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

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

[EaglesUpForever]

Great quote!

[Pukka Puck]

"I think the Brits performed wonderfully in this, as did the Americans, and we should focus on what we have in common more than what differentiates us. Still, I was as mad as you are at this article, and I think you can clearly make a case that the US role in this demonstrated more military prowess (even if this was simply the nature of the strategy), and given that more US lives were lost in more perilous situations, this article is PARTICULARLY offensive."

I agree wholeheartedly!

I agree that it wasn't the fault of the British troops that the script said "pussyfoot" and it is certainly no insult to the troops to point out that they did what they were ordered to do with skill and courage.

I would only take exception to not faulting certain posters for taking offence at anything that can construed as criticism of the British troops.

Some posters can CONSTRUE so hard that they can make an insult out of nothing.

[js1138]

Two reasons. First, the British have more experience in dealing with hostile populations in urban areas than almost anyone, with the possible exception of the IDF. Secondly, no regular troops in the world receive as much training as the British.

I think there's an important point here.Aside from our Special Forces, the average American soldier is incredibly young and inexperienced with dealing with foreign nationals. One of the consequenses of never having been an imperial power.

This article, however, is tame compared to the lying POS posted on another thread -- also from the Telegraph. It's as if Fox News hired Noam Chomsky to replace Sean hannity.

[Pukka Puck]

Apparently, you are an idiot.

"Why is it that American soldiers are involved in bloody encounters with Iraqi civilians and British troops are not?"

You can only come up with two possible explanations, to wit:

"Two reasons. First, the British have more experience in dealing with hostile populations in urban areas than almost anyone, with the possible exception of the IDF.

Secondly, no regular troops in the world receive as much training as the British."

"Add these two factors to the fact that England has four or five centuries worth of experience in maintaining order in foreign countries and that explains much."

It does not explain the difference nearly so much as the fact that the British are in Saddam hostile Basra and the American troops having the difficulty are in Baath Party strongholds like Tikrit.

As Ursus arctos horribilis posted in post number 2:

"Now let me see, The Brits are liked in southern Iraq. The Americans are adored by the Kurds in northern Iraq.

But the Americans are so much chopped liver according to the article.

I suggest this paper strongly propose we drop the Brits into the most die hard Sadamnite bathest strongholds within Baghdad and see how they fare with that meet my buddy Ala Babba scenario BS."

Or as No Truce With Kings wrote in post number 41:

"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."

Now you have a clue, but you are still an idiot. Claiming that Americans can't look Iraqis in the eye but the British can is anything other than a deliberate, gross insult clearly shows that you are an idiot, unworthy of further consideration.

[Pukka Puck]

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep – Saul Bellow

Hey, that is one of my favorite quotes to use when discussing affirmative action.

You be hip, daddy.

[Seydlitz]

Your argument is based on some isolated incidents. Providing water, food and the occasional incident of bravery are fine and dandy, but it is not how a population is won over. Winning the confidence of the locals requires a prolonged and personal relationship with the people. The British are very good at this, the American regulars are not as good.

BTW, disagreeing with you does not require that I be "ashamed" of myself, nor is it a "gross insult" to our troops. All that I am saying is that we could be doing better job at some of our occupation duties.

I hate to quote another Brit under these circumstances, but your hysterical defensiveness smacks of "the lady doth protest too much."

[Pukka Puck]

Do you have a word or two from the title that I can use to find the pos that you referred to?

[Pukka Puck]

"All that I am saying is that we could be doing better job at some of our occupation duties."

I am sure that we could be doing a better job at some of our occupation duties. The British could also be doing a better job, since they are not now doing a perfect job.

You could also do a much better job of posting intelligent and interesting responses to this thread.

I can look posters in the eye, but you cannot look them in the eye, since you are an idiot and you know that you are an idiot.

[Happygal]

Waterdragon, you obviously don't know the meaning of the word 'aloof'.

a·loof ( P ) Distant physically or emotionally; reserved and remote: stood apart with aloof dignity.

[may18]

Ok final post hopefully

first off i think its prtty clear that the brits on this forum have said this article is nonsense.

