| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 68135 | 2006-04-19 02:29:00 | Brigadier attacks the John Wayne generals | Scouse (83) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 447442 | 2006-04-19 02:29:00 | Even some of my best friends will hate me for this but I love it...... Brigadier attacks the John Wayne generals A senior British officer says there is a "strong streak of Hollywood" amongst US soldiers working in Iraq, with officers trying to portray themselves as Sylvester Stallone or John Wayne. While this might look good on television at home, the brigadier suggested that "loud voices, full body armour, wrap-around sunglasses, air strikes and daily broadcasts from shoulder-holster wearing brigadier-generals proudly announcing how many Iraqis have been killed by US forces today" was no "hearts-and-minds winning tool". Brig Sharpe gave the "last word" to an anecdote about a "subjugated Iraqi" just before his release from detention. The Ba'athist was loudly lectured by an American officer, who was accompanied by a quiet British brigadier, on the dangers of returning to his "previously nefarious ways". As the Iraqi left he said: "Hey, Mr American, next time before you shout so much you should speak to him. He is British - they know how to invade a country." |
Scouse (83) | ||
| 447443 | 2006-04-19 03:11:00 | I've no doubt the Englishman has a good point, but it isn't true of all Americans. Early on in the invasion, there was a news story involving an American unit. The captain was inside a mosque talking to the imman, trying to get support for local peace. Meanwhile a crowd of Iraqis gathered outside and became increasingly angry. The soldiers were caught between the mosque and the chanting crowd. The captain came out, saw a potential massacre of civilians, and gave immediate orders to his men. Down on one knee, rifles pointed at the ground - and smile. The imman then addressed his people who calmed down. Eventually they welcomed the soldiers and a great deal of good-will was earned. This Army captain showed great leadership and it is just a pity that such stories are unusual rather than common. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 447444 | 2006-04-19 03:15:00 | Here is the article.....www.telegraph.co.uk Written by an American. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 447445 | 2006-04-19 04:03:00 | Hi C. Interesting observation.... Written by an American. Where did you source that? I know that he has been writing snippets of Brit Military stuff for a number of years in British rags. | Scouse (83) | ||
| 447446 | 2006-04-19 04:21:00 | Hi C. Interesting observation.... Written by an American. Where did you source that? I know that he has been writing snippets of Brit Military stuff for a number of years in British rags. S,I get internet Telegraph delivered daily,the url is from there. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 447447 | 2006-04-19 06:14:00 | Here (www.democratandchronicle.com) is another article about the American military in Iraq. It is writted by a (recently) retired (USA) general who is one of many coming out against Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. While he would like to see Rumsfeld removed, he also speaks highly of the troops, e.g.: We have the best military in the world. And I miss it. I love the military. You should know that I retired on principle. What I'm saying only energizes them because they know it's true. They're doing a phenomenal job in Iraq. We can all be so proud. ... Both operationally and tactically, we are winning the war over there. We're doing it on the backs of our great servicemen and women. Strategically, we've made one mistake after another. ... There is no doubt in my mind that we must finish what we've started in Iraq. And we can do it. We have the military to do it. All we need is the political will. As in Winston's post, there are American soldiers in Iraq acting in a professional manner. Of course there are always (in any war, any military) a few jerks that do stupid things, and the media goes nuts with such stories. Surely some will exhibit "strong streak of Hollywood" as Scouse reports. After all, they ARE Yanks from the good ol' USA. But lets be careful in generalising about all Americans (and others) over in Iraq. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 447448 | 2006-04-19 06:49:00 | Hi C. Interesting observation.... Written by an American. Where did you source that? I know that he has been writing snippets of Brit Military stuff for a number of years in British rags. Sorry Scouse,I see what you mean. Amasing how you read a thing and see what you want to see. