[luvtolean]

Exactly how it should be ruled. Outrageous this man was brought up on criminal charges...last thing in the world I want to see is our guys worrying about being sued for dropping a bomb in a war zone. Stupid political move on Bush's part for not immediately apologizing though.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._friendly_fire

[nomad]

That makes me sick.

What they didn't mention in the article is that the pilots were on drugs. I don't remember which ones, I think they were amphetomines (sp?). Basically uppers to keep them awake... they were returning from a standard mission and were buzzed on uppers, disobeyed orders and dropped bombs on troops training. Hell, they were flying over a training facility! What were they thinking?

I'm very disappointed in the ruling.

FWIW, the drugs they were on were not street legal and other air forces do not permit their use because it affects judgement. The US Air Force quietly endorces, even provides, the use of the drug... dammit... I gotta find the article on the drugs they were taking.

Eitherway, I think that if they had dropped bombs on US soldiers, the judgement would have swayed the other way.

[luvtolean]

No, it would not have swung the other way. They knew from the ruling that dismissing the charges would cause "fallout" with other countries. If it had been US troops, it just would have been more sad deaths (with a bunch of people around the world silently cheering)

If the USAF gives the pilots drugs (yes, I remember the discussion) then why do you blame the guy being given the drug and driving the plane? You hang the policy maker, not the guy working under it.

[nomad]

I don't disagree that the policy makers are partially at fault here too. Although I still believe we are accountable for our own actions. Since he wasn't following orders, surely he should be somewhat accountable. Even if it was manslaughter...

The facts, as I know them, are they weren't following orders, were on drugs and were under an altered mental state. That leads me to believe that they should face some consequences for their actions.

Regardless, something needs to change... soldiers have too much to worry about on the ground and shouldn't need to worry about their own troops firing on them.

[Skully]

Originally Posted by nomad

That makes me sick.


Eitherway, I think that if they had dropped bombs on US soldiers, the judgement would have swayed the other way.

[nomad]

Skully? Uh... that wasn't in jest so I don't see the humour.

Are you saying they would have been let off either way? That is a valid opinion but so is mine.

[Skully]

Originally Posted by nomad

Skully? Uh... that wasn't in jest so I don't see the humour.

Are you saying they would have been let off either way? That is a valid opinion but so is mine.

I didn't see any humor in it either, only biased ignorance.

[nomad]

Whatever floats your boat dude.

4 dead soldiers... no enemy in sight... no charges laid... I guess nobody is to be held accountable.

[johnnycrash]

Originally Posted by nomad

FWIW, the drugs they were on were not street legal and other air forces do not permit their use because it affects judgement. The US Air Force quietly endorces, even provides, the use of the drug... dammit... I gotta find the article on the drugs they were taking.

Eitherway, I think that if they had dropped bombs on US soldiers, the judgement would have swayed the other way.

Yeah, that's it. The whole US military is on drugs. Who told you that? Michael Moore?

You continually crack me up!

[nomad]

JohnnyCrash, stop wasting bandwidth and my time.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/20/friendlyfire021220

LTL, I respect your opinion and would have liked to continue this discussion, however, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork in this thread so we'll just have to finish it over a beer one day.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by nomad

JohnnyCrash, stop wasting bandwidth and my time.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/20/friendlyfire021220

LTL, I respect your opinion and would have liked to continue this discussion, however, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork in this thread so we'll just have to finish it over a beer one day.

"The U.S. military says the drugs are controlled and has ruled out the pills as being responsible for the incident"

Yeah, this has come out before. IMO it is nuts to give combat pilots drugs that hype them up and then claim that it doesn't affect their decision making process. I used to race motocross with a guy who used uppers and he was crashing all over the place. The guy was a menace!

I'll second your response to LTL. I wish more people in this country would take the trouble to find out what's going on around them.

[MACI4LIFE]

Originally Posted by nomad

JohnnyCrash, stop wasting bandwidth and my time.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/20/friendlyfire021220

LTL, I respect your opinion and would have liked to continue this discussion, however, the trolls are coming out of the woodwork in this thread so we'll just have to finish it over a beer one day.

LOL.

someone has to be held accountable, but if the higher ups are providing the drugs, then it should start there. but like Zenblader posted, they dismissed the idea that drugs were to blame. it's lose/lose for everyone.

[nomad]

Playing the devi's advocate... if drugs were NOT to blame, then what is? Pilot error? Pilot's not following orders? The facts remain that they were told NOT to fire and they continued anyway. I don't believe the higher ups hold 100% responsibility in this case, I think the pilots should be accountable given the circumstances.

