More Anti War marches planned for the coming months in Gt Britain & Ireland. Three British soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber while patrolling in Iraq yesterday.Eight others were wounded.
The British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is in Brussels for a European summit was braced for a furious public backlash of 'Bring Our Boys Home', it's America's War.' Let them get on with it.
If British forces were not in Iraq...
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
-
illuminati
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:00 pm
If British forces were not in Iraq...
gnr2 wrote: There is no question, the American armed forces are the most substantial, the best equipped and by far and away the most effective war fighting force the world has ever known. I am not suggesting, and would never suggest, that the British armed forces match this offensive capability in any way.
However, the Americans have two major problems; they have no idea about FIBUA (fighting in a built up area)
I disagree with this. We rank with the best regarding urban warfare. Our troops spend inordinate amounts of time training for combat in urban settings. It's the way of the world now.
The problem our soldiers are having is that the politicos back home at the Pentagon are not allowing them to use the force necessary to clear areas.
and they are so out of touch with the civilian populace that they cannot defeat an irregular, disorganized band of poorly trained militants. The British forces not only offer expertise in FIBUA, but also have adopted a posture which has bred cooperation between the people of Iraq and the coalition forces. A divide is emerging in Iraq, between the American occupied zone which is lawless and still at war, and the southern British zone which is more peaceful and has begun the process of rebuilding. It is my contention that without the presence of the British forces in Iraq, the Americans would at present be facing massive militant activity in both Shia and Sunni held areas and that the deathtoll of American Soldiers would be at least 50% more than it is today.
I hate to tell you this, but you are mistaken. The Americans are in the hot zones. The British are not.
Britain's 8,500 strong force is largely based in the relatively quiet, oil-rich south of Iraq, with their headquarters in Basra City. Thus, they have had far less contact with insurgents than the US forces. There is peace in many other American zones around the country.
Your comments denigrate the men and women who are facing the real fighting in that country. It's easy to revel in "peace" and "success" when you are stationed half a country away from the fighting.
Now here is the real rhetorical question: "What is the UK going to do when they have a direct strike against them?" Cower? Hide? Or fight for their lives?
No matter how you answer above, the UK will insist that the US get involved. I am confident that the US will not moan and whimper like the UK is regarding helping their friends in a time of need.
This is something I think you should think about.
However, the Americans have two major problems; they have no idea about FIBUA (fighting in a built up area)
I disagree with this. We rank with the best regarding urban warfare. Our troops spend inordinate amounts of time training for combat in urban settings. It's the way of the world now.
The problem our soldiers are having is that the politicos back home at the Pentagon are not allowing them to use the force necessary to clear areas.
and they are so out of touch with the civilian populace that they cannot defeat an irregular, disorganized band of poorly trained militants. The British forces not only offer expertise in FIBUA, but also have adopted a posture which has bred cooperation between the people of Iraq and the coalition forces. A divide is emerging in Iraq, between the American occupied zone which is lawless and still at war, and the southern British zone which is more peaceful and has begun the process of rebuilding. It is my contention that without the presence of the British forces in Iraq, the Americans would at present be facing massive militant activity in both Shia and Sunni held areas and that the deathtoll of American Soldiers would be at least 50% more than it is today.
I hate to tell you this, but you are mistaken. The Americans are in the hot zones. The British are not.
Britain's 8,500 strong force is largely based in the relatively quiet, oil-rich south of Iraq, with their headquarters in Basra City. Thus, they have had far less contact with insurgents than the US forces. There is peace in many other American zones around the country.
Your comments denigrate the men and women who are facing the real fighting in that country. It's easy to revel in "peace" and "success" when you are stationed half a country away from the fighting.
Now here is the real rhetorical question: "What is the UK going to do when they have a direct strike against them?" Cower? Hide? Or fight for their lives?
No matter how you answer above, the UK will insist that the US get involved. I am confident that the US will not moan and whimper like the UK is regarding helping their friends in a time of need.
This is something I think you should think about.
If British forces were not in Iraq...
illuminati
I disagree with this. We rank with the best regarding urban warfare. Our troops spend inordinate amounts of time training for combat in urban settings. It's the way of the world now.
Sadly british troops have had considerable practice in fighting terrorists, both in Northern Ireland and places like Kosovo. It's a bit different from training for it. Flattening neighbourhoods because somebody shoots at you is not an effective tactic in the long run.
The problem our soldiers are having is that the politicos back home at the Pentagon are not allowing them to use the force necessary to clear areas.
Oh here we go where have I heard this before.
Make up your mind are you there as conquerors or liberators.
There is real concern in the UK that heavy handed US tactics are making a bad situation worse and creating more terrorists and gaining them more support. The israeli's are the last people you should take tactical advice from. If the US doesn't want to listen we should pull our troops out. It's bad enough we have to go in to sort out your mess. 4,000 us troops replaced by 850 british ones, says it all really.
Your comments denigrate the men and women who are facing the real fighting in that country. It's easy to revel in "peace" and "success" when you are stationed half a country away from the fighting.
Now here is the real rhetorical question: "What is the UK going to do when they have a direct strike against them?" Cower? Hide? Or fight for their lives?
