It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thatcher's legacy - and why America is falling out of love with Britain all over again

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Mulberry
 


Nothing to do with pride. I have stated that I have known my share of British soldiers and call a few my friend.

You posted a claim and pretty much told me that to get the evidence I have to order off Amazon and wait a few weeks to see if it is true or not.

We come here for complete information not bits of information.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 



mate if you really are intrested go to library or get the book simple, i have given you the sources and its up to you to checkk the facts and if the fact do not fit into your view then hey its up to you, feel free to reject it.



At the moment i am reading a book by richard holmes called dusty warriors, great book and agreat historican love his war walks.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
www.amazon.co.uk...

great read about a british army regiment in iraq



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Don't bother.

I don't come here for threads that claim something without evidence and then tell me to read a book to find out if its true or not.

If you had evidence I might follow up on it. But your claims are without evidence and does not raise my interest.

I was there, I met the soldiers and I know how the ones I knew were treated. I got back to Germany I met alot more and none of them had anything bad to say about the US soldiers.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

gul•li•ble (gl-bl)
adj.
Easily deceived or duped


Where to start...

Britain was defeated. They declared they were pulling out a long time ago, like the British in world war 1 the British have left Iraq without actually achieving anything substantial. Infact, they removed that upstanding military position the world looks upon the 'British empire' with.


“I don’t think we’ll ever do that again,” said Sir Jeremy, “without a clear UN resolution… and a much wider partnership.”


At least someone learnt their lesson.

Britain was unable to control Basra, effectively allowing the Shiaa Iranian militia to take over, and ultimately required the Iraqi forces supported by the United States to do the job they were unable to do.

Also,
We all recall when the British special forces were caught, wearing Iraqi Garb, driving a common car full of explosives.
These men were busted out of Iraqi prison by British army, this causes great distrust between the Iraqis and the British in Basra, meaning the Iraqi's never informed the British when missions were happening and where fights were taking place.

This doesn’t sound like victory.


Secondly,

No one has achieved Victory in Iraq.
Neither America or its allies.

We went in to remove WMD's.
Turns out we lied, and none existed, but we did end up allowing terrorists to obtain tonnes and tonnes of high explosives.

We went in to create a western style leadership.
Turns out, the government tortures as much as Saddam, is in bed with the Iranians, cannot run a proper economy and has so much corruption and theft involved its pretty much just a corporate entity.

We went in to get create an oil industry that would mean cheaper oil.
Turns out OIL went to unbelievably ridiculous prices as a result of our war. And has only decreased as of late because of the economy problems.

We went in to remove Saddam..
Well congratulations, A quater of a million Men, almost a trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of humans murdered...


but we got 1....... old....... bastard!



to add,

Violence has declined in Iraq, thank bloody Christ for that.
But why has it declined?
was it because of our great leadership and firepower?
Or was it because the main player who was murdering soldiers left right and centre with ambushes and IED's declared a halt to arms until further notice:


Moqtada Sadr ordered his followers to halt all forms of military action nationwide, even in self-defence.

That was a turning-point in Baghdad too. The number of bodies being found daily, dumped randomly in the city after being abducted, tortured and killed in sectarian reprisals, dropped from dozens a day to less than a handful.



What about the local death tolls.
I mean, back in the day kidnappings, murders.. mass graves were being identified.

People in Baghdad were receiving short notes on their doors or letter boxes
'' leave now, or we will kill you ''

well it worked, the shiaa drove out all the Sunnis, and effectively won Baghdad



THAT is the reason violence has declined.
Because they won. They took Baghdad. What’s best is for them to sit in the shadows, gather men, material and intelligence, wait for the Americans to leave, then finish the game.


as for getting better?
Your all in serious denial, or seriously gullible.


Related Searches
"death toll" search results
"U.S. troops" search results
"Official death toll numbers" search results
BAGHDAD, May 2 (UPI) -- A series of big explosions in April helped push the death toll in Iraq to 355 for the month, the bloodiest so far this year, officials said.

The death count did not include at least 80 Iranian pilgrims slain in the country, but does include 290 Iraqi civilians, making for a worrying trend of more non-combatants being targeted by militants as U.S. troops prepare for withdrawal, the BBC reported Saturday.

April also marked the bloodiest month so far in 2009 for U.S. troops, with 12 soldiers slain, military figures indicate.


Lets ask these people



If things are better.
Or if the British were victorious in bringing peace and stability to Iraq?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 



i have presented evidence now where is your. yawn



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

gul•li•ble (gl-bl)
adj.
Easily deceived or duped


Where to start...
Britain was unable to control Basra, effectively allowing the Shiaa Iranian militia to take over, and ultimately required the Iraqi forces supported by the United States to do the job they were unable to do.

Thanks for your version of the events.
NEXT



No one has achieved Victory in Iraq.
Neither America or its allies.

