Richard Stringer wrote: No I'm not illiterate Sure. Richard Stringer wrote: are you an asshole ? How literate.

Paul Riley wrote: Bit of advise, Sean: as soon as you see the name Robert Fisk, get the pinch of salt ready. I've been reading Fisk for years, and generally do filter out certain spaects. This report seems to be somewhat more factual than some of his more rantish columns though. And to be precise, Fisk didn't acutally write the column - though it was predicated on his findings.

Are you illiterate? You completely misread my comment. Arnett was speaking truthfully, which this Congressional retard disliked because it - gasp - could be seen as a criticism of the Almighty US of A. Geez ....

Richard Stringer wrote: The serial number came from some other source and was planted or Oh man ... you guys kill me. If Bushy said the world was flat - and he probably believes it is - you'd all line up and follow along.

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: What's so treacherous about that? It may be wrong, but I don't see how it can be treason. It's not even wrong. It's the truth. Therein lies the problem.

Check it[^]

Mike Mullikin wrote: while less sensationalistic, more honest & truthful journalism In America?? You jest.

This one isn't too bad: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/coalition/index.html

Ed Gadziemski wrote: So you supported Iraq's 1993 assassination attempt for political purposes on Bush Sr? Doug didn't clarify enough ... only Americans can do the assassinating.

LOL! Yes - Thatcher. Most of the "work" of British Government happens in committee meetings. Maggie would always chair the most important ones. It was a well know fact that at the end of the meeting, the Chair would "take the sense" of the meeting and this summarisation would essentially equate to policy moving forward. It was equally well known that Maggie's "sense" of the meeting was whatever she wanted it to be, regardless of what had really transpired. Of course, when I took the "sense" it was in a non-Maggie like manner, being a true Republican that I am (no - not a US Replublican, a Plato Republican actually [that should stump those who accuse me of "communism"]).

Doug Goulden wrote: ... although I am considered quite handsome "Mirror, mirror on the wall ..." doesn't count. :| And I don't recall saying that you had referred to yourself as the offspring of a deity ... I was merely "taking the sense" as Maggie was wont to say.

Jeremy Falcon wrote: Would you like to find hordes of people insulting your homeland without real reason aside from propaganda? You really have swallowed the party line. So, there is nothing that anyone can fairly criticise the US about then? It's all just propoganda. Jeremy Falcon wrote: You're making my job of making you look asinine way too easy. Funny that you would see it that way. Somone makes a fair criticism of the US and you're off on a crusade ... I guess that explains a lot. Jeremy Falcon wrote: I sorta agree. We should let the Neanderthals kill themselves. You were talking about looking asinine ...

Because despite, apparently, being a communist-terrorist sympathiser who dared wag a finger at Gods own people I do have a sense of humour.

Apologist? For what exactly? Look, pointing out the inhuman lunacy of the Iraqi regime isn't exactly going to alter the fact that over the course of the last half-dozen or so conflicts that allied troops have been involved in, the overwhelming majority of "freindly fire" incidents have been perpetrated by US forces. Next you'll be dragging up Pol Pot as an example of "friendly fire". Human shields are not "friendly fire" in the military sense - as you well know, being an ex-military type!

You bugger! I now have coffee all over my monitor ...

Jeremy Falcon wrote: This is just a repeat of the same info below. Indeed. But you also asked for a link. Jeremy Falcon wrote: What makes the matter worse is when everyone and their mother are just waiting to bash the US. In your own paranoid mind. What was it you said .. Jeremy Falcon wrote: And such a blind assumption (again) on your part. Tisk tisk! And even if they do "bash" the Almighty US of A ... what of it? Is there some rule of law that prohibits people from voicing disquiet over American actions or is it just written somewhere that whatever the US does has a mandate from Heaven. Is the US Heaven? Does God live in the White House? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Richard Stringer wrote: The guy , Sean, is an idiot anyway so don't cloud is silly little head with any facts. He probably is the type who runs from poodles or anyone over 5' tall. But he is a legend in his own mind. Marvelous wit, not to mention linguistic talent, you display there. Why would this be? Because someone dares to voice an opinion you dislike? I suppose you'll now come and invade my home and "americanise" me.

BBC confirming that a British tank shell "...either missed its intended target or rebounded off it" and blew the turret of another British tank. So indeed, there is an incident not caused by American troops. Of course, this does nothing to asuage the earlier fact that the proportion of these incidents is heavily in "favour" of the Americans - but who cares about facts, right?

Maybe it is - maybe it is merely a linear relationship between the number of troops/weapons systems you have and the deaths via "friendly fire" that arise.

Well, this is partly what I'm asking. If you want to include operator misuse as "friendly fire" then I'll concede the point (like the US pilot who crashed earlier), but I was referring to the term as the military use it - actively targeting and killing allied troops through lethal ordinance.