Jump to content

Home

redeployment of British troops


Leper Messiah
 Share

Recommended Posts

As you may or may not know, several hundred British troops are about to be redeployed into some of the most dangerous zones in Iraq to free up more US forces for other operations. Opinions in Britain are divided on whether or not agreeing the the US request for these troops was a good move or not. Britain has had far fewer losses in Iraq than the americans and some put this down to better occupation/policing tactics than those employed by the americans. therefore a view put forward by many of the British soldiers families is that the troops are being sent in to "clear up the americans mess."

 

I am of the view that a country like Britain that did not want to go to war, does not want to be at war, and does not wish to continue to be at war for a very long time should not be at war and the commitment of more troops is yet another signal that the British Government is never going to bring the troops back until so much blood has been spilt that there will be no other choice.

 

Im not necessarily saying that the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, but what I am saying is that with the majority of its population against war at the time it was commenced and now, Britain should not be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets get this straight, the ratio is 18:1 americans to british. It turns out that there are 7500 british soldiers and 135,000 american soldiers. Which is almost exactly and 18:1 ratio.

 

PS: the US has the most advanced infantry training program in the world, one which the british AND the americans copied from nazi training programs discovered in world war 2, thus the tactics and training are similar and almost identical. In fact, all first world countries today use virtually the same training program and infantry tactics that date back to world war 2.

 

And you accuse americans of being ethnocentric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Lets get this straight, the ratio is 18:1 americans to british. It turns out that there are 7500 british soldiers and 135,000 american soldiers. Which is almost exactly and 18:1 ratio.

 

PS: the US has the most advanced infantry training program in the world, one which the british AND the americans copied from nazi training programs discovered in world war 2, thus the tactics and training are similar and almost identical. In fact, all first world countries today use virtually the same training program and infantry tactics that date back to world war 2.

 

And you accuse americans of being ethnocentric.

 

Im confused as to what your point is and how it conflicts with mine. The ratio of americans to british may well be 18:1 as far as im aware i didnt say anything to contradict that. my point is that the British shouldnt be there at all, and the commitment of more forces is a bad move on Britain's part.

 

PS: In the time since world war two, the british have had more (succesful) experience with occupation than the americans, and though training programs for combat may bear similarity to nazi techniques, im fairly confident our method of occupation (which is more the issue than actual combat training) is somewhat different to the nazi technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: the US has the most advanced infantry training program in the world, one which the british AND the americans copied from nazi training programs discovered in world war 2, thus the tactics and training are similar and almost identical. In fact, all first world countries today use virtually the same training program and infantry tactics that date back to world war 2.

 

And you accuse americans of being ethnocentric.

Who has accused the US of being ethnocentric in this thread? :confused:

 

Regardless, anyone who's seen UK basic training and then contrasts with US basic training can see the cultural differences. In the US ideology pervades all, and in the UK... well, it looks more like a day at the office. And FYI, the second world war caused the UK to develop completely new troop-training regimines that confounded the Nazis completely, such as amphibious commando training (and air-insertion special forces training.) The idea that we copied the Nazi's training philosophy in its entirety is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as you claiming americans are ethnocentric, its just generally how liberals are. General and not understanding at all.

 

Also the germans were the first to use paratroopers, and the japanese were the first to use amphibious warfare. The new training regimines you speak of were almost entirely based on german technology and programs.

 

The american army program is not based on ideology, and to experience some of the training you should download the game the army made. It isnt exactly the same as the real training but it will teach you what its like and destroy your misconceptions of it. Also its fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what the american army does or does not do is utterly irrelevant to this topic. what is relevant is the fact that the british government is committing even more forces to a war the country never wanted to enter in the first place with the absolutely age-old lie of "they'll be home for christmas." The most the americans have to do with it is that they made the request for the additional British forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as you claiming americans are ethnocentric, its just generally how liberals are.
I'm not a liberal... :rolleyes:

 

The american army program is not based on ideology, and to experience some of the training you should download the game the army made.
I have played this game, and it's no substitute for books and documentaries. And ideology pervades the U.S. Military... and your thinking as well, judging by your posts in other threads. So it's not surprising that you can't see it.

 

It's not that fun, either. Bit boring, really.

 

Also the germans were the first to use paratroopers, and the japanese were the first to use amphibious warfare.
Actually sonny, paratroops were an Italian concept, made workable first by Russia. Germany then adopted the idea. And amphibious assault has been going on nearly as long as the human race has had boats... but the British still created the first modern commando units (not based on German models) to whom amphibious vehicles were the primary insertion method.

 

So, you're wrong about nearly everything, basically.

 

And as Leper says, everything you were wrong about was also irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spider Al you are a liberal whether you deny it or not.

 

when i stated that the british and americans are both based on german training, i was not referring to special forces, which the americans have a larger number of and also a more advanced force.

 

The american involvement is important when people make accusations that the british have less dying due to better training.

 

Also to say american training is based on ideology is completly and totally wrong, the program is mostly physical and learning and certainly not a progaganda school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Spider Al you are a liberal whether you deny it or not.

 

when i stated that the british and americans are both based on german training, i was not referring to special forces, which the americans have a larger number of and also a more advanced force.

 

The american involvement is important when people make accusations that the british have less dying due to better training.

 

Also to say american training is based on ideology is completly and totally wrong, the program is mostly physical and learning and certainly not a progaganda school.

 

I never said the British wernt dying because of better training, that is a point of view popular among the families of the troops. And again I state that what the american army does bares no relation to this issue whatsoever. the issue i will state once again is that Britain is being forced by its government to fight a war it doesnt want to fight, and now has had to commit even more lives to this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the media portraits people as anti war doesnt mean that most people are, possibly many people are, but the media is completly liberal.

