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

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

[Incorrigible]

[Happygal]

No I'm gettin'

Contrary...
Contrary...
Contrary...

Once, I get contrary, I know it's time to go to bed! *LOL*

[WaterDragon]

Do you generally tolerate snide insults from your friends? I'll personally overlook a lot, but when our troops, those young men and women, put their lives on the line for me, I don't tolerate some snot-nosed British newspaper printing insulting articles about those young men and women.

That it's okay with you is astonishing.

[Thumper1960]

Never forget the heroic resistance of the Brits in '39-'41, until the US entered the war, courtesy of a Japanese invitation. Had the Battle of Britain gone the wrong way, I shudder to think what course the war would have taken.

God bless those flippin' Brits.

[Thumper1960]

Don't take the paper's storyline or the British Tommy's comments too seriously. These are the same blokes who make "regular" size condoms a bit larger than stateside rubbers. Hell, we've always had a friendly rivalry with the "mother" country. ;-> At least they and the Aussies came with us to Iraq!

[WaterDragon]

The issue in this thread is not the British troops, Thumper. They're marvelous.

Can you imagine a truly conservative American newspaper, such as the Washington Times, for example, printing an article snidely sneering at British troops, suggesting that, maybe, they're wimps? Can you?

If a conservative American newspaper did that, we'd be all over them, for sure, for sheer stupidity.

[jwh_Denver]

Why thank you Happygal!

[dandelion]

Not forgotten, just mentioned in a later post - #24.

It bears repeating, we didn't come in until VERY late in the conflict, almost too late. The Brits had been holding the fort throughout the Battle of Britain, and at that time they were very glad to see us finally roar back to brutal life on the battlefield. Had Britain not held the Nazis at bay throughout their conflict, undoubtedly we would be looking at The Third Reich's version of Europe. God knows, the Brits did what the rest of Europe, barring Russia, could not do - beat Hitler back. And they didn't even have old man winter pulling for them - just the sea and their indomitable spirit. That spirit, so marvellously displayed throughout this present crisis, is the Britain I was brought up to love and revere.

What is strange is that I, not even being of that generation, had this love of the British spirit passed to me by the very men sent to save Britian at the time she needed us most. This article, sadly, bears none of gratitude that friendship breeds - it only jeers and sneers at the very hands we offered in friendship so long ago. Were there none who spoke lovingly of us, of these who willingly came to Britain to save it? Are there none left who remember we came, not with a gun to our head, but with our guns in our hands to rescue them? What they now deride, they once needed? We have not changed - we are a passionate and violent people, ready to die for the freedom of others. Since when did Britain come to hate us for being what they so desperately needed in their time of darkness?

This article is not representative of the British - American relationship, but it still hurts us to hear our fighting men and women described in such a brutish way. You can bet we will NOT return the favor - the Tommy will not be smeared in the American press, for he deserves better. So do we.

[Thumper1960]

Well....they're "journalists". I take their designation as such into account. Nothing I read, foreign or domestic press...allegedly conservative or liberal...do I take as gospel or literally. Now, I'm sure the Brits may have said something along the vein of what was "reported", but not meant in the way the paper portrays it. Our guys and their guys no doubt needle each other over various tactics and procedures. Nothing personal, and nothing taken as such. They have their protocols and we have ours. We may even learn from each other. And, screw the press, anyway.

[Thumper1960]

I do not believe the British fighting men and women hold the view of the Yanks the way the British paper(s) have portrayed. I do believe they like to sell papers. Some consumption for the British population that would eat it up. To be sure, I'd rather trust a British Tommy babysitting my daughter as opposed to a "journalist" of any nationality.

You are correct about the spirit of Britain that held back the NAZI hordes. Despite what the press may spew, I still see Britain as the best friend the US has ever had. I feel honored to have them fighting with our troops in Iraq. I feel it a priviledge and a duty to fly a Union Jack, along side the Stars and Stripes outside my home.

[onehipdad]

It's definitely NOT ok with me, just understandable given the source, and discounted by the same token.

[WaterDragon]

"....given the source, and discounted by the same token."

That is my whole point. It is this newspaper, the Telegraph, and not the real conservatives of Britain and certainly not her troops that has this sorry attitude.

[WaterDragon]

Thumper, that is a very moving and high-class post. Thank you. And it represents the high quality of American conservatism.

[WaterDragon]

This article is not representative of the British - American relationship, but it still hurts us to hear our fighting men and women described in such a brutish way. You can bet we will NOT return the favor - the Tommy will not be smeared in the American press, for he deserves better. So do we.

Your entire post is really beautiful, dandelion. Thank you.

[may18]

Thanks thumper great post

as to this silly article pandering to uk tastes.
Well our press seems to love printing stuff that enrages the public.

I remember the guardian writing an article where i called the uk solders"dads army", something i can assure you that did not sit well with our public.

When on the bbc about 6 months after 9/11 they managed to raise a hostile audience for the american guest. The bbc recieved more complaints than they have ever had in their history about their anti american bias. The bbc were forced to make a formal apology as a result.

[MadIvan]

Now that is the honest to God truth!

Spoken like a true armchair general who ignored every last article I posted about the raids taken to soften up Basra. Perhaps you'd like to tell the lads who went in and were getting shot at that they were merely "pussyfooting around".

You are a complete liar, Pukka. You have got it into your head that somehow it's necessary to leap on every Daily Telegraph article that doesn't completely praise the American forces. The war began in March. We're now in May. In that space of time, in that number of editions, you've found only 2 articles that achieve this. What is more is that you take this to unbelievable, hysterical heights so that even the mildest criticism gets blown up, in your mind, to being absolute slander.

In short, you're fishing for an excuse to start a fight. Someone British along the line obviously hurt you and you're aching for revenge, not truth. For you to ignore the vast number of articles out of the Telegraph that supported America in favour of just 2, makes it obvious.

I feel sure no one wants to have anything to do with your pet psychoses.

Ivan

[RightOnline]

" "I'm not going near that lot," one marine said. "I don't feel safe anywhere near them, unless I am behind a whopping big tank.""

I think the Brits are doing a fantastic job, and I don't ever begrudge a 'hometown paper' painting them in such a good light. They deserved it. Still, it's tacky to make our boys sound like armored automotons.

The quote above..........I'm calling B.S. on. When's the last time you heard an American, let alone a G.I., speak that way? I'd call it "paraphrasing" at best, a total fabrication at worst.

[Pukka Puck]

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.

[Pukka Puck]

You are fogiven.

[Pukka Puck]

The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid. It is the premier conservative paper.

Can you not grasp the simple fact that since this sickeningly snide article appears in the premier conservative paper in Britain, it very clearly shows that even among conservatives in Britain, anti-Americanism is rampant?

Can you imagine a similarly vicious attack on British troops being printed in the Wall Street Journal?

Get real!