A page from the BBC site. Interesting piece on Friendly Fire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6468391.stm
A thought provoking article. However it deals with the subject truthfully and probably won't sit well with those who prefer to think of US troops as trigger happy cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later.
Not attempting to provoke an argument. Usually no provocation is required. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to think that I was referring to posters in this forum since surely none of them would characterize the US as trigger happy cowboys who shoot fiorst and ask questions later.
Nope, because that makes them sound like Norwegians for a start. (EDIT:corrected so I don't sound like a complete blithering idiot)
Y'all shouldn't be so shocked, you trigger-happy cowboy you... But enough of these witty sallies (witty? :-? ), anybody wish to contest anything the article says?
This artcle is not intended as a vindication of "friendly fire". The article addresses one specific aspect of it. That is, the psychological impact on those who, for whatever reason, perform the act. This is all relevant and thought provoking but is not actually a comment on "friendly fire" itself - the specifics, whether enough is done to avoid it, whether there is sufficient accountability afterwards etc. All this article does is highlight the fact that the guys who fire the shots in these incidents are often victims too. In the case most recently in the news (which is mentioned) both the dead and those who did the killing were let down on the battlefield - the wall of silence afterwards added insult to injury. Simply to recite the mantra "friendly fire is inevitable" ignores the key point that lessons should be learnt and improvements made in order to render such occurrences less likely in the future. We owe it to all our service people to seek accountability in all such incidents and not just write them off as inevitable statistics of war.
I'm not saying they cowboys but your comment is spinning like a top - there is nothing in the article to suggest that US troops are not trigger happy cowboys it merely comments on the psychological difficulties of those who commit "friendly fire" killings.
Why would anyone try to "vindicate" a tragic accident? One thing that the article addresses is the fact that the men who fire the weapons in a fratricide incident are , far from some pople's impression of trigger happy cowboys, devestated by the incident.
There is also nothing in the article to suggest that US troops aren't alien invaders from Mars either so does that omission suggest that possiblity to you? If not why would you suggest that ommitting such an obvious fact (that US troops aren't trigger happy cowboys) leaves it open? BTW I disagree with your analysis of the article. The term trigger happy cowboys refers to a certain careless devil may care attitude that suggests that those who fire the weapons aren't concerned about who is harmed by the weapons. The article points to the considerable psychological pain that those who fire the weapons experience. Hardly what one would characterize as a cowboy attitude. Another factor is that the most publicized incidents have been those where US troops are to blame but there have certainly been incidents involving other nations troops as well.
Grieg Try reading my comments - you've just disagreed with most of them by agreeing with them :roll: One technical point on terminology though - "trigger happy" refers to a rash act (in this case literally pulling the trigger) it does not refer to dealing with the consequences afterwards as you are stating.
That is one way to interpret it. I interpret trigger happy in conjunction with cowboy to indicate not just a rash act but a mentality or an attitude that leads to a pattern of such behaviour. i.e. a callous attitude to fratricide, including the aftermath . The men described in the article do not appear to display that kind of attitude nor engage in a pattern of behavious suggesting it. And that was my point.
Agreed - the rash act plus the mentality that leads to it - but such a pattern of behaviour may lead either to remorse or lack of remorse (see definition psychopath) - a trigger happy person may either not consider or not care about the consequences. Personally, I do not believe that troops (I'm not singling out US troops BTW) are unilaterally "trigger happy" except in rare occurrences - I do believe that there are issues with procedures and training which need to be inspected microscopically each time something like this occurs and acted on where necessary.
