Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Noble intentions do not bring back the four dead soliders.

Just a question out of pure curiosity. If it had been Canadians in the air and US troops on the ground, and the situation and everything is exactly the same, would that change your opinion or thinking on what happend or how it was dealt with. Or if it had been Italian pilots who had cut a skilift cable in the US adn 20 US skiiers died?

At 1/15/07 12:31 PM, JoS wrote: Just a question out of pure curiosity. If it had been Canadians in the air and US troops on the ground, and the situation and everything is exactly the same, would that change your opinion or thinking on what happend or how it was dealt with. Or if it had been Italian pilots who had cut a skilift cable in the US adn 20 US skiiers died?

No it would not change my view at all. Fratricide happens in war, the USAF has bombed the USMC and Army aviation has struck Army armor. This could be because of my professional military background and so this issue is not as esoteric to me...

And sorry Mercator my friend...I've just found this to be an interesting discussion with JoS and it seemed like nobody had anything to add to the topic at hand...

At 1/15/07 02:00 PM, TheMason wrote: This could be because of my professional military background and so this issue is not as esoteric to me...

I don't assume the men at the assembely line know how to run the company

At 1/15/07 03:19 PM, Mercator wrote:

I dont think TheMason was at the "assembly line" More like he was the shift leader in the back of the factory.

My point was that having been in the military does not make him a say all expert.
Yes of course fratricide happens but with clarity and perperation it can be minimized. It's not too much to ask for someone to know both what they're doing and why they're doing it.

At

Stafffighter have you ever been to war? It can be really hard to tell at times friend from foe.

Quit it with the 'nam movie rhetoric. Yes it can be hard to tell friend from foe but that's why you have people who's only job is to find that out. When lives are on the line the situation is even less acedemic than you seem to think. It's something that must be done as carefully as the situation allows.

At 1/15/07 12:31 PM, JoS wrote: Noble intentions do not bring back the four dead soliders.

If that's your goal, you might end up disappointed.

Just a question out of pure curiosity. If it had been Canadians in the air and US troops on the ground, and the situation and everything is exactly the same, would that change your opinion or thinking on what happend or how it was dealt with.

It would depend on how rabid your newshawks are. Chances are, if most canadians are as insecure about their image compared to the US, then the coverage would probably be more dramatic.

Or if it had been Italian pilots who had cut a skilift cable in the US adn 20 US skiiers died?

Italian pilots over US soil? How about arabian pilots on commercial airliners ramming a skyscraper in an attempt to destroy the infrastructure of a nation? How much would foreign newsgroups react, and in what way?

Yes, I'm redirecting and whatnot, but I just can't help but correlate.

At 1/15/07 04:09 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Italian pilots over US soil? How about arabian pilots on commercial airliners ramming a skyscraper in an attempt to destroy the infrastructure of a nation? How much would foreign newsgroups react, and in what way?

Yes, I'm redirecting and whatnot, but I just can't help but correlate.

When corned in the wild the republican is at it's most desperate and feirce. This is when you can hear the distinctive battle call of "9/11, 9/11."

At 1/15/07 03:27 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/15/07 03:19 PM, Mercator wrote:

I dont think TheMason was at the "assembly line" More like he was the shift leader in the back of the factory.

My point was that having been in the military does not make him a say all expert.
Yes of course fratricide happens but with clarity and perperation it can be minimized. It's not too much to ask for someone to know both what they're doing and why they're doing it.

When life and death are at stake, when a few seconds could literally cost you or someone else their lives, then getting every bit of information could be more costly than doing what you think is right at that time. It was not something that the military did on purpose, it was friendly fire. Unfortunately it happens.

The pilots were punished, maybe not to the extent some people viewing it from the outside would have wanted, but for those who had all of the facts, they thought that it was enough. JoS, Mason, nor I have all of the facts about the case. So neither one of us can say for 100% what really happened. But the review board went over it with a fine tooth comb I guarentee you. And they did what they felt was right.

And to answer your question JoS, if it were Canadians that accidently hit US troops, then I'd still feel the same way as long as the Canadian military did a full investigation. As far as the Italian cable. There is no way the pilot could have dodged that, or known it was there. Try driving down the road at 90mph and looking out for a thin rope across the road. Its the same difference but they are going at 4 or 500mph and have a lot more things to look out for besides other traffic. The wire would not have been seen.

At 1/15/07 04:20 PM, ReiperX wrote:

When life and death are at stake, when a few seconds could literally cost you or someone else their lives, then getting every bit of information could be more costly than doing what you think is right at that time. It was not something that the military did on purpose, it was friendly fire. Unfortunately it happens.

Like I said I'm aware that it happens and in all likelyhood will always happen. Everything in combat happens quickly and the idea of training is to equip people to function and think as to to succeed in their mission and survive at that pace. While human error will remain a factor life and death situations demand the highest possible presicion.