Keep it up pal, most people in the UK are opposed to us being involved in the first place. All it would take would be one US politician to make one inane comment like you just did and the murmer of discontent will become a roar. If you don't appreciate help when you get offered it you know what you can do.
I disagree with this. We rank with the best regarding urban warfare. Our troops spend inordinate amounts of time training for combat in urban settings. It's the way of the world now.
Sadly british troops have had considerable practice in fighting terrorists, both in Northern Ireland and places like Kosovo. It's a bit different from training for it. Flattening neighbourhoods because somebody shoots at you is not an effective tactic in the long run.
The problem our soldiers are having is that the politicos back home at the Pentagon are not allowing them to use the force necessary to clear areas.
Oh here we go where have I heard this before.
Make up your mind are you there as conquerors or liberators.
There is real concern in the UK that heavy handed US tactics are making a bad situation worse and creating more terrorists and gaining them more support. The israeli's are the last people you should take tactical advice from. If the US doesn't want to listen we should pull our troops out. It's bad enough we have to go in to sort out your mess. 4,000 us troops replaced by 850 british ones, says it all really.
Your comments denigrate the men and women who are facing the real fighting in that country. It's easy to revel in "peace" and "success" when you are stationed half a country away from the fighting.
Now here is the real rhetorical question: "What is the UK going to do when they have a direct strike against them?" Cower? Hide? Or fight for their lives?
Keep it up pal, most people in the UK are opposed to us being involved in the first place. All it would take would be one US politician to make one inane comment like you just did and the murmer of discontent will become a roar. If you don't appreciate help when you get offered it you know what you can do.
-
persephone
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:14 pm
If British forces were not in Iraq...
illuminati wrote: Your comments denigrate the men and women who are facing the real fighting in that country. It's easy to revel in "peace" and "success" when you are stationed half a country away from the fighting.
So what real fighting are you talking about?
Would you be talking about their fight to prevent humanitarian aid getting into Falluja US troops 'preventing aid supply' to Falluja
Or the 'Scores of civilians' killed in Falluja
Or the Hospital hit as fighting rages in Falluja
illuminati wrote: The problem our soldiers are having is that the politicos back home at the Pentagon are not allowing them to use the force necessary to clear areas.Doesn't seem to be a problem when you read these stories.
So what real fighting are you talking about?
Would you be talking about their fight to prevent humanitarian aid getting into Falluja US troops 'preventing aid supply' to Falluja
Or the 'Scores of civilians' killed in Falluja
Or the Hospital hit as fighting rages in Falluja
illuminati wrote: The problem our soldiers are having is that the politicos back home at the Pentagon are not allowing them to use the force necessary to clear areas.Doesn't seem to be a problem when you read these stories.
Bad Girls have very high standards, but they love you even if you sometimes fall short.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
If British forces were not in Iraq...
letha wrote: So what real fighting are you talking about?
Would you be talking about their fight to prevent humanitarian aid getting into Falluja US troops 'preventing aid supply' to Falluja
Or the 'Scores of civilians' killed in Falluja
Or the Hospital hit as fighting rages in Falluja
Doesn't seem to be a problem when you read these stories.
Sorry dear, you can't trust those sources, they're not American. Neither are you, so you don't matter anyway.
Would you be talking about their fight to prevent humanitarian aid getting into Falluja US troops 'preventing aid supply' to Falluja
Or the 'Scores of civilians' killed in Falluja
Or the Hospital hit as fighting rages in Falluja
Doesn't seem to be a problem when you read these stories.
Sorry dear, you can't trust those sources, they're not American. Neither are you, so you don't matter anyway.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
If British forces were not in Iraq...
Bill Sikes wrote: Sorry dear, you can't trust those sources, they're not American. Neither are you, so you don't matter anyway.
Yeah! So there! (I'm kidding)
If the UK is helping to save lives of our soldiers, then thank you. Sincerely.
Yeah! So there! (I'm kidding)
If the UK is helping to save lives of our soldiers, then thank you. Sincerely.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
-
persephone
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:14 pm
If British forces were not in Iraq...
Bill Sikes wrote: Sorry dear, you can't trust those sources, they're not American. Neither are you, so you don't matter anyway.
Those sorces strangly have American and English news reporters on video though... Funny we don't get to see these stories.
It's a well known fact that in every war we only get to see what the govenments want us to see.
Oh and on a tactical note, it would be what is done in war, stop aid getting in, prevent medical treatment from being administered to the enemy.
Do you not know anything about war?
Being from such a great country, that loves violence and war, I would have thought you might have at least known a little. :rolleyes:
Those sorces strangly have American and English news reporters on video though... Funny we don't get to see these stories.
It's a well known fact that in every war we only get to see what the govenments want us to see.
Oh and on a tactical note, it would be what is done in war, stop aid getting in, prevent medical treatment from being administered to the enemy.
Do you not know anything about war?
Being from such a great country, that loves violence and war, I would have thought you might have at least known a little. :rolleyes:
Bad Girls have very high standards, but they love you even if you sometimes fall short.