The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:23:15 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:
If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...
Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?
BB is a submariner.

Sorry - I thought it was clear I was responding to Dan.

Actually the blue on blue problem has been there for quite a long
time. One personal friend was a MP the Canadians on D-Day - his job
was to get troops off the beach and into the woods beyond (basically
what the US army called a beach master).

He said his unit headed for the nearest trench anytime they saw a
plane flying over BEFORE they checked national IDs. He claims to have
been strafed by both USAAF and RAF but never by the Luftwaffe. He said
strafing only, no bombs, and that of his men a couple were lightly
wounded but nothing worse.

No doubt someone can come up with similar stories concerning WW1.

The "if they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy"
and "if they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles" phrases go back at least as far as Viet Nam. I
wouldn't be surprised if they didn't go back to when Oog organized the
very first army.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired