Replies

Looks like Ursus arctos horribilis, EaglesUpForever, and I agree about what happened in Basra.

EaglesUpForever wrote, "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..."

Which I think is spot on.

And Ursus arctos horribilis wrote, "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."

So much for your "not one person" shares my opinion, Ivan.

Facts are stubborn things. All your ad hominem attacks cannot obscure the facts of what happened in Iraq. Your vituperative response to my recounting of the facts only shows how very sensitive you are to having the facts discussed. You seek to shut down discussion about what the British troops accomplished in Iraq rather then try to debate the subject maturely and seriously.

You should save your vicious name calling tactics for the Daily Telegraph, since they are the publishers of this sickeningly snide article, which is obviously full of lies and half truths.

The facts are that the "British pussyfooted around Basra for two full weeks" and that they "barely got past the outer city limits of Basra during the same time frame as the Americans conquered the rest of Iraq". Anyone who paid attention to the war cannot have failed to take note of these facts. One does not have to resort to pop psychology, diagnosing those who observe the facts as having a long simmering resentment to the British, in order to discuss these facts.

So much for your "not one person" shares my opinion, Ivan.

Fine, if the Americans all share your opinion, then quite frankly there's nothing much more to be said. I will leave Free Republic for good. I'm sick to death of listening to this nonsense.

You insult my country, its commanders, who by all accounts have performed a brave service. You don't know anything about Basra, the firefights that went on - these were chillingly reported on Sky News, using night vision goggles. There was combat, pain and death. For you to denigrate the commanders, the British army, the bravery they showed or their progress is cheap, swinish, and arrogant. You have not proven that you are a military man, a military expert, nor have any expertise to back up your assertion that it was "too slow". All you have are the convictions of your own vanity and arrogance. And when you are called on it, you proceed to try and turn it on the person who is calling you out.

Obviously this wounds, otherwise you wouldn't lie in wait like this for the first opportunity that the Telegraph presents. I repeat: I don't like this article, I disagree with it. But this article is not an excuse for you or anyone else to denigrate the achievements of the British troops or their commanders. The fact that you and others would do so, is frankly disgusting. If it is the general opinion of posters here, I will tell Jim Rob to cancel my account, and I will be gone. Because quite frankly, I have no desire to hang out with people who having been shown the truest friendship possible, spit back in the face of that friendship.

Ivan

This is ridicoulous

Ok you wanted facts of what the uk did ive summarised them once, now a factfile.

1) Led the initial attack on al faw, force included 60 navy seals and 800 royals, mission was a success.

2) Worked with the usmarines on the port and town, during one exchange called up uk artillery to aid pinned down us marines (a favour the americans no doubt repaid, after all they are brothers in arms).

3) Captured several southern towns, including one of 140k population, and one of 300k population which was a military stronghold.

4) Protected the US supply lines after the initial ambushes on their lines, 16 air assault and the ghurkas were used on this mission

5) Patrolled the borders with contingents of air assault brigade

6) Took basra, basra was initially not an objective, containment was the standing orders. Orders on when to push where from CENTCOM.

7) In order to allow a speedy US advance took on the pows of both forces, typing up 600 men

Basic facts, uk forces account for around 2000 iraqi dead soldier and 5500 POWS. almost 3000 of those pows were taken by the 4000 royal marines in the operation.

Total soldiers on the ground 25000

So, silly articles exist, so what? i would have thought that the people here would have ridden above suggesting cowardice on the part of the uk.

If this is truly how people feel on this forum, that the uk soldiers are "inferior" or "cowards", then fine. Ill have my membership cancelled.