US requests UK forces backup

The Black Watch disbanded!!! Crippin Hell.

I don't know how the UK politicians can look themselves in the faces..In a war and slashing the Forces at the same time?

They should be ashamed of themselves.

It hasn't been confirmed yet, and besides, when a unit is "disbanded" it doesn't mean all the squaddies are sacked, they tend to get reallocated and units get merged.

i think the uk is having more success because they have been on course since the start of the war, unlike us, we started out the same then we started getting heavy resistance and decided to skip our original targets and head to baghdad instead, we're only recently seeing the US changing strategy to stay on targets and use tactics similar to the UK and some israeli tactics too.

Still its ashame. I still beleive that a Units history can have a lot to do with its morale. Sorry...old timer here.

Originally posted by Orias
Well in my opinion George Bush (or who evers really calling the shots) wants to see foreign blood spilt before your elections so your casualty count doesn�t look so bad(although admittedly its a bit late now).

READ THE LINK! All that we are asking is for your guys to take over for our troops while we go into the hot spot. The only blood that is going to be spilt is American.

That aside i'm disgusted at the very thought of Americans (or any one else) being in charge of our troops. If you cant do the job as, its gonna be even harder when you have to command troops that are used to a different style of doing things. i don't want to see Britons dieing because of some incompetent American general cant do the job at hand.

Oh yes, so incompetent American generals, the same ones that have been in charge of the 2 most succusfull incasions ever.

You wouldn't like your troops being told what to do a French guy why should it be any different for us.

First off, don't EVER compair the US to France. EVER! Second, if you actually read the artical you'd notice that all your soldiers were going to do would be redeployed. They wouldn't even be fighting with us.

incase you yanks didn't realize the majority of the british public have a very dim view of American policies and politicians and (in my experience at least) a fair few think ur countries nothing more than a joke. so i cant see this going down to well back here.

Ohhhh yes - a joke! Silly me - I thought that the US was the most powerfull country in the world. I ust have been misstaken, because surely our policies wouldn't be a joke if we were actually the richest country with the most powerfull military.

It seems pretty clear that the majority of people here believe the UK has a good reputation for keeping the peace so wouldnt it make sense to put the American troops under the command of the british? Just a thought.

Theres an idea - put 130,000 American troops under the comand of 600 from the UK. That makes a ton of sense

Theres an idea - put 130,000 American troops under the comand of 600 from the UK. That makes a ton of sense

I am sure you know that we have 15,000 in Iraq, but I am just clarifying it for those that don't. Not that i think that US troops should be under our command....

We have standards you know

First of all, sorry to offend you so much I forgot how pathetically patriotic you guys are.
Second, as mentioned earlier in the thread the british are a lot better with peace keeping exercises so perhaps if your gung ho soldiers were under the command of some more experienced generals then maybe you wouldn�t be making such a mess. Please you didn�t really think I meant that we put 600 men in charge of your however many did you?

This is your war; we didn�t want anything to do with it! You can have your little fun and games playing hero, I don�t care. But when soldiers from the UK have to risk their lives to help your joke of a president win an election (which will probably be rigged any way) that�s where I draw the line.

Yes your country is a joke; it has gained its prosperity through slavery, pillaging, murder, deceit, and general corruption and not to mention scaring the bajesus out of the average population into mass spending. I could probably go on but im tiered and can�t really be bothered at the moment.

So next time you (by which I mean america) think about preaching to other countries and acting like a spoilt child just remember what you did to the Africans and the native Americans. If these countries are technologically behide, why can�t they be culturally? Who are you to dictate what governments should be allowed?

Listen don�t get me wrong I have nothing but respect for the American soldiers and I wish them nothing but good luck but it�s the cause that I�m disgusted with.

Oh yeh and whats wrong with france? What could have possibly make you hate them? Not the media i hope?

I know some of what I said has been off topic, so I apologize in advance for ranting on.


[edit on 20-10-2004 by Orias]

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Orias]

Originally posted by American Mad Man


First off, don't EVER compair the US to France. EVER! Second, if you actually read the artical you'd notice that all your soldiers were going to do would be redeployed. They wouldn't even be fighting with us.

umm why not? they are not that bad.
whats wrong with us fighting next to you BTW ,not at you mad man , just asking generaly. we've faught with them before ww2,korea,veit nam i belive , bosnia,GW1,operation telac rem that? and afgahnistan.

Ohhhh yes - a joke! Silly me - I thought that the US was the most powerfull country in the world. I ust have been misstaken, because surely our policies wouldn't be a joke if we were actually the richest country with the most powerfull military.

firstly your country is debt man sorry to say it but your in serios debt and its getting worse by the day.rome was powerful but it fell.......

