Disgusted - Friendly Fire in Afghanistan
 

Yesterday while attending a Canada Day party for friends of mine that are shipping out to Afghanistan we recieved news from the US military:
__________________________________________________ __
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US pilot whose bombing killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan (news - web sites) will be court-martialed for dereliction of duty, the Air Force said.

Air National Guard pilot Major Harry Schmidt last week refused nonjudicial punishment in the case and demanded a court-martial.

No trial date has been set. "The Air Force Trial Judiciary's Central Circuit will assign a trial judge and a trial date in the near future," the Air Force said in a statement.

Eighth Air Force commander Lieutenant General Bruce Carlson decided not to pursue involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault charges against Schmidt, the statement said.

The nonjudicial punishment Schmidt rejected carries a maximum punishment of the loss of a month's pay, confinement to quarters for 30 days, restriction to a specific area for 60 days and a reprimand.

He now faces a much stiffer potential penalty of up to six months confinement and forfeiture of all pay during that time.

Schmidt, flying an F-16 fighter jet over Afghanistan on April 17, 2002, dropped a 500-pound bomb on what he thought was the source of hostile ground fire.

The shooting turned out to be Canadian soldiers engaged in a live-fire exercise south of Kandahar at a range known as Tarnak Farm.

The bombing killed four soldiers and wounded eight others from the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry. They were Canada's first combat deaths since World War II.

Major William Umbach, the pilot of an accompanying F-16, was given a career-ending letter of reprimand for failing to exercise proper control over Schmidt and ensuring that the rules of engagement were followed.

A joint investigation blamed Schmidt and Umbach for the deaths, concluding their failure to observe appropriate flight discipline resulted in "an inappropriate use of lethal force."

The case has tested relations between the United States and Canada, and set those demanding punishment for the deaths against others who believe the pilots were being treated harshly because of foreign policy considerations.

A military hearing found there was sufficient evidence to bring Schmidt and Umbach to trial but recommended nonjudicial punishment in the interests of good order and discipline.
__________________________________________________ __


So what? Some trigger happy idiot who was more than happy to disregard orders, who failed to follow standard combat proceedure, and failed to even think is going to get a little slap on the wrist!?!!?!?!

It's crap like this that pisses me off more and more when dealing with the US administration. I lost a good friend because of some yahoo cowboy, and now that same cowboy is going to walk away! It's time the US military and administration was more accountable to both its allies and other countries........ oh wait, they aren't because they are the only western nation to oppose the International Criminal Court, and have cut funding to nations that did.....

I would like to see what would have happened if the situation was reversed though. I don't think it's fair to judge because had a canadian pilot done the same, I would tend to think that about the same would be happening right now as well.

War is hell, and things do happen and allies and "friendlies" are wounded and killed by friendly fire. It's sad but it's a harsh reality. In any event, it's sad that lives were lost, I think anyone will agree with that.

Edited...

Just wanted to add that as I understand the article, he is actually going up against a worse punishment than previously. As I also understand itl, a court martial doesn't usually go to the favor of the def....don't know the exact truth in that though.

Ok, I might have misinterpreted the article, but didn't he give up his so-called slap on the wrist to risk losing it all with the court martial? It seems to me that he would have been better off with the punishment that he was given in comparison to a court martial. From what I have seen on the news, he seemed very disturbed by the military's suggested "punishment" and for that reason he chose the court martial....maybe I'm wrong. :confused:

i hardly see this as a slap on the wrist.

What did you want? for this guy to be hung? He made a mistake, war is hell and accidents happen.

Were the Canadians drafted? or did they volunteer? In today's American volunteer military you understand that in wartime there is always a chance you could be a casualty. I don't know how the canadian army works.

Irregardless, by going to court-martial, there is a chance he will be more severely reprimanded than with the non-judicial punishment. He can be confined up to 6 months and he risks being discharged from the Air Force with a probabilty of forfeiture of his military benefits.

While that won't bring back the soldiers that were inadvertadly killed, it could ruin this man's life.

As far as the international crimes court, i NEVER want to see us involved. That puts the lives and well-being of US servicemen and women in the hands of people who don't have their best interests at heart. The same reason i oppose the continued US involvement in the UN. As far as i'm concerned, tell em to pack their bags and get the hell out of NYC.

Kitso
KS 361

Re: Disgusted
 

What makes you think he was a cowboy?

Okay here's a little primer on military law:

The first punishment (which the other pilot accepted), basically ended his career and he will no doubt be barred from combat missions in the future.

