Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BlckMgk on September 05, 2006, 02:47:33 PM
-
Just out of curiousity, but my canadian friend wants to know if any of us in the US heard about this today?
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/04/afghanfriendly.html
I honestly haven't.
-G
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/canada.afghan.ap/index.html
if your a news junkie, you know about it. If you aint, then you probably dont know much about anything going on in the world. Im sure there are plenty who prefer it like that.
-
It made section A of the Detroit Free press, and I read about it this morning online somewhere... cnn.com maybe.
(You are referring to the Canadian soldier being killed, not the major calling it a freak accident, right?)
-
it made the "news" in the USA, of course in the same fight 200 Taliban were killed.
NEWS, ONE NATO SOLDER KILLED.
not news, 200 Taliban killed.
it's called selective editing.
i blame the neo-con controled media:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
If the Canadian's had shot down the A-10, I bet that would have made the news here before the taliban kia story as well, damn libirules!!!!
shamus
-
Originally posted by john9001
it made the "news" in the USA, of course in the same fight 200 Taliban were killed.
NEWS, ONE NATO SOLDER KILLED.
not news, 200 Taliban killed.
it's called selective editing.
i blame the neo-con controled media:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:lol :lol :lol
-
Amazes me how the pick a number like 200 killed. Did they count fingers? Hell, in 1 run you'd need to use Q-tips to find anyone left.
-
what I heard here was 200 taliban killed, 80 captured, 1 canadian killed and 30 wounded by friendly fire from US
-
The guys that provide the air support will tend to inflict the air to ground friendly fire casualties for some reason.
Canada can send CF 18s over to take over that role if they like I suppose.
-
I heard about it on a CNN headline news cast. I don't get the paper or watch much news at this time so haven't heard anything more about it.
Damn shame all the way around. to the soldiers hurt as well as the one killed. There will be an investigation, let them do their job and the results will be out later. Friendly fire is a reality of warfare. The one bright spot about it is that it has been fading in occurances. Someday it may go away forever but I doubt in our lifetimes.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Friendly fire is a reality of warfare.
It is a tragic reality.
That was a nice post Mav
-
Friendly fire, isn't. But it seems to happen in every armed conflict, regardless of who is involved and how well they're trained.
It seems that when air support is not under direct control of the ground forces, or at least not in direct communication, these incidents are far more common than when it is. The further removed the guy in the air is from the guy on the ground, the more likely things will go bad. Even moreso when they are not even from the same country, regardless of being separated by a common language.
It's always a shame when it happens, and it makes a combat loss even more painful.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/canada.afghan.ap/index.html
if your a news junkie, you know about it. If you aint, then you probably dont know much about anything going on in the world....
:noid
:noid even if you :noid
:noid are, you just :noid
:noid know what :noid
:noid you've read:noid
:noid
-
Russia lost in Afganistan, 15-20000 men and half milion wounded, and achieved nothing after 10 years of bloody war.
I don't understand what's the American goal in Afganistan?
Were looking for Bin Laden , but if they didn't find him in 5 years what for those troops still there?
Bush"s utopic ideas of building democracy in those radical islamic societies looks soo naiv ,
Let them few more centuries to evolve from cavemen to homosapiens, maybe after try again
-
and while they`re evolving let them slaughter us all they want....wtg
-
As a sidenote here, there is a question.
Do you have an incident where US troops got killed by friendly fire from another nation? By brits for instance???
Either it is the selection of the news, or just reality but I recall nothing of the sort. And I go far back!
:noid
-
Originally posted by ghi
Russia lost in Afganistan, 15-20000 men and half milion wounded, and achieved nothing after 10 years of bloody war.
I don't understand what's the American goal in Afganistan?
Were looking for Bin Laden , but if they didn't find him in 5 years what for those troops still there?
Bush"s utopic ideas of building democracy in those radical islamic societies looks soo naiv ,
Let them few more centuries to evolve from cavemen to homosapiens, maybe after try again
To let you sleep peacefully at night. A terrorist on the run, no matter who that terrorist is, is better than a terrorist conspiring/acquiring/planning attacks on the free world. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Watch" program at our expense.
-
Originally posted by Angus
As a sidenote here, there is a question.
Do you have an incident where US troops got killed by friendly fire from another nation? By brits for instance???
Either it is the selection of the news, or just reality but I recall nothing of the sort. And I go far back!
:noid
i can only remember ff incidents involving airstikes. i guess only the us has airpower in afganistan, so if things like this happen it`ll be americans killing whoever..
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
i guess only the us has airpower in afganistan, so if things like this happen it`ll be americans killing whoever..
Nope.. not just the US.
-
Hi ghi,
Originally posted by ghi
Russia lost in Afganistan, 15-20000 men and half milion wounded, and achieved nothing after 10 years of bloody war.
I don't understand what's the American goal in Afganistan?
Were looking for Bin Laden , but if they didn't find him in 5 years what for those troops still there?
Bush"s utopic ideas of building democracy in those radical islamic societies looks soo naiv ,
Let them few more centuries to evolve from cavemen to homosapiens, maybe after try again
The US situation in Afghanistan is rather one of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
If the US withdraws from Afghanistan, the Taliban will come flooding back in from their safe-areas in Pakistan. They will wipe out what little existing infrastructure that has been established and then gradually tighten the noose on Kabul until the Kharzai government collapses. Once they have re-taken, Southern, Central, and Eastern Afghanistan, aside from returning the populace to the full-blown version of 7th century Islamic hell-on-earth the country will become a major center of Jihadi training for groups like Al Qaeda once again.
On the other hand, if the US stays in Afghanistan, the country will never be pacified. This is because the Taliban have a safe haven and endless supplies of fresh fighters just over the border in Pakistan. In order to pacify Afghanistan, you'd have to be able to eliminate the Wahabbi training and supply structure over the border - which our "allies" the Pakistanis would never tolerate. As it is, no substantial improvement in the life of the Afghanis is possible because as soon as you establish say a free medical clinic or a school for girls, the Taliban infilitrate overnight, slaughter the doctors/teachers and blow up the facility and then return. Their current "game" is caching their weapons since they know that the coalition cannot fire on an unarmed Afghani and picking them up for the operation and then dropping them literally as soon as they are done. So we will bleed soldiers and money in that country unless and until we change our overall strategy.
- SEAGOON
-
Never surrender.
Especially not to those who mostly use terror on the public as a weapon.
Those who target the public for the cause.
However, don't shoot everybody!
-
!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/09/05/bc.run.obit.graham.ap/index.html?cnn=yes