# U.S. troops shoot at Cdn. diplomats' car in Iraq



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Jan 2006)

I think I'd get a new driver.

 U.S. troops shoot at Cdn. diplomats' car in Iraq 
CTV.ca News Staff

CTV News has learned Canadian diplomats -- including the ambassador to Iraq -- had a close call in Baghdad on Tuesday, coming under friendly fire from U.S. troops.

The soldiers opened fire on the vehicle, apparently thinking a suicide bomber might be driving it. They shot into the car's engine block.

None of the four passengers in the car or its driver were injured.

CTV's Tom Clark, reporting from Washington, said it appears the Canadian vehicle was travelling alone while a U.S. convoy was on the road and failed to respond to U.S. troops.

They first tried hand signals, which didn't cause the car to stop, then shot over the vehicle. That also failed. "They then put three shots into the engine block," he said.

The incident happened in what's known as the Green Zone, a heavily fortified area in the centre of Baghdad where coalition and Iraqi government offices are located.

The Canadian ambassador to Iraq is John Holmes, who presented his credentials back in September. Holmes also serves as ambassador to Jordan where he is based. Canada does not yet have an embassy in Iraq.


----------



## KevinB (1 Feb 2006)

Way to go MSG's...  :

One car? 

IMHO they should fire whomever is making the security arrnagements (cough MSG).

Having a wee bit of experience in the field I feel they are wholeheartedly unqualified for this.
(and I think Big Red, Teddy49 and others can verifiy that)


----------



## Big Red (1 Feb 2006)

To get shot at IN the IZ you must have ZERO situational awareness. 

Typically high level diplomats travel with several escort vehicles, whether they are in the IZ or not.  

With security, you get what you pay for. 

"Canada does not yet have an embassy in Iraq."
Maybe they should take down the sign that says CANADIAN EMBASSY then....  :


----------



## teddy49 (1 Feb 2006)

When the ambassador came to visit our compound, he was brought by the same crew that does the PSD for the British Embassy.  All Brit expats, all very professional.  I would have assumed that he would have made similar arrangements for this journey, but I don't know what he would have done in the IZ.  But like Big Red said, you have to pretty stupid to get shot at in the IZ.  BW is about the only crew that doesn't take their game face off when they get inside the wire.  That doesn't make them many friends, but I don't think they care either.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2006)

Agree with EXTREMELY low SA on driver's part...WTF was he thinking?  I understood a Mission was in the process of being set up as we speak.  Sounds like new detail is required...or is there an MSG there now?  Kev, you seem to have a cough there, buddy.  Better get that checked out!  At least the Americans plinked the motor...good on them for good fire discipline...could have been worse, and from the sounds of it, understandably so.

Heck, I even slow down driving past Kev...partly out of pity, partly out of curiosity to see what he bought from the Hadji's today... 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## COBRA-6 (1 Feb 2006)

How did they fail to understand the warning shots?? I'm very cautious overtaking _any_ armed convoy, making sure that I make eye contact with the rear sentry first, and thats' in a SUV with big ISAF stickers on it... 

Surfs with N/S wipers are another story however... 

Maybe now they'll consider private contractors... or at least smarten up before they start taking rounds through the windscreen...


----------



## KevinB (1 Feb 2006)

In all fairness the paracord on the windsheild wipers worked fine  ;D

 But - we where VERY careful behind the German convoy...

We almost shot Italians today (morons) hmm gun the Prada at a checkpoint while we (QRF) are out visiting.. :




IIRC Armour Group was doing security for the Embassy site - and loaned a PSD team to the Cdn Embassador (to Jordan) while he visited.
 I believe from info MP's told me that the MSG "force" is guarding the consul.


----------



## Mineguy (1 Feb 2006)

Im not at all suprised....these things happen daily in iraq! I bet there was never a word about the US convoy that shot a small clearly obvious british convoy escorting trucks off the road while it approached....that wont be in the news but it happened where i was! ....we would never even dare to approach a US convoy or even pass them to or from work. It was a given that if you tried to overtake them or anything else to freak them out and there were rounds comng in!


----------



## Devlin (1 Feb 2006)

Can someone clarify what MSG stands for? I am betting it's not Monosodium Glutamate 

Or is this a case of if you have to ask the question, you don't need to know the answer?

edited for spelling


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2006)

Devlin, 

MSG = Military Security Guard; "guard" as in a detail or unit of MPs who are seconded to DFAIT and posted as security detail to Canadian embassies around the world.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Big Red (1 Feb 2006)

LurkingKuna said:
			
		

> Im not at all suprised....these things happen daily in iraq!