Schmidt (arrogant little prick that he is) has public stated that he has done no wrong and is being used as a scape goat by the high-ups. He has therefore vowed that he will fight this, so that he can fly again. He has risked greater punishment (although reduced from manslaughter) for a greater reward. If the court finds in his favour, he gets off scot-free: no ban from flying, no reprimand on his record, no fine, no prison time, and no further chance for punishment.


As for the incident; the article put out by the Air Force Press has left out a number of facts.
1. The Canadians were in a recognized training zone next to the main base. This zone has been used by all members of the coalition and is a recognized "caution" zone for pilots.
2. The Canadians filled all the required paperwork and notified the command of its intent to train that night. In sort they followed procedure.
3. The ground fire consisted of small-arms fire with some support weapons (.50 cal) firing on a set practice range. It has been conjectured the "fire" seen by the pilots were tracer rounds ricocheting off of rocks on the ground.
4. The F-16s were in at no time in danger of being hit by the rounds as they were flying above 10000 feet. So even if the fire was directed at them, there was no chance of them being hit.
5. Schmidt claims that they were under fire from "light-artillery", a very dubious claim, as artillery isn't a threat to aircraft either. Nor were there any weapons mathcing his discription.
6. Both the AWAC and his wingman advised Schmidt to hold fire and identify his target. He then aprox. 1 sec later "rolled-in", or attacked the Canadians.
7. Schmidt has never apologized to the families of the soldiers killer, nor to his comrades. He has stated that he was doing his job and that these things happen. His wingman Umbach has apologized for a "grievous and unforgivable mistake" and accept his punishment.
8. Despite what the article said Canadians have suffer casualties in war after WWII. In fact the same unit recieved a Presidental Citation (the only non-US unit ever) for its actions in Korea.

Now what the Canadian goverment asked is that the men be tried for involuntary manslaughter, and that they never fly combat missions again. All in all a resonable request.... now the families have only requested that they be informed and that the men be banned from flying.

Yes the Canadians did volunteer, we have been a volunteer force since Canada was founded (136 years); we have never sent drafted troops into combat.

As for ruining his life... TS he killed 4 men and injured 9 others (3 of which are now need wheelchairs). He ruined or ended the lives of 13 men, and he refuses to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

As for your views on the ICC, they are very norrow-minded. You expect other countries to be held accountable to what you percieve as the "law" (i assume), yet they US shouldn't be held to the same standard that they promote?

As difficult as it is to wade through your anti-American sentiment I feel the need to point out that a U.S. Serviceman has decided to invoke his 6th and 7th rights. As a civilian that enjoys the freedom that the military has chosen to protect through out our history I don’t feel it is my place to stand on the sidelines and judge a man and expect him to embrace punishment.

He's still going up against a court martial. He feels that he is innocent, I can't say I agree with him because I do feel he was wrong in the incident. But that's only my opinion and he feels he didn't make a mistake. He is entitled to a fair trial under our "law" and government. If found guilty, his punishment will be much worse than if he admitted his guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

Based on the facts that you presented about the case, I don't think he has much of a chance of winning. But he is entitled to that chance under our "law."

I'm sorry about your friend and your countrymen. Nothing good ever comes from war.

That's exactly what I was thinking....

Damasa, your PM box is full.

True he does have his 6th and 7th rights (slightly ammened for military law and justice). However I feel that it would be nice for him to uphold his oath as an officer (and hopefully gentleman) and accept his fault, and take his punishment. This is a sentiment that the Air Force tries to embody... just look at the oaths, and codes of conduct of the the Air Force Academy.

My sentiments aren't anit-american, as in not against the people of the US, but rather in fact against the current administration and against people who fight to protect an ideal, but refuse to hold themselves to it.........

Sorry about the inbox, I cleaned it out...

Frankly, Rob, you are entitled to your opinions, as we all are...

However for quite some time I've found your comments to be rather harsh toward the United States, and particularly our Armed Forces.

I have no way of knowing whether you mean them to be that way or not -- but the fact is that they do come across that way.

As for the "Friendly Fire" incident in question, I don't know where the blame lies -- although it appears to be with the pilot -- but you can hardly blame a person for defending himself. That's why we have laws and the institutions to judge and enforce them.

Personally, I admire Canada and it's people, but sometimes resent the tone of your posts. You may say whatever you like, within reason, but we don't have to enjoy the slights.

