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

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

[Pukka Puck]

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

I don't doubt your official dates, but I was watching Fox News very early on Saturday Morning when their embedded reporter was driving in the armored column that drove through Baghdad, blasting anything and everything that threatened them. For all intents and purposes, everyone knew the jig was up from that point on. That was April 5th.

[Pukka Puck]

Same old same old from Ivan.

"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."

Yes, they raided, they snatched, they diddled around on the outskirts of Basra for two weeks. We agree this, it is only semantics you want to quibble over.

Their is no doubt that the British troops showed great bravery. I have never doubted or questioned their bravery, so your Johnny one note insistence that I have questioned the bravery of the British troops is more of your trademark intellectual dishonesty.

"If you want to insult Britain, go right ahead. Insult the lads too while you're at it."

There you go again. I did not insult Britain or the lads, despite your frequent assertions to the contrary. I have repeatedly posted that the British troops did everything that they were asked to do and did it very well. Somehow you never acknowledge this fact. I have also repeatedly posted that the British did what the AMERICAN commanders asked them to do. For whatever reason, the AMERICAN commanders wanted the British troops to stay out of Basra and only conduct raids and such, while the American troops did the heavy lifting. The logical reason that the AMERICAN commanders asked the British troops to avoid heavy combat was that the British public was strongly against the war, while the American public supported the war.

If the British had taken heavy casualties in an unpopular war, it would have been very bad for American policy makers and Bush in particular.

Big deal, your friends support you in your error. That says more about your friends than the quality of your argument.

Thanks for letting me have the last word. That is white of you.

[may18]

well the column didnt stay in bagdhad, it went in and sharply turned before leaving again. The UK 1st armoured division and the black watch were in the centre of basra on the 2nd day after surrounding it, they were ordered to withdraw. Personally for 25k soldiers on the ground, including engineers etc i cant see how such a small force could have possibly achieved more objectives than it did.

As mentioned, the uk is not happy about casualties, but it has served throughout our history to make people more determined to see it through to the end.The largest initial casualties were to the UK when the sea knight crashed. It had no effect on public opinion.
If centcom had been trying to keep the uk out of "fierce fighting" the initial risky operation (airborne insertion and amhipious assault are high risk) would have been assigned to navy seals.
IMHO the jobs were assigned where the forces were most suitable. Amphibious assaults are a royal speciality, the US had far superior logistics, and basra was not considered a strategic objective for the first week of the war.
So with this in mind, NOT fear of casualties on the part of the uk the objectives were assigned.

Hope that all makes sense im feeding my daughter at the same time

[Cordova Belle]

{Time out.}

Tsk, tsk! Come now, we aren't going to be missish, are we?

Although I've been called many things before, "intellectual lightweight," among those who know me, isn't one of them. But I make no claim to brilliance. I'll leave that to you heavyweights. I would like to ask that you dispense with the ad hominem if we should meet again.

I had no intention of stumbling into a firefight between you guys and MadIvan. My only point was this: I'm darned glad for everything the British forces and Blair did to support our cause in Iraq. Whether that should have been more, I'm not in a position to say. I believe they did what they could, given the mood of the British public.

Glad they joined us, grateful for their support, would not appreciate seeing FReepers discount what they did. That's it.

Gentlemen, you may now resume flaming.

[Seydlitz]

Pukey Puke - I'm a conservative, although an "idiot" and a "stupid and unrealistic" one, as per your kind comments. Of course, I find your wisdom and erudition to be truly admirable. Your insults have convinced me I'm wrong. Who knew that "Sgt. Rock" comic books were in fact documentaries?

[WaterDragon]

My only point was this: I'm darned glad for everything the British forces and Blair did to support our cause in Iraq. Whether that should have been more, I'm not in a position to say. I believe they did what they could, given the mood of the British public. Glad they joined us, grateful for their support, would not appreciate seeing FReepers discount what they did. That's it.

Not one word of this has ever been in dispute in this thread. Wholeheartedly agree, and have said so repeatedly. As for "flaming", is that what this thread is? I thought it was a discussion. I've called no one names, never once slammed the British army, never insulted the British public. The only entity that I attack is the U.K. Telegram for slyly posting snide articles about the American soldiers and posting another article calling Bush and Blair liars.

And I asked why a conservative British newspaper would do such a thing.

[Pukka Puck]

I am glad I have helped you to see the light.

