The Telegraph is reporting that after the failure of the "softly, softly" approach, the British army is now adopting US tactics.
British military thinking, Lt Col Bathurst conceded, had changed in Iraq, moving closer to the American concept of overwhelming force. Orthodox peacekeeping would, he said, "fail from the outset. Strength is respected here. If anything, we've shifted more than the Americans."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
yeah thats a great tactic. That really helps the iraqi people a lot. look at todays news:
Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed, three wounded by roadside bomb in Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Two US soldiers and Iraqi interpreter wounded by car bomb near Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Two US soldiers wounded by car bomb near Beiji.
Bring ‘em on: Eight US soldiers wounded in ambush and car bombing in Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: Two US soldiers wounded by roadside bomb near Hawifa.
Bring ‘em on: ING patrol in central Baghdad attacked with mortar and RPG fire.
Bring ‘em on: Car bomb attack on US convoy between Haditha and Rawah.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi police colonel assassinated near Beiji.
Bring ‘em on: Heavy fighting reported in Fallujah.
Bring ‘em on: Iraqi “collaborator” assassinated in Mahmoudiyah.
Bring ‘em on: One US Marine killed in fighting in al-Anbar province.
Bring ‘em on: One US soldier killed in fighting in Fallujah.
Bring ‘em on: Four children killed, eight wounded in Mosul mortar attack.
I think the you need to understand that it's the execution of the tactic not the difference in tactics that divides the Americans from the rest of the world.
In this war the American military continue to display gross ineptitude from Pfc's right up to Generals in this war.
At least that's consistency.
But the US military - because it is nothing more than unemployment benefit for the under-educated Amercan - is doomed to make catastrophic cock-ups at every turn.
The world's media consistently shows how incompetent and vainglorious the American troops really are; ill-disciplined, under-trained and poorly-educated troops can not undertake professional soldiering tasks.
To refrain: it's the execution of the tactic not the difference in tactics that divides the US from the rest of the world.
Me? Yeah, I'm what the Americans would call a vet. I've seen military service and when the heat was on we prayed - get this, we prayed! - that the aircraft flying CAP were not US!
Two things.
First.
You've been dishonest.
You've taken a quote from one article about one instance in one town in Iraq and applied it to the whole of the British Army.
That means you've maliciously taken the quote waaaaay out of context.
That makes it a lie.
Second thing.
Stop quoting the Telegraph, it isn’t a newspaper, it’s a tissue of lies, half-truths and distortions.
Its ‘stories’ usually come from “unattributed” or “un-named sources”. In other words “The Telegraph has made this up”.
It isn’t a newspaper; it’s a broadsheet gossip column for the right-wing militaristic people who think Might is Right, the English-speaking world is King and all “foreigners” (and that means everyone from Asia and Africa) are members of an inferior race.
Think I’m wrong?
The Telegraph:
This is the ‘newspaper’ that gave the world The Hitler Diaries on the front page. Such a shame the diaries were a hoax. Such a shame the newspaper failed to even check out the rudimentary statements that so obviously painted the diaries as a lie.
The Telegraph:
This is the ‘newspaper’ that gave the world the George Galloway/Sadam Hussein story. Not on the front page though. Just on the front page, page two, page three, page four, page five and page six. Such a shame the story was based on forged evidence, hearsay and downright lies. Such a shame the newspaper failed to even check out the facts. Such a shame the newspaper was so heavily criticised in court and, in his summing up, the judge (Mr Justice Eady) used the following comments:
“Seriously defamatory”
and:
“It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' of documents discovered by a reporter in the badly-damaged foreign ministry in Baghdad. But the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described.”
The Telegraph:
This is the newspaper whose foreign correspondent (David Blair) insisted that he had found the documents inside the Iraqi foreign ministry.
Oh yeah?
The Telegraph:
This is the newspaper that interviewed Mr Galloway by telephone on 21st April but refused Mr Galloway any opportunity to read either the newspaper’s allegations or the forged documents before they published their lies.
And let us not forget…
The Telegraph:
This is the newspaper formerly owned and run by Conrad Black and his wife Barbara Amiel. Both people have lied to and cheated their shareholders, their readers, their fellow colleagues and board members at Telegraph Newspapers and Hollinger International. These are the people who have lied to, cheated and stolen from the staff of Telegraph Newspapers.
