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

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

[Pukka Puck]

I don't think the British troops are inferior or that they are cowards. I do think that the fact that the majority of British voters were opposed to the war caused both American and British war planners to use the very fine British troopers very tentatively.

Don't go all Madivan on us by threatening to cancel your membership while claiming that a couple posts by a couple people represent the views of ALL the people on this forum. You are far fairer and level headed than Ivan. For goodness sake, he even acknowledges being MAD in his very handle, while I claim to be the real thing, using a British expression, no less.

Don't forget it was an article in the British press slamming American troops that started all this, not some American witch hunt against British troops.

[Pukka Puck]

"You insult my country, its commanders, who by all accounts have performed a brave service."

You whiney crybaby. It was the story in your beloved Daily Telegraph that insulted our country, our troops, and our commanders. You defend that paper.

I did not insult anyone, I only agreed with posters who posted facts about what happened in Iraq. If the truth hurts, too bad.

[may18]

lol i wasnt going to post on this again.

WRT to using the forces tentatively, well in the first horrible days of the war, the royal marines where used (with usmarines under uk command) to do the awfull job of securing the first tracts of land.

anyway just to show you public opinion regarding war.
It varied greatly, the link below i by icm, a respected polster andshows how uk opinion warmed to war.

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2003/guardian-bombingiraq18-april-2003.htm

[Pukka Puck]

"people who having been shown the truest friendship possible, spit back in the face of that friendship."

You mean the sort of people who publish articles titled, "Unlike the American troops, we look the Iraqis in the eye"?

Are those the sort of slimeballs that you are sick of, Ivan?

Because the paper that published that despicable insult directed at American troops truly are spitting in the face of Britons best friend, America.

[Pukka Puck]

I don't think the British troops are inferior or that they are cowards. I do think that the fact that the majority of British voters were opposed to the war caused both American and British war planners to use the very fine British troopers very tentatively.

[Thumper1960]

"Journalists" can paint whatever they want. Painting is interpretive imagery. Brit soldiers wimps? Whoever would claim that is an idiot to the extreme! Operations in Iraq didn't, and don't, happen in a vacuum. CENTCOM knows full well the whys and wherefores of the Brits handlings and tactics in southern Iraq. Any and all movements and tactics used in the operation will be studied and discussed in war colleges in both countries. What the Brits did in their sphere of operations will, no doubt, serve to inhance the abilities of both our militaries.

Whoever would say disparaging words of the Brits or Yanks in their conduct of the war in Iraq is a fool.

[Pukka Puck]

"You are a fine gentleman and a scholar."

I disagree. A gentleman does not accuse others of being liars for no legitimate reason. Only a spoiled five year old would threaten to take his marbles and go home and sulk in a corner when presented with opinions contrary to his own.

[Pukka Puck]

Thank you for your post and your link.

I appreciate your considered responses.

[JETDRVR]

Falklands anybody?

[may18]

let me give you an example of using different tactics on different objectives, this time with us troops

in uhm qasir the job of taking the small old town was given to US marines.

They fought there for 5 days, when they moved out most of the resistance was quelled but house to house was not completed, royal moved in to continue securing the area and had secured it in a day and a night.

Now when i look at this incident do i say

"ooh look 5 days and they couldnt take a tiny town" ?

no of course i dont. I say

"US marines did a huge part of the work, under centcom command, before moving on to another objective.They foughtbravely in nasty urban conditions. Royal were no doubt grateful that so much resistance was eradicated."

See how easy it is too pick out incidents in the conflict and misconstrue them?.

[may18]

The falklands was fought by infantry.

Few facts regarding it

The US advised us it was impossibl with our forces available.

During almost every infantry battle the uk forces were outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1, even against positions dug in, with limited support, the 20 harriers available were unable to provide air suport, the fleet needed protection.

During the initial fight 700 paras took 1500 pows, using small arms fire and bayonet. When the attack faltered the colonel charged a machine gun nest, he subdued the nest, sadly he died while charging a second nest.

Seeing their commander charge the men of 2nd para also charged with bayonet fixed.

