'm lying. I live in the same city that they do, but I've never met a one of em. Oh gosh, you've discovered me! Oh my. Actually, I live in Montreal. Don't tell anybody.

As for wondering... nah. You don't rate knowing that much about me. You are quaint, but not serious.

In other words, you're just a troll.

Have I ever said you should hate the Americans. No.

The messages you have posted indicate you know nothing about the realities of being a soldiers let alone what it means to accept to be in the military.

I was never in the regs, I wasn't even in the primary reserves, but I still feel a distant bond to the men who died. Let me try to explain in words that even you might understand. It is like hearing that a distant cousin, who you have never met, was killed by a drunk driver. Maybe you are so callous that you would respond "oh well, accidents happen." But the normal human reaction is to get upset. You obviously have a problem understanding this, which is why you need to grow up.

[notyoueither]

This is getting quite amusing.

You know squat about what men under stress go through. But you sure feel their pain... from a distance.

Have you ever woken up and wondered, my god, do I know any of them? Did you ever think madly to yourself, I know that guy, I met him a while ago.

Hey bud. I got upset. Then I got over it. I suggest you do the same.

[Tingkai]

Another useless comment from the troll.

Thankfully, this is not going to be forgotten, at least not by the CF.

You need to ask yourself why you get such a thrill out of being a troll. Why is it that your life is so pathetic that being a troll passes for entertainment. You really are quite sad.

But, hey, go ahead and post some more useless comments. Dig youself further into the ground. You've made yourself look like an idiot so keep on going.

As for me, I'm off to do some work. Have fun playing with yourself. I'm sure you're quite use to it.

[Sprayber]

This has been a really useful thread.

Tingkai: No one here is saying that the Canadian deaths wasn't horrible. There is an investigation going on which is being lead by the Canadians IIRC. When they come down with their findings then action will be taken. But to be blunt and honest, the only way to ensure that this never happens again is not to be in combat situations. And I don't care what anyone says, being anywhere in Afghanistan is being in a combat zone. That is something for the Canadian government to decide. I'm sorry that it happened but it did. If the Canadian people can't live with that, then there isn't much that the US can say.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sprayber
There is an investigation going on which is being lead by the Canadians IIRC. When they come down with their findings then action will be taken. But to be blunt and honest, the only way to ensure that this never happens again is not to be in combat situations.

Sprayber: I think everyone agrees that it is impossible to prevent all friendly fire accidents, but it is equally true that some accidents can be prevented.

As well, I'm sure everyone agrees that after the two investigation (one US and one Canadian) are completed, action will be taken, but will it be the right action?

What I want, and I'm sure you would want this too, are improved operating procedures that increase the safety of our men on the ground (and by that I mean American and Canadian troops). We should aim to find ways to decreases the possibility of another fraticide, if such improvements exist.

Unfortunately, I think the investigations will conclude with a politically motivated results and by that I mean international politics and internal military politics.

International politics will play a role with Canada and the US searching for an outcome that is acceptable to each nation's citizens. That outcome may not be in the best interests of the guys on the ground.

Military politics will come into play with the ANG trying to deflect any suggestions that their pilots are not properly trained. The ideal outcome for the ANG is to make this look like one individual's mistake rather than a systematic screw-up. From what I understand, the Pentagon wants more control over the ANG so it will be looking for a conclusion that says that ANG should be under its control. All the different units involved will be trying to cover their asses.

State-Federal politics will come into play given that the ANG is controlled by state governments. I suspect that the only reason the ANG is in Afghanistan is because of pressure on the Pentagon from state governments that want to give their guys some glory.

Add in the short time frame for the investigations and it becomes unlikely that any examination will be made of possible systematic problems that led to the result.

And the people who end up on the short end of the stick will be the guys on the ground.

[Lefty Scaevola]

It is just surface "tension" at the boundry between two fluids of different "density".

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Sprayber: I think everyone agrees that it is impossible to prevent all friendly fire accidents, but it is equally true that some accidents can be prevented.

As well, I'm sure everyone agrees that after the two investigation (one US and one Canadian) are completed, action will be taken, but will it be the right action?

What I want, and I'm sure you would want this too, are improved operating procedures that increase the safety of our men on the ground (and by that I mean American and Canadian troops). We should aim to find ways to decreases the possibility of another fraticide, if such improvements exist.

Unfortunately, I think the investigations will conclude with a politically motivated results and by that I mean international politics and internal military politics. notyoueither pretty much has you pegged.

International politics will play a role with Canada and the US searching for an outcome that is acceptable to each nation's citizens. That outcome may not be in the best interests of the guys on the ground.

Military politics will come into play with the ANG trying to deflect any suggestions that their pilots are not properly trained. The ideal outcome for the ANG is to make this look like one individual's mistake rather than a systematic screw-up. From what I understand, the Pentagon wants more control over the ANG so it will be looking for a conclusion that says that ANG should be under its control. All the different units involved will be trying to cover their asses.

State-Federal politics will come into play given that the ANG is controlled by state governments. I suspect that the only reason the ANG is in Afghanistan is because of pressure on the Pentagon from state governments that want to give their guys some glory.

Add in the short time frame for the investigations and it becomes unlikely that any examination will be made of possible systematic problems that led to the result.

And the people who end up on the short end of the stick will be the guys on the ground.

Am I the only one that sees this entire tirade as biased? You have no clue as to the nature of the ANG. You have a lot of assumptions that are based in your obvious bias against the US. The remark about the states sending their guardsman over there for glory is insulting not only for the Americans over there but for the Canadians as well. Bottom line is you don't know **** about the ANG, so don't make assumptions by pulling them out of your ass. I actually agreed with you on some things until you found it neccessary to insult those that are over there with stupid and very unimaginative speculation. I hope that Canadians that actually make decisions for the country have a little more grounding in reality.

[KrazyHorse]

Look out! It's Tingkai vs. the world! Keep it up, man.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Am I the only one that sees this entire tirade as biased? You have no clue as to the nature of the ANG. You have a lot of assumptions that are based in your obvious bias against the US. The remark about the states sending their guardsman over there for glory is insulting not only for the Americans over there but for the Canadians as well. Bottom line is you don't know **** about the ANG, so don't make assumptions by pulling them out of your ass. I actually agreed with you on some things until you found it neccessary to insult those that are over there with stupid and very unimaginative speculation. I hope that Canadians that actually make decisions for the country have a little more grounding in reality.

Slow down a bit. I actually think the USAF is the best trained and best equipped air force in the world. Meanwhile the ANG are a part-time force, although they've been logging a lot of hours since 9/11. To say that the ANG pilots do not have the same intensive training as the USAF pilots is simply a statement of fact. And if the USAF has the best pilots in the world, why are ANG units being sent over?

As for seeking glory, would you agree that US units want to be part of Afghanistan War. They want to do their bit. Rightly or not, that leads to lobbying within the military and the state governments would also be lobbying on behalf of their forces.

The same thing happens in the Canadian military. The PPCLI are not in Afghanistan because they are needed. They're there for political reasons.

As I wrote previously, I only suspect that the ANG is there because of lobbying pressure from state governments. I would be happy to hear any proof that I am wrong.