At 1/15/07 04:13 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/15/07 04:09 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Italian pilots over US soil? How about arabian pilots on commercial airliners ramming a skyscraper in an attempt to destroy the infrastructure of a nation? How much would foreign newsgroups react, and in what way?

Yes, I'm redirecting and whatnot, but I just can't help but correlate.

When corned in the wild the republican is at it's most desperate and feirce. This is when you can hear the distinctive battle call of "9/11, 9/11."

Hi staff.

If six profile-fitting airline passengers start switching seats, according to known methods of hijack-preperation, is it wrong to remove them from the flight, as per passenger complaints and objections?

What, that's not the point? Neither are Italian military pilots flying over Aspen trying to clip skiiers in a vengeful "fuck you" to The Man. I simply drew from Reality instead of Imaginaryland. You know, where everyone really lives?

"When hiding in a corner, Democrats will pander to any fool who'll throw them a quarter for their troubles."

At 1/15/07 04:26 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Hi staff.

If six profile-fitting airline passengers start switching seats, according to known methods of hijack-preperation, is it wrong to remove them from the flight, as per passenger complaints and objections?

Not at all. Infact my whole stance has been to effeciantly gather useful and accurate information and then base action around it.

"When hiding in a corner, Democrats will pander to any fool who'll throw them a quarter for their troubles."

I'm not hiding. I just resent 9/11 being seen as a go to move.

Lee-loo, I fail to see how what you are tlaking about anyway relates to either the topic or the conversation at hand. When I ask about how people would feel if the US was on the dead side rather than the perpitraitor side hwo people woudl feel and you respond with talkign about 9/11 and passengers switching seats.

And I agree with Staff, when Reps. get backed into a corner 9/11 is their attempt to get out. Always, no matter how unrelated. Your refrences do not involve the military at all.

At 1/15/07 04:09 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 1/15/07 12:31 PM, JoS wrote: Noble intentions do not bring back the four dead soliders.

If that's your goal, you might end up disappointed.

Just a question out of pure curiosity. If it had been Canadians in the air and US troops on the ground, and the situation and everything is exactly the same, would that change your opinion or thinking on what happend or how it was dealt with.

Honestly, I'd feel pretty similar to reiper on this . . . as long as there is a studious investigation, I'd expect the offending nation's military to rein in it's own, triply so in a situation of allied friendly fire as opposed to say, mexican soldier being killed by a stray test missile 2 miles over the mexican border. And vice versa.

In cases of extreme negligence, like the example I gave (and not the low-flying fighter, which is actually a very weak claim for extraditing soldiers), damaged nations may request and expect full disclosure on the matter.

Or if it had been Italian pilots who had cut a skilift cable in the US adn 20 US skiiers died?

What are you insinuating? That people fail to see the from the injured side?

And echoing someone's elses hearty jest does not make you hearty, or jestful.

noodge

I think Stafff is starting to get to big for his overalls again.

Have you been listening to Teddy Kennedy again?

At 1/15/07 02:07 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/15/07 02:00 PM, TheMason wrote: This could be because of my professional military background and so this issue is not as esoteric to me...

I don't assume the men at the assembely line know how to run the company

Here is my current job duties so you can see what level of war I'm assigned to. Furthermore, I was an avionics technician on the F-16 so I am familiar with the systems and the environment these pilots and aircraft operate in. The rest of my response follows so at least scroll down...

AFSC (MOS) 1C5x1:
Duties and Responsibilities:
Identifies, maintains surveillance, and assists in controlling aerospace objects. Operates aerospace control and warning systems equipment, and simulation equipment. Interprets and reacts to radarscope presentation and to generated console displays. Compares and reports track positions based on flight data or data base files.

Assists in weapons control and performs surveillance, data link, identification, and data management functions in aerospace systems. Tears down, loads, unloads, and erects equipment and components. Performs as crew member of operational unit in functions of air weapons control. Responsible for safety of flight for air operations being controlled.
Gathers, displays, records, and distributes operational information. Coordinates with and exchanges air movement and identification information among air defense and air control, range control, and air traffic control agencies on matters pertaining to aircraft operations. Operates data link equipment and other automated data exchange devices to gather and relay operation information. Reports emergency signals, and ECM observations. Maintains logs, forms, and data base files. Evaluates radar detection and performance. Maintains liaison with air defense artillery, and surface and naval fire units to ensure safe passage of friendly air traffic.

Performs ECCM functions. Maintains maximum radar sensitivity using ECCM techniques to eliminate degradation caused by electronic warfare (EW) activities or other influences. Monitors operation of radar inputs and counter-measure consoles, anti-jamming displays, and radar sensors to enhance radar presentations. Recommends procedures and techniques to improve effectiveness of ECM and ECCM activities.
END QUOTE

My military duties put me in a Joint Air Operations Center (JAOC) where I am surrounded by commanders, pilots, intel and JAG officers...as well as members of other countries militaries such as Canada, UK or S. Korea. So to use your analogy I don't work on the assembly line; I work in the Boardroom...you know with the CEOs of a subsidary (not the parent company...that would be the White House). Furthermore John Kerry, I'm not some uneducated individual. My academic background more than qualifies me to understand what all those big words them there college edumacated ossifers are sayin'! Oh yeah, that same academic background also qualifies me to speak as an expert on these issues.

