3/31    Apparently, having the Americans behind you is ever worse than
        having the French behind you:

        "Combat is what I've been trained for. I can command my vehicle.
        I can keep it from being attacked. What I have not been trained
        to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is
        shooting at me."

        "There was a boy of about 12 years old. He was no more than 20
        metres (yards) away when the Yank opened up. There were all these
        civilians around."

        "After this I am quite pleased to be going home," one of the
         wounded, Lieutenant Alex MacEwen, told the paper.

        "'Blue-on-blue' has always been one of my biggest fears. It is
         something that my friends and family joked about. 'Don't worry
         about the Iraqis, it's the Americans you want to watch'. The
         proof is in the pudding really."

        (Times of London)
        \_ ...and the point is?  That combat is dangerous?  Than being on the
           front line with bombs falling, jets screaming over head, and
           incoming enemy fire is confusing?  I think that ought to have been
           well established by now.
           \_ I think the point is, while the U.S. has spent a lot of time
              on U.S.-on-U.S. friendly fire, this hasn't translated to
              reduced U.S.-on-UK incidents.
              \_ Hmm, yeah I see what you mean -- but I don't care for the
                 presentation.
        \_ Am still searching for a semantic thread ...
                                    \_ You misspelled 'semitic'
        \_ Who's ever had the French behind him?
           \_ You must've missed the putative Patton's remark about
              the French posted here the other day.
           \_  The US, or the American Colonies as they were known then.
        \_ Just from reading the news, it indeed seemed that the British
           casualties are disproportionally high, specially friendly-fire
           related.