I do agree that no matter what the results are, nobody gained anything from this situation.

[luvtolean]

There are all kinds of things that could be to blame other than drugs.

Poor briefing by his superiors before the mission. The Canadian troops on the ground could've been out of place.

I don't know the whole story, so I can't say for sure.

My opinion revolves around a simple fact, I don't want any pilot thinking about a lawsuit when doing their duty.

Let's not forget the pilot. A former Top Gun instructor. To abuse the cliche, this guy was the best of the best. I highly suspect there is a lot more to this story than any of us know.

[nomad]

I think I'll add my final thoughts here...

Firstly, I commend the pilot for standing up to face the court martial rather than hiding behind some settlement.

Secondly, I still believe there should be some consequence because in addition to my statements above, the pilots had alternative actions they could have taken if they were not sure. For instance, the pilots could have cleared the zone when they felt they were in danger. Apparently they were travelling at close to 600km/h at the time and would have cleared any fire from below in seconds. They chose to attack anyway.

Here is another article talking about how the pilots *should* have known about the training ground and although they contacted the tower, they didn't wait for a response before firing.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/16/bomb_inquiry030116

I still haven't found a justification for why these guys were let off so lightly.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

There are all kinds of things that could be to blame other than drugs.

Poor briefing by his superiors before the mission. The Canadian troops on the ground could've been out of place.

I don't know the whole story, so I can't say for sure.

My opinion revolves around a simple fact, I don't want any pilot thinking about a lawsuit when doing their duty.

Let's not forget the pilot. A former Top Gun instructor. To abuse the cliche, this guy was the best of the best. I highly suspect there is a lot more to this story than any of us know.

I agree with you regarding the notion that combat pilots have enough to handle without having to worry about ramifications should they make a mistake. Mistakes happen. Plenty in war. That has always been the case. But I am uneasy about the direction of military policy during the past few decades. I don't like the idea of giving fighting men and women drugs to "enhance" their performance. Drugs that are illegal on the streets of America. If there was a bus accident killing many people and it was found that the driver was using uppers, his ass would be ground round. I don't like the propensity to use cover-ups and lies as a first defense when mistakes are committed, ie: the wedding bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq, the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, the continued claim that the reponsibility for detainee abuse is limited to a handful of grunts, etc. I don't like the notion that a percentage of collateral damage (civilian deaths, women and children) is acceptable in a military operation. Yes it is inevitable, but it should never be considered acceptable. I don't like the attitude that comes through in interviews with military personnel both high up and front line, that it's us against the world. IMO these examples run counter to traditional American values and concepts. It is no wonder that America has lost much standing in the global community. IMO we have forgotten who we are.

[johnnycrash]

Being an ex-Air Force F-16 avionics tech I take it somewhat personally when I hear our guys being bad mouthed as if they were common crack-smoking drug-bags up there flying their planes around just recklessly bombing everything in sight. I apologize for the tone of my first post in this thread.

I had read previously about the “go-pills” and their having been considered early on as a possible reason behind this friendly fire incident. This was not news to me. I also knew they had been quickly ruled out as a contributor to this accident.

Being in the first Iraq war (the justified one) I saw firsthand what these pilots go through and what kind of men they are. Only the very best of the very best ever attain the title of fighter pilot. These guys literally dedicate their entire lives to reach that position. Out of thousands of trainees who aspire to fly a fighter jet only a handful make it. What am I saying here? I am saying that the typical American fighter jock is a top-notch person who worked extremely hard to get where they are and are not “drugged-up-Tom-Cruise-wannabe-show-offs”.

Anywho … I do think it was a total disaster that we bombed those Canadians. Since the pilots are from my hometown I have followed this from the moment the incident occurred – the media reports around here are probably biased in the pilots favor since they are from the Illinois Air Guard.

I have heard that the pilots did not even know the Canadians were down there until after they had already bombed them. To me that is not the pilots’ fault but the mission control persons’ fault. Also, our pilots do have the authority to fire on any target if they feel they are being threatened – so there is a possible justification for what they did. I think the pilots were perhaps a little overzealous when they swooped in and dropped those 500-pounders but I also think they weren’t told until it was too late that there were friendlies in the area. Nomads account sounds a little different so maybe I don’t have all my facts 100% correct. Like I said, the local media here makes them (the pilots) sound like innocent victims of the system. Biased? Probably.

I do think someone should pay – but I am not sure sending a man to prison for up to 64 years was the answer. Those guys will live the rest of their lives knowing their mistakes needlessly took the lives of four fellow soldiers. I think that combined with what is effectively the end of their careers is enough. Maybe, maybe not – I guess that is just a matter of opinion. Like LTL said, if these guys were sent to prison then every fighter pilot everywhere will be thinking about lawsuits as they do their duty. Not good.

In the first Iraq war more US soldiers died from friendly fire than from combat action. It is just something that unfortunately happens although I am sure that is little consolation to the families of those Canadian soldiers. Bottom line is it was a damn shame.

Sorry for the long post.

[rocket]

Originally Posted by johnnycrash

In the first Iraq war more US soldiers died from friendly fire than from combat action. It is just something that unfortunately happens although I am sure that is little consolation to the families of those Canadian soldiers. Bottom line is it was a damn shame.

Well put JC.

[nomad]

JohnnyCrash, I hear what you are saying and this post makes much more sense to me than the previous one so thanks for that.

I'm not condemning all pilots. I am upset that these ones were off the hook for the reasons stated above - no, not 64 years, but there should have been SOME consequences.

I also understand that there was confusion about what was going on below and that happens, I'm sure. However, the reports I have read regarding the testimony of their colonel was that they ruled out "fog of war" and the link posted above says that it is the pilots responsibility to find out what training exercises are happening before their missions. To be honest, if they knew they were flying over a training facility that had their own side training on it... shouldn't they have at least considered the possibility it was one of their own? It sounds like they fired prematurely to me.

BTW, as for the jail term, I was under the impression it was 6-months, not 64-years. I don't remember where I got that number from so I may be way off. At any rate, I'm not calling for his head but surely a punishment.

I also agree with you that mission control should have warned them of live-fire exercises happening below... it sounds like they did but too late (and only upon request).

Just to reinforce my first comment, I don't consider military, USA or otherwise, to be bad people or Top Gun type jock/flyboys. My cousin is a pilot in the military as well and I have a great deal of respect for him. I still don't agree with the go-pills being handed out.

[zenblader]

I understand your concern expressed on behalf of those who risk their lives and have sacrificed so much.
The problem I have is this:

I had read previously about the “go-pills” and their having been considered early on as a possible reason behind this friendly fire incident. This was not news to me. I also knew they had been quickly ruled out as a contributor to this accident.

Who ruled the go-pills out as a factor? The military? Of course they did. And quickly!

[luvtolean]

Zen, giving drugs to soldiers has been going on since man understood there were drugs that could enhance performance or alertness. (at least 1000 years that I know of) This is well documented if you do some reading on the topic.

Now, I don't know what these guys were given, but I assure you, it cannot compare to adrenaline while being shot at. Those drugs are only gonna be useful during the "lulls" in combat (like when flying in and out), when being shot at Vitamin A takes over.

Were the Canadian troops firing on the planes?

[johnnycrash]

Originally Posted by zenblader

Who ruled the go-pills out as a factor? The military? Of course they did. And quickly!

Yes, you have a point. I guess we'll REALLY never know.

Those same pills were occasionally taken by our pilots back in Iraq war #1. I just don't personally believe our guys are up there all wacked out on drugs. Then again - I am somewhat biased by my past experiences as an Air Force puke.

[nomad]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Were the Canadian troops firing on the planes?

No. They were in a live fire exercise on a gun range, just outside of the base. It was a known Canadian training facility and range. Surprised there was gunfire there?

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Zen, giving drugs to soldiers has been going on since man understood there were drugs that could enhance performance or alertness. (at least 1000 years that I know of) This is well documented if you do some reading on the topic.

Now, I don't know what these guys were given, but I assure you, it cannot compare to adrenaline while being shot at. Those drugs are only gonna be useful during the "lulls" in combat (like when flying in and out), when being shot at Vitamin A takes over.

Were the Canadian troops firing on the planes?

Hey, LTL,

I don't really care if there is evidence of providing performance "enhancing" drugs to soldiers down thru recorded history. It's stupid. Humans have done alot of stupid things during recorded history. Should we give uppers to air traffic controllers who suffer thru long hours of tedium punctuated by moments of stress. Should we give them to cops? Firefighters? It is contradictory to assert that these drugs "enhance" without admitting that they "affect" brain function.

There were measures taken to inform pilots and air controllers, and there were measures taken to protect the Canadians during excersizes. All these measures failed in this instance. Why did they fail? Probably many factors but I wouldn't arbitrarily rule out the go-pills. Just sayin...