[may18]

cordova wrt to your question regarding what the uk could say

45k, 1 armoured division, 2 elite brigades and naval vessels such as mine sweepers is about the max we could support long term in the field. Not a lot really compared to the US
But with European sea lift and amphibious abilities its actually more than the rest of europe together could have deployed. Most of europe have no projecion abilities, france is 2nd, but they have v.poor sealift and no real heavy airlift abilities.

hehe some useless facts for ya ;)

I

[Pukka Puck]

It all makes perfect sense, just like all your other posts. And to think that you can be so logical and persuasive while feeding your daughter at the same time.

[may18]

no idea waterdragon, maybee a writer against the war.

Ive read so much anti british crap in our papers and it wound me up. So i do understand this article is annoying for us readers

however, i dont think it should be held up as an example of uk opinion. Otherise brits would really believe that our royal marines were incompetant (as per a guardian article)

[WaterDragon]

That's the nub of it, may18. If a conservative newspaper here printed articles insulting British troops, you'd have seen very angry American posters at FR....and that newspaper would be crawling on its knees begging forgiveness.

So, why does a conservative newspaper in Britain, the biggest one, think it can get away with this? Don't people complain?

You see, here at FR, it seems that some Brits think those articles are just fine. In fact, Ivan posted one himself and thought it was ridiculous that Americans were insulted.

That is what I do not understand.

[may18]

aaah didnt you know?

the british never complain

dont ask me why, its a british thing

good example, if a typical british couple went for a meal.

and it was substandard, theres a fair chance they wuld still say it was "fine" when asked.

From what ive read of the US, the same wouldnt happen there?

The only time the bbc recieved a LOT of complaints for example. Was when they assembled a hostile audience for the american ambassador.

The complaints where that the bbc was not representing uk opinion.They were forced to make an official apology.

For the record, i have mailed the telegraph regarding their article.

[WaterDragon]

Good for you! I emailed them.

Perhaps it would be smarter of British posters at FR not to post nasty articles from the Telegraph when they appear, and then mock Americans for being upset at the insults..

Actually, most Americans have no difficulty complaining about most anything that looks unfair to us. We would savage a conservative OR liberal newspaper here if one were to even hint at an insult to British soldiers.

[willyboyishere]

Wow, I'm sure glad George Bush decided to jump aboard when
Tony Blair decided to wage war in Iraq.

[may18]

uhm im a bit confused, i dont think ivan posted it?

[WaterDragon]

The thread is titled Fruit dumplings play crucial role

Here's a bit of it:

The three US special forces rangers dismounted from their vehicle wearing identical shades and un-reassuring smiles. "Hello, we're to offer you our services," said one, as he signalled to one of his men to provide covering fire from a heavy machinegun on the roof of his jeep.

"We're trilingual arms and explosives experts with full air support and medical assistance at your disposal, sir. We've come to debrief the local population to provide you with useful intelligence."

"Right you are," said the officer from A squadron, Queen's Dragoon Guards outside Gul Ashab. The village is under British control following a sweeping manoeuvre on Monday which took the squadron to the outskirts of Basra.

"We've got some special techniques to motivate them into helping you," said the special forces man.

"You know what?" said the British officer, "I don't think that will be strictly necessary."

And MadIvan's response when a poster objected to the insulting tone of the article:

WellsFargo94 Does the Daily Telegraph have it in for the U.S. military? Didn't seem to be a very positive discription of our guys

MadIvan: Not at all. The Telegraph is the most conservative newspaper in the country, if not the world. It reported Clinton's crimes before anyone else did.

Regards, Ivan

[post #5] There you go, may18. Check out the thread for yourself.

[Thumper1960]

I'm not sure if you're referring to me in saying the British troops didn't pull their weight. I believe they did everything they were asked to do. I believe they followed orders. I believe they were, and are, part of the larger plan. No matter if they "could" have done more, that was/is up to the commanders on the ground in the theater of operations. Not being privey to the grand plan, I see no concrete reasons to doubt or second guess the performance of British troops in Iraq. The objective has been achieved. Future analysis will reveal any shortcomings.

[Thumper1960]

" Otherise brits would really believe that our royal marines were incompetant "

Well now.....if G. Gordon Liddy sez the RM are awesome fighting men, who am I to disagree? ;-)

Cheers!

[Happygal]

The only entity that I attack is the U.K. Telegram

The UK Telegram? Never heard of it.

[Happygal]

The 'fruit dumplings' article was about winning the war over 'hearts and minds'. It was quite an engaging article, read through. And written for a British audience. I certainly didn't read anything derogatory into it.

It seems perhaps that some of the FR posters are the ones a little 'tightly wound'. :-)