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

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

[No Truce With Kings]

You got a British paper wanting to brag on British performance. O.K. I can see that, and am willing to let it slide. Even the UK is feeling a little . . . envious . . . about the big dawg.

However, I think this paper is neglecting a few points.

1. The Brits occupy one of the most anti-Saddam parts of Iraq -- the Shi'ite region around Basrah. Of course, they are going to be greeted like conquering heros.

2. The US holds some of the most pro-Saddam regions, including Falludah and Tikrit. If there *is* going to be any resistance to occupation those are the places -- and it does not matter whether Brits or Yanks are occupying those sites.

3. Over the vast majority of Baghdad, the US are being treated as liberators. The Western press, partly because they are lazy pigs, too self absorbed to leave the Palestine Hotel, and partly because they are anti-US anyway (even US newshawks) prefer to play up the few demonstrators that go to that hotel to protest the US. Read that whole story here: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/629xnqei.asp

Anyway, I would put this in the same category as those "quagmire" predictions of four weeks back.

[WaterDragon]

Is it possible to show patriotism for one's own troops without the need to put down your allies? Americans manage that. Probably has to do with our lack of an inferiority complex.

[dandelion]

Truth be told, Hitler was a bad dictator, and an even worse soldier. We should thank God for that everyday - if he had listened to his best military advisors, or if he had more knowledge of the military sciences, he would have been a FAR more powerful force.

With Russia as an neutral entity instead of enemy, he could have held most of Europe, and I believe would have eventually been able to negotiate a surrender with Allied Forces, retaining control of his new nation. Instead, his ego and his need for complete control crippled his military campaign, and thus contributed to the Allied victory.

[WaterDragon]

Excellent points.

[American Soldier]

I was going to post a reply to this thread, but I don't need to now. You nailed it.

[WaterDragon]

This is pure left wing fiction to cover for this maggot's wet dream posing as an oped and news:

Agreed.

[dandelion]

That's not trashing the Brits, it's just a question about why it's NOW a problem, when it wasn't one back in WWII. No bad names, no accusations, no aspersions on the writer of the article. I'd just like to know why it's a problem now. The question deserves an answer.

[gcruse]

I think the Telegraph is one of the best English papers in the world, and this article says nothing suprising. We aren't peace keepers.

[WaterDragon]

ROFL!

[EaglesUpForever]

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...

[Arthur McGowan]

How did you post a reply without replying to any one person?

[Robert DeLong]

This newspaper is comparing apples and oranges. Baghdad has a lot of Saddam loyalists while Southern Iraq contained none.

[Doe Eyes]

Do you think an article in the New York Times speaks for all of the United States. Trash the article, the source, but not the UK.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

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.

[FreedomCalls]

"Last week, Americans killed 15 people - among them two young boys - at Fallujah, an impoverished Shia area 30 miles west of Baghdad - when locals became angry at their occupation of the local school."

If I were the Telegraph's copy editor, I would re-write that sentence to this:

Last week, Americans killed 15 people - among them two young boys who were shooting AK-47s at them - at Fallujah, an impoverished Shia area 30 miles west of Baghdad - when ex-Ba'athist Party officials pretended to become angry at the Americans' occupation of the local school. They provoked a crowd of fellow Ba'athists to riot, even giving AK-47s to innocent 15-yer olds and taunting them to shoot at the Marines in an attempt to force the Marines to fire back in front of the pre-arranged CNN cameras. The ex-Ba'ath Party officials are struggling to get the Marines out of Fallujah so they can establish a foothold from which they can regain their lost power and authority.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Just delete the name in the "To:" field on the reply form.

[Squantos]

Yep they have em.....replaced their older M60's long time ago.

Stay Safe !

[F-117A]

Do the Marines even have Abrams?

I wondered that too at one point, but to answer your question... Yes, they do!

[Doe Eyes]

But, as it urinated me, I will do it for you and take on this jerkoff author for this rag.

I agree with this poster.