Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (167215)	4/10/2003 11:04:17 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580109

Bottomline......we had nearly as many deaths from "friendly fire" as from the Iraqis I recognize you're analytically challenged, but this is not a meaningful metric. Put in terms you may be able to understand, "So, what? Is there a point in there somewhere?"

To: tejek who wrote (167215)	4/10/2003 2:29:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580109

Bottomline......we had nearly as many deaths from "friendly fire" as from the Iraqis. Think about that one, country boy. Really? I'm not so sure that is true. Also I'm not quite sure what you think that fact (if it is one) implies. In previous wars we might have lost tens or hundreds of thousands from enemy fire and high hundreds or thousands or maybe low tens of thousands from "friendly" fire. If the deaths from enemy fire go down an enormous amount and the deaths from friendly fire also go down a lot but the % reduction isn't quite as high is this a bad thing? Sure I'd like to see even less friendly fire deaths but in past wars we had a lot more friendly fire deaths. The reason they get more attention now is that we have so few deaths from enemy fire. Well that and the fact that the news media are a little more energetic about reporting such things. Tim