View Full Version : Military Mistakes
North Rhins
04-Feb-07, 23:50
There has been two disturbing facts come to light this past week regarding our Armed Forces. It appears that between 2003 and 2005 fifteen17 year old kids had been sent to serve in Iraq. It was bad enough that during the Great War we had children as young as 13 fighting and dying on the Western Front. To allow it to happen in this day and age is scandalous.
The second fact is the MOD’s refusal to produce, at a Coroners Court, a cockpit video of a ‘Blue on Blue’ friendly fire attack on UK troops by our American allies. The MOD claim that the video has not been declassified by the Americans and so they are not allowed to show it. How about getting the Secretary of Defence to attend the court and give him the option of producing the video or to spend some time in a cell in order to contemplate his options?
believe the first people into any area of combat should be the families of the leaders of our government - there would be fewer of our forces being sent into areas where we should not be in the first place if they knew their own kith and kin were going in first and were in for duration.
This is not the first blue on blue which has been attempted to be covered up - MOD have a copy or two so it should be produced in Coroners Court or any other court.
Our government must be made accountable and not dodge answering and being held responsible for mistakes, errors, ommissions of any kind.
They decided to send our troops in so they carry the can and are answerable to the courts of this land and us their electors.
How in this day and age are youngsters still being allowed into combat zones - what an incompetent bunch not to check all these things but it always comes down to "not my responsibility".
It's sadly ironic that people are old enough to defend the country and its beliefs whilst not being deemed old enough to to indulge in some of lifes little pleasures.
A Thurso publican once gave me his opinion that if someone is old enough to work, pay tax to, and die for his country then at least he should be allowed a pint.
Argue with that!
It's also mad (but perhaps off topic) that you're perfectly entitled to HAVE sex at age 16, but you can't legally SEE it done, whether on TV or otherwise until at least 18!
As for the friendly fire instances, whilst I think think the video should be made available to the coroner for his purposes, I don't think necessarily something like that should be released to the public.
The second fact is the MOD’s refusal to produce, at a Coroners Court, a cockpit video of a ‘Blue on Blue’ friendly fire attack on UK troops by our American allies. The MOD claim that the video has not been declassified by the Americans and so they are not allowed to show it. How about getting the Secretary of Defence to attend the court and give him the option of producing the video or to spend some time in a cell in order to contemplate his options?
I have to agree with you, the bombing of our soldiers convoy by the American airforce was a grave injustice and their witholding evidence despicable. As it was in the case of Terry Lloyd where the inquest found that he was unlawfully killed yet there is no hope of his murderers ever standing trial.
However this is only a tiny part of a massive injustice where people are being murdered by America every day, not just soldiers, innocent women and children, children much younger than the 17 you were so concerned about in the British Army.
When we can shed as many tears, feel as much outrage, over a dead Iraqi child as we can over a dead British soldier then we have a chance of putting an end to these injustices.
It's sadly ironic that people are old enough to defend the country and its beliefs whilst not being deemed old enough to to indulge in some of lifes little pleasures.
A Thurso publican once gave me his opinion that if someone is old enough to work, pay tax to, and die for his country then at least he should be allowed a pint.
Argue with that!
It's also mad (but perhaps off topic) that you're perfectly entitled to HAVE sex at age 16, but you can't legally SEE it done, whether on TV or otherwise until at least 18!
As for the friendly fire instances, whilst I think think the video should be made available to the coroner for his purposes, I don't think necessarily something like that should be released to the public.
I agree entirely with what you say here - me thinks the rules are a bit upside down!! I think that the very youngest soldiers, eg under 21 should be treated like all service women - ie banned from the front line - that would surely help.
This is also possibly off-topic - but funny how women fought (and still fight for equal rights) but you don't hear them protesting about not being allowed to work underground, or fight in the frontline.
IN fact dozerboy the resons for women not fighting on the front line are not to do with their willingness to do it but more to do with ideas on chivalary and physical strength and ability.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2002661.stm
Personally I think it would be far more beneficial to have a properly trained female career soldier on the front line than a 17 year old fresh out of basic training.
George Brims
05-Feb-07, 21:54
This is also possibly off-topic - but funny how women fought (and still fight for equal rights) but you don't hear them protesting about not being allowed to work underground, or fight in the frontline.
Women *have* protested about not being allowed to fight. The US military now has female combat pilots. Some women have ended up fighting in combat accidentally, for instance the women in a US transport convoy that got lost during the Iraq invasion.
As for the friendly fire instances, whilst I think think the video should be made available to the coroner for his purposes, I don't think necessarily something like that should be released to the public.
It has been released to the public, what a Crown Coroner can't get the Sun newspaper can.
If the tape is authentic then it shows that there was some doubt before the attack if the convoy was Iraqi or coalition. Surely, unless there is imminent danger, if there is doubt you hold back before killing other humans.
Two paragraphs from the BBC website struck me.
He said the question was who is responsible for the error, adding that the Pentagon has a longstanding position not to let US servicemen appear before foreign tribunals.
and
The US government would view whoever leaked the video as "criminally responsible", the spokeswoman added.
Finding out who is responsible for the death of a British soldier doesn't matter, it's finding out who leaked the video which is important. The attack on the convoy was an "error" but the leaking of the tape is a crime.
I'm not saying that the Americans deliberately attacked a British convoy, I'm saying someone in the chain of command just didn't care if they attacked a British convoy or not, they just didn't care, they should carve that on the American Empires tombstone.
Pleased to hear Coroners Court will now accept video released by paper today due to the fact it is now in public domain.
UK has female pilots in Royal Air Force too, no discrimination with them as to who gets sent where - they go with the squadron and take their turn.
Just wish our troops were not out there - best wishes to all our folks out there.
Women *have* protested about not being allowed to fight. The US military now has female combat pilots. Some women have ended up fighting in combat accidentally, for instance the women in a US transport convoy that got lost during the Iraq invasion.
Maybe I didn't clarify what I meant - this law applies in the UK only. The US have their own military rules which differ from ours. Women can fight, just not in front line positions.
Blazing Sporrans
06-Feb-07, 15:16
Finding out who is responsible for the death of a British soldier doesn't matter, it's finding out who leaked the video which is important. The attack on the convoy was an "error" but the leaking of the tape is a crime.
Bravo fred. We have exchanged contrary opinion and the ensuing banter a few times, however I couldn't agree with you more here.
As an interesting aside, have UK troops ever fired on American allies during any recorded conflict? If so, I'd be intrigued by the US reaction. I don't think they'd be quite so detached about such a situation as they currently are when they are responsible for these 'errors'.
As an interesting aside, have UK troops ever fired on American allies during any recorded conflict? If so, I'd be intrigued by the US reaction. I don't think they'd be quite so detached about such a situation as they currently are when they are responsible for these 'errors'.
I don't know about that but I know that no American soldier has been killed by British fire in the present conflict.
At one point in 2003 more British soldiers had been killed by the Americans than by the Iraqis.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.