Uhhh, not to diplomatic teams in the IZ they don't.  Typically, if somebody is firing warning shots at you, you have done something wrong.  In my experience, if you want to roll around in a sedan and play like a local, don't expect the coalition forces to treat you any differently until they have ID'd you.

ETA:

The CBC article says that 4 diplomats were in the car at the time.  Doesn't leave much room for the ambassador's PSD team does it....


----------



## teddy49 (1 Feb 2006)

When the ambassador came to visit us there were no MSGs in evidence.  His protection was Control Risks Group.   Again as Big Red said, it's very rare for vehicles to get lit up inside the IZ.  My personal theory is that it wasn't the army at all, but BW who has their own M1114 hmmv's that they run with some of the WPPS convoy's.  Like I said in my earlier post, those guys run in the IZ like everyone else runs outside the IZ.


----------



## baboon6 (1 Feb 2006)

John Holmes... Damn I thought he was dead.


----------



## Devlin (1 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Devlin,
> 
> MSG = Military Security Guard; "guard" as in a detail or unit of MPs who are seconded to DFAIT and posted as security detail to Canadian embassies around the world.
> 
> ...



Thanks Duey - you learn something new everyday.


----------



## Mineguy (1 Feb 2006)

Yup! I could see how driving around in a sedan could cause problems in some ways when coupled with other factors like ignoring warning shots! I was glad we had 10-15 vehicle white toyota landrcruisers convoys all with big 0.5 meter big mine clearance signs all over them!....even then though we still watched it!....


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2006)

So do we know if it was a BW convoy that lit them up?  I've come up on the back of Dyncorp in close traffic and had the tub gunner swing the door open to a) see who was there, and b) let them know not to mess with them...aside from driving a Grey sub like half of the guys ahead of me, I spun the Camp Julian "cold filtered"  water bottle around so the Cdn flag was showing and gave the tub gunner a thumbs up...he nodded, closed the door and I slacked off a bit...let some more room for some locals to squeeze in and try and pass them around the Blue Mosque circle... :

I can't for the life of me imagine what the driver was thinking (or wasn't apparently)...especially as a car, and not the standard Suburban or armoured Land Cruiser...the folks are frikkin lucky they didn't get a burst of M249 in the windshield!!! *_edit: I stand corrected, apparently they did...one narrowly missing one of the pax._*

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (1 Feb 2006)

CTV news just did a spiel on it and apparently in their defence, the Canadian diplomats had a canadian patch or sticker on their dash so they felt they were safe.

 I think even the most uninformed of Canadians knows that if they were to approach an armed american convoy, maybee a little eye contact with the rear sentry might be prudent.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Feb 2006)

This was the first thread I read this morning. Just the title made me wince, I hate it when we screw up. But as I read the responses I was very pleased to see a professional discussion of the event rather than a bash the yanks thread. I think this is an example of why I like this forum fairness and professional discussion.


----------



## Cannoneer No. 4 (1 Feb 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/01/diplomats060201.htmlU.S. fired on Canadian diplomats without warning, envoy says

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/01/1420502-cp.htmlU.S. regrets friendly fire incident


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Feb 2006)

Well I guess unless you were there we really won't know the truth.  I would like to think that the shooter followed the rules of escalation.


----------



## big bad john (1 Feb 2006)

I like to see facts here, not idle speculation.  Let us just see how this plays out.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Feb 2006)

agreed


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Feb 2006)

Mea culpa on dinging the driver, waiting out to see more detail...however, my thoughts about taking care coming up on US convoys still stands...you have to really be thinking about what you're doing and why your doing it and think of things from their point of view as well.  Lord knows, I've been pretty nervous when some late-model Corolla comes up and plants itself on my arse, then won't move even as a passing opportunity presents itself...waiting for a bang is not pleasant...the relief when the arsehat driver finally passes is significant...especially on White, Violet or Crimson routes!

Perhaps some folks think their "overtake" speed is slow...perhaps the rear sentry didn't think so...waiting for more info as well...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Feb 2006)

you know as far as the whole flag thing is concerned.  I wouldn't give a rats ass what flag they showed me.  If that's an automatic pass I think the insurgents would definitely be incorporating it into their routine.


