US declares war on Canada (ok i'm exagerating :P)

I cannot believe this could ever happen. Wars have started over lesser things.

Morning Strife.

It appears to be a friendly fire issue (and from the looks of it I suppose there was some confusion as well). They're rare nowadays but do happen.

I am surprised though that any guns on the guards would *not* be in 'safety' mode most of the time. That's a bit disturbing, but it also brings up the question - If they *were* on safety to start, then *something* must have been happening to make them remove that, right?

Lets wait on further news, though with a military incident it may take a little while (if ever) for more information to come out. *shrug*

:link:

Canada has to get in line behind Italy and a number of other countries with previous legitimate grievances.

This would actually make a good movie/game plot. "In the lawless streets of a forgotten land, foreign powers fight for control of the worlds most precious resource. In gun battles fought at over 200 miles per hour, the fate of nations hang. BlackGoldBattles.com"

It doesn't take a great stretch of imagination... might make a fun MMO

Oh wait NM just have Rockstar make GTA4 Iraq

It depends on how the unit trains. My first unit believed in never using safety including in training. We were trained to run our trigger finger to feel the area on either side of the weapon (depending which of your eyes were dominant) where the magazine release was. We were disciplined severely if our trigger finger was found on the trigger at inappropiate times. The whole theory was that the finger being close to the trigger without being on the trigger had us prepared to shoot immediately with enough control that we wouldn't shoot by accident. Of course an accidental discharge of any kind is a huge deal. You can loose pay and get extra work for it. Either way, if it is on safety, it is not that difficult to go from safety to fire in a split decision to shoot.

It says they did not respond to the hand signals the troops gave them. Americans ARE the police there and if they tell you to stop you better stop. And if I was there my gun would never be on safety...ever. It would not even leave my side, would not set it down for a second. I would not even like people moving around behind me either. Iraq is a crazy place.

I find this shocking.

An Accidental discharge could *kill* someone right? but it's a big deal to the average soldier only because they cold lose pay?

The idea that there is not a single policy on something like that, that every soldier has to follow is just mind boggling to me. It's the stuff that friendly fire incidents are made of.

It also brings to mind the recent British High Commands criticism of the American Army as basically "unprofessional." Letting area or unit commanders just decide if they feel it's okay to not have the safety on is really lax IMO.

What other policies (on which peoples very lives may be in the balance) does a part-time soldier from who knows where get to decide? Remember lots of those guys in Iraq, even the unit commanders, have never seen action before. Armies should be about discipline and rules.

This is just what they said when they killed the Italian Journalist though, even though everyone in that car said they saw no hand signals at all. They also said the same thing about "shooting through the engine block" (because that's what they are supposed to do, so who's going to say different?), even though again everyone in the car said they just started spraying the entire area with bullets.

I'm not saying they are lying but just because they come out with a statement that confirms the already established procedure for stopping a vehicle word for word doesn't mean that's what in fact happened. This is just what you say as your starting position while you are grilling the troops as to what "actually" happened.

Then you have to decide if you can just bull your way through by repeating the mantra over and over, or if there is going to be any testimony from the Italians/Canadians that will bite you in the bum.

At that point you start throwing the individual soldiers into the gaping maw of the media monster, lowest rank first.

You forgot the part that says the Canadian convoy, who should by now be used to the checkpoints, ignored signals to stop. What if it was a vehicle that had been hijacked, was loaded with a small nuke or something and made it all the way into the green zone?

We've been there long enough for every country involved to know the checkpoints and what to do. This was a checkpoint near or in the green zone, which had been in operation for a couple of years now, right?

All fault lies with the Canadian driver of the vehicle, not the U.S. military servicemen doing their job.

Oh, and for the conspiracy-theory-loving-types out there... what benefit does the U.S. have in kill a CANADIAN convoy? They've just elected a conservative PM who has said he's ready to mend the relationship with the U.S.

Gimme a break. If I were a soldier in a hostile area, my safety would be ALWAYS off as well. And if I wave someone to slow down or stop, they'd damn well better do it. In the case of the Canadians being fired upon, it had nothing to with whether the safety was on or not. Shots were fired over the vehicle, then into the engine block. A reasonable approach if you ask me.

Hey, it worked for the Abu Ghraib scandal. Were any officers harmed in the taming of that beast?

Does Canada have much much oil?

