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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mulberry

Americans think Britian was defeated in Iraq and afganistan


[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1177719/MAX-HASTINGS-Thatchers-legacy--America-falling-love-Britain-again.html]www.dailymail.co.uk[/url ]

"The British Army is not the force it was 20 years ago,' claims a U.S. general who has held a senior command in Afghanistan.

'It is casualty-averse and lacks boldness. It is too ready to call in air support rather than "mix it" with the Taliban. I would describe most of the British commanders and officials involved in Afghanistan as defeatists.' "
(visit the link for the full news article)



au.news.yahoo.com...

The Dailymails article is a complete joke in the light of the link i just posted....
It seems the Americans are too ready to call in airstrikes rather than "mix it" with the Taleban.




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
...by what measure are you saying the war is going bad? Iraq is done we are pulling out and the Taliban are flowing into Pakistan.


If there is no oil pipeline going through Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea area to the Arabian Sea, then the Brits...and Americans, Canadians, etc...have lost.

And Iraq? Oh, ya...mission accomplished there, for sure.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I think it’s a sorry state of affairs when a ridiculous post like this one causes ATS members to snipe and bicker with each other over who’s the best and who’s won/winning what?


I believe the OP wanted to ‘Stir things up’ and has achieved that in spades, not through a balanced well referenced argument, but by touching a very raw nerve for both great nations...

Don’t rise to the bate, it belittles us and gives him the attention I believe he is seeking.

Bless you all, ATS and most of all our troops fighting over seas.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Hard to say from the OP if this is a real issue or not. But just the same, if you read this thread you can begin to understand how the British military might have fallen to the levels described.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
If there is no oil pipeline going through Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea area to the Arabian Sea, then the Brits...and Americans, Canadians, etc...have lost.

And Iraq? Oh, ya...mission accomplished there, for sure.




Oh "The Great Game" theory aye?

As far as Iraq what did you expect?
Shining new skyscrapers? A Chicken in every pot?
The Iraqis will have to deal with Iraqi issues sooner or later it was never meant to be the 51st state.










[edit on 7-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The way I see it, Americans are too egotistic to admit defeat. This is a war you can't fight unless you kill every man, woman and child. It is not the soldiers faults, the enemy blends in with the civilians. The English found that out long ago and they decided to retreat. You live today and fight tomorrow.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Britain was defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan.. but so were Americans.

America lost both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan miserably. They had
the highest technology concerning weaponry, while the Arabs just had
old Kalashnikovs, mangy RPG's and home made explosives.. yet the
Americans lost miserably and completely. All they accomplished was
the destruction and murder of countless innocent civilians and collapse
of their own economy.

The only reason there's still Americans in either country, is to guard the
oil. Neither of these wars had anything to do with liberating population
from tyranny. Iraqis were far better off under Saddam, despite his cruel
policy.. because what the Americans did to the population, was far more
cruel and brutal than what Saddam ever had the means for to do.

It's disgusting to see how Americans are still proud of their military,
despite the countless atrocities it has made itself guilty of.. and it is still
torturing, murdering, mass murdering, stealing, abusing and raping to
this very day, without any limitations or repercussions. As long as you,
the American population, start protesting massively against those vile
atrocities, you are guilty of them as well.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
The way I see it, Americans are too egotistic to admit defeat.


I rarely do this but OK I'll call your bluff show me exactly where it states that the US has been defeated?

When was the last time the US in Iraq has had any of it's position over ran and massive hostages taken to the point of negotiating a surrender? The latest rounds of violence and death heck as a matter of fact most if not all the violence and death over the past two years have been Muslim on Muslim sectarian violence. Saddam dealt with it by butchering anybody who thought differently.

Now the Iraqis themselves will have to deal with those issues for the first time in their history and if they tare themselves apart then maybe it should crumble. Those issues were festering long before the US ever got there.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
The way I see it, Americans are too egotistic to admit defeat. This is a war you can't fight unless you kill every man, woman and child. It is not the soldiers faults, the enemy blends in with the civilians. The English found that out long ago and they decided to retreat. You live today and fight tomorrow.


The only thing I agree with is that the English were smart enough to walk away. It is a snake pit...there is no exit strategy, and our (collective) troops shouldn't be dying for a war they can't win.

Hell...the Brits walked away once before...the Russians walked away (and they don't play nice like us). Forget the spin, time to call it a flop and bail...shouldn't have been there in the first place.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Equinox99
The way I see it, Americans are too egotistic to admit defeat.


I rarely do this but OK I'll call your bluff show me exactly where it states that the US has been defeated?

When was the last time the US in Iraq has had any of it's position over ran and massive hostages taken to the point of negotiating a surrender? The latest rounds of violence and death heck as a matter of fact most if not all the violence and death over the past two years have been Muslim on Muslim sectarian violence. Saddam dealt with it by butchering anybody who thought differently.