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Feb 2006)

Found during outage:


----------



## The Gues-|- (2 Feb 2006)

that must take some good eye-sight to see from 100 meters back


----------



## Thompson_JM (2 Feb 2006)

If you miss the Sign the sight of a .50 Traversing around and pointing at your windscreen should be enough to make you back off....

cheers
    Josh


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Feb 2006)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> that must take some good eye-sight to see from 100 meters back



But once you get close enough to read it, you better be backing off pretty quickly...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2006)

...and, once you've read ONE stop sign........


----------



## ZipperHead (2 Feb 2006)

I see a problem with the picture that 3rd Herd posted: it isn't in both of OUR official languages!! 

Warning: Not knowing English (and/or Arabic) is hazardous to your (engine block's) health!!

Al


----------



## KevinB (2 Feb 2006)

Well I almost shot up some FFL guys today they tried to tailgate us in a minivan - hmm White guy with gun swing out the back and they wave  : 

Duey -- DynCorp drives us off the road...  Heck we've had near blue on blues inside "the workplace"

I went to put a burst into a vehicle last week that had a US flag on it -- local driver -- only when I was linign up the gun I saw a US mil in uniform in the back...



You got split seconds to make a choice -- screw up either way and good guys are getting flagged coffins...


I'm hoping the Para 249 and M204G make a bigger impression that the AK's and RPK did...


----------



## big bad john (2 Feb 2006)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=44a6c8b5-3862-471e-8993-6a19a86638f6

U.S., Canada trade blame for Iraq shooting incident
Foreign Affairs story casts doubt on U.S. claim of self-defence
  
Sheldon Alberts 
The Ottawa Citizen 


Thursday, February 02, 2006


WASHINGTON - Canadian and U.S. authorities traded charges yesterday over who was to blame after a U.S. military convoy opened fire on a car carrying four Canadian diplomats.

Even as the U.S. State Department expressed regret over the friendly fire incident, the Pentagon held to its original claim that the U.S. soldiers believed they were being threatened and acted in self-defence.

Sgt. Doug Anderson, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Canadian vehicle "attempted to pass a U.S. military convoy after ignoring signals to stop" on a road inside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. "The U.S. convoy defended itself by firing a three-round rifle burst," Sgt. Anderson said.

But officials with Canada's Foreign Affairs Department, and a Canadian diplomat who was travelling inside the car insisted yesterday the shots were fired without warning. They also maintain the car and the convoy were separated by several lanes of traffic and a concrete barrier.

"There are some disagreements about what has occurred. Our officials are clear that they are operating within the rules," prime minister-designate Stephen Harper said in Ottawa.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, contacted U.S. officials yesterday to express his concerns about the shooting "and to make sure such events are avoided in the future," Mr. Harper said.

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters in Washington he was aware of the incident, but declined to comment on the details while military investigators reviewed the shooting. "It's being investigated. I don't know anything more than what has been announced," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I wasn't there. I obviously don't know."

The incident unfolded at about 1 p.m. Tuesday in Baghdad while the Canadian diplomats -- including Stewart Henderson, the charge d'affaires in Iraq -- were travelling from the British residence inside the Green Zone to their own accommodations.

According to the U.S. military, the soldiers signalled for the car to stop, but when the car kept coming, the rear-gunner in the convoy's last vehicle opened fire.

The Pentagon says soldiers are authorized to fire on vehicles if drivers fail to heed hand signals.

Two bullets pierced the engine block, but another hit the windshield and reportedly came within centimetres of striking a passenger. There were no injuries.

"How many warning shots go across a vehicle into the passenger compartment?" Michelle Cameron, a Canadian consular official travelling in the car, asked yesterday on CTV News.

No one in the Canadian vehicle saw any hand signals indicating they were too close to the convoy, the network quoted Ms. Cameron as saying.

According to Canadian officials, the diplomatic vehicle had been following well behind the U.S. convoy and only passed when the convoy pulled to the side of the road behind a waist-high concrete barrier. The Canadians claim the U.S. convoy and the car were separated by several lanes of traffic.

"We are reassured by our team in Baghdad that all appropriate procedures were followed. We are aware there are conflicting stories," said Marie-Christine Lilkoff, a Foreign Affairs spokeswoman.

Canada's diplomatic operations in Iraq are running with only a skeleton staff and the ambassador, John Holmes, is based out of the Canadian Embassy in Amman. Contrary to initial reports, Mr. Holmes was not travelling in the Canadian vehicle.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006


----------



## 291er (3 Feb 2006)

Canadian Consular Official Michelle Cameron "how many warning shots go across a vehicle into the passenger compartment?"

