Replies

"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

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.

Looks like Ursus arctos horribilis, EaglesUpForever, and I agree about what happened in Basra.

EaglesUpForever wrote, "4. The British pussyfooted around Basra for two full weeks, scared to venture into battle. The US surged towards Baghdad at full speed in a sandstorm, and conquered Baghdad at darn near the same exact time that Basra truly fell. Good that the Brits are so good at peace, because they are certainly no USA when it comes to war, however imperial their heritage.
We aren't accustomed to sipping tea with the natives, because the US is about doing the job and going home, not setting up a colony..."

Which I think is spot on.

And Ursus arctos horribilis wrote, "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."

So much for your "not one person" shares my opinion, Ivan.

Facts are stubborn things. All your ad hominem attacks cannot obscure the facts of what happened in Iraq. Your vituperative response to my recounting of the facts only shows how very sensitive you are to having the facts discussed. You seek to shut down discussion about what the British troops accomplished in Iraq rather then try to debate the subject maturely and seriously.

You should save your vicious name calling tactics for the Daily Telegraph, since they are the publishers of this sickeningly snide article, which is obviously full of lies and half truths.

The facts are that the "British pussyfooted around Basra for two full weeks" and that they "barely got past the outer city limits of Basra during the same time frame as the Americans conquered the rest of Iraq". Anyone who paid attention to the war cannot have failed to take note of these facts. One does not have to resort to pop psychology, diagnosing those who observe the facts as having a long simmering resentment to the British, in order to discuss these facts.