Now the Iraqis themselves will have to deal with those issues for the first time in their history and if they tare themselves apart then maybe it should crumble. Those issues were festering long before the US ever got there.



See I look at the bigger picture. The US went in with the intentions of liberating Iraq from a dictator(accomplished), install democracy(somewhat complete?), and provide safety to the Iraqi people. That my friend is where you failed. Afghanistan? Total failure.

You see winning as who suffers the most casualties. I see it as who does not accomplish all their goals.

The funny thing is that you say the country was unstable before the US got there. I lived there, and as a first class citizen I seen Iraq before and after the war. Trust me those problems were not always there. Sure every country has problems, but Iraq was more stable before the invasion.

So basically you went in and messed up a country and think the Iraqi people should deal with it. "You've done your part". Who knows how many
Talibani's have invaded the army, and police.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99

See I look at the bigger picture. The US went in with the intentions of liberating Iraq from a dictator(accomplished), install democracy(somewhat complete?), and provide safety to the Iraqi people. That my friend is where you failed. Afghanistan? Total failure.




YEAH Bigger Picture.

OK
As before let's see some proof!

I'm tired of everyone just posting their OPINIONS as if it's the truth. It's an opinion. I never heard anybody stating that we went there to secure the Iraqis "Safety" Let me see a link stating that.


As far as Afghanistan I know that it's popular dribble to state we are loosing yet we are still there and when somebody posts something to the contrary they are accused of being manipulated by the press or a NAIVE uneducated American Blah Blah Blah Yadda Yadda.

The Russians lost what?
Over 14000 in their invasion of Afghanistan the US what something like 650?

Yeah Afghanistan is a disaster alright!





[edit on 7-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
One poster had a part of his post correct.

Alexander took the same territory, but it required depopulating vast regions of the country.

Ghengis did the identical same thing, which required depopulating vast regions of the terrain.

The US has violated every principle of warfare in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, Part II.

What was it Sun Tzu said? "It is victory you seek, not persistence."

Hell, he knew 2500 years ago what our American generals have never learned, and apparently, never will.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

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.



We did what in WW1 ? do you know anything about the British army?

And I think you will find Basra is now in Iraqi hands which was the whole idea behind the war wasn't it ? to get rid of the tyrant and then hand it back to the locals, you need to get your facts right before talking crap seriously.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
The US has violated every principle of warfare in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, Part II.


Good morning dooper.

OK now wheres the beef?
Lets see every principle of warfare violations?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Hey, is what you're saying that the Americans have learned their lessons from Vietnam and are now doing fantastically well in the Middle East as a military?







posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Fact is, Afghanistan has fantastic geographic opportunities for Guerilla warfare to cause real problems for any army, no matter the technology that may be thrown against them.

The USSR (as was) failed spectacularly and Britain & America will fail if following purely militaristic goals - hence the British attitude of Hearts & Minds. Hell, even Alexander The Great got his backside kicked in Afghanistan, suffering his fiercest battles and gravest losses to his army - physically, mentally and financially.

Regardless of the amount of testosterone, technology and tenacity thrown into an Afghan campaign, military subjugation of the territory is futile and can only be achieved through "conversion" of the populace. This has to mean "political methods", anything else is just fire-fighting with insurgents.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Equinox99

See I look at the bigger picture. The US went in with the intentions of liberating Iraq from a dictator(accomplished), install democracy(somewhat complete?), and provide safety to the Iraqi people. That my friend is where you failed. Afghanistan? Total failure.




YEAH Bigger Picture.

OK
As before let's see some proof!


No problem. Sorry it took me long to reply.

In 2003 Bush was sent a letter by the Democratic leaders.



If we fail to secure the peace in Iraq, the consequences for our security are ominous. America will be less safe. Our authority will be diminished in the eyes of our allies and our enemies alike. Dramatic changes are required to deal with the realities on the ground and to organize for the long haul, and time is short. As the Iraq Reconstruction Assessment Mission headed by former Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, reported last week: “The next three months are crucial to turning around the security situation . . . the potential for chaos is becoming more real every day.” In this light, we respectfully recommend the following:

First, establish security in Iraq. If the Iraqi people do not feel safe enough to go back to work, walk their streets after dark, or send their children to school, resentment will intensify. We do not have sufficient numbers of troops in Iraq, or the right mix, to protect our own forces, much less establish a secure environment for 22 million Iraqis. We urge you to increase overall force levels by drawing on more troops from more nations, and not just our own. For our own forces, we should set up a rotation system that conforms to the reality of a long-term presence in Iraq, and the ability of our military to sustain it.
Source




"My resolution is, is that they'll be safe, and that we'll come closer to our objective, that we'll be able to help this young democracy survive and thrive, and therefore we'll be writing a chapter of peace," Bush told reporters during a break in talks with advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney, new Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Fox



Look at the birth defects for kids as soon as the war started.