That's a matter of opinion!
NEXT

We went in to remove WMD's.
Nobody cares get over it
NEXT

We went in to create a western style leadership.
Never heard this before who cares get over it
NEXT


We went in to get create an oil industry that would mean cheaper oil.
Never heard this one either who cares get over it
NEXT

We went in to remove Saddam..
Done that check!
NEXT



Violence has declined in Iraq, thank bloody Christ for that.
But why has it declined?

No not Christ just the US.
NEXT






What about the local death tolls.
I mean, back in the day kidnappings, murders.. mass graves were being identified.

Lets see some proof
NEXT



People in Baghdad were receiving short notes on their doors or letter boxes
'' leave now, or we will kill you ''

Lets see some proof
NEXT



If things are better.
Or if the British were victorious in bringing peace and stability to Iraq?


OK Not sure what you're trying to say here but
NEXT

Well that about covers that, now onto to some Scotch














[edit on 6-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Typical American attitude!

Thanks for reinforcing the stereotype, but if you cant give a mature response and debate my post, then ill simply stop here in giving a proper reply to you!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


ah its i was there argument and the ones that are not there do not know anything about it. I tell you this my freind, you righ about the locak picture, you the battles being fought etc on the ground. I do not know what is like n that area but i know from evidence, that i have provided and from the the media says, who quote many soliders there that state straight away there is a big problem strategically there. I can see the bigger picture, because i have read eye witnes reoports on what is gong on you have not. other wises you would of provide your evidence instead of trying to dismiss what i have provided.

its goes to show you hve no argument to defend with thats is shown by your lack of willingness to read what the men who have fought there have stated, but then insist hey i know what these men think i spoke to them there. if that is the case then why are you dismissing the men who have been there. its prmiary source matrial my friend.

I gues obma does not know or the generals in washington know what is going on on in afganistan and they all have to been there to get to know what is going on becuase they cannot trust what is stated by the men who have been there becuase it is mere opinion. what toss.

"In late 2007, British forces, after making a secret deal with the Iranian-backed militias to allow them to depart safely, abandoned their compound in Basra for a heavily attacked airport base outside the city.[54] As one U.S. intelligence official stated, "[t]he British have basically been defeated in the south."[55]

Britain returned to Basra in 2008 on the heels of Operation Charge of the Knights, conducted by Iraqi and U.S. forces. Brigadier Julian Free, commander of the British 4th Mechanised Brigade, admitted that Britain needed the "huge amount of armoured combat power" that the U.S. brought to bear because Britain "didn't have enough capacity in the air and...didn't have enough capability on the ground." Indeed, he acknowledged, Britain could no longer conduct large-scale operations on its own.[56] This British failure, and the Iraqi and U.S. success, illustrates how the British armed forces, starved of the manpower, equipment, and political support they needed to achieve their mission, have suffered since 1997."

www.heritage.org...

which is based on this report

www.guardian.co.uk...

"British and Iraqi troops could not have quelled the militia in Basra earlier this year without US firepower, the UK commander in the city said yesterday.

The full extent to which Iraqi and British forces relied on the US was disclosed by Brigadier Julian Free, head of 4 Mechanised Brigade, which recently returned to Germany after six months at Basra airport. "I needed some help," he said referring to what he called the "huge amount of armoured combat power" the US brought from western Iraq to accompany Iraqi reinforcements for Charge of the Knights, the operation to drive out the Shia militia."

Note i do not believe the british army was defeated in iraq, dispite what the reports say because if you read it properly its says the opposite but however the reports says the british are under mind and the americans feel the british were defeated. its about perception.


also the above was based on this which makes the suprious claims, but provides not evidenc to support the intelligence officers assertions, however does mirror what the 3rd para was doing in afgansistan, where they retreted to compounds and mounted pressence and did some protrols. The article in the washington post does not push the point too far when it says the british was defeated in basra as it acknowledges major success of british operations which ws copied by the ameircans.
www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I think the Brits and Americas allies should reduce involvement to rotations of service for experience sake, on a whole this post goes to show that America is in a trap they didn't see coming,they can't leave because another Saddam will rise up and they can't stay because American weakness was always against Guerilla Warfare(is there even a way to counter-it?),the best they can do is build american funded hospitals, schools, libraries and fund women's rights for as long as it takes, at least Iraqi's will remember them for these good things/.

I say America has to pull out,and risk another Saddam, and if so, go back in and hand to him again,i think after two or three beatings with reduced civilian casualties there will be a change in thought.

It's starting to look that with modernisation of wars,wars now have to be fought two or three times with odd unconvential tactics to be considered won.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well all the allies have pullled out from Iraq now and the ameircans are just mad as hell, they have been left holding the baby as such.


I think this is a disaster for the americans and they know it, to say to your closes ally hey you cannot fight, you were defeated, your crap etc, smacks of desperation.