By the way, generally, the "a" in American is capitalized -- just as the "c" in Canada is.

I agree with you. And just to be insulting Rudey...*Waves a giant American Flag*

-Rudey

I think we all need to realize that Rob lost a good friend in all of this - I'm really sorry for your loss, my prayers are with you and the family of those lost.

I don't agree with what's said in your posts about the United States...but if I lost a good friend in a situation such as this, who knows what I'd be thinking.

Again, my thoughts and prayers are with you.

I agree with KSigKid. I'm truly sorry that you lost a good friend, Rob. No matter what happens to the pilot responsible, it won't bring him back, but I'm sure that it makes the whole ordeal more difficult when you feel that justice hasn't been served.

I don't know enough about the situation to say what should be done one way or another, but I am so very sorry about what happened. Human lives were needlessly lost and whether they're American lives or Canadian lives, it's a terrible tragedy.

I personally don't see what the loss of his friend has to do with this man's pending prosecution. Have we all forgotten that this serviceman has not been convicted, nor for that fact even tried for a crime? So don't tell me that he should "take his punishment as an officer and genteleman" that is BS. He has not been tried in a court of law and I expect NO MAN to take a punishment without a fair and legal trial.

I understand you are out for blood. You also make anti-American statements every time you post. War is hell and the guy made a mistake. (He may be found guilty and pay a steep price) It happens. If Canadians can't handle it, keep your boys at home. Got it? I am tired of hearing you whine. GOD BLESS THE USA!

P.S. I still love the Maple Leafs

You have my deepest sympathy.

Some of these replies are just plain mean. If I had lost a friend under questionable circumstances, I would be just as mad and upset as Rob is. He has a personal stake in what happened, we don't (at least not directly). Let the man grieve, for goodness sakes.

As far as Rob's "anti-American" posts, I am far less bothered by them than I am bothered by anti-American posts written by people who actually reap all the very real benefits of being an American.

I'm incredibly sorry for your loss. If the area the pilot bombed was a KNOWN practice area, he should have known better, but that's just me. I do have my own opinions on the judicial system as it applies to our military forces but I won't post them here because I'm bound to be flamed for them. However, when this whole thing comes to fruition and his punishment is dealt to him, I'll say something...

I'm sorry Rob lost a friend, too. I lost a lot of them in Vietnam, and I'm still not too happy with the "reasons" we were there. But I keep it to myself. You don't hold a whole country or it's Armed Forces in contempt for this kind of thing. It was a mistake.

**this post is direct and to-the-point, so you are forewarned, don't read if you dont want to**

As a dual citizen of both Canada and the US ((and someone who has lived in canada for 12 years and the US for 7 yrs)) i pay particular attention to both sides of the story and generally have no bias. but i have started to notice that canadians cry the blues quite a lot when it comes to canadian/american conflicts such as this one, while americans just accept it at face value and go on with life. even if the situation was reversed, i still feel that americans would accept it as a mistake and take no ill feelings towards canada bc of it. i think its high time some canadians got off there mountain of self pity and insecurity and realized the US is NOT out to get them, and that canada is NOT "always and perpetually" shortchanged. besides, if you want something changed or fixed, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! DONT WHINE!!


other then that, i am very sorry for your loss. dont go thinkin im some insensitive meanie, its just that i keep noticing this repeating behavior and thought id share my $.02

I don't see any whining on this board on the part of RACooper at all, nor do I see anything overarching to resent. It's true that his punishment, even with the court martial, is relatively small--less, in fact, than what Kelly Flynn received for her indiscretions (general discharge and full reimbursement to USAFA). The soldier's actions sound not unlike those of one Lieutenant William Calley--another person who received a relatively light sentence and eventually had it revoked. The rules of wartime are different from the rules of peacetime--and sometimes that turns into people receiving light punishments for heinous or reckless things.

If saying that makes me "Anti-American" in the eyes of some GC readers, then it is their problem, not mine.

Are you saying that there is a parrallel between an ANG Major who, perhaps carelessly -- but all the same accidentally, drops a bomb on a live fire exercise from 10,000 feet, and an infantry Leiutenant who knowingly orders the murder of non-combatants, including women and children within his field of view?

Neither qualify as bright spots in our military history, but somehow, I miss the relationship.

One, I do not make anti-American statements everytime I post. I present a different opinion, albeit often different one. My opinions will of course be different, I come from a different country, enviroment, educational system, and background. To simple dismiss my opinion with the label "anti-American" is actually one of the things that bothers me the most..... as it is something that I am always trying to promote the idea of debate about issues, or the challenge preconceived notions or opinions.

