Just a guess, but I'll bet if one of his brother's friends was a believer and said something like that at the memorial service, he'd not have been nearly as offended. However, when some dimwit who didn't even know his brother wants to spout platitudes that have nothing to do with the departed in order to get a soundbite to help his/her political career...well, might as well say it...that's just fucking rude.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Just a guess, but I'll bet if one of his brother's friends was a believer and said something like that at the memorial service, he'd not have been nearly as offended. However, when some dimwit who didn't even know his brother wants to spout platitudes that have nothing to do with the departed in order to get a soundbite to help his/her political career...well, might as well say it...that's just fucking rude.


I agree...someone meaning well deserves some slack for their beliefs in some cases. However people that supported this war...I don't think they deserve any slack.

Amazing. Looks like a movie worth seeing.

In order to compare friendly fire statistics you'd have to compare that against actual war casualties.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that each successive war after WWII had less casualties, but the same rate of friendly fire. Mathematically this would show a statistical increase in percentage friendly fire even though the actual casualties are less and less.

I wouldn't say the problem is getting any worse, but it definitely isn't getting any better (which is still a problem).

I was thinking about this. Surely you'd expect fewer 'friendly fire' casualties over time, as you might with 'enemy fire' casualties. If there's the same number of friendly fire deaths with each war, that is a huge failure in itself.

I keep forgetting that Jon Krakauer's last book was about Pat Tillman. I was waiting for him to come out with another book for so long and yet I still haven't read it.

The number one casualty of that comment was logic.>> ^Tymbrwulf:

In order to compare friendly fire statistics you'd have to compare that against actual war casualties.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that each successive war after WWII had less casualties, but the same rate of friendly fire. Mathematically this would show a statistical increase in percentage friendly fire even though the actual casualties are less and less.
I wouldn't say the problem is getting any worse, but it definitely isn't getting any better (which is still a problem).

Actually what he/she said isn't without logic, but you failed to think about it before posting a smarmy ass reply.

His/her point (this is just a made up example to demonstrate how %'s can swing rather easily):

If 100 people died in WWII, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 10% died from friendly fire.

If 50 people died in VietNam, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 20% died from friendly fire.

If only 10 people died in the Gulf War and 5 of them died from friendly fire: 50% of them died from friendly fire.

The number of friendly causalities didn't change or went down in my above examples, however, the percentage shot up each time. That was his/her point. Because less Americans are dying in modern wars, friendly fire causalities have now become a more visible percentage despite fewer overall American deaths.


>> ^nanrod:

The number one casualty of that comment was logic.>> ^Tymbrwulf:
In order to compare friendly fire statistics you'd have to compare that against actual war casualties.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that each successive war after WWII had less casualties, but the same rate of friendly fire. Mathematically this would show a statistical increase in percentage friendly fire even though the actual casualties are less and less.
I wouldn't say the problem is getting any worse, but it definitely isn't getting any better (which is still a problem).

>> ^kymbos:

I was thinking about this. Surely you'd expect fewer 'friendly fire' casualties over time, as you might with 'enemy fire' casualties. If there's the same number of friendly fire deaths with each war, that is a huge failure in itself.


I'd go out on a limb again and say that you spend more time in close proximity with friendlies than you do with the enemy. This disproportionate amount of time spent leads to a higher probability of mishaps occurring that involve friendly forces compared to that of enemy forces.

That's statistics for you. If you choose to omit/include the right ones, you can prove almost any point you'd like.

Also, thanks @hPOD for clearing up the confusion that my post caused. Apparently my "failed logic" went over some user's heads.

Yes, you spend more time with your comrades, but they're not supposed to be shooting you. If the largest cause of military death is now ourselves, I would have thought we would be investing a bit more heavily in 'how not to shoot our own men'.

That's easy to say in the most ideal of circumstances. But when it's dark, gunfire is coming from many directions, errors in judgement and mistakes happen do to instinct/reaction. Even with vast amounts of training, there is no way to know where every person you've trained with will run/duck/cover due to the nature of the beast -- you have no idea when or where enemy fire will be coming from. At that point, sadly, a lot of it's pure luck.

>> ^kymbos:

Yes, you spend more time with your comrades, but they're not supposed to be shooting you. If the largest cause of military death is now ourselves, I would have thought we would be investing a bit more heavily in 'how not to shoot our own men'.

Actually what he "meant" wasn't without logic, what he said was. My interpretation of his meaning is that he was trying to say that rate of friendly fire casualties have increased with each successive war since WWII, but he clearly states that each war has the same rate. In fact having now done some research into the numbers it appears that the rate has decreased. Your point is well taken though regarding the apparent significance of friendly fire deaths. As the total number of casualties becomes a very small number compared to say WWII the friendly fire numbers take on a greater apparent significance. >> ^hPOD:

Actually what he/she said isn't without logic, but you failed to think about it before posting a smarmy ass reply.
His/her point (this is just a made up example to demonstrate how %'s can swing rather easily):
If 100 people died in WWII, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 10% died from friendly fire.
If 50 people died in VietNam, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 20% died from friendly fire.
If only 10 people died in the Gulf War and 5 of them died from friendly fire: 50% of them died from friendly fire.
The number of friendly causalities didn't change or went down in my above examples, however, the percentage shot up each time. That was his/her point. Because less Americans are dying in modern wars, friendly fire causalities have now become a more visible percentage despite fewer overall American deaths.

>> ^nanrod:
The number one casualty of that comment was logic.>> ^Tymbrwulf:
In order to compare friendly fire statistics you'd have to compare that against actual war casualties.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that each successive war after WWII had less casualties, but the same rate of friendly fire. Mathematically this would show a statistical increase in percentage friendly fire even though the actual casualties are less and less.
I wouldn't say the problem is getting any worse, but it definitely isn't getting any better (which is still a problem).

*dead!
too bad

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by rgroom1.

Awarding dystopianfuturetoday with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by hpqp.

Awarding Boise_Lib with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=2:08

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:08 - length declared by Boise_Lib.