Brits in Iraq.............

[red indian]

.....I just listened to Bill Orielly admit on his show that he had no idea how the Brits were running their part of the show in Iraq.

I would appear that finally the U.S. is starting to realise that they may have something to learn from the Brits. Having slowly started to realise that they may just possibly have got a few things wrong over the last few months in iraq. Good lord!! is that possible??? Americans get something wrong?? blimey!!!

I am truely staggered that the U.S. have not kept a closer eye on how the Brits are doing in the south of iraq. It betrays a level of contempt on the part of the U.S. government and the U.S. press towards the efforts being made by their allies.

The British committment in Iraq in terms of the proportion of forces deployed is far in exess of the U.S. We are also doing a much better job. This is finally starting to be recognised by the U.S.

Sadly it could well be a case of "to little too late" as the U.S. is now reported to be seeking British support in the north of the country.

I could go in to the reasons why we are so much better equiped to fight the kind of war now being faced in Iraq but I may make myself even more unpopular on this site.

What I can say about this issue is........"I told you so"

[The Sean Man]

Speaking for most of us damn yankees, out of all the excellent news sources in the world, you choose....Bill O'Reilly?!? What...Entertainment Tonight on too late for you?

The Sean Man

[theshire]

Unlike most people in the UK/US, it seems, I was all for the Iraq war (military action, rather). I still am. But I wish we'd have been allowed to run it all instead. To put it in a way which is least offensive while also an accurate representation of the TRUTH: the Americans are crap.

[MrMacphisto]

Well, we still saved your asses in WWII. Anyway, yeah, we're sucking at this nation-building thing; I don't know what the Brits are doing either though.

[red indian]

.....here we go again. Another American who thinks he "saved our asses" in world war two. Its at this point that I ask for an explanation as to how it was you "saved our asses", this is usually followed by the American concerned blathering on about D Day, Hitler and the invasion of the European Continent, which in turn is followed by me pointing out that the U.K. successfully fought off an attempted invasion by Germany WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM THE U.S. THANKYOU VERY MUCH.

Dear oh dear......dont know why I bother sometimes.

[MrMacphisto]

Hey, Red... Churchill was undeniably a great leader, and yeah, you guys kept the Germans from invading your isles, but guess what? They still bombed the shit out of you guys. We saved your asses by providing the military might to knock the Nazies back to Germany. We would've accomplished this sooner, but you have to remember that we were fighting the Japanese at the same time.

All jesting aside though, we still needed the help of the Allies, no doubt. Without Russia fighting the Nazies in the East and without our British (and other European) friends fighting them in the West, I don't know if we would have succeeded in defeating the Nazies. Now, if we weren't also fighting Japan... hmmmm....

[HisDivineShadow]

Originally posted by theshire
TRUTH: the Americans are crap.

NoNoNoNoNO! Our ADMINISTRATION is crap. And is it really necessary to bring up that WWII thing? Who cares who saved who? If we had been in Europe's position, they would have done the same. Hitler and the Axis simply had to be stopped, they were a danger to the entire world. Europe owes no great debt to us because we did what was right and stopped the Axis. They are not obligated to support something they believe is unjust simply because we aided them, DESPITE the fact that our aid likely turned the tide, although the Russians played an equal, if not greater role in Germany's defeat.



*Sigh* This is not HDS territory.....time to fade back out of serious conversation.

[Cosmo_ac]

Christ! What about the Canadians? I swear, for the recognition we get from being in both wars, we might as well have not even bothered.

[The Sean Man]

Originally posted by HisDivineShadow

*Sigh* This is not HDS territory.....time to fade back out of serious conversation. [/B]

Red started it





The Sean Man

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by HisDivineShadow
Europe owes no great debt to us because we did what was right and stopped the Axis.

You totally forget about the Soviets. Hitler sent 4 mil men in there in 1941, and there'd be no way you guys could've beaten such a force on ur own...

[HisDivineShadow]

Did you read the rest of my post, ST?

[Sadistictickler]

Originally posted by HisDivineShadow
Did you read the rest of my post, ST?

oh dear, I really need to quit drinkin

but it still applies to alot of americans

[BOFH666]

To be fair the US forces do have a more.... complicated job on their hands in the north than the UK forces in the south, look at Falluja for proof of that.

BUT, yeah I've got to agree with ya on this one Red, when it comes to the book of what NOT to do in this sort of situation the UK's been there, done that, learnt from often bloody experience. If the US hadn't had quite such a, well forgive me for saying so but, gung ho attitude when trouble did occur maybe they'd be in a much better position now in terms of popularity with the Iraqi people.

Just to give an idea of what I'm referring to above about a gung-ho attitude, this is from an article published on the BBC web site last Friday, 23rd April:

The head of mission of a European humanitarian agency with staff in Falluja told BBC News Online that, according to his staff, two of their ambulances had been shot at.

"By who? The probability is by US snipers," he said.

Asked whether these were warning or attacking shots, he said: "One was shot two or three times - a sniper does not shoot an ambulance three times by mistake."

British aid worker Jo Wilding said an ambulance she was in, with flashing lights, siren blaring and "ambulance" written on it in English, was hit as it drove to collect a woman in premature labour.