As for your juvenile and jackass comment about if Canadians can't handle the concept of casualities then stay home...... what I object to is some "hotshot" disregarding his ROE and SOP, causing the death of people who were not in combat or in any threat of enemy action. They were in a training area WITHIN the confines of the coalition base and were in the same area that American forces were using the previous week for training.

Whoa... hold on there.

Comparing the actions of Calley to those of Schimdt is like comparing those of a murderer to a drunk-driver. Calley knowingly ordered his men to commit murder, by ordering them to fire on and kill unarmed civilians. Schimdt disregarded his ROE and SOP which led to the deaths of the Canadians. Schimdt did not know that his actions would lead to the death of friendlies, while Calley certainly knew that his actions would lead to the death of innocents.

I do agree with you that Calley should not have been granted a pardon, as that doesn't set a very good example or precedent. However I also believe that more should have been said about the helicopter pilots and crew that disobeyed orders and put themself between Calley men and the civilians in order to protect them; these are men that should be honoured for their actions.

I might have read this wrong but he asked for the possible harsher penalty for what he did.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Major is taking a calculated risk that could either see him given a harsher penalty, or be acquitted. With what we have heard (notice I didn't say "know"), I'm not sure that was a wise move on his part, but he has the right to exercise his options to what he believes are his best advantage. Again, that's his absolute right.

One more comment. I have been critical of Rob above because of comments now and in the past, that I believe are somewhat anti-American and anti-American Military. At the very least, somewhat over-nationalistic -- to create a new phrase.

However, it does not help, nor is it fair, to reverse that tactic. Canada has been our ally much more often than not. For the most part they have not "kept their boys home." They were by our side on D-Day and in many other unpleasant situations. Their armed forces acquitted themselves brilliantly in many situations. They continue to work with us protecting the North American continent at NORAD just down the road from me in Colorado Springs.

Rob has said a few things that ruffled our (my) feathers a bit. I wish he would temper his comments some. I think some have been off base. However, I hope there is a difference between commenting and explaining a way I may have been offended, and attacking someone's country -- or him personally.

The older I get, and the more things I experience, the more gray, and less black and white I see.

That's true on what I read from both sides of this debate.

Perhaps Rob was saying that the problem is that this man was given a choice in his punishment. He should never have been given a choice.

This is just my interpretation of Rob's post. Rob, if I am wrong please correct me.

Also, I'm not giving an opinion. I haven't been following this closely enough to give a resonably educated opinion. So please don't go jumping down my throat.

Just for clarity sake do you mind of I deconstruct to see if I am following all this correctly?

There seem to be three interlocking issues that are behind Rob's Post.

1. His grief and outrage over the death of friend(s) (?) or at least fellow Canadians.

2. Dismay at the way the US treats Canada as an ally.

3. And dissaporoval that a man would violate procedures in a way that actively leads to the death of others. In this case dropping a bomb.

All three are really seperate issues but when woven together into an emotional position I can see why someone (Rob) might show some angst, or strong emotion.

But its almost impossible to answer someone's angst satisfactorily, we can only discuss the issues.

As for number one, there is nothing we can say that can come remotely close to assuaging your grief or bringing those dead men back to life. But you can trust us that we are sorry as much as each of us can empathize with you.

As for number two. Thats really a policy issue of your government. To tell you the truth, I have been surprised a few times when Canada seems to just bow to US pressure, demands, or agenda.

And as for number three the court martial will sort that out. And the only thing I can say is that War is an irrational situation, a rational Army would go home. It ill behooves those of us that have never experienced a shot fired in anger to jump to quickly to conclusions about the actions of people in those situations.

Wow, possibly I should have been a little more exact in my comparison of the two men. I am not in any way comparing the scope of the incidents, I am neither that rash nor that uneducated; instead I chose to focus on the impact that the rather lax (in many cases) military justice system is in the case of recklessness of troops that results in the death of non-enemies. That has impacted this country for better or for worse, as has it our allies.

Rob's posts aren't anti-U.S. Stating that Canada is not the same country as the U.S. isn't anti-American, its statement of Fact.

Okay... just got back from my buddies cottage in Michigan. (sunburnt and hung-over), and talking to him it occurred to me that there are some significant cultural differences between the US and Canadian military.... so I'll try to explain some of the reasons why this whole court-martial thing really yanks my chain.

