TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- British commanders condemn US tactics
Pages (9): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

Sigh ... well I think Izzy said it best when he stated that the opinion of an unnamed british commander who supposedly speaks for the british command as a whole, is NOT the best of sources particularly when he brings in references to Nazism . Since we know nothing of this commander, his rank, or his credibility or authority to make such a judgment call it's an unsubstantiated report.

Well hey ... I'm all for unsubstantiated generalizations so I'll use one of my own. Since we're making references back to WW2, I think this one should do nicely:

Back in WW2 German forces fighting against british troops oft expressed the opinion that british troops only did what was expected of them, not more, they were astounded by how the british would surrender when ammunication ran out, their fuel ran low, or they were encircled, or how quickly they would abandon pursuit when it came to tea time ... General Bernard Law Mongtgomery, commander of the 8th army wrote chief of the imperial genearl staff field marshal Alan Brooke: "The trouble with our British lads is that they are not killers by nature."1

Therefore, if we are to accept the crude generalizations of the first post, perhaps we are to then accept the generalization that I provided ... that the brits are weak and ineffective when it comes to matters of war. So it's a silly generalization ... accept one or accept both. If anything, my source should have greater authenticity since I'm actually naming the source for you to critique .

/Still the preeminent godwin hater.

-----------------

1 Max Hastings, Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, p. 317.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen The war has reached my front door. If I was capable of being in the army fighting I would be, but unfortunately I am disabled and have to rely on using my brain power.

Unfortunately using your brain power isn't helping much either. It's rather having an opposite effect.

quote:

I am not a product of right-wing propaganda because very little of it exists over here any more (except on AM radio). But I am the product of an expensive University education, love for the history channel, and a hard work ethic.

You really like to brag about how you're well educated in history, don't you?

quote:

well I think Izzy said it best when he stated that the opinion of an unnamed british commander who supposedly speaks for the british command as a whole

Well there is actually something very significant in this story even if it is just one man (which if you read into it you will see it is most likely something felt throughout the entire top-brass...)

This story first appeared in the Telegraph...that is extremely significant as you would expect something like this to appear in the Guardian (especially if it is just one man)

The Telegraph is the establishment newspaper. It is extremely conservative and usually would be pro-US (like the conservative party). They would never print anything that was not felt throughout large sections of the establishment would they? Otherwise they would be creating anti-whatever feelings which they do not want to do. The fact they are trying to turn oppinion against American soldiers suggests that this is something felt right the way through the establishment, not just one man...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well hey ... I'm all for unsubstantiated generalizations so I'll use one of my own. Since we're making references back to WW2, I think this one should do nicely:

Yes lets all make genralised nationalistic statements! Rah rah rah! Even better lets quote WW2 since it's so relevent today. I'm getting sick of the defencive, subjective, nationolistic and dogmatic responces from people on this board there are some people you just can't talk to. Not yourself actually occrider but some.

When your talking about WW2 rember thouse were conscripts not professionals. In fact my grand uncle was a commando in WW2. Who was in charge of 15 landing crafts of americans landing in Italy and when they all started running back on he gave the order to shoot them. Genrals and all. And he'd been the beach master many times and landed before all the other troops killing sentrys up close with a knife. So unrelevent as this is to the main post, I still dispute your genralisation.

Edit: You do realise he was saying they are like something in WW2 not saying anything about performance in ww2 or anything like that so it's completly unrealated.

Re: Re: Re: Re: British commanders condemn US tactics

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i agree that this is a war of hearts, that way things must be dealt with quickly so that "sub-humans" such as Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr can dont have the chance to win the hearts of other iraqis with their poisonious idealogoy.

You don't get it do you. Your hatred is just fuel to these peoples fires. When an iraqi has to choose between a westerner and and a iraqi who he perhaps knows is an arsehole. He'll still chose the iraqi because he's his brother. The coilition has managed what was previously impossible and brung Shia and Sunni who have been against each other since probebly before the USA even existed togeather in mutal haterid. Thats a hell of a hard thing to do.

Edit: >>>>>Linkey <<<<<

US Soldiers spend 3-6 months in basic training to learn how to survive and kill people. I dont think I ever saw peace keeping and babysitting classes in the basic training courses.

How are they supposed to think of Iraqi's? Sub-human might be a bit harsh. When you're sent to fight somewhere the last thought on a soldiers mind is their human rights. All they have in their brain is someone 50 yards over there is trying to shoot them.

Then one magical day some idiot declares "mission accomplished" and they're supposed to go into peacekeeping mode?

They're on a constant high and low for peacekeeping and getting their head blown off. Someone said something about this cease fire is better for them and he was right. All this is doing is giving them time to regroup and then come at the forces again.