When the warsaw pact saw the performance of british infantry they strengthened their forces in europe

And finally the uk greatly appreciated the help given to he uk by the US. Reagan backed the uk, imposed sanctions on argentina. And offered us a super carrier, i can only assume it was through pride that we refused

[Thumper1960]

What?

No Lady Maggie Thatcher pic???

[may18]

lol just for you ;p

http://mt.sopris.net/mpc/military/v/thatcher.reagan.jpg

http://www.reagan.dk/pics/withthatcher87.gif

http://www.reagan2000.com/gallimages/1990ReaganwithThatcher.jpg

[Thumper1960]

Geez!

Thanks!!!

The "Iron Lady" and the "Gipper". What a team!!!!

[EaglesUpForever]

"It's essential for the free world
that MadIvan stays on FR..."

[Charles Martel]

I'm sick to death of listening to this nonsense.

You insult my country, its commanders, who by all accounts have performed a brave service.

Hang on there, mate. That was a Telegraph article which insulted America and its men in the field, who by all accounts have performed a brave service, too. That sort of thing is guaranteed to raise some hackles, but there's no need to sour a fine relationship over something that a "reporter" scrawled with a wax crayon.

Our nations are more similar than different - and sadly, the same may be said for U.S. and U.K. media. Good people on both sides of the Atlantic should be offended by that Telegraph article. You'd be justifiably angry if a similar screed disparaging U.K. troops were printed in a U.S. newspaper, correct?

Mass media: the enemy within.

[Pukka Puck]

Another fine post by you, may18.

Thank you for your excellent example. I have no problem with the British troops. It is the way the Telegraph spins their story that has me steamed.

The very title of the article is slur and a slap in the face.

[Seydlitz]

The British sense of superiority over the American military is as old as America. For example, during WW II, the British referred to the Americans as "our Italians". Old habits die hard.

Besides, it must be acknowledged that, man for man, the British army is the best in the world. That is no slur on the American military, rather, our reliance on technology and firepower has always been far greater than that of our English allies.

[Pukka Puck]

"Besides, it must be acknowledged that, man for man, the British army is the best in the world."

While I will not acknowledge it, neither will I dispute it.

[WaterDragon]

During the fighting in Iraq, the Telegraph, the primary "conservative" newspaper in Britain, at least twice printed articles that basically said American troops are violent, arrogant gorillas and British troops are compassionate gentlemen. Another article in the Telegraph, yesterday, made fun of a couple of drunken American college kids (in an American bar) and went on to call President Bush and PM Blair liars about why this war is being fought. Americans in this forum know that if a conservative American newspaper printed articles making fun of the British troops fighting in Iraq, we conservatives in this forum would be furious. We would cry foul in this forum and deluge the newspaper with letters of outrage. In response to the snide articles in the Telegraph, British posters in this forum have defended the Telegraph and pooh-poohed the articles as nothing to worry about. In fact, MadIvan himself posted one of those articles and indicated that he thought it probably represented the truth, and why should Americans feel insulted? Which many told him they were. In other words, MadIvan did not resent his British conservative newspaper printing insults to American troops. He said we are silly to resent these insults. A couple of American posters (out of many, many) made put-down remarks about the British troops and MadIvan and others went ballistic, naturally. And then tried to insist that any resentment over the Telegraph's insults to American troops are merely attacks on British troops!!!! Well, we know that the liberal/Lefties always turn any argument on its head. They will do anything to avoid responding responsibly to the issue. Why would MadIvan defend the Telegraph's insults to American soldiers? He says the Telegraph has only done that a couple of times, so --- big deal. He even posted one of the articles himself, thinking it a fair article. The issue is not the British soldiers. They are great. American soldiers are great. But the Telegraph, which is read by all conservatives in Britain insults American soldiers and no Brit on this forum gets upset about that. MadIvan is threatening to leave FR if Americans continue to object to the Telegraph's insults to American troops. I have written the Telegraph about these insulting articles and heard absolutely nothing back from them. Beneath them to respond? It's like the hubby who only slaps his wife's teeth down her throat now and then, but otherwise brings her flowers and gifts. What on earth is she objecting to?