Well one might argue how many people try to pass a US military convoy in Baghdad, of all places!?  

"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Feb 2006)

I believe the Canadians are saying that they passed an American convoy that pulled over.  The Canadians also say that they were across muliti-lanes and there was a waste high barrier between them.


----------



## KevinB (3 Feb 2006)

Well keep in mind there is NO REQUIREMENT to fire into the engine compartment - if they had authority/justification to fire - they coudl have simply shot into the vehicle...

Second I'll believe a politician over a soldier when hell freezes over - they sound like clueless wastes - 

Finally who the FUCK runs soft skins for politico's in IRAQ?

  JUGFUCK on DFAIT.


----------



## Spr.Earl (3 Feb 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Well keep in mind there is NO REQUIREMENT to fire into the engine compartment - if they had authority/justification to fire - they coudl have simply shot into the vehicle...
> 
> Second I'll believe a politician over a soldier when hell freezes over - they sound like clueless wastes -
> 
> ...





We do because our Gov. is so F'n cheap!


----------



## Slim (3 Feb 2006)

Listening to a Canadian politician justify something is like listening to the kid in school that no one likes becasue he's never wrong...

When soldiers start ot comment I'll pay a bit more attention...Otherwise, no thanks, if I want fiction I'll go to Chapters and buy a book.

Cheers  

Slim


----------



## ChopperHead (3 Feb 2006)

well I obvisouly dont know what really happened but Im guessing it was probably alittle bit of both sides storys. Perhaps the convoy did pull over or whatever and then the Car was going very fast towards them or did something to provoke the attack however small or large. 

niether side is going to tell the "whole" truth. so one has to pick through both stories and come out with a somewhat better picture of the whole story. If you think either side is being completly honest then you are niave. which is why i dont belive either sides story as they are both exagerated to make them look better/innocent/right, whatever.


----------



## KevinB (3 Feb 2006)

Chopper - actually both sides could be tellign the truth as they saw it.

The US Army could have attampted to flag down the vehicle and then fired warnign shots then a burst into the vehicle (and anyone who has fired on auto or burst know that the rounds DO NOT go into the same hole so the dispersion of some into the engine and some into the passenger compartment is to be expected -- anytime a weapon is fired it is lethal force regardless where it is aimed.

The Cdn diplomats may not have seen any of the Army's efforts and thought they where fired at for no reason...


----------



## JackD (3 Feb 2006)

A nice balanced reply Kevin B - I notice some posters are slamming the Canadian diplomatic service personnel involved - note: diplomatic service not politicians. I'd say the media are making this into a bigger thing than the individuals concerned did. They came forward when they were said to be in the wrong - if i got the story right.... bad day for all concerned - but no need for posters to slam diplomatic personnel...


----------



## ChopperHead (3 Feb 2006)

your probably right Kevin or at least close.

I was just saying that either side will say it from their perspective and make themselfs look more right if need be. it's have you ever been in a car accident when you knew it was your fault but you kinda exagerrate it alittle bit so you seem less at fault? same thing.

but I mean a bunch of soldiers who are on edge from being shot at and suiced bombed etc etc I would imagine it wouldnt take much to set them off.


----------



## KevinB (4 Feb 2006)

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> but I mean a bunch of soldiers who are on edge from being shot at and suiced bombed etc etc I would imagine it wouldnt take much to set them off.



Which is why ONE is ALWAYS very very careful when approaching checkpoints or convoys...


----------



## Chimo (4 Feb 2006)

i will wade in and offer my opinion. I think the picture gives clear direction of what is expected of anyone approaching and what the expected results. I am always leery of the second-guessing that happens after a soldier uses their weapon in what amounts to self-defence. 

Many of the same comments were made when one of our solders shot a taxi in Kandahar. My point is American soldiers and public have seen a lot of their comrades, sons and daughter pay the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. Many as a result of suicide bombers in Vehicle Borne IEDs. So if the shooter thinks someone is a threat, we should be reluctant to criticize. If this was an Iraqi taxi instead of Canadian Officials, we would have never heard of it. I personally feel the shooter showed remarkable restraint and good shooting skill to only pump the rounds into the engine block.

Perhaps, the lesson to be learned is respect all signs and check point instructions, and always use extra caution through passage of lines.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Feb 2006)

So the Canadian owes his life to the disciplined American soldiers- firing into the air first and then engine block instead of into the windshield.