Im all for the UN stepping in and taking over. They should have a long time ago. I doubt anything would have been "better". Probably would be in just about the same situation if not worse right now but US Forces wouldnt be the one to blame anymore.

This is a pretty good Summary -

Blair declared: "We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq.

The problem, he said, is those who doubt the cause of the U.S.-led coalition. "Faced with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find." The only beneficiaries of this skepticism, he argued, will be "dictators, fanatics and terrorists.

If we withdraw from Iraq, they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows? But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us."

Washington Post 4-13-04


on a side note- Can we have Tony Blair? I'd vote for him.
he's just so proper (although just another puppet but at
least he doesnt create a bushism daily).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew and yeah i agree with Diehard_clubber on this one, it looks like the british has used more sucessfull tactics (even though they had easier areas..)...

This thread is summed up in this commentary, take the British and put them in Fallujah and we will see how successful the tactics are in the end. If the British are indeed better at dealing with security why aren't they in these towns instead of American troops, or moreover working with American troops in such violent cities.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan This thread is summed up in this commentary, take the British and put them in Fallujah and we will see how successful the tactics are in the end. If the British are indeed better at dealing with security why aren't they in these towns instead of American troops, or moreover working with American troops in such violent cities.

Probly cos a) there are shit loads more Americans in Iraq and b) America would never take orders from us (as we would have to have control over the US army to make them act how we want)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Probly cos a) there are shit loads more Americans in Iraq and b) America would never take orders from us (as we would have to have control over the US army to make them act how we want)

C'mon I'm sure a couple of the Brits can be sent to Fallujah, compared to Basra that is hell. I know what you mean though, all of these things get political in the end. Either way I just hope the violence dies down so both can get the hell out of there sooner than later.

Aw you guys scared poor fuzzy awaay

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Aw you guys scared poor fuzzy awaay

Another great example of your maturity and lack of ability to have an argument.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan C'mon I'm sure a couple of the Brits can be sent to Fallujah, compared to Basra that is hell. I know what you mean though, all of these things get political in the end. Either way I just hope the violence dies down so both can get the hell out of there sooner than later.

Well Fallujah is a lost cause now IMO. The Iraqis will view any coalition soldier as being the same (were on the same side right?). Sending British soldiers in now is not gonna change how the resistance view us. Maybe if they had gone in first? And even now Iraqis in the rest of the country are gonna look at how the Americans have acted in Fallujah and become radicalised and take up arms/take hostages etc. We have created a situation that really needent have happened. We could have gone into Iraq, liberated an oppressed people and treated them very nicely (rebuild infrastructure etc) but instead we have become the oppressors...

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Another great example of your maturity and lack of ability to have an argument.

i don't see that you have answered any of the many questions you got...

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan This thread is summed up in this commentary, take the British and put them in Fallujah and we will see how successful the tactics are in the end. If the British are indeed better at dealing with security why aren't they in these towns instead of American troops, or moreover working with American troops in such violent cities.

Actually at the start of the occupation the British did train some Americn troops in these type of operations.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Actually at the strt of the war the British did train some Americn troops in these type of operations.

Actually that is true and if I remember correctly the "locals" said the british troops were being too "passive" and they should handle things more like the US. Doh- I wish I could remember the source for that.

edit: It was right around when the troops were standing around watching all the looters have their way.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i don't see that you have answered any of the many questions you got...

Sorry, my world doesn't evolve around this mssgboard, I was working on some new songs for the label I'm currently working with, which is much more important stuff then following this mssgboard.

BTW- to the person that doubted my disability, I have muscular dystrophy, and you can believe it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well there is actually something very significant in this story even if it is just one man (which if you read into it you will see it is most likely something felt throughout the entire top-brass...) This story first appeared in the Telegraph...that is extremely significant as you would expect something like this to appear in the Guardian (especially if it is just one man) The Telegraph is the establishment newspaper. It is extremely conservative and usually would be pro-US (like the conservative party). They would never print anything that was not felt throughout large sections of the establishment would they? Otherwise they would be creating anti-whatever feelings which they do not want to do. The fact they are trying to turn oppinion against American soldiers suggests that this is something felt right the way through the establishment, not just one man...