The Canadian Military follows the British regimental tradition; this tradition is close to the Fraternity system in a way. Every regiment has its own traditions, rituals, and history... all of which are very important. The regiment is your fraternity/family, a little more so than the US military (look this is what has been said by the Marines I know). Each regiment has alumni (invited to anniversary/memorial dinners) that are always treated with respect; each regiment has a badge which is more or less a coat of arms, with a latin (Scots gaelic, French, Huron, or Irish gaelic on some others) motto that represents the ideal of the unit; each regiment has a song, usually a mascot, a museum, a standard (think battle flag from Napoleonic or Civil War), and a number of messes.

The "Mess" is a cross between a chapter room and pub, with three messes for each regiment; one for the junior ranks (every enlisted man below Sgt.), a Sgt. Mess which is a little fancier, and finally an Officer's Mess. All of these share common traits; each has it's own traditions and rituals. For example when entering a mess your headdress must be removed, in honour of those who have come before you, and to in effect remove your official rank... everyone is theoretically equal in the mess (what happens in the mess stays in the mess). Another one is that other ranks are barred from the mess; they must ask permission and be escorted into the mess. Each mess also acts as a museum, with photos, trophies, uniforms, weapons, and other relics on display.... this serves to educate the members and impress upon them the weight of history and honour of the Regiment.

Now, every member of the regiment is educated in the history of the regiment's honours and failures (and other regiments will remind you of any dishonour :)). For example one artillery regiment lost it's guns during WWI, they were just recently allowed to remove various "marks" denoting this shame.

Now I was attached to the PPCLI (Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) while on duty with the UN, so a lot of the history and traditions of the unit has been impressed upon me. Because I was an outsider (from another unit) I was basically a "pledge" until I proved myself.... which happened rather quickly when I mentioned that my grandfather's brother had served as a Corporal with the unit during WWII. Now here is the important part - my grandfather's brother was killed as a result of friendly fire - and the regiment has never forgotten this (they still hold a dinner in memorial). The PPCLI lost 160 men to a bombing attack by the US Air Force as they moved to try and relieve pressure on the US front following D-Day..... The PPCLI lost 13 men to a bombing attack by the US Air Force in Korea, after the US unit holding their left flank broke..... The first incident still outrages some of the veterans because the attack was on the rear lines and medic station, some still refuse to allow any US personnel into the regimental chapel. The second was less agonizing because it was in a combat situation, partly because the PPCLI called artillery down on themselves 30 mins. later to keep the Chinese from overrunning he position. All of this came to a boil when the PPCLI suffered the friendly fire again from the Air Force in Afghanistan..... something the unit has tried very, very hard to prevent (because of it's history).

The fall-out of the latest friendly-fire is alot of anger and bitterness towards the US Air Force (not the Army... they still get along quite well). A number of members have resigned, and there is a lot of "barracks talk" about not participating in an US control actions, or at least near US troops for a very long time. So basically all the dark-jokes and black humour about them watching there backs around the US Air Force turned horribly real again.... and some of the family bitterness was brought back to the surface.

Okay- let me say this in a non threatening, nonholier than thou way (I hope).
I have a close friend who just came back from Iraq. He said that they hardly get any sleep, they are given food, but water is so scarce and hard to come by it is a resource he never thought he would miss as much as he did. He told me about the heat, and the cold (at night) about the people and the pressure. About his tank breaking down every so many miles and about the problems he is still battling with inside for what he has seen/done.
that being said, you don't know what was going on in the pilots mind. He made a mistake, and it hurt people, no doubt, and i am sure that he knows that, but if you were in the same position you don't know what you would have done. IF you thought your plane was under attack, sometimes your instincts come through. I am just saying, you may not have a totally ACCURATE assesment of the situation in which he was in!
NOW- as for the "hotshot" and "cowboy" comments, I personally feel offended. We are not talking about Maverick in TOP GUN< we are talking about a pilot, during wartime= I doubt any of these guys are out trying to show off. They are scared and working in the best situation they can make of it.
And as for the US and Canada- your country has NEVER been attacked like the US was on Sept. 11, and if IT HAD BEEN! Who do you think they would turn to? Britain? I seriously doubt it! You would have come to the US and we would have helped (JUST LIKE WE ALWAYS DO) and Idon't think you would be making comments like you seem to do...
I am sorry that your country lost more lives. It is war, people make mistakes, and no one is perfect. It sucks, it is unfair, and it is life. Perhaps you should wait and HEAR HIS SIDE before JUDGING>...