A BBC investigation can reveal that the US and UK military have continued to use depleted uranium weapons despite warnings from scientists that it poses a potential long-term cancer risk to civilians.
A former senior scientist with the United Nations has told the BBC that studies showing that it was carcinogenic were suppressed from a seminal World Health Organisation report.
The US has refused to fund major research and has been criticised for failing to cooperate with UN attempts to conduct a post conflict assessment in Iraq.

Source


As you may or may not know, depleted uranium does cause cancer. So the aftermath of this invasion will be felt for a really long time. Whether you may or may not agree, most scientists agree.



I'm tired of everyone just posting their OPINIONS as if it's the truth. It's an opinion. I never heard anybody stating that we went there to secure the Iraqis "Safety" Let me see a link stating that.


Agreed. You went in to make the country unstable and build super bases for the invasion of Iran.

A study was conducted on morality rates before and after the war. the conclusion was the morality rates were 100,000 excess during the war. If another countries security means nothing to you it means you have proven my point. Most Americans are egotistic whether you think it or not.



LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the U.S.-led invasion last year, American public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.

The rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

"The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children," Roberts told Reuters.
Source




As far as Afghanistan I know that it's popular dribble to state we are loosing yet we are still there and when somebody posts something to the contrary they are accused of being manipulated by the press or a NAIVE uneducated American Blah Blah Blah Yadda Yadda.

The Russians lost what?
Over 14000 in their invasion of Afghanistan the US what something like 650?

Yeah Afghanistan is a disaster alright!


If you don't know your history as to why America was there in the first place then please do not speak about it. US is at war with Russia in Afghanistan. They fund the Talibani's and Al Qaeda to fight against the Russians.



The origins of the group can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahedeen on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. The U.S. channelled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone.[41][42]

Wiki




[edit on 7-5-2009 by SLAYER69]




So the way I see it. The US funded the terrorists and watched them grow from infants. You have a reason to be in there, the UK does not. The problem arose from the US being afraid of the Soviet taking over. You guys funded the "evil" side who is killing your service men and women right now.

Think of it as you want. Honestly I wouldn't even be surprised if Russia is funding Al Qaeda to fight back the US.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


Sorry to see you wasted so much time and effort.
Let's see we have you relying on "Wikipedia" Give me a few days and if I care to waste some time I'll log on and change that information


Wikipedia

Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

"Yes it's garbage" but it's delivered so much faster!


Then you quote Nancy Pelosi from 2003? Why? I don't know.
Followed by an interesting read on Al-Qaeda which I already knew. Again give me a few days and if I feel like it I'll log onto Wikipedia and make some changes there. Then you bring up something from "www.globalresearch.ca" Interesting but how does that apply? Where does that say anything about guaranteeing Iraqi Safety?
Then last but not least you drag in "The We" I wont even bother wasting time discussing that.




[edit on 8-5-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Morning to you, SLAYER. Since you asked.

How about just a few of the most basic, easy principles we've violated.

1. Our American generals are not warriors. They are administrators and politicians in uniform. Generals should not be selected on the current basis of mistake avoidance, pristine performance evaluations, Power-Point presentation skills, pucker smooching, and success working the Washington Cocktail Circuit.

They haven't taken their own scalps. They are far removed from the battlefields, and when you aren't there making it happen, for every opportunity you take advantage of, you've also missed another. Our generals point. My sister's little spotted dog can point. A leader of warriors must be a warrior himself.

2. Make it total war or stay home. In war, the goal is to make it as violent and overwhelming as possible to make it as short as possible. The more bloody and ruthless on the front end, the quicker it's over. The more humane your approach, the longer the war continues, the more total casualties, and the more frequent the wars. The purpose of fighting is to win decisively and quickly.

To become engaged in a war of attrition is to negate your freedom of movement. There's always someone else that needs shooting. Always.

3. Always attack, always be moving. Only attack enables the initiative. The sword is more important than the shield. The shield is incapable of delivering a killing thrust. Eventually, the shield will either splinter, or defend the wrong side of a killing thrust.

You never, ever spend two meals in the same spot. Never, ever, have or work out of fortified positions in a population center. Static positions cultivate every bad habit an army can accumulate, a static position has no secrets, static positions suit rot and complacency, and static positions are targets. Graves are static positions.

You always disengage the population centers and roam. This enables freedom of movement, surprise, security, and the initiative.

Never, ever assign soldiers policing or peacekeeping duties. A soldier should only be concerned with killing the enemy in the greatest number, with the greatest efficiency, in the least amount of time. That's a full plate.

I would continue, but you start to get the idea.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by dooper]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Okay so what you are saying is every piece of research is not credible because it goes against what you think? I am sorry that sounds pretty egotistic to me.
All you have done is come here and state your opinions without any evidence and try to shoot my "opinions" down that is backed by evidence. Am I missing something here?

If your just going to sit here and wine about how credible my sources are without providing your own I think I am through with you.

**Edit**

Okay the Wiki is not a great source. But do you deny the allegations that the US funded Al Qaeda to fight off Russia or not?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Equinox99]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join