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

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

[Seydlitz]

Basra is in the heart of Shia country, yet no one shoots at the Brits. You also advised the Telegraph to re-write their piece to refer to people forced "to shoot at the Marines in an attempt to force the Marines to fire back..." in Fallujah. However, last I checked, the 82nd Airborne is part of the Army, not the USMC. But hey, I'm just an idiot.

[WaterDragon]

LOL!

[WaterDragon]

Obviously, some people are harder to insult than others. I know a women who loves her husband who regularly knocks her teeth down her throat, but....also often brings her candy and flowers to prove his love for her.

Some people you can't help.

[miss marmelstein]

My favorite photo: the soldier in a truck holding a tiny girl munching on a Fig Newton.

[Pukka Puck]

"Basra is in the heart of Shia country, yet no one shoots at the Brits."

No shit, Sherlock! Since you are obviously ignorant, let me clue you in. Saddam and his henchmen were Sunni. They oppressed the Shiites and did not allow them to become members of the Baath Party, ergo, the Shia hated Saddam and welcomed the Brits as liberators from Saddam. The Kurds in the north, likewise oppressed by Saddam and the Baath Party, welcomed American troops and the Kurds are not shooting at Americans, either.

In the former Baath Party strongholds, like Tikrit and Fallujah, support for Saddam was much higher, Baath Party membership was much higher, ergo, much more resentment of American troops, including gunfire.

Now please stop being so stupid.

[Pukka Puck]

You are both an idiot and a nitpicker. These are not mutually exclusive.

If you would have read a little closer, I was quoting from another poster at to the rewrite. The bigger point was that the Baath Party Iraqis were to blame for the shooting, not American troops, whether those troops are Marines or 82nd Airborne.

If you have been following the war news as closely as you seem to have been, then you know full well that many Iraqi soldiers ditched their uniforms and put on civilian clothes. Among the fifteen killed were most likely deserting soldiers or at least they would be among those who started shooting at our troops in the hopes of provoking an incident for the press to spout and useful idiots like you to parrot.

[John Jorsett]

"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 don't know a single American who uses the term, "that lot." That's British English and makes me doubt the veracity and tone of the entire piece.

[Seydlitz]

So, Shia militants backed by Iranian provacateurs don't dare shoot at Brits, but Sunni Baathists with no outside support shoot at Americans. Fair enough.

[Pukka Puck]

Not to mention that an American Marine would ever say to a damn limey reporter, "I don't feel safe anywhere near them".

Sure Mr. Reporter, we all know that American Marines are all cowards.

The entire article is simply a snide smear.

[Pukka Puck]

So if Shia militants, Shia militants backed by Iranian provacateurs haven't shot at the Brits, now have they? And you attribute this fact to the Brits being such friendly blokes that even with Iranian provocateurs goading them into shooting the British, the local Shia militants just can't bring themselves to shooting at a Brit who isn't wearing a helmet? Like I said, you are an idiot.


And yes, Sunni Baathists have shot at Americans. Are you so stupid as to think that if the British were to be patrolling in the Baathist areas that no British troops would be shot at?

Like I wrote, you are willfully ignorant. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You refuse to see an insult where there is an obvious insult. Are you a conservative or a liberal, because you sure do think like a liberal, i.e., stupid and unrealistic?

[WaterDragon]

My favorite photo: the soldier in a truck holding a tiny girl munching on a Fig Newton.

There were tons of photos like that one. I adored it, too.

[WaterDragon]

I don't know a single American who uses the term, "that lot." That's British English and makes me doubt the veracity and tone of the entire piece

Lazy reporting or outright fabrication, why is a conservative newspaper, the Telegraph, in Britain giving space to this trash?

[may18]

First off, basra is not as rosy as people seem to think.

There is progress, but the image that everyone there loves them is false. Some are grateful, others are resentfull.

