"Unlike the American troops, we look the Iraqis in the eye"

The Daily Telegraph U.K. ^ | 4-05-03 | Not attributed

[Trailerpark Badass]

As if all of our allies in the UK agree with this newspaper article. I suggest you direct your attack to the Daily Telegraph, not the "Brits".

Well, considering some 70% of the British public opposed the war, perhaps we should reserve our respect for Tony Blair and the more circumspect and tactful members of the British military.

The British love to slag on the U.S. just as much as any other Europeans.

[Pukka Puck]

"You are right and correct about not wanting to be a nit picker. But, as it urinated me, I will do it for you and take on this jerkoff author for this rag. It seems there is always a Bernie Montgomery syndrome exhibited by a jealous SOB hidden somewhere in the Brit mentality. So lets us find some fault with the British commanders and their battle plans, not the excellent British troops

The Americans conquered over 300 miles of hostile country charging forward from their base of operations and supplies. This though weeks of constant up close and personal combat.

Now compare the Brits, they never got out of sight of Kuwait City and their base of operations or supplies. They barely got past the outer city limits of Basra during the same time frame as the Americans conquered the rest of Iraq.

I also remember that "soft and easy" MO of sitting by and letting the Sadamnites slaughter the civilians in Basra with artillery, this while the Brit commanders timidly played whist outside the city without proactively intervening. At the same time the Brit combat troops were raising hell and chomping at the bit to close with the enemy and bring it to a halt.

Fact, Americans took Baghdad in one day, they took the entire country in less time than the Brits got to the city center of Basra. And that they were only able to do with full American fixed and rotor winged airpower."

Too right! Spot on!

[Pukka Puck]

I like your rewrite, since it reflects reality rather than leftist spin.

[Pukka Puck]

"The Telegraph, supposedly the most conservative newspaper in Britain"

"Hardly. I think the Sun is considered to be far more politically conservative."

Perhaps, but isn't the Telegraph supposed to be the BEST conservative paper in Britain?

[Pukka Puck]

"As to the Russian winter, why didn't it beat the Germans in WWI?"

You don't have a very strong grasp of history, do you? The Russians surrendered to the Germans in World War I on terms very favorable to the Germans. Those terms were rewritten after the Allies eventually defeated the Germans.

[WaterDragon]

Same thing happened to me but a few years before. I did get my old screen name back. The site has grown so fast, it's a wonder they keep up with us at all. LOL

[Happygal]

They are all a bunch of socialists over there now?

Care to tell me what you know of the recent local elections, and the Torie gains?

[may18]

pukka

with respect a few facts.

The uk commanders were under US orders, not an opinion just a simple fact. Even when they bombed chemical ali they had to ask permission from centcom.

Yes the uk took the south, the US logistics is better, however
facts are the initial assault (including the tricky job of taking the oilfields without them being destroyed). Was led by royal marines and a small contingent of navy seals. Amongst the towns taken was one of 140k population, and a near city of 320k population which was a military strongpoint.

Another fact, the US supply lines were attacked early on the 16th air assault brigade was deployed to secure them. They also patrolled the borders when actions from neighbours seemed likely.

So a summary

with 25k soldiers available, the uk took large tracts of the south, secured borders and supply lines, and took basra.

Personally i consider that a signifigant contribution wih limited manpower.

Now, you are free to critisise based on newspaper articles, however your feelings are not shared by your men on the ground, just about every account from english and american soldiers that have worked together is mutual respect.

[jwh_Denver]

It's a benevolent-master role that the English have cultivated through the centuries.

What, our military can't learn from other countries military's? Let's not get arrogant here. Assuming the article is even possibly true, even accounting for the difference in location of the Brits and Americans, if they do a better job of peacekeeping after the war, then we should learn what it is they do and incorporate it into our efforts.

[stinkypew]

It was the IIIJ. I just re-read it.

[Happygal]

The British love to slag on the U.S. just as much as any other Europeans.

Eh...and the American posters on this board slag Europeans. Isn't 'euroweenie' the popular phrase?

Does anyone else around here see a childish playground fight emerging?

Guess, George W. Bush didn't want the Brits and the Spanish as Allies in the War on Iraq afterall. Geez, ye think Dubya might have told them before they deployed troops, eh?

[dandelion]

The British are true friends, and beyond valiant, as I believe the recent war has illustrated. I think that this discussion has moved far beyond the original intent of the article, which was to discuss the differences of the American and British troops' strategies in Iraq.

I certainly did not agree with everything that the journalist wrote reguarding our fine Marines, but I don't hold the entire British population responsible becuase one journalist rightfully bragged about the superiority of British peacekeeping techniques. So he/she doesn't like Marines, that's perfectly alright. We weren't there to be liked, and obviously we're not basing our foreign policy on likeability. On the other hand, it's wonderful to have good friends who know how to be likeable.

You are likeable, you bunch of Brits. I like you. Let's be friends, just please don't let your SAS come after me - unless they're in uniform, then that would be fun. (I'm a girl, I can say mushy touchy-feely stuff like that.)

[WaterDragon]

The article was posted not as an attack on the British army, but on a newspaper that presents itself as conservative but repeatedly prints attacks on the American troops. No American newspaper has printed such drivel about the British troops. Class shows, doesn't it?

[Happygal]

Bravo! And well said!

[Pukka Puck]

"Battle Of New Orleans"

I was just over to Chalmette, LA where that battle took place and read the historical marker that marks the spot. There is a large Exxon/Mobil refinery across the street from the battle site that I visit for business reasons.

[WaterDragon]

Repeat: the article was posted to expose idiocies of a supposedly conservative newspaper, not an attack on the British troops.

And it isn't "just one article", this is the latest in a series of similar articles trashing American troops. The Brits on this forum have tended to see these articles as just showing pride in their troops. American newspapers have not seemed to need to trash British troops in order to express pride in our own.

[Happygal]

Perhaps, but isn't the Telegraph supposed to be the BEST conservative paper in Britain?

The Sun is a 'tits and ass' tabloid, that sells a conservative agenda. It's like comparing the Weekly World News to the Washington Post.

Pukka..do you have ANY concept of newspaper sales?

[Pukka Puck]

Perhaps I missed them, but I've seen no articles in American newspapers offering anything but praise for the British troops. I've seen no articles quoting American troops offering other than appreciation for British participation in the war.

I haven't either, and I'm glad of that. It is as it should be.

Unfortunately, you can't count on everyone to have class.

Yes, too bad the British press has no class.