Replies

I disagree. A gentleman does not accuse others of being liars for no legitimate reason

You lied about what my countrymen were doing in Basra. I've posted articles proving to you that they were truly engaged, not "pussyfooting" as you would have it. To persist in this untruth, when you know better, is to lie. End of discussion.

Only a spoiled five year old would threaten to take his marbles and go home and sulk in a corner when presented with opinions contrary to his own.

I could point out your ungentlemanly behaviour, however, I have been requested not to air such dirty laundry in public. I am sure you know of what I speak.

If it's just you who is behaving like a jackass, then of course I'm not going anywhere. You behaving like a jackass is expected. If the entire board shares your opinion, which is what I said, then that's another matter entirely.

Ivan

I did not lie about what the British did around Basra. You lie when you claim I lied.

Whether one characterizes what the British did while outside of Basra as pussyfooting, diddling about, prudent raiding, or sitting on their ass, is a mere matter of semantics and opinion, not a lie.

The fact is that for two weeks while outside of Basra, the British did very little fighting. Even your posts, purportedly meant to prove that the British were not merely screwing around on the outskirts of Basra only mentioned things like raids on the suburbs.

I never said that British troops were incapable of a more vigorous and aggressive attack on Basra, only that what they actually did was very tentative and timid.

I think that the reason the British action was so timid and slow around Basra was because both American and British commanders did not want British troops to do much fighting.

The reason both American and British commanders did not want the British troops to do much fighting around Basra was because the vast majority of the British public was against British participation in the war.

Had the British troops done more fighting, they would have had higher casualties. While may18 has posted a link showing that over time, public opinion swung more in favor of the war, had the British troops taken higher casualties, that public opinion may very well have swung even further against the war and had the effect of causing Tony Blair to lose his job. That would have been a disaster for Bush and America and our war effort.

Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why Coalition Commanders decided to have the British pussyfoot around outside of Basra for two weeks while the Americans did the heavy lifting. Afterall, the American public was solidly behind Bush and Bush would rise or fall based on how the war ended up, so his die was cast.

The fact that everyone with any sense of honestly and understanding of what happened in the war, that the British were very slow to engage and that American troops did the vast bulk of the heavy fighting, is no slur on the quality or fighting spirit of the British troops nor is it a slam against the British commanders. I think that both the British troops and the British Commanders did every thing that they were asked to do and they did it very well.

Now you can bluster and call me names and pretend that what I am saying is some great insult to the British, but you would be a liar if you were to persist in such nonsense.