Why,..???????????

[jodee 30]

This leaves me very disheartened, I wonder what the outcome of it will be.

I also wonder what would of happened if the roles were reversed? Or even if it was one of their own in a private security role??

Aussie 'left for dead by Americans'

Thursday Jul 19 00:23 AEST

An Australian private security operator was left for dead by American forces after he was seriously wounded during an ambush in southern Iraq.

The US refused to provide a helicopter to evacuate the wounded man after being told he was Australian, News Limited reports.

The Queensland man, who suffered severe leg and abdominal injuries, was delivered to Basra air base by a British road convoy more than seven hours after the attack.

The June 25 attack near the town of Al Zubair, 15km southwest of Basra, was carried out by at least six gunmen and involved roadside bombs, small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Two Toyota Landcruisers were destroyed in the attack.

Three of the man's Iraqi colleagues, including an Iraqi interpreter, died in the attack.

The security operator underwent surgery at a British military hospital and was later evacuated out of Iraq.

He remains in the region in a serious but stable condition.

©AAP 2007

SOURCE

Edited July 18, 2007 by jodee

[sereia 0]

[wioombeen 0]

OMG

[almaty 19]

that suxs and is just wrong.....

[Jamie76 0]

Do we know the entire story? If he was a private contractor, it may be a case where they were not able to take on the risk to others by rescuing him. I know that sounds bad, but a private contractor is pretty much there at their own risk.

[Heracles 417]

An Australian private security operator was left for dead by American forces after he was seriously wounded during an ambush in southern Iraq.

His title says it all. He chose to go there. He is also a civilian and not a military officer.

PS All is good and well as long as the hundreds of thousand of dollars rolls in as a private security operator; well until they are hurt.

[Cry_Tuff 0]

I honestly cannot speak for the Military or our Government, but that is absolutely awful that he was left. I have several mates in Australia....and consider Australia to be one of the most beautiful countries in the world....I would certainly hope there was some merit behind the reasoning as to why he was left...it would be awful learning otherwise.

[almaty 19]

An Australian private security operator was left for dead by American forces after he was seriously wounded during an ambush in southern Iraq.

His title says it all. He chose to go there. He is also a civilian and not a military officer.

PS All is good and well as long as the hundreds of thousand of dollars rolls in as a private security operator; well until they are hurt.

yeah you are right, let him die ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,vj sheesh

[Heracles 417]

yeah you are right, let him die ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,vj sheesh

It is an Australian thing. Australians tend to blame the government when something goes wrong. The tone of that article says it all.

It is somehow the US government's fault for refusing to send a US tax payer funded helicopter into a war zone.

[Cantankerous 0]

I am leaning toward we do not know the whole story.

• The story appears to be written in a manner specific to casting a poor light on the US military.
  
• The man was a civilian and not a member of the Australian military.
  
• The man was not left for dead; he was transported by ground by the British military.
  
• The story says the US would not provide a helicopter; not that a US helicopter was there and they would not take him.
  
• I do not think the US military is responsible for sending helicopters out for the medical transportation of civilians.
  
• Missing from the story is comments regarding any non-action by the Australian military or the International Red Cross.
  

[Heracles 417]

I am leaning toward we do not know the whole story.

• The story appears to be written in a manner specific to casting a poor light on the US military.
  
• The man was a civilian and not a member of the Australian military.
  
• The man was not left for dead; he was transported by ground by the British military.
  
• The story says the US would not provide a helicopter; not that a US helicopter was there and they would not take him.
  
• I do not think the US military is responsible for sending helicopters out for the medical transportation of civilians.
  
• Missing from the story is comments regarding any non-action by the Australian military or the International Red Cross.
  

Very well said. Even though the facts are based on hearsay, the tone of the article clearly reflects the journalists views.

[Jasman0717 8]

Semper Fi

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yeah you are right, let him die ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,vj sheesh

It is an Australian thing. Australians tend to blame the government when something goes wrong. The tone of that article says it all.

It is somehow the US government's fault for refusing to send a US tax payer funded helicopter into a war zone.

Well the helicopter would already be in the warzone - they've got however many hundred out there already. Assuming the more likely scenario that either they didn't have one in the area, or it simply wasn't safe to risk a helicopter crew to pick the guy up (without sufficient ground troops to provide some sort of cover) I wouldn't have thought there would be a question over whether he should be picked up.

[Jamie76 0]

Semper Fi

How do you know they were Marines?

[hmm1 0]

Semper Fi

How do you know they were Marines?

A whole lot of things may have been in play...i.e. was an American helicopter available to pick him up? Were they busy flying missions for the American soldiers...I hate to say it, but it is bull simply because I have seen Medi-vacs called in for Iraqi citizens...so there is def. something not being told there...