Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

send more=visible security
sounds a little lame, but works both ways. if bombers can see soldiers, soldiers can see bombers (or so my theory goes..)
Also what do you think of:
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world ... 362149.ece
that?

I'll get back to you on that one!!! Did you see today's Times article (front page pic) from the British front line? With the Royal Marines in Afganistan... Was quite interesting.

There is no other paper worth reading!
So yes I did.

99yorkpj wrote:I'll get back to you on that one!!! Did you see today's Times article (front page pic) from the British front line? With the Royal Marines in Afganistan... Was quite interesting.

No !

HOWEVER... 'The Sun', (page 3), raised a couple of very interesting points on the subject !

Trust JR to put his own intellectual slant on preceedings...

Well, I have to say I didn't see the Sun's article (not that I'd want to- urgh!)... But i'm sure it was fascinating JR.

They've gone and done it AGAIN!!! Sheer incompetence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6962071.stm

Give an American a fire-arm and they become twice as dangerous as they were before they were given the fire-arm !

marty wrote:They've gone and done it AGAIN!!! Sheer incompetence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6962071.stm

Yes - it's happened again and I can absolutely guarantee that it will happen again (and again) for as long as we indulge in warfare. I have made the point previously but I'll say it again: the reason why most of the 'friendly fire' incidents are by the US is that there are vastly more Americans involved in these conflicts. Warfare is nasty, bl**dy, disorganised and largely unpredictable, the only predictable thing being that people will die! There has been just so much nonsense in the Media and from politicians about 'precise, surgical strikes' but the truth is there is nothing surgical about war except the surgeons' actions after the event. The death or these 3 soldiers is a tragedy but, whatever the precise causes in this instance, deaths are an inevitable consequence of war. One can only assume that the Government in its wisdom made the decision that the loss of lives such as these is an acceptable consequence of its actions in invading Afghanistan (or Iraq or wherever next)!

J.R. wrote:
HOWEVER... 'The Sun', (page 3), raised a couple of very interesting points on the subject !

Fiona Bruce's I assume, noting the poster. Anyone else and I would have assumed it was serious

loringa wrote:

marty wrote:They've gone and done it AGAIN!!! Sheer incompetence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6962071.stm

Yes - it's happened again and I can absolutely guarantee that it will happen again (and again) for as long as we indulge in warfare. I have made the point previously but I'll say it again: the reason why most of the 'friendly fire' incidents are by the US is that there are vastly more Americans involved in these conflicts. Warfare is nasty, bl**dy, disorganised and largely unpredictable, the only predictable thing being that people will die! There has been just so much nonsense in the Media and from politicians about 'precise, surgical strikes' but the truth is there is nothing surgical about war except the surgeons' actions after the event. The death or these 3 soldiers is a tragedy but, whatever the precise causes in this instance, deaths are an inevitable consequence of war. One can only assume that the Government in its wisdom made the decision that the loss of lives such as these is an acceptable consequence of its actions in invading Afghanistan (or Iraq or wherever next)!

Although they "say" that there will be a full enquiry the last one commenced in december has not yet been concluded. The US has a record of not allowing its personnel to be interrogated about friendly fire deaths and I also note that of the Royal Anglian's deaths, over 33% died from "friendly fire" by Americans. The article also points out that the risks of such incidents exist only because the Ministry of Defence will not deploy an adequate number of personnel.

It really is all a matter of policy.

The Americans refuse to assist our coroners, or at their very best are evasive and somewhat economical with the truth.

I'm afraid it is a fact of life, (or death), that 'accidents' in war will occur.

The problem with the Yanks is, that they seem to have a gung-ho attitude, or to put it another way, shoot first, and ask questions second !

David: Leave Fiona's points of view out of this, or you'll have Marty after you !

sejintenej wrote:
... and I also note that of the Royal Anglian's deaths, over 33% died from "friendly fire" by Americans. The article also points out that the risks of such incidents exist only because the Ministry of Defence will not deploy an adequate number of personnel.

This is the quote from the article in question:


Wing Commander Andrew Brookes, a defence analyst, said such air cover must be relied on unless more troops were deployed on the ground.

"In this case it was an F15, an awesomely superb ground attack aeroplane but if you don't want that you have to provide enough troops on the ground... such as you don't need to call on the Americans to pull your chestnuts out of the fire," he said.

Seems to me that what the guy is saying is: "If you want the US to help (although I kind of thought it was originally the other way round...) you have to expect they'll drop the occasional bomb on you."

Or did I read this wrong?

J.R. wrote:It really is all a matter of policy.

The Americans refuse to assist our coroners, or at their very best are evasive and somewhat economical with the truth.

I'm afraid it is a fact of life, (or death), that 'accidents' in war will occur.

The problem with the Yanks is, that they seem to have a gung-ho attitude, or to put it another way, shoot first, and ask questions second !

I wasn't thinking about coroners when I wrote that - I was thinking about the Military Police when a British armoured car / personnel transporter was bombed in brioad daylight long after the end of the first Gulf War. After that they went and demolished a UN aircraft in mid flight because of some "error" or "oversight" in US command.

Gung Ho, definitely, in wartime - you must be joking.

we send the Nat West 3 to the USA but they refuse to send the Aircraft 2 to Britain when demanded..

J.R. wrote: David: Leave Fiona's points of view out of this, or you'll have Marty after you !

Just tell Marty that I am NOT that way inclined - after CH any male would be totally anti that!

To pick up on the article quoted:

Wing Commander Andrew Brookes, a defence analyst, said such air cover must be relied on unless more troops were deployed on the ground.

"In this case it was an F15, an awesomely superb ground attack aeroplane but if you don't want that you have to provide enough troops on the ground... such as you don't need to call on the Americans to pull your chestnuts out of the fire," he said.

This is all highly debatable: close air support can be extremely useful to the troops on the ground regardless of how many of them you have in theatre. In this instance it was provided by the USAF flying F15s rather than British Army Apaches or RAF Harriers. Whilst I wouldn't necessarily take issue with Wg Cdr Brookes' assertion as to the utilty of F15s in the ground attack role, I am not at all sure they are the most appropriate platform from which to deliver close air support, the clue being in the word close!