Theres an idea - put 130,000 American troops under the comand of 600 from the UK. That makes a ton of sense

if it was 600 comand staff then yes it would, but yeah normal troops duh no sense.
there is no problem with us doing it, i dont see anyway.

I believe the British death rate is 1/125, compared to the US 1/130
Never mind - don't forget it's a bloody disaster as known from the start by the dissembling commissioners of this invasion
All the US and UK footsoldiers are dumb bloody pawns as recognised on the record by Kissinger
They are deserving of little special respect unless they turn their rifles upranks
They can hardly be expected to do that with a dumbed and soporific home audience - however split the vote, not one of us seems to want to pull down this horrific edifice with true determination
They've got us all netted in their determination to produce a global penal colony and nobody feels the essential rightness to take them out - bar the orgonite gifters who are few and, correctly, non-violent, and whose science is outre to say the least
What's the next step?

[edit on 20-10-2004 by dh]

Originally posted by dh
I believe the British death rate is 1/125, compared to the US 1/130
Never mind - don't forget it's a bloody disaster as known from the start by the dissembling commissioners of this invasion
All the US and UK footsoldiers are dumb bloody pawns as recognised on the record by Kissinger
They are deserving of little special respect unless they turn their rifles upranks
They can hardly be expected to do that with a dumbed and soporific home audience - however split the vote, not one of us seems to want to pull down this horrific edifice with true determination
They've got us all netted in their determination to produce a global penal colony and nobody feels the essential rightness to take them out - bar the orgonite gifters who are few and, correctly, non-violent, and whose science is outre to say the least
What's the next step?

[edit on 20-10-2004 by dh]

what you want the military to kill its head? get real the military doing its best remember THEY got ordered thier by a politition , a civie ONE OF US.

I said it once and I will say it again dh...your initials are perfect for you.


There are a lot of things I tolerate but suggestions like that are not one of them.

no one likes this idea uk ( maybe a small minority support this )

was watching the news and it showed how familes of British troops dont want them under the command on US generals as
they are impaitent and work completly diffrent.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by dh]
what you want the military to kill its head? get real the military doing its best remember THEY got ordered thier by a politition , a civie ONE OF US.


The best thing the squaddie in the field could ever do
"onward, onward, rode the 600"
The senior officer class is always subjugate to the politicians necessities who in themselves have to answer to their manipulative masters
About 75% of the homeland population are dumbed-down lackies
A growing percentage of the rest are waking up and many of those would rejoice in the pawns in the frontline turning on their controllers
It really is time to wake up from this horrendously over-controlling society and its tortures and genocide

Anybody going to join me in ignoring dh and his ....enlightened views?

I mean feel free to keep posting, but I just don't think anybody should give you the further credit of further response.

And make sure you return your book to the library. Its at least 40-60 years out of date.

Most of the senior and middle rank officers in the Brit or Western Armies today probably came from from poorer more disadvantaged background than you mate and got thier titles from long, hardwork and service.

Or are you a Chardonay Revolutionary?

Bloody Montgomery was the poorest kid at Sandhurst and couldnt even afford a cheap watch like everyone else on his allowance from home. At that was before WW1. The army may not be classless, but it has class that you will never have.

This is my last ever response to you, including retorts.

Oh grow up, Craig
Presuming you're not some little agent of TPTB stop your pouting
You make me want to engage you if you're so offended by my harmless words
You want to go off in a huff?
OK do it
But don't try to make out I'm some kind of bad person by suggesting that the subjugate flock should try to take control of their lives in the face of the current onslaught against freedom

Originally posted by craigandrew
Anybody going to join me in ignoring dh and his ....enlightened views?

I mean feel free to keep posting, but I just don't think anybody should give you the further credit of further response.

And make sure you return your book to the library. Its at least 40-60 years out of date.

Most of the senior and middle rank officers in the Brit or Western Armies today probably came from from poorer more disadvantaged background than you mate and got thier titles from long, hardwork and service.

Or are you a Chardonay Revolutionary?

Bloody Montgomery was the poorest kid at Sandhurst and couldnt even afford a cheap watch like everyone else on his allowance from home. At that was before WW1. The army may not be classless, but it has class that you will never have.

This is my last ever response to you, including retorts.

Actually your right. I will not ignore you and if we can I will be happy to engage you in conversation and where necessary debate.

But I do find some of your assumptions hard to take...for instance you seem to portray most of todays officer class as silver spooners, and the rest of us as the down trodden masses? I've known many officers who are anything but.