WRT to a couple of comments ive read

1) Wearing of berets, removal of armor.
No it isnt going to make everyone love you, its a tactic to appear less threatening. If the usa doesnt do that, shrug just different tactics no way to know which is best

2) The argument that of the telegraph posts this, then it must reflect uk opinion. Here i beg to differ. The bbc throughout the whole war were incredibly negative regarding uk force progress. Many were angry yet still they portrayed it. Ive read articles on the web from uk papers deriding our men on the ground. Again most brits reading it were outraged. Why does the paper print it? scandal sells papers

3) The comment that higher casualties would have swayed opinion against war.
Well i think thts a misguess of uk personality.
I lived through the falklands, when the sheffield was sunk, support for the war increased. In fact a large chunk of the public advocated taking the falklands and using it as a base for taking out galtieri. Despite the fact 250 uk lives were lost.

Anyway what im interested in, do people think the uk and us stles of peacekeeping differ?. Do tey think one style is more effective?. Or is it as i think impossible to jusdge, as different cities present different problems?

[Pukka Puck]

"Or is it as i think impossible to judge, as different cities present different problems?"

I agree with you that it is impossible to judge, but that I would imagine that the edge goes to the British. A British paper could have made this point, without deriding the Americans in the process and if they had, it would have had a better chance of being accepted by Americans.

[MadIvan]

Don't ping me to your posts. Quite frankly, there is little point in arguing with you, since facts don't matter - only your anti-British bias (for whatever reason) does.

I am not going to leave this site, as it has become clear to me that you are indeed if not alone, certainly in a distinct minority. And as such, should just be simply ignored.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

That fact that some have mentioned that the lads sat outside Basra, doing very little for two weeks, is not bashing the "lads", it is simply a very true fact.

I pinged you to a number of articles that proved you to the contrary that they were doing "little". It's not my problem that you're too barmy to notice. As such, there is no further point in discussing the matter with you - your sole purpose is to spew propaganda, not facts.

Ivan

[Pukka Puck]

If you don't want me to post to you, don't post to me.

The facts of the British war experience are what they are and it is you who ignore these facts, not I.

I was so worried that you would go sulk in the corner by yourself and I am now so relieved that you have decided to stay.

[Pukka Puck]

"I pinged you to a number of articles that proved you to the contrary that they were doing "little"."

No, you pinged me to articles that made it very clear that the British troops were doing very little. The articles were about tiny "raids" on the outskirts of Baghdad, not major engagements. The Brits did not get going in Basra until after the Americans took Baghdad and by doing so, the resistance in Basra collapsed, allowing the British to finally take Basra in an anticlimactic battle after the game was already up.

[MadIvan]

Pukka:

I posted articles regarding the Royal Marines raiding Basra, artillery fights in Basra, snatch and grab of Ba'ath leaders, and so on. Men showing far more bravery than you can possibly ever know.

But this leads me to my final point - discourse only works if you are willing to yield in the face of facts. In spite of the articles I showed you, you have judged (and God knows what military expertise you have to judge such things), that it was "little". Well men fought, fought hard, suffered and died in those "little fights". Hardly "little", but you simply don't want to acknowledge it for whatever reason.

If you want to insult Britain, go right ahead. Insult the lads too while you're at it. At first, I thought you might be open to persuasion and logic to do otherwise. I've been disappointed on this score. Then I argued with you because I was worried that others might have believed your nonsense. I shouldn't have worried. That means that in the final analysis, you're just one man (with a few friends maybe), with a chip on your shoulder and a bias, who doesn't really influence or affect anyone. As such, arguing with you is wasting my time. You spouting off as you do, makes it worse for yourself, not for me, the longer you continue. If people agree with you, fine. But so far, none are the ones I've been privileged to call friends here.

In conclusion, "knock yourself out, kid".

Any future posts from you will not be replied to.

Ivan

[may18]

quote

____
engagements. The Brits did not get going in Basra until after the Americans took Baghdad and by doing so, the resistance in Basra collapsed, allowing the British to finally take Basra in an anticlimactic battle after the game was already up.
____

Just one small comment basra did actually fall just before bagdhad. (Official dates are the 7th and 9th respectively)