Originally posted by Ushgarak
What babble is that? "Once again Tony Bliar does exactly as Bush tells him." As if that monstrously ignorant cliche has ever been true anyway, how could you possibly apply it to this example? First of all, it is neither Bush's request nor Blair's choice, in any practical sense. Second, if it was such a 'Yes sir!" operation, why all this darn debate about it? Clearly there is more to the issue than x just doing what y says.But thirdly, and most importantly, the US and the UK are allies! What part of that are people having trouble understanding? Allies are like friends; when your friend needs some help, you go and help him! You don't just stand by and say 'not my problem.'
This whole request is simply an extension of the UK role in the first place. We are patrolling Basra to spare the US the manpower of doing it themselves so they can concentrate elsewhere. Now there is a crisis in Falluja and the US are asking- not demanding, btw, but requesting- that we now extend that to other areas as well to relieve other US troops who can then concentrate on dealing with that crisis. Ok, that would put us in a part under US control and so taking orders from American officers. But so what? Once again, we are allies; that is part of the deal.
On the face of it, if we say no, that makes us pretty shitty allies. As it is, if we say no, it will be for one reason only- operational practicality. Which is to say, we don't think we can spare the men. That would be a fair reason; any political reason would be reprehensibly cowardly and the betrayal of a fairly pledged alliance.
Yes but Ush you go on about the UK and the US being allies/friends granted but just because we are in that relationship doesn't mean we have to do or even agree with whatever they say/do or vice versa it doesn't make us any less of a friend/ally if we dispute that claim. Maybe if Tony Blair and co disputed George Bush's reasons for going to war (which in all honesty i feel are not concretely sound reasons but then this a personal opinion) maybe the war wouldn't have gone ahead which in turn would not have lead to the predicament we are in.
But now we have got into this situation it would be quite inappropriate to 'walk away' now, the least we can do is watch it through to the end.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
What babble is that? "Once again Tony Bliar does exactly as Bush tells him." As if that monstrously ignorant cliche has ever been true anyway, how could you possibly apply it to this example? First of all, it is neither Bush's request nor Blair's choice, in any practical sense. Second, if it was such a 'Yes sir!" operation, why all this darn debate about it? Clearly there is more to the issue than x just doing what y says.But thirdly, and most importantly, the US and the UK are allies! What part of that are people having trouble understanding? Allies are like friends; when your friend needs some help, you go and help him! You don't just stand by and say 'not my problem.'
This whole request is simply an extension of the UK role in the first place. We are patrolling Basra to spare the US the manpower of doing it themselves so they can concentrate elsewhere. Now there is a crisis in Falluja and the US are asking- not demanding, btw, but requesting- that we now extend that to other areas as well to relieve other US troops who can then concentrate on dealing with that crisis. Ok, that would put us in a part under US control and so taking orders from American officers. But so what? Once again, we are allies; that is part of the deal.
On the face of it, if we say no, that makes us pretty shitty allies. As it is, if we say no, it will be for one reason only- operational practicality. Which is to say, we don't think we can spare the men. That would be a fair reason; any political reason would be reprehensibly cowardly and the betrayal of a fairly pledged alliance.
Yes, it would be acceptable to be Allies to America if only they would start war in other countries with a just cause but this is not the case. Having British soldiers there, getting killed because of some dickhead Texan wanting more help when he has enough hardware to obliterate Iraq all by himself. Come on, he wants our soldiers because his are frankly incompetent, dumb, gung-ho, trigger happy and without any concept of how to fight Iraqis who are probably better equipped than they are. They only backed us up in World War 2 because if Britain fell America would certainly have become a tasty target for Hitler.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow ZPure ignorance.
Come on, he wants our soldiers because his are frankly incompetent, dumb, gung-ho, trigger happy and without any concept of how to fight Iraqis who are probably better equipped than they are. They only backed us up in World War 2 because if Britain fell America would certainly have become a tasty target for Hitler.
Hmmm, technically the US soldier is seen as the best trained in the world, the problem I would say is that they are badly led, they have been put into a situation that they are not ideally suited to, on a mission that is rather frayed and they are over stretched. It is not really the soldiers fault, rather the man who sent the there.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I don't mind if people say they aren't well trained.. that could be a matter of opinion. But saying they are dumb is rude and ignorant, and saying that the Iraqis have better equipment is just retarded.
Well the Iraqis are technically winning because they don't look like being defeated(as a whole) anytime soon, and the American troops are certainly getting knowhere fighting a militia which employs guerrilla tactics which we all know American troops aren't prepared to fight and err... win.
Hmmm, technically the US soldier is seen as the best trained in the world, the problem I would say is that they are badly led, they have been put into a situation that they are not ideally suited to, on a mission that is rather frayed and they are over stretched. It is not really the soldiers fault, rather the man who sent the there.
bit of info, the british sas and the irish army rangers are the best trained, but anywho
i agree that alot of decent men have been poorly led and have been killed for what is still some idiots stupid quest...
Originally posted by pr1983
bit of info, the british sas and the irish army rangers are the best trained, but anywho
I'm not disagreeing with the comment, I'm just wondering what the source of the information is....
I don't particularly see the Irish as the type to produce any sort of highly elite military units, but addmittedly I'm not very knowledgable on the subject.
theres only like 50 of em, they are the best of the best, the course is so extremely difficult for admission. they specialize in everything, infantry, sniper, explosive, medical, its unreal. they were sent to afghanistan when the first troops went in. surely if u googled u'd find something.
otherwise ireland's army is non-existant...