You miss my point. Not only should we hesitate to accept a broad-based generalization from one person (much less a reference to Nazism since it that pretty much erodes credibility automatically), but we know nothing of this person, or what kind of authority he possesses to even make such a judgement call. All we know is that this "unnamed source" supposedly speaks for the the general mentality of the entire british command. So how are we suppose to verify all fo this? How did the telegraph verify all of this? Did they speak to all the commanding staff to find out their opinions? Obviously not, since the article references an unnamed source ... singular. So as I was saying in the get-go, we have an unknown source who claims to be speaking for the entire command, and for all we know, he could be a regimental supply officer who simply gets his news word of mouth.

quote:

Yes lets all make genralised nationalistic statements! Rah rah rah! Even better lets quote WW2 since it's so relevent today. I'm getting sick of the defencive, subjective, nationolistic and dogmatic responces from people on this board there are some people you just can't talk to. Not yourself actually occrider but some. When your talking about WW2 rember thouse were conscripts not professionals. In fact my grand uncle was a commando in WW2. Who was in charge of 15 landing crafts of americans landing in Italy and when they all started running back on he gave the order to shoot them. Genrals and all. And he'd been the beach master many times and landed before all the other troops killing sentrys up close with a knife. So unrelevent as this is to the main post, I still dispute your genralisation. Edit: You do realise he was saying they are like something in WW2 not saying anything about performance in ww2 or anything like that so it's completly unrealated.

You missed the point of my post didn't you? My whole post was about unsubstantiated generalizations.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider You miss my point. Not only should we hesitate to accept a broad-based generalization from one person (much less a reference to Nazism since it that pretty much erodes credibility automatically), but we know nothing of this person, or what kind of authority he possesses to even make such a judgement call. All we know is that this "unnamed source" supposedly speaks for the the general mentality of the entire british command. So how are we suppose to verify all fo this? How did the telegraph verify all of this? Did they speak to all the commanding staff to find out their opinions? Obviously not, since the article references an unnamed source ... singular. So as I was saying in the get-go, we have an unknown source who claims to be speaking for the entire command, and for all we know, he could be a regimental supply officer who simply gets his news word of mouth.

And you missed my point!

The Telegraph is the voice of the establishment, it reports stories from their perspective. The Telegraph (otherwise known as the Torygraph!) would not print this story from one source unless that represented the views of a large section of the establishment...

If the establishment did not agree with the opinions of this unknown source, why would the Telegraph try to paint the picture that this is a generalised view?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And you missed my point! The Telegraph is the voice of the establishment, it reports stories from their perspective. The Telegraph (otherwise known as the Torygraph!) would not print this story from one source unless that represented the views of a large section of the establishment... If the establishment did not agree with the opinions of this unknown source, why would the Telegraph try to paint the picture that this is a generalised view?

OR it represented the view of one and the editor of said "torygraph"

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And you missed my point! The Telegraph is the voice of the establishment, it reports stories from their perspective. The Telegraph (otherwise known as the Torygraph!) would not print this story from one source unless that represented the views of a large section of the establishment... If the establishment did not agree with the opinions of this unknown source, why would the Telegraph try to paint the picture that this is a generalised view?

To sell their paper? I mean really ... the article itself confirms that this opinion was from one source and that one source is claiming to speak for everyone else. If the Torygraph or whatever had checked with more people it would have claimed that this mentality came from multiple sources.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British commanders condemn US tactics

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish You don't get it do you. Your hatred is just fuel to these peoples fires. When an iraqi has to choose between a westerner and and a iraqi who he perhaps knows is an arsehole. He'll still chose the iraqi because he's his brother. The coilition has managed what was previously impossible and brung Shia and Sunni who have been against each other since probebly before the USA even existed togeather in mutal haterid. Thats a hell of a hard thing to do. Edit: >>>>>Linkey <<<<<

no, i get it. i just realize this is a transitional period where the US is set to allow the iraqis of having a choice between a friendly diverse freely chosen 'brother' and a arsehole brother. what the iraqis dont seem to understand is that US isnt there to control them, its there to help them and their country out, to allow it to reach to a prominent standing in the world community.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British commanders condemn US tactics

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy no, i get it. i just realize this is a transitional period where the US is set to allow the iraqis of having a choice between a friendly diverse freely chosen 'brother' and a arsehole brother. what the iraqis dont seem to understand is that US isnt there to control them, its there to help them and their country out, to allow it to reach to a prominent standing in the world community.

And they will NEVER understand that because there is too much civil randomness to believe anything coming from the outside.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British commanders condemn US tactics

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx And they will NEVER understand that because there is too much civil randomness to believe anything coming from the outside.

Then they are doomed to never live in peace.

Maybe they just aren't capable of peace in the first place and should just be left alone to kill themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx OR it represented the view of one and the editor of said "torygraph"

My point is, that editor will not allow something to be printed that does not represent a large section of the establishment, the Telegraph has a reputation for upholding the views of the establishment, therefore, you have to take into account that as it was this particular newspaper, and not one like the Guardian, that these views are actually felt in a large section of the establishment...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British commanders condemn US tactics

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Then they are doomed to never live in peace. Maybe they just aren't capable of peace in the first place and should just be left alone to kill themselves.

Unfortunately I think you're right.
It would take a couple generations of "freedom" to
change the mindset. The current civil situation pretty much
requires a dictator and all the normal horrors that come
with it in that region. Serenity in chaos.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.