Replies

"I think the Brits performed wonderfully in this, as did the Americans, and we should focus on what we have in common more than what differentiates us. Still, I was as mad as you are at this article, and I think you can clearly make a case that the US role in this demonstrated more military prowess (even if this was simply the nature of the strategy), and given that more US lives were lost in more perilous situations, this article is PARTICULARLY offensive."

I agree wholeheartedly!

I agree that it wasn't the fault of the British troops that the script said "pussyfoot" and it is certainly no insult to the troops to point out that they did what they were ordered to do with skill and courage.

I would only take exception to not faulting certain posters for taking offence at anything that can construed as criticism of the British troops.

Some posters can CONSTRUE so hard that they can make an insult out of nothing.

Ok final post hopefully

first off i think its prtty clear that the brits on this forum have said this article is nonsense.

Ive read ivan disagree with it and ive said myself several times its silly.

WRT to the term "pussy foot", well all i can say is you dont kill a couple of thousand enemy and take several thousand pows by pussyfooting.

The south was given to the brits for one simple reason.

Better US logistics, its as simple as that.

When the towns where classed as objectives, such as al zubaryr they were taken in viscious street fights.
Much of the work was done by a force of just 4000 royal marines who killed and took prisoner more than their entire number.

It was clearly stated for the first week or so after surrounding basra that it was not an objective, the term used was "cut the head off the snake (ie take bagdhad).

However it was taken, basra was taken. And law and order has been established quickly.

If wondering why people are seemingly upset at your comments, suggesting "pussy foot is the script" is seen to make as nothing the harsh door to door fighting that royal took part in early in the war.
Do i think the USA fought more than the UK?.
Yes, they had more troops and better logistics

Do i think the objectives taken and roles done by the uk forces for their manpower are superb
damn straight i do,

Do i think uk soldiers are "better warriors" than us soldiers

Of course Not

Do i think uk troops are worse "warriors"
No of course not again

Do i think centcom kept the uk out of heavy fighting?
Definetely not.In fact the uk marines were given the first op of the war.

Hope that covers anything, plse from both uk and us posters, no more derogotary remarks such as trigger happy, bad peacekeepers, pussy foot etc

It is spitting in the face of those that gave their lives fighting alongside allies