----------



## Acorn (5 Feb 2006)

Why don't we all wait and see what the investigation comes up with. 

Soldiers, US or not, aren't perfect, so it isn't outside the realm that a mistake was made by them. The Cdn diplomatic team (why did they, including Amb Holms (who wasn't there) suddenly become politicians?) may have made mistakes - they were inside the so-called Green Zone, which may explain the soft-skin, single vehicle, and a certain complacency and failure to pay attention to signals. From what I know about how Cdn diplomats travel in Iraq (and I know a little bit about it) they certainly wouldn't have gone outside the wire like that (DFAIT, by the way, is hardly too cheap to buy armoured vehicles for their diplomatic pers - some posts have several).

I know some of you guys have shedloads of experience, but how many of you are really familiar with the ground on which this incident occurred? Let's keep some perspective, m'kay?


----------



## Cadpat20 (5 Feb 2006)

I do not blame the young G.I. that shot at the Canadian Diplomats all he is tyring to do is make it home in one piece.His leadership is to blame.There the ones that got him in to the mess that is Iraq.The war there has not a thing to done with 9/11 or the war on terrorisim.
I hope we(Canada) do not get into the same thing in Afghanistan.


----------



## ChopperHead (5 Feb 2006)

What? 

sorry dude but you completely lost me. I don't even know how to question that statement because it makes no sense. Iraq and A-Stan are very diffrent. What are you talking about
getting into the same thing in A-Stan? what "thing" are you referring to


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Feb 2006)

Cadpat20 said:
			
		

> I do not blame the young G.I. that shot at the Canadian Diplomats all he is tyring to do is make it home in one piece.His leadership is to blame.There the ones that got him in to the mess that is Iraq.The war there has not a thing to done with 9/11 or the war on terrorisim.
> I hope we(Canada) do not get into the same thing in Afghanistan.



Cadpat
please come up with more input into your statement vis via leadership and please define "mess". It would be extremly helpful if you could also fill in your profile so I (we) can answer back in the aproperiate manner.


----------



## Cadpat20 (5 Feb 2006)

This should be in new posting but I asked what I meant. After more than 2 year in Iraq I do not think the Bush government
has got handle on what they  are doing there That the leadership I blame.The young G.Is are the ones paying the price.I hope that as Canada put more troops into Afghanistan the trend for al-Qaeda to use IED and car bombs does not cost use dearly.That the mess I mean.


----------



## KevinB (5 Feb 2006)

:

Please return to your X Box, and Michael Moore movies.


----------



## Acorn (6 Feb 2006)

:


----------



## GK .Dundas (6 Feb 2006)

Cadpat20 said:
			
		

> This should be in new posting but I asked what I meant. After more than 2 year in Iraq I do not think the Bush government
> has got handle on what they  are doing there That the leadership I blame.The young G.Is are the ones paying the price.I hope that as Canada put more troops into Afghanistan the trend for al-Qaeda to use IED and car bombs does not cost use dearly.That the mess I mean.



 ummm...........errrrrr ,ahhhh looking for the the translator.


----------



## 291er (6 Feb 2006)

I agree with Acorn on this.  Let's wait to get the full facts.  I was on duty when the incident happened, and I still don't have enough to base a judgement on.  I can look at it from both points of view I suppose.  
As far as the A-stan, Iraq rhetoric from Cadpat......that's a whole other can of worms.....let's stick to the subject at hand before we get dragged into a philosophical debate on the war in Iraq.....and I thought the term "G.I" went out with the Vietnam era?


----------



## Meatpuppet (6 Feb 2006)

Who are your friends....really?......if any! :threat:


----------



## ChopperHead (7 Feb 2006)

Huh?

what is he talking about? what friends? Im confused  ???


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2006)

Don't worry he's gone.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (7 Feb 2006)

Dont think I've laughed this hard in awhile. God I love how people come up with things... :


----------



## wack-in-iraq (8 Feb 2006)

A few things that are common knowlege on the streets of Iraq:

Never pass any convoy, EVER.

The signs on the back of PSD and military convoys dont need to be readable, anyone who has been here more than 2 days knows to stay well back.

100 metres ? They start shooting at 150.

If you get shot at, chances are you deserved it, wake up.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (8 Feb 2006)

I've even seen these signs on the News......Cant see how they would continue to try and pass. WOuld be really nice to get the whole story...or at least one story. Anyways no one got hurt...hope it does not happen again. :warstory:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2006)

wack-in-iraq would also include a Can Military Convoy passing an American one?