 

Also just because many people dont want something doesnt mean its not right. After all, if it wasnt for small groups fighting to get something there wouldnt be democracy anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The american army program is not based on ideology, and to experience some of the training you should download the game the army made.

...right...

How much of the training do you experience in that game again? Just the shooting at targets and other excersises. Did it ever occur to you that soldiers in schools do more than just sit there and shoot at targets?:rolleyes:

 

Yeah, I'll buy a goddamned game to get a sense of the real thing. Great idea...

 

The game has one purpose: To lure teens into the US Army (thus, I don't see why you reffered to it in the same post that you stated that there's no propaganda coming from the US military:rolleyes:).

 

"No ideology?" You obviously have no clue as to what the word means.:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Just because the media portraits people as anti war doesnt mean that most people are, possibly many people are, but the media is completly liberal.

 

Also just because many people dont want something doesnt mean its not right. After all, if it wasnt for small groups fighting to get something there wouldnt be democracy anyway.

 

London and the other major cities seeing the biggest demonstrations in its history was just media portrayal was it? Poll after poll showing exactly what public opinion was and is is obviously just some sort of media scam to make us believe we dont want war, the fiendish scoundrals! I have yet to meet a single British individual who thinks this war is 100% the right thing to do (and supporting the troops is not the same thing as supporting a war) and that we should be willing to sacrifice as many troops as it takes to accomplish whatever the end aim of this may be.

 

And even if the cause of this war is right, and that is a matter of opinion, then if Britain doesnt want to fight it, then we shouldnt be fighting it. You can't march a whole country out to war against its will just because its a nice thing to do in someones (isolated) point of view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spider Al you are a liberal whether you deny it or not.
I haven't smirked so hard nor so widely, in years.

 

Whatever you say, mr McCarthy. :rolleyes: Let me know how your online witch-hunt goes, won't you? Drop me a postcard.

 

Also to say american training is based on ideology is completly and totally wrong, the program is mostly physical and learning and certainly not a progaganda school.
You carry right on thinking that, blue-eagle-muppet.

 

oxfordoutlet_1812_9124939

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haven't smirked so hard nor so widely, in years.

 

Mccarthy attacked communists, which is an extremist form of liberalism just like socialism.

 

You have fallen to petty name calling. I do not consider liberal to be an insult, just a resounding wow you are in that group of people who choose to deny what they are.

 

The army does train discipline, to confuse that with propaganda is idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the word LIBERAL get thrown around as an insult? Being a Liberal isn't someone who wants to overthrow the government and screw everyone over - its someone who wants to change the current problems with a government and put more money in the people's pockets - not the politicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(A) Spider AL is patently NOT a liberal.... although he does seem to be mellowing a little in his old age. Not that that is saying much...:D

 

(B) Despite the fact that the media in the UK is overwhelmingly RIGHT WING (and most papers are owned by the same guy that owns most of your papers) there is still a majority in the UK that is against the war. Not sure how that is manipulation. In fact i think this is one of the FEW times recently where british public opinion HASN'T been led by the nose by the Sun and the Daily Mail.

 

© The topic:

 

Every single person i have spoken to (in the uk, plus a few mates from aboard), whether pro-war or anti-war, is completely bemused by this move. NO ONE is for it. NOt even those that support the war and support the troops being there.

 

I guess you could put this down to the following:

 

1 - The "clearing up the US's mess" factor.

 

The US has far more troops, that is true. And you could argue that they have had, in some places, the tougher resistance. But their approach is completely different. The US army is very well trained in combat, but the British army is probably the best trained int he world in peacekeeping. The war was won fairly easily by the americans, but as can be patently seen, the peace seems to be much harder for them.

 

The US works on a "fear and awe" strategy of crushing resistance with overwhelming force. This works well in war, but is less effective in urban peactime environments as there tends to be a lot of collateral damage and it tends to cause a lot of anti-US feeling.

 

The UK works on a "hearts and minds" strategy, where they use the minimum force necessary, try to keep their presence as low as possible and try to win friends.

 

The US has had more casualties, they have caused many times more deaths and they have many more insurgents to deal with. Now the UK troops are going to be moved to those regions where the US has already inflamed the situation. Whatever you think about the tactics and the war, you can see why that might be unpopular in the UK.

 

2 - The opposing philosophies issue

 

I've mostly covered this, but moving UK troops who have been using one approach under the command of US troops who have been using the opposite one seems to many to be a very bad idea.

 

Add in the fact that the US has been downright scornfull of the UK "soft" approach (although evidence suggests it is at least as effective) and you don't have a great situation for working together.

 

3 - The election timing issue

 

The majority of people in the UK find it highly suspicious that this move is coming just before the US elections. It seems to many like a move to help out president bush, by allowing him to point out that US troops aren't alone. That they aren't the only ones in the danger areas. That they aren't the only ones taking casualties. Many see this as tantamount to sacrificing UK lives to help a US president get re-elected. Not hugely popular as you might guess.

 

Of course, that level of calousness is unlikely, but it does appear to be in Tony's interests to help out his mate GW... as he has placed a lot of store on "backing up" the US (even against the wishes of his own people) and to now lose any benefit from that would be a problem.

 

Add in the scepticism that among the 150,000 US troops they can't find ANY that can do this job and need 650 UK troops and people get suspicious.

 

ME personally, i think it is a very bad idea, taken for the wrong reasons, and i'm against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...