I just got back from welcoming some friends of mine, that are Marines, back from the Gulf. Yes I know about the stress and the tension, the lack of sleep and supplies, and yes I know that it can get confusing.... I served with the Canadian Forces for 7 years and did a tour in Bosnia (before NATO got invovled). I know what it is like to be shot at, and feel that you are under attack.... I was trained to keep my head and THINK! seek cover and determine the threat and target before you act. It takes a second. Schimdt didn't even do that.... both the Canadian and American inquires found him at fault.

LOL

Sorry, but I call it like I see it.... funny you should mention Top Gun. Guess what, this guy was in Top Gun, scored top of the class, and became an instructor... and his callsign "Psycho". So I feel I can call him a loose cannon, a cowboy, or a hotshot.

yeah after all the last time Canada was attacked like that was what?..... hmm.... oh yeah 1813 when US troops burned Toronto (then York), Niagara Falls, and London. But that's old news; afterall we did get you back ;) every wonder why the White House is white?

Look I'm a student of history and political science, so I make calls based on past precedents and how they relate to current events.... it's not 100% accurate, but I haven't been wrong all that often.

I thought Rob's explanation of some of the military culture was great.

There is a some of that in some units in the Us Military, but I have not heard of them going quite so far.

Some of it is because it violates our precepts of a an egalitarian society, and also because our military tradition really isn't as old nor as firmly based on someone else's already established military.

BuT Rob, often tight cultures like that are evn more likely to try and gloss over the mistakes of one of their own if possible. Especially if the mistake was not deliberately malicious.

That's very true.... you will still find some of the hold-overs from the old British class system in the Canadian military. However it varies greatly from unit to unit; and I found that it is most visible in the reserve units.

Also very true, I saw many cases of mistakes being swept under the rug. However you can only hide so much when the microscope is on an issue. Each Regiment has its own version of the military police, the Regimental Police. These guys are responsible for handling internal discipline and policing of the regiment. However when it comes to court martials the MPs are called in and an special inquiry is called (been there done that).

Out of curiousity, when did we start sending Air Force pilots to Top Gun? It's the Navy Fighter Weapons School. Was Major Schmidt a Naval Avaitor before joining the Air National Guard?

It is old news, but I believe in 1813, we were at WAR with England. I also don't believe Canada was a soverign nation then, was it? So, did we attack Canada -- or a part of the British Empire? Kind of a major difference in my mind.

Besides, Congress had it on good authority that you guys were working on weapons of mass destruction, so it was OK. Wasn't that when George the First (Bush, that is) was director of the CIA?

Brother Cooper, first, let me give my deepest sympathy to you!:(

The Canadian / American pissing back and forth is uncalled for by one and all. Thank You.

I never was in the military, but in the law enforcement end of a paramilitary organization.

Friendly Fire, I always loved that statement made up by poloticians for someone Fucked Up!:o

Remember, there were no one there but the Pilots and the men on the ground who were killed and maimed. Who is it of us to decide. While The Pilots were give SOP, and AWACS directions, no one was there but those involved.

While reports are put out, DeltaAlum, you can verify this, that Govt. Reports and Media Reports can be very one sided!

As anyone in the know, PR are is Bullshit in a spary can!

I am in hopes since none of us were there that the Military Judicial system will be fair and just.

For those of you who have never been in a situation where life and death is a posibility it is strenuious. I carred God at my side for 7 years and it is not a Top Gun situation, it is a very grave responsabilty!:(

God forbid that any of us have to be in this situation!

I thought that too until I saw his Bio.... it did mention something about him being the first (or one of) Air Force personel to qualify/go to Top Gun (sorry it was a while ago that I saw the report). I admit it did throw me off seeing that..... thought for a second that someone had screwed up in their research :)

Yes it was a war between the US and the British Empire... however the only feasible target was then the Canada colonies: Upper and Lower Canada (Ontario and Quebec).

Incidentally you guys came damn close to a major war with the British, not just battles bewteen the US and the British garrison and Canadian militia. Following the end of the Pennisula Campaign against Napoleon the British Parliment asked Wellington to organize an army taken from the Pennisula veterans and take them to North America... only thing was Wellington said he was tired of war and death and declined; support fizzled out and only an comparatively minor (about a 10th the size) assault force was sent - they guys who attacked Washington DC and New Orleans.