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> wack-in-iraq would also include a Can Military Convoy passing an American one?



A Canadian military convoy in Iraq?  Boy, someone really screwed up on the nav....


----------



## wack-in-iraq (8 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> wack-in-iraq would also include a Can Military Convoy passing an American one?



Well this wasnt a convoy, it was a car with a sticker on it. The stupid thing is that most of the Iraqis here put stickers all over their cars, some of religious icons, some of patriotic stuff, and a lot put on stickers of their favorite countries.... ie Canada

If it was an actual military convoy there would be no point in trying to pass another convoy... leapfroging in these streets doesnt make sense. I am sure that if there was an emergency and it needed to be done though there would be some sort of SOP set up, or at least a com channel in which they could address such matters. There is a lot of co-ordination that goes into sending out any patrol/convoy, if someone needs to get somewhere faster than another group then I am sure the group being leapfroged would be informed of this, and it would take place in a pre-arranged area since a lot of the streets here are narrow and get pretty heavy traffic.

The golden rule on these streets is stay back... waaaaaaaaay back ! I drive a softskin vehicle and am often in the position of being behind these convoys (our company feels that driving Iraqi trucks helps us blend in better, that is there way of telling us they are too cheap to buy us what we need), I dont think I have ever been closer than 300 metres, and I got waved back even that close.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2006)

Thanks for the info


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Feb 2006)

Thanks for that, Wack.  Funny...things have become very quiet on this event...would I be wrong in thinking that this is because a) the Americans are busy with life an Baghdad and b) perhaps our folks didn't see anything before shots because there might not have been perhaps as vigilant as they ought to have been?

When folks said they'd wait out until we got more info, it seems like there is absolutely no further info coming on this issue...  

If it quacks and has webbed feet? ???

Duey


----------



## Acorn (9 Feb 2006)

w-i-i,

When you say "these streets" does the same thing apply within the "green zone?" From what I've seen from afar it looks like the "green zone" is more secure than outside, and the rules may not always work the same way.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2006)

48 not that you can respond to this now but I was refering to the situation in Afganistan as there is Americans and Canadians there.  I'm sure convoy rules apply the same to both countries.


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> 48 not that you can respond to this now but I was refering to the situation in Afganistan as there is Americans and Canadians there.  I'm sure convoy rules apply the same to both countries.



They dont - Iraq is much more fluid some what I have been able to contrast -- 
general rules for ANY one - dont overtake or crowd another convoy.

 We have almost brewed a few ISAF convoys... and I have NO doubt it will eventually happen as they attempt to over take us.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Feb 2006)

"We have almost brewed a few ISAF convoys..."

WOW


----------



## Bobbyoreo (9 Feb 2006)

I wonder with all the SF people going around in their "Civy Trucks" If this has happened to them as well?


----------



## wack-in-iraq (10 Feb 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> I wonder with all the SF people going around in their "Civy Trucks" If this has happened to them as well?



I highly doubt it, if anyone knows the rules it would be the guys who have laid a lot of the ground work for the rules that are now in place. Besides, I havent seen too many of the black hiluxs' driven by the USSF in downtown BGW, might stick out just a bit and defeat the purpose of being covert. Like I sad before, anyone who has been here a while should know the rules.





			
				Acorn said:
			
		

> w-i-i,
> 
> When you say "these streets" does the same thing apply within the "green zone?" From what I've seen from afar it looks like the "green zone" is more secure than outside, and the rules may not always work the same way.



That is a good question, and to be honest I am not too familiar with the green zone and convoy movement in there, Ive only been there a few times. I would think that since there are still large numbers of Iraqis living in the IZ the same rules would apply. At the very least though common sense should prevail and its always better to be safe and give the convoys whatever space they need and wait and see if they wave you forward.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (14 Feb 2006)

Insert Quote
Quote from: Bobbyoreo on February 09, 2006, 13:48:03
I wonder with all the SF people going around in their "Civy Trucks" If this has happened to them as well?


I highly doubt it, if anyone knows the rules it would be the guys who have laid a lot of the ground work for the rules that are now in place. Besides, I havent seen too many of the black hiluxs' driven by the USSF in downtown BGW, might stick out just a bit and defeat the purpose of being covert. Like I sad before, anyone who has been here a while should know the rules.
Quote from: Acorn on February 09, 2006, 01:34:17

True


----------