And words are not harmless when they recommend that soldiers should top their officers? Report the incompetent maybe, but you lather them all with the same brush and extoll mistrust and division everywhere.

dh at least change your handle. Its the first thing that pops in my head when I read your posts.

btw I am 36 FYI. With true respect I do not need to know yours

[edit on 20-10-2004 by craigandrew]

[edit on 20-10-2004 by craigandrew]

OK Craig - thanks for that
Still - the officers will take the information handed down from on high and disseminate in terms of action
This may or may not relate to the best interests of the people on the frontline
Action has been taken against the Red Cross, the UN, some Italian aid workers, have been kidnapped and released, and now we have an Iraqi/British Care International worker kidnapped
Who benefits?
Surely not the Iraqis or any Arabs or Muslim
When will we see a Haliburton victim?
Maybe never
This is a wholly controlled situation and the best we can see is the invaders being chased out of Iraq like Nam
As was predicted by some ex-Marine sergeant a long time ago, before the invasion
I'll get you that if you want
Still, I maintain that the soldiers out there could deal with their situation, rather than continue to be poisoned by DU and the insurgents by saying NO even if they end up on military ice, which must be better than death

Originally posted by craigandrew
Actually your right. I will not ignore you and if we can I will be happy to engage you in conversation and where necessary debate.

But I do find some of your assumptions hard to take...for instance you seem to portray most of todays officer class as silver spooners, and the rest of us as the down trodden masses? I've known many officers who are anything but.

And words are not harmless when they recommend that soldiers should top their officers? Report the incompetent maybe, but you lather them all with the same brush and extoll mistrust and division everywhere.

dh at least change your handle. Its the first thing that pops in my head when I read your posts.

btw I am 36 FYI. With true respect I do not need to know yours

[edit on 20-10-2004 by craigandrew]

I don't know about Halliburton staff. If you are talking about Chairman of the Board or such, then no I don't think you'll see many of them in Iraq, at least nowhere where people can get to them. If I had the position neither would I. I would be paying people who had to to take those risks.

As to a dead Halliburton employee or employees, I haven't heard of any. I haven't looked that closely at the CVs of the dead. Is it necessary in a country with tens of thousands of foreign contract employees, journalists and aid workers at risk that we need some poor smuck working for Halliburton trying to make better money for his family to get his throat cut to say "thats alright then"

Japanese executives and their Western Bodyguards were killed in insurgent ambushes. The Englishman and two Americans (I understand at least the Brit was a 63 year old senior Engineer or technician contractor) who died were employees of a sub contractor in Iraq.

An American-Iraqi Businessman was subject of a cover story in our media earlier in the year. He fled Iraq as a young man with nothing in the 1970s. Pre 9/11 he had a prosperous Power generation Engineering firm in NYC that sub contracted to medium and large size US projects.

He was asked to go back and put his skills to use in repairing the power grid. He was appointed as temporary administrator in the power industry, and brought trained staff, engineers, technicians with him from his own and associated companies.

He had been in Iraq over a year before coming back to the States for a breif visit. In that time there had been three attempts on his life, he had been wounded, staff, freinds and iraqi trainees he'd hired had been killed. He had seen power generation infrastructure which he had helped plan, build and repair and put back into service destroyed in insurgent attacks.
The week before he came back to NY four of his American civil engineers had been murdered in an explosion that destroyed a power generator they were about to put on line.

In the meantime he was slowly going broke. Because he and his key staff were off in Iraq, he was losing clients in the US to competitors and he wasn't there to run things, the money flow was going down. He was asked if he was returning to Iraq which he was. He had an obligation to his employees, but he wanted to help Iraq. He said he'd keep serving as the Energy administrator if they wanted him, but he was genuinely tired and would have been just as happy working for someone else there.

One of my grooms at my wedding five years ago is a best freind. He is an electrician in country Queensland. We were visiting him earlier this year and he was telling us how he missed out on working for a US sub contractor. They were responding to a trade ad, and he and three blokes he works with were organising to go to Iraq and do electrical work and train Iraqi apprentices. It was about four times his normal weekly earnings.
But the deal fell through because what was the US Administrator at the time was telling thier potential boss that they HAD to hire more Iraqis to get them back into work to get the contract.

It doesnt matter if the politics or the economic drivers are involved in Iraq.

There happens to be twenty million odd Iraqis depending on this work to get done so they can resume some normal sort of life.

The Contractors and aid workers alike are not going to keep risking thier necks without any security, as opposed to security under assault.

Most soldiers and officers are surprisingly aware of this, beleive me, even if they are a bit inarticulate when it comes to expressing the view. Security and Trust are also not just catchphrases at that level also. Have you just seen the latest images of Brit troops underfire? Try telling them to stop trusting each other and doubting thier officers on the scene and up the line.

Soldiers and officers know Politicians are full of BS and that sometimes thier orders are crap. They have too many perceptions to address. Defend themselves, without harming the general community, while killing the insurgents, without getting killed themselves, to protect the reconstruction, and secure the resources without making the UK look bad in the press.