So we’re looking at a newspaper that doesn’t check the facts, invents stories, fails to check references, and invents sources.
Get a credible news feed. Stop quoting the Telegraph; it’s not so much damaged goods as a ship with a hole below the waterline.
Every time you use the Telegraph as a source your own argument is blown away.
Re this comment at # posted by Anonymous : 1:31 PM
War is not easy and it is messy but freedom comes at a price. Afghanistan is free today and they had to pay the price as well.
And let's not forget Europe paid a huge price for it's freedom.
Or maybe you prefer Saddam back in power to kill millions of Iraqis?
Yes, bring em on, bring on freedom and democracy.
-----------------------------------------------
Re TryingTimes comment.
"In this war the American military continue to display gross ineptitude from Pfc's right up to Generals in this war."
If they are so bad, how do you account for the fact that they killed or captured nearly 3000 terrorist while fighting an urban war, the most dangerous kind, in Falluja and only lost about 50 men? Sounds like a pretty well trained and professional force to me.
"But the US military - because it is nothing more than unemployment benefit for the under-educated Amercan - is doomed to make catastrophic cock-ups at every turn."
Well, I'm sure the students at West Point, the Naval and Air Force academies will be glad to hear that.
As for under-educated, the US military is the most educated military in the world.
And as for cock-ups at every turn, how do you account for the success in the Balkans an in Afghanistan? How do you account for the swiftness of the Iraqi war?
Even the North Vietnamese admit that Vietnam was a defeat for them and a victory for the US militaraily. The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were set to surrender until John Kerry and his lying Winter Soldeirs turned the press and the civilians against the war.
Winning the peace is always harder than winning the war. It never ceases to amaze me how quick anti-war types forget history. You might want to brush up all the American military success.
"The world's media consistently shows how incompetent and vainglorious the American troops really are; ill-disciplined, under-trained and poorly-educated troops can not undertake professional soldiering tasks."
The media are anti-war, left leaning liberals who consistenly attack America. History disproves what you claim as I demonstrated above.
"Me? Yeah, I'm what the Americans would call a vet. I've seen military service and when the heat was on we prayed - get this, we prayed! - that the aircraft flying CAP were not US!"
Me? I'm what you call a vet as well. I volunteered and spent 20 years in the service, joining in 1971 during Vietnam. And I know first hand that many prayed for US air cover.
-----------------------------------------------
Re this comment # posted by Anonymous : 12:23 AM
"You've been dishonest.
You've taken a quote from one article about one instance in one town in Iraq and applied it to the whole of the British Army.
That means you've maliciously taken the quote waaaaay out of context.
That makes it a lie."
No need for stong lanugage and accusations.
First off, The Telegraph changed their headline. I used the same headline they did originally "UK in Iraq adopt US tactics"
I did not take the quote out of context. Did you read the article? What does Lt Col Bathurst say?
He says "British military thinking, Lt Col Bathurst conceded, had changed in Iraq, moving closer to the American concept of overwhelming force."
"British military thinking...had changed in Iraq."
Lt Col Bathurst was using this town as an example of the change in military thinking.
As for the Telegraph itself, all news media is biased. Thankfully we now have the internet so we can look for other opinions.
Notice what the judge didn't say in the Galloway case. The judge did not say the documents were forged. As you point out the judge decided that the Telegraph's claim "that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' of documents" was not the case. He also found that the Telegraph did not give Galloway time for a rebuttal.
No one has proven the documents showing Galloway's involvent in the oil for food scandal, are forgeries.
Galloway claimes that he has never owned a barrel of oil, seen a barrel of oil or touched one. He has not denied that he had ever owned oil vouchers, which was the method used to carry out the scandal.
When the investigations in the US and at the UN are over, we might well see Mr Galloway back in the dock. I hope so.
And don't forget, the Telegraph is appealing.
One of Mr Galloway's most famous quotes is that, he cried the day the Soviet Union collapsed. Seems Mr Galloway has a history of supporting dictators.
"Every time you use the Telegraph as a source your own argument is blown away."
I think I've pretty much blown that argument away.
Post a Comment