Ive read ivan disagree with it and ive said myself several times its silly.

WRT to the term "pussy foot", well all i can say is you dont kill a couple of thousand enemy and take several thousand pows by pussyfooting.

The south was given to the brits for one simple reason.

Better US logistics, its as simple as that.

When the towns where classed as objectives, such as al zubaryr they were taken in viscious street fights.
Much of the work was done by a force of just 4000 royal marines who killed and took prisoner more than their entire number.

It was clearly stated for the first week or so after surrounding basra that it was not an objective, the term used was "cut the head off the snake (ie take bagdhad).

However it was taken, basra was taken. And law and order has been established quickly.

If wondering why people are seemingly upset at your comments, suggesting "pussy foot is the script" is seen to make as nothing the harsh door to door fighting that royal took part in early in the war.
Do i think the USA fought more than the UK?.
Yes, they had more troops and better logistics

Do i think the objectives taken and roles done by the uk forces for their manpower are superb
damn straight i do,

Do i think uk soldiers are "better warriors" than us soldiers

Of course Not

Do i think uk troops are worse "warriors"
No of course not again

Do i think centcom kept the uk out of heavy fighting?
Definetely not.In fact the uk marines were given the first op of the war.

Hope that covers anything, plse from both uk and us posters, no more derogotary remarks such as trigger happy, bad peacekeepers, pussy foot etc

It is spitting in the face of those that gave their lives fighting alongside allies

[js1138]

Try this link. Scroll down to product details.

[Seydlitz]

Pukka Puck, other than the fact that I disagree with you, why am I an idiot? I'm sure than name calling served you well in the playground when you were ten years old, but it is a little on the lame side now.

Britain's long experience in Northern Ireland, and numerous other places, serves as evidence for my contention that they have more knowledge of urban peacekeeping operations than the US. The fact that American soldiers have opened fire on crowds and killed 15 Iraqi civilians, versus no such incidents for the British, is evidence of my belief that the Brits are doing a better job than us.

[js1138]

Oops. Wrong thread. Wrong link.

[miss marmelstein]

The Brits wore berets during all those years in Northern Ireland. I don't remember that it pacified anyone. And Ronald Merrick, the protaganist of "The Jewel and the Crown" wore culottes but it didn't stop him from treating the natives like dirt! Soon the British papers will suggest we send over Harvey Fierstein in a smock to control the Iragis.

[Pukka Puck]

"Why am I an idiot?"

Because you cannot see a strong and intended insult when you read one.

I hope this helps.

[Pukka Puck]

Hello

[Seydlitz]

So, when you interpret something as an insult, and someone else interprets it as a justifiable criticism, that someone else is an idiot. Good to know.

[Pukka Puck]

"The fact that American soldiers have opened fire on crowds and killed 15 Iraqi civilians, versus no such incidents for the British, is evidence of my belief that the Brits are doing a better job than us."

The Brits are in an area where folks with AK47 among crowds of civilians have not opened fire on them while Americans are in a much more hostile area where folks with AK47 among crowds of civilians have opened fire on them.

The Brits are in an area where no car bombers have blown them up at checkpoints, while at least two car bombers have killed American troops at checkpoints.

As FreedomCalls wrote in post #56 in regards to the shooting incident:

"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.

[Pukka Puck]

It doesn't require interpretation to see that "Unlike the American troops, we look the Iraqis in the eye" is an insult to American troops. It takes willful ignorance to see it as anything other than an insult.

I hope this helps.

[WaterDragon]

What I referred to were not "isolated" incidents. For every photo we saw of Americans chatting with Iraqis, feeding them, etc, carrying injured Iraqi soldiers, playing soccer with Iraqi young men, crawling out into the line of fire to rescue old Iraqi women shot by Iraqi soldiers......for every one of these photos, and there were hundreds, so many acts of "looking Iraqis in the eye", that went unrecorded.

The article headline states a lie, and continues the lie in the article. It states the lie in order to make British soldiers look "better" than Americans.

I fail to see the need. Both armies performed exceptionally well. But the Telegraph seems to need to trash Americans in order to present Brits in a good light.