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 447449 | 2006-04-19 07:14:00 | What Steve says is quite true, even though I've contributed my share of criticism towards American conduct and behaviour :) However it should be appreciated that the US and the Brits are coming from quite different backgrounds as regards war strategies and tactics, and it arises from relative size of the two nations. Because Britain has always been a small nation compared with the many European nations, and more recently as compared with the US, it has always had to husband it's troops, and that fact alone has fashioned the way it has operated. Even The Battle of Britain reflected this, Dowding and Keith Park husbanding and keeping reserves, sending up small numbers against overwhelming odds. (As distinct from Leigh-Mallory and Bader wanting to chance everything in 'Big Wing' concept) Whereas, the US has always thought big, and had the manpower to act big. They have had the manpower to expend, even wastefully, if the end result warranted it. British generals, particularly those in WWll that had experienced WWl, like Montgomery, vowed not to sacrifice their mens' lives again such as had happened at the Somme, Paschendael etc. So, small is beautiful, became a part of the British way of doing things. Take the Malayan Emergency, small patrols quietly moving through the jungle, stalking the Commie Chinese and beating them at their own game. Even before that, the Brits, Chindits doing the same to the Japs in Burma, read John Masters, The Road Past Mandalay. Contrast with Vietnam, with US soldiers yelling and shouting, spraying M16s around in all directions at quite unseen enemy, gunships blindly spraying the jungle with fire-power. The US in both WW1 and WWll thought all they had to do was to send enough men in convoys across the Atlantic, and they could carry on up the Channel and just roll up the Germans. After all it was 3000 miles across the Atlantic and only 20 miles across the Channel, what's the problem? And both times they sang Over There (www.americaslibrary.gov) :) [George M Cohan, 1917] |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 447450 | 2006-04-19 07:22:00 | What Steve says is quite true, even though I've contributed my share of criticism towards American conduct and behaviour :) However it should be appreciated that the US and the Brits are coming from quite different backgrounds as regards war strategies and tactics, and it arises from relative size of the two nations. Because Britain has always been a small nation compared with the many European nations, and more recently as compared with the US, it has always had to husband it's troops, and that fact alone has fashioned the way it has operated. Even The Battle of Britain reflected this, Dowding and Keith Park husbanding and keeping reserves, sending up small numbers against overwhelming odds. (As distinct from Leigh-Mallory and Bader wanting to chance everything in 'Big Wing' concept) Whereas, the US has always thought big, and had the manpower to act big. They have had the manpower to expend, even wastefully, if the end result warranted it. British generals, particularly those in WWll that had experienced WWl, like Montgomery, vowed not to sacrifice their mens' lives again such as had happened at the Somme, Paschendael etc. So, small is beautiful, became a part of the British way of doing things. Take the Malayan Emergency, small patrols quietly moving through the jungle, stalking the Commie Chinese and beating them at their own game. Even before that, the Brits, Chindits doing the same to the Japs in Burma, read John Masters, The Road Past Mandalay. Contrast with Vietnam, with US soldiers yelling and shouting, spraying M16s around in all directions at quite unseen enemy, gunships blindly spraying the jungle with fire-power. The US in both WW1 and WWll thought all they had to do was to send enough men in convoys across the Atlantic, and they could carry on up the Channel and just roll up the Germans. After all it was 3000 miles across the Atlantic and only 20 miles across the Channel, what's the problem? And both times they sang Over There (www.americaslibrary.gov) :) [George M Cohan, 1917] I just knew that was leading up to a song. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 447451 | 2006-04-19 12:13:00 | Whereas, the US has always thought big, and had the manpower to act big. They have had the manpower to expend, even wastefully, if the end result warranted it. Good points, Terry. Big country with big resources >> big firepower. But then what about Bosnia and the Iraq-Kuwait war - bombing the c**p out of those places did in fact achieve results, right? And this recent Iraq war: Rumsfeld's "Shock and Awe" was not as big as he wanted, but such BIG (as you put it) acts did cause the Iraqi military to crumble, correct? I am not implying it was the best thing to do, and I am not ignoring the mess after the Iraq military gave up. But for winning battles it would seem BIG firepower along with surgical strikes do appear to achieve results. However, I have lost Scouse's argument, that the Brits would have known how to win the war and also the Iraqi "hearts-and-minds". Hmmmnnnn, I wonder if General George Patton was from Texas or otherwise related to the Bush family?? :eek: :D |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||