If not, they're safe

When it's a fairly common occurence that vehicles will speed up, ram into your own vehicle at a high speed and then explode, it makes a lot of sense to shoot at any vehicles that seem to be getting into a position to do that. Even if a vehicle is displaying Canadian flags, if it operates in a suspicious or threatening way you have to first assume that they are "sailing under false colours" and your priority is to secure a safe perimeter around your own position. If you are not willing to react aggressively to battlefield conditions you will eventually fall victim to them.

Canada has a lot of oil.

I should note it wasn't an italian journalist that died, but an italian special agent. One who had essentially been recognized as a national hero and excellent negotiator before freeing the italian journalist from her captors. He also saved that journalist's life that day that he died. Italy is not happy with us.

Part of the problem with these checkpoints is that they are unmarked. "Hand signals" might consist of some soldier making some small motion waaaay off to the side of the road before opening fire. What they need to be doing is be parked in the middle of the street and directing traffic (which incidentally makes them a huge target as any other police would be in such a situation). There is a vast difference between a hand signal on the side of the road and the universal waving you down in the middle of the street with both arms (a larger, easier to see motion from 60+ feet away). Also consider, if they are making a hand signal and still holding their gun (as they obviously must have been), would anyone have been looking at the hand not holding the gun?

I wonder if the US was to invade Canada do you think thier insurgence would consist of angery hokey players and suicide moose bombers?

he he he

... and one who in the course of his job made a mistake & thought he was above the law, ordering his driver to ignore the America checkpoint and keep driving. He caused his own death.

The man got himself killed, IMO. Trigger happy guard? Maybe. I don't agree, but maybe I'd buy that in the right arguement. And there was apparently a breakdown in communication one side or the other, and probably both. But. Dumbf*ck who decided to try to run a roadblock? Yeah, he has to take some blame here. Yes, it sucks that he died. Absolutely. But IMO the soldiers acted correctly.

When you think 'roadblock' you think those nifty little sawhorse things (or heck maybe spikestrips) blocking the road or maybe a couple of cop cars (or in this case maybe a couple of hum vees or a tank). I know in my area we usually have about 6 cop cars (12 cops) with lights flashing if there's going to be a drunk driving checkpoint. The clear problem with what happened to the italians was precisely that there was no real roadblock or checkpoint. Absolutely nothing blocked the road. WAAAAAAY off the shoulder was a humvee with a mounted machine gun that was only spotted after it had started firing upon them.

So in comparison if you're driving down a typical highway, this would be like a single cop car parked out in the grass taking shots at you and then justifying it by saying you didn't stop for the checkpoint. THAT is precisely what happened.

They even continued shooting after the engine had been slagged and the car was rolling to a stop as there were indeed bullet holes through the front side and back of the vehicle. Specifically the journalist suffered her injury from being shot from behind in the shoulder. The Italian special agent, her rescuer, absorbed the bullets from the front and side that most assuredly would have killed her as they did him.

Now on the communication issue, they had phoned ahead. They were told the road was clear and they didn't have to worry about any particular stops along the way to the american base they were headed for. So yes, that's a pretty big communication issue when you're basically told that you've got a clear run and then you get shot at by the people who told you it was safe.

I thought this man was a "trained special forces operative" or something like that? He should be familiar with the situation and how things worked.

He wasn't the person driving for one. For two, as I said before he phoned ahead. He was given to understand there would be no checkpoint. Also they were in something of a hurry. Money was involved in negotiating the journalist's release. If they were to recapture her on their way to the base it would become much, much more difficult to get her released. So given that US forces were, according to the phone call, not between his position and the base, it is a reasonable assumption that speed is warrented and that anyone shooting at them likely only intends to recapture a hostage.

Do you still want to imply this man died because HE was not doing his job?

one time in afghanistan...

an american f-15 pilot attacked and killed 4 allied canadian soldiers on scheduled training excercise. that was last year.

Umm, what checkpoint? I read the article and they only said a Canadian convoy was passing an American convoy. No check point was mentioned. I like how you have decided who was and wasn't at fault before the military has even had a chance to investigate. And here's what the Canadians have said:





So, despite you knowing what happened, here's what the US Secretary of Defense said:

Mistake #3.



A trained special forces operative coulnd't tell the difference between American forces and terrorists/insurgants? Hell, the guns even sound different, and even I can tell that.



Rather, shall we say, I clearly think he was not what he has been made out to be, or if he was, yes, he was not doing his job to the best of his abilities.

Then obviously in your mind it is the fault of the dead person in each case of friendly fire, no matter the circumstances.

Convoy:


Roadblock:


Big difference if you ask me, even if the pictures aren't great.