no evidence aside from the fact there's more instances of American forces using friendly fire than other nations you mean? Cause I'd say thts pretty strong evidence. Also Britain hasn't withdrawn from Iraq or Afghanistan, they still there just same as US. "United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Troop_deployment_in_Iraq_2003-2009 America has three times more troops there, that's an exponentially greater chance for friendly fire to occur. Any "reputation" American forces have for greater instances of friendly fire is pure propaganda. Not to mention the fact that there were over 10,000 deaths by friendly fire from the British in WW2 that you threw out "because of the technology" which makes no sense because all parties had access to the same technology. Plus there were examples completely unrelated to technology or American presence, like the one I posted where British aircraft destroyed German ships carrying over 7,000 concentration camp survivors and POWs. Like Y_Guy said, it happens in all conflicts, the assertion you are trying to make is logically flawed because there are no concrete examples with equivalent time in combat or manpower in combat on either side. ww2 was a differnt war neek. different times, totally uncomparable. completely messy, much worse technology. [bleep]ed up times for most people in europe. not ameirca though who 'saved the day'. your country wasnt even sure if it wanted to be involved. pAH. also the british should have excactly 3 times less if the friendly fire rate is the same, since britain on american is friendly fire. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/american-troops-friendly-fire-iraq got to admit tho, i just went on wikipedia and if all of the exampled on friendly fire are the only ones that occured then it was about 3-1. which means it was equal :P but i dunno.. About friendly fire. Majority of British friendly fire incidents happened on-ground-to-ground. Majority of American friendly fire incidents i found was most due to accidentally aircraft strafing which at least understandable because it's hard to see 10,000 ft from the ground. and yes we do fly 100% of them meaning that chances are they things can go wrong. Let's not to mention that we even saved many British troops on the ground in Afghanistan along as ross kemp in Afghanistan says. As i recall 16 British servicemen was been killed by British friendly fire alone in both wars combined. 13 was due to ground-to-ground and 3 was due to the fault of the British Forward Air Controller giving the bad coordinates to a US pilot that killed 3 privates of the Royal Anglian Regiment back in August 23, 2007. Remember the FAC is always responsible for pilot actions and he did authorized the pilot to attack. And UK friendly fire rates are the same as the US due to troops per troop. Wikipedia has been going through lots of changes since so it can't be always that accurate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1038781/British-soldier-faces-manslaughter-charges-Afghanistan-friendly-deaths.html Even a month ago in February, another soldier from the royal Irish regiment was shot and killed by another British soldier while returning foot to base in Afghanistan.
