[may18]

This is silly, all the reports from the military forums are of mutual respect, yet one silly article and everyone goes haywire

Basra was a different prospect to bagdhad, one thing people seem to forget is the uk commander on the ground recieved his orders from CENTCOM, ie orders of when to go in or not to go in was franks decision.

So, if the US command decided the best way was to provide water and food outside of basra and take it gradually, im prepared to agree with them, civilian casualties due to uk attacks were 91, obviously this tactic was not applicable to the much larger bagdhad, or it would have been used to minimise civilian death

[WaterDragon]

Repeat: the article was posted to expose idiocies of a supposedly conservative newspaper, not an attack on the British troops.

And it isn't "just one article", this is the latest in a series of similar articles trashing American troops. The Brits on this forum have tended to see these articles as just showing pride in their troops. American newspapers have not seemed to need to trash British troops in order to express pride in our own.