Replies

I wouldn't get too cocky. They've kep the peace there pretty well. They are bloody experienced in using the military in urban zones far beyond US experience - they had all the bloody mistakes and savageries of Northern Ireland for the last 30 years and they took them on board. I'd rate them as the best Western army for using military forces in urban zones...mind you, that should always be the last resport anyway

Actually, they've been up against amateurs for decades - people of the same skin color and religion who killed a few dozen Brits a year for roughly the last 100 years. We're up against professionals who were good enough to take down the entire 9-building World Trade Center complex and a sizable chunk of the Pentagon. Brits are lousy at guerrilla warfare unless they're fighting a few thousand people with surplus weapons. This is why they were mauled and pulled out of Iraq during the 1930's.

Note that British empire is basically a thing of the past. Uncle Sam took most of North America and is still in control of all of it. The Brits lost the heart for this kind of thing a long time ago, and they're projecting their defeatism onto Uncle Sam.

What about the Marxist Guerrillas in Malaysia in the Fifties? And Greece and Turkey after WWII? I had the impression the British military was due a great deal of credit for keeping these areas from falling to Communist influence during the Cold War.

The Brits did lose the heart for overly gungho empire building missions after the Suez adventure went belly-up.

In terms of N IReland, the whole point was that there was only a small corp of armed militants, but they could hide easily, had a huge population who supported their aims (if not their methods) and the entire scene was cluttered by the presence of the pro-British terrorist groups and their support base.

The first fifteen years of the troubles was a painful exercise where the British attempt to be heavy handed and firm provided the bIRA with their best recruiting by angering the segments of the population who sympathised with the goals of the IRA but not their methods.

The Brits latter stages of the troubles - 1987 on were a lot smarter.

And before you get too snooty about the Brits (And I'm Irish orginally and anti-British rule in Northern Ireland), remember they faced an extensive and prolonged campaign in their own heartland that cost many innocent lives and was economically devastating (As the City of London attack proved).

I can't say I'm fond of the British army, but I respect them and I think that over the last twenty yrears their skills in this form of warfare have become second to none.

'Actually, they've been up against amateurs for decades - people of the same skin color and religion who killed a few dozen Brits a year for roughly the last 100 years. We're up against professionals who were good enough to take down the entire 9-building World Trade Center complex and a sizable chunk of the Pentagon.'

Your ignorance is breathtaking. You think the IRA were the amateurs and Al Quaeda are the 'professionals'? Where do you think Al Quaeda learned it's stock in trade from? From it's meetings in 1993 and 1994 with IRA training units in the Libyan desert, that's where. The IRA were kind enough to sell Al Quaeda the skills it needed for 911 in return for weapons and cash. Ironic that all the money sent from the US to support the IRA terrorists during the 80's and 90's returned home with interest on 911.

'Brits are lousy at guerrilla warfare unless they're fighting a few thousand people with surplus weapons. This is why they were mauled and pulled out of Iraq during the 1930's.'

Your knowledge of history is shocking - do you work in Hollywood? :D
Britain successfully invaded Iraq in 1914 and ruled it relatively peacefully until 1930 when when democratic elections took place and Britain signed a treaty with Iraq which would lead to it's independence in return for Oil. In 1932 Iraq becomes independent but still with strong British influence under King Faisal. He dies and his son takes over along with much interference from the Pan-arabists until he dies in 1939 which leads to a 4 week war in 1941 which sees the British regain full control and form a pro-British govt. In 1943 pro-British Iraq declares war on the Axis powers. Britain only left Iraq and closed it's bases there in 1955 following the baghdad pact.

'Note that British empire is basically a thing of the past. Uncle Sam took most of North America and is still in control of all of it. The Brits lost the heart for this kind of thing a long time ago, and they're projecting their defeatism onto Uncle Sam.'

Have you told the Canadians you control all of North America? :D We lost so much heart that SAS troops were first into Iraq in 1991 and first into Afghanistan. The Yanks lost the heart for war when they lost to a bunch of paddy-field farmers in Vietnam and since then they have been projecting their defeatism onto John Bull. ;-)

Sorry dude.

The Brits are GREAT at counterinsurgency when they pull the stops out. They just don't get to do it much. Certainly not in this era of political correctness.

You're correct; relatively speaking the IRA and friends were amateurs, but the Brits put an end to the Mau-Mau and mopped the floor with the Commies with Malaysia. Also did some nice work in Yemen. Those folks certainly were NOT amateurs.

Note above comment to the other geezer, and refer it back to yourself.
And the IRA was made all the more difficult to defeat due to the arms (Hey, you said the arms were shoddy, are you that bad at making weapons now boys?)and financing they received from our closest ally, the USA. So cheers for doing your bit in killing British soldiers, we wont forget, nor forgive.
You idiot. We British dont care about 'Empire' anymore. Funnily enough the only nation wno does at the moment is a Republic, in much the same vein as France before Napoleon took over. Comparisons anyone? Emporer Dubya, or Empress Condi....