Ms Wilding is sure the shots came from American troops.

"You can tell the shape of US marine from a mujahideen - even if you can only see a silhouette, the helmet and flak jacket are quite distinctive. Also, we were in a US-controlled part of town," she told BBC News Online.

Iraqi doctor Salam al-Obaidi, a member of the Doctors for Iraq humanitarian society, worked in Falluja for six days during the fighting.

Speaking to BBC News Online, he described seeing colleagues blown up in an ambulance - also clearly marked - travelling in front of him as his team tried to enter a US-controlled area.

"I saw the ambulance disappear - not all of it, but the front of it, the side where the driver and paramedic were," he said.

He said he and two more colleagues were injured in a second explosion. He still does not know the fate of the two people in the first ambulance.

In a separate incident, Dr Obaidi said, a driver and paramedic in an ambulance were shot in a US-controlled area - one in the chest, the other in the eyes.

The injured civilians inside the ambulance bled to death during the next two days as warning shots were fired when the team tried - four times - to return to collect the ambulance, he said.

Three days into the siege, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, denied that troops were firing on ambulances.

"If we're shooting vehicles, it's because those vehicles have shot at us," he said.

US officials have said that on one occasion, an insurgent gunman was seen fleeing in an ambulance, and that weapons have been found in an aid convoy west of the city.

Coalition military spokesman Brigadier General Mark Kimmit said that there have been "a lot of people running around the city with blankets on their vehicles asserting that they are ambulances".

There was concern that these could have been loaded with explosives, he said.

As it is, Falluja's disintegrating (BBC web site reports a second night of heavy fighting with US tanks and aircraft firing on the city, though US commanders are saying it's not an assault but a defensive action), a not-inconsiderable number of Shia Muslims are already openly hostile and if the rest go then that's pretty much game over. There have been far too many civilian deaths as a result of mistaken identity or anxious troops. Please don't think I'm criticising the forces deployed there, I can't even begin to imagine what they must be going through right now. It just seems to me that the US forces are trained more towards aggressor rather than peace-keeping roles.

The sad fact is though, even if the US does request British help, I doubt we're in a position to give it them. We just don't have sufficient troops available to make any real difference and there certainly isn't enough time between now and the supposed handover date on June 30th to get any additional training in place for existing US forces.

Unfortunately of course, it's easy to say all this with the benefit of hindsight. What I really can't understand is that the vast majority of what's happened I discussed with friends of mine almost two YEARS ago when someone brought up the subject (right about the time my mate joined the TA). And this wasn't by any means an isolated conversation, from personal experience I talked to maybe twenty or thirty people about this from all walks of life before the hunt for WMD began and they all said much the same thing, that the 'war' would be brief and a good media grabber, the real trick would come afterwards and they'd seen NOTHING to convince them that it could be done as easily as the powers that be were saying it could be.

Right now though, the priority is simple enough: Work out some way to stem the violence growing in Iraq WITHOUT creating an entire nation of people with good reason to hate the 'west' (I don't really like the term but it'll do for now). For that to happen... well, I don't have the answer to that, I wish to god I did. My best guess is that America needs to drop any self-interest in this matter, forget the idea of having a US-sympathetic government in place or any financial gain and let the Iraqi people decide what government they want. The fact is, the only reason Iraq worked at all was it WAS a dictatorship, the ONLY chance they have of making a democracy work is for it to be a free democracy, run by Iraqi's for Iraqi's and with a fair, unbiased playing field.

Once that's done, and for that matter, WHILE that's being done, let us not forget that there are still some very hard questions that need answering and hopefully people won't be taken in by the revisionist history that has been put in place to cover the collective backsides of those who put the lives of not only everyone in the 'coalition of the willing' on the line but the lives of the Iraqi people as well.

And while we're on the subject of the US paying attention to other nations... don't you think it's about time there was a formal apology to France for the RIDICULOUS name-calling and accusations that went on when they voted (rightly as it turned out) against invading? And don't give me any of that "they only said that and threatened to veto for their own interests" rubbish either, as the US did PRECISLY that about a month ago on a resolution to condemn the assassination of Sheikh Yassin by Israel. Sorry, a little off topic I know, but I'm getting sick and tired of the double standard that's being used and the refusal to see the definition of 'terrorist' as one that can be applied to ANYONE regardless of which side they're on. One mans freedom fighter and all that...

[red indian]

....I have to explain to ignorant Americans that the U.S. decision to get involved in the European theatre of war in WW2 was a long way short of altruistic, certainly in terms of the U.K.

Sorry to bore you folks, but it has to said that we in the U.K. are STILL paying you back for your assistance during WW2. Yes its true, right here and now, in 2004, we are STILL paying off our debt to the U.S. under the terms of "lend lease". So lets just cut the crap shall we? about how you "saved our asses"?

You saved a lot of asses in WW2, but not many in the U.K.

[theshire]

You never 'saved our asses'. It's a common misconception, like the fact that the US won the war single-handedly (American POV). You joined late, for God's sake! It wasn't until you got bombed at Pearl Harbour that you did any ass-saving of any kind. Up until then, you weren't interested in the wars of Europe - until it affected you.