At 1/15/07 04:59 PM, JoS wrote: When I ask about how people would feel if the US was on the dead side rather than the perpitraitor side hwo people woudl feel.

JoS,

I also wanted to tell you that one of my best friends in the USAF is a Canadian citizen. I feel the loss of any soldier is a tragedy. Believe it or not I hate that it is sometimes necessary to kill the insurgents, Taliban or al-Qaida. When it is the result of an accident it is doubly bad because it is meaningless.

One day we put a pilot up in an F-16 at my base in S. Carolina. He didn't come back. The crew-chief did not properly attach his g-suit and the pilot passed out. When he came to he was heading straight for the Atlantic and punched out. He broke his neck on ejection and we believe he died immediately.

This man had passed on the NFL draft after college to fly for his country. He gave up a large salary to serve and not only as an athlete but as someone who earned his Masters from Harvard. He joined out of a sense of duty; and he died in a training accident.

I was a maintainer at the time. Before we knew the cause we were all depressed...wondering if what something either we personally or the crew we were part of caused his death.

I feel similar emotions when I hear about fratricide, so I do understand why civilians can get as emotional as they do because I get emotional as well. The difference is that I have a context to place it in.

So no...it does not matter to me the nationalities of either the victims or the people making the mistake.

i dont think anything is wrong with that at all in fact i am going to get that playboy just to protest it

At 1/16/07 01:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

My military duties put me in a Joint Air Operations Center (JAOC) where I am surrounded by commanders, pilots, intel and JAG officers...as well as members of other countries militaries such as Canada, UK or S. Korea. So to use your analogy I don't work on the assembly line; I work in the Boardroom..

You're the tech guy in the board room. There's nothing wrong with that but let's keep perspective

Furthermore John Kerry, I'm not some uneducated individual. My academic background more than qualifies me to understand what all those big words them there college edumacated ossifers are sayin'! Oh yeah, that same academic background also qualifies me to speak as an expert on these issues.

I pointed out that the base that you were in the military didn't make you an expert automatically. I never resorted to name calling.

At 1/16/07 05:35 PM, stafffighter wrote:
You're the tech guy in the board room. There's nothing wrong with that but let's keep perspective

To quote a great line from the Breakfast Club:

"Oh, really? You guys think I'm just some untouchable peasant? Peon? Huh? Maybe so, but following a broom around after shitheads like you for the past eight years I've learned a couple of things...I look through your letters, I look through your lockers...I listen to your conversations, you don't know that but I do.... ?I am the eyes and ears of this institution my friends By the way, that clock's twenty minutes fast. "

It's the tech guys, janitors, and manual laborers who tend to know the most, not the CEO's. Access is the key, not position. Since Mason is "in the boardroom" as it were, he knows just as much as the commanders, even if he's just there to clean the windows (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Ironically (and since this is my 'thing') enough, Roman and Greece had their equivalents in slaves. Since slaves were around all the time, they tended to know all the dirty little secrets of their masters, and that helpe keep the Man in check.....not bad for someone technically considered property, eh

Returning for a moment to what I actually started this topic for:

The magazine came in yesterday and the pictures of her in her uniform and holding weapons were just archival pictures of her, like establishing character. The only military equipment involved in the actual photoshoot were her dogtags.

At 1/17/07 08:21 AM, stafffighter wrote: Returning for a moment to what I actually started this topic for:

The magazine came in yesterday and the pictures of her in her uniform and holding weapons were just archival pictures of her, like establishing character. The only military equipment involved in the actual photoshoot were her dogtags.

so? i'm sure it's pretty clear about her being in the airforce. I'm no serviceman, but I can sure say as a normal American the USAF gets an image hit from it. I don't want my military delving into frivilous acts like pornography. They're here to show the best of our nation, not the low parts.

At 1/16/07 05:35 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/16/07 01:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

You're the tech guy in the board room. There's nothing wrong with that but let's keep perspective

Yeah a tech guy with a Masters in International Relations w/a National Security concentration.

A tech guy whose responsibility it is to watch "the big board" and ensure air space deconfliction is maintained to reduce the chance of fratricide.

Admit it, in this case your analogy is wrong.

I pointed out that the base that you were in the military didn't make you an expert automatically. I never resorted to name calling.

There was an implication in what you said. I've worked on an assembly line, it is monotonous brain-numbing work. You only see one aspect of how the factory operates and often your co-workers think they know better than management. You drew upon blue-collar boob stereotypes. Your name calling was subtle...

From this background I pointed out the arrogance in the way that you made your point. Yes I resorted to name calling...but at least I did it directly.