Most of the officers do thier best to look after thier men, while actually trying to achieve something good out of the mess. In the perfect world you do that without losing men. Even we don't live in the perfect world in Brisbane and Yorkshire, never mind Iraq.

The officers and the men realise, for the most part, they have to trust each other if they are going to have any chance of getting home alive at the end of their tour. Thats why I think your wrong.

As to who else but the US/Iraq coalition leadership would want this to go on could I suggest the leadership of the various insurgents?


Keep in mind we have played a terrible and culpable part in this, or at the very least have made some stupid choices. Thus it has been throughout history. We get to debate and condemn in the happy knowledge we will never be Johnny on the spot to do so.

Think about it. After the collapse of the authoritarian government in Somalia, the rebel leaders fell out and with remanants of the former army began fighting over the bones of the nation and setting up thier little kingdoms. They all liked the idea of national government provided they were it. When the UN moved in that threatened to mess up thier sweet little deal, especially if the common people were given the chance to think they didn't have to owe an alligence to a faction to have a "better" life.

Keep them in ruins, hungry and mean and angry at the UN, and the warlords kept control. Fail and they were just armed criminals.

Afghanistan. The soviets pulled out the puppet government collapsed and the Mahhudjadin factions fell apart and fought over the carcass. They didnt give a rats arse about the people. The Taliban played one off against the other and gained control and let no aid or assistance into the country which they didnt control. They focused on extreme religious indoctrination instead of reaching out and trying to rebuild the country and protect the people.........they kept them in ruins, hungry and mean too, and angry at the outside world.

Saddam Hussein kept control in Iraq for the last ten years, until he overplayed his hand and the US siezed the excuse of 9/11 to invade, by making enemies of nations he thought didnt have the will to invade, by provoking aerial bombings he knew would not touch him, justifying sanctions that did not affect him personnally, and acting like he had weapons he knew the West were obsessed about, but no longer existed. He did this because it kept the people in ruins, hungry and mean, and angry with the West more than him. And it kept his cliche in power to siphon off what aid and riches the people were meant to get.

And thats why (if you accept the possibility of it) the real leaders of the insurgents want the coalition to fail, the rebuilding efforts to stop and the people to remain in remain in ruins, hungry, mean and angry at the US and the West. Because at best it hands control to whoever overwhelms the rest, at worst (in thier case) establishes thier own little fiedoms and pools of angry martyrs.

The response of Iraqi medical workers and patients to the kidnapping of this wonderful woman is what they are afraid of. People are not saying "we love the coalition" but they are begining to say "why are you doing this to people who want to help us? Why are you stopping things from gettting better? Stop!"

The end run is however wrong this invasion was (and I admit it) the Iraqis are only going to benefit by the rebuiding of their country and the influx of aid. It does not matter who is selling the oil to who, because the the revenue that Iraqis get from that oil is what thier future is going to be based on, not burning pipelines and car bomb shattered infrastructure.

Without the current coalition forces (and more besides) being there, there is no chance of maintaining any security situation in which aid workers or contractors alike are going to remain in the numbers needed to complete this work, or waste the investment capital doing so.

Even if you take the most cynical view of whats going on you have to admit that the US Administration and thier backers must make this work and must rebuild Iraq or they are completely F****d. Why shouldnt the Bin Ladens and Madhists of the world be kept at bay, while the Iraqi people finally for once, get to take some advantage from what the grubs of the world have been doing to them for the past thirty or forty years.

Thats why English squaddies should not be encouraged to top thier officers as a rule. If there are exceptions they should be kicking up a stink about them, not shooting them. And they shouldnt be encouraged to disobey the current common duties we (as a society) require our soldiers to do.

Sorry to surmonise there. Its a topic I have given much thought to. Hopeful I will not feel the need to go so deep ...for a week or two

[edit on 20-10-2004 by craigandrew]

[edit on 20-10-2004 by craigandrew]

Sorry to be brief in reply to such a long and reasoned statement but I've no doubt that Saddam remained and remains to the end a puppet of Western will as regards his people and other surrounding nations
Iraq has the internal expertise to repair the country and doesn't need occupying by global corporations.
It just needs the trillion or trillions of dollars in reparation for years and years of sanctions, exploitation, rape and pillage and bloody mass murder, and for the occupying forces to get the hell out

Okay dh. I'll leave it there for the times being if you don't mind. I think we are both pretty set at the moment in our views and for every case I could come up with you could come up with another one.........and around and around and around......ooohhh I dizzy just thinking about it.


Anyways I'll give this one a break for the time being until I have an ephiny or a stunning winning argument for you.