I think the british got fed up with being second fiddle to their ex colonial empire and told them to get stuffed.


Every since the 2003 the british reduced their numbers there and have given a token force to the americans in afganistan. I think its proof that the british told the yanks to sod off, this war in unwinable, you never learn from history. You need to keep the army in place, just you we did in germany after ww2, you need to rebuild just like in germany and japan after ww2 and you have to do it quick.

The americans thought we do not need to do that, we are not into nation building. Well the greeks did it, so did the romans, so did the assyrians, so did every empire going except the americans, if you do not rebulid after you conquer a society, that society will fight you not matter what the cost, because they realise that death is better then living under a colonail power.

british employed indians in america, sepoys in india, and africans from the african states. Why well it gives them the illusion that they are part of the empire, they have a stake in it, they can influenced the conquer. The arabs hard programme of islamisation, not because it was done by force but because they made attrative enough for people to consider being muslim. For example every one wants to go to america, at the moment, why is this, because its rich and powerful, its a big status symbol. Its the same with the roman empire, lol they even a had war, because the romans refused to let other people be roman, imagine this a war where some one fights you because you will not let them join your gang, the only example that comes close to this is northern ireland, though there are differences.

I think the speical relationship is well and trully over in the military aspect and over the years if this some example i can see the british pulling away from the americans, they have realise the ameircans could not care less about them polically or military.. Culturally there will always be a close connetion and in the economic sphere as well, but policially the relationship of the uk and usa is dead in the water.



This is a big embrassment for the usa for its closest ally to pack their bags and go home. What the do the yanks say, oh sod off you cannot fight, your crap any way. So the brits said yes thanks fight your own wars, you will learn like we did , been done that .



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Wait I still don't understand the main point of the article.

Why should I read a book just to find out about it?



One general=all of us now?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Don't try to understand. I tried to get more info and as you can tell it is impossible. I still don't know what the point of this thread is and what info is trying to be relayed.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Why am I not surprised to see the US insulting it's allies forces?

...

Can we please just turn our backs on them now? Rather than waiting till they're bankrupt?

They clearly don't respect our assistance.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


You saw evidence of that in his post?

There are a few of us here who would appreciate it if you could point out the evidence for us.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Geezus. As an American, let me say this: American generals haven't won the first damned war since the creation of the Joint Chiefs.

100 HOURS is just a clever name for unfinished business.

American Generals are selected on criteria that have nothing to do with leadership. Pristine record, precise paperwork, the ability to smooch long lines of distinguished creases, an aversion to the front, and success working the Washington cocktail circuit.

My God, don't get me started.

This turd probably is like most of our American generals. A man is an expression of who he is. A man is not his training, his upbringing, or verbal experssions. A man is the summations of his actions.

A warrior that can't kill in combat isn't a warrior. With maybe one exception, our American Generals have never made a kill. How can a leader of warriors, have never succeeded in combat? They can't lead. Couldn't find the front if they had to.

They manage. From a long distance. Our generals are as predictable as the sunset. They have forgotten the basics. They have forgotten how to win. Everything organizational in the American army is oriented toward maintaining our general's state of isolated supremacy. And this guy is supposed to know something?

I've known a few British soldiers from Smoke Bomb Hill, as well as Canadians, lots of Australians, a couple from New Zealand, and I'll line up with any of them, than the entire General Officer Corps, who couldn't find their butts using a flashlight and both hands, except for their personal pucker smooching Lieutenant.

Our American commanders learn by rote, teach the same, and strive to maintain their distance from the soldiers, the battlefield, the enemy, and thus their constant distance from victory.

Gentlemen, as an American who knows a bit about how it works, do not think for a moment that American think any such thing. It's total BS from the start.

Likely some British enlisted man snaked his coochie out from under him, and he just can't get over it.

That's the other thing. American generals are unrivaled.

In their minds.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by dooper]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
You saw evidence of that in his post?


Who's post? I was attacking the generals comments, not an ATS member.

Don't be so quick to get defensive, makes you look like you've got something to hide. lol.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by johnsky]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


I'm asking if you saw evidence that a general did say that in the OP's post.

All the article said was a general said this.

Where is the evidence? Who was the general?

edit to add-

I'm not being defensive. I have been trying to get some sort of evidence that this was actually said, something a little more credible then, a general said............. When I asked I was told to go read a book to get the answer.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by jd140]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
i bet he wouldnt have said those things when the british were saving the americans lives, or ducking the american "friendly fire", what a complete a@#e h*$e, the english forces are the best in the world and always will be, they have skill and courage and have true grit where the yanks have higher numbers, tons of equipment and a huge national debt to go with it!!!!!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
heres a few things the british have had to put up with,

www.timesonline.co.uk...


www.dailymail.co.uk... e.html


oh no !! here come the cavalry, the americans are coming, the americans are coming!!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join