Has Iraq demolished the British Armies military reputation?

[perseus]

Just to make my position clear, I was very much for the Iraq war, on the basis of Sadaam's refusal to comply, his giving the distinct impression of holding WMD, of the Inspectors refusal to get of the fence and come up with a solid 'nay', and acceptance of Mr Blair's appraisal of the situation.

The war was dealt with swiftly and surely; the post-war became a nightmare. Guess who gets the blame now? A clue - They wear uniforms, and nurse their wounds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/Political-cowards-true-heroes.html

It's really about time you broadened your horizons Delboy and found out about what the average British citizen thinks and the facts about the Iraq war.

The WMD was as much a fabrication as the Gleiwitz incident in WW2, and it should shame us as much as this shamed Germany. I am a patroit of justice for humanity and this was a disgrace that will haunt us and question any claim for us to hold the moral high ground. The same goes for the treatment of Iraqi prisoners many of them who never had any grevience against Western forces despite our unprovoked aggression.

By March 2003 Hans Blix had not found any stockpiles or evidence of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament, noting "proactive" Iraqi cooperation and saying it would take “months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States interpreted this as a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite dissenting opinions[10][11] and questions of integrity[12][13][14] about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed with earlier conclusions that Iraq had abandoned its WMD programs in 1991, and asserted Iraq would pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17]

Operation Iraqi Freedom documents refers to some 48,000 boxes of documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s. Associated Press reported, "Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Thank God that at least some Americans are honest enough to own up and admit the oil was a major motivator.:salute2:

BTW Discussing the reputation of the British amongst the British is hardly likely to provide an unbiased opionion

 

[Del Boy]

Not at all Perseus. I stand by my post. I made it clear that I responded to the situation as it was THEN; Like all of us, I was not able to look into the future. I waited with baited breath for the clear message to come from Hans Blix, but came there none of conviction. The message from Sadaam, from Blix, from Labour prime minister Blair, was as I described, and like Parliament I had to draw conclusions then. Sadaam could have stopped the war, Blix could have stopped the War, the French could probably have stopped the war. The question remains - 'where DID those biological weapons disappear to'.

I note your determination to leap to condemn our troops on every score; don't give me that crap about 'as bad as the Nazis'; I could broaden your horizons on that one my friend . It seems you would be quite happy to accept Sadaam and Hitler and the Taliban; I suppose any enemy of England will do.

Why are there so many of you guys doing your best to break our morale, weaken our defences wherever possible, wrench away our nationalism, without any idea of where that leads.

Perhaps the day will come when people will not come forward to struggle to defend you and the wolf will be at your door; that day may be much closer than you think; I've already been there. Like folk before you, you wil be quick to to cry for Tommy then.

 

[perseus]

It seems you would be quite happy to accept Sadaam and Hitler and the Taliban; I suppose any enemy of England will do.

This is ridiculous and has really gone far enough. I think you should apologise for this comment.

I approved of the war against Hitler and the Taliban, HAVE I NOT MADE MYSELF CLEAR? There was no obligation to accept Saddam.

Your own ideology is bordering on racism judging by your posts, remember you implying that it was British Pakistanis responsible for the Mumbai massacre? I am also solidly opposed to all types of religious fundamentalism whether it be the Taliban, Zionists or the evangelical Christian right.

There is world a difference between mindless national patriotism of the sort which Hitler had, and patriotism to an ideal such as not to be the aggressor. The former attitude is the root of most imperialism and oppression of peoples. Have you not learned nothing from WW2?

 

[Del Boy]

Hello - you are playing the racist AND the patriotism accusation card at the same time; I call that desperation.


Don't lecture me regarding WW11 - I lived through every minute of it, including the prologue and epilogue. They were my formative years, what I am made of.

Look, it's really quite simple; Abroad at this very moment our troops are fighting to ensure YOUR safety and mine; we are receiving them back daily to honour and to bury them.

In response, all you are capable of doing is to broadcast as much condemnation of them as you can muster, in their greatest hour of need of support and gratitude.

There is a name for your attitude.

As for apologies - tell it to the Marines.

 

[mmarsh]

Ill agree with Spike and TomTom on this

Has the US or UK military been tarnished? Not in the slightest bit. Even supposing that the US/UK Army was not ready for Iraq whose fault is that really? The military? or those in office at the time who decided to ignore the pleas of the military NOT to invade. I remember a brave General named Eric Shenseki who forfeited his future career options because he contradicted our self-appointed military genius Donald Rumsfeld.

A better question is if the former residents on 10 Downing Street and the White House who caused this mess been tarnished enough? Its a real pity we don't tar and feather snake oil salesmen anymore...

 

[A Can of Man]

Yeah... it all starts when you violate rule number 1: Listen to your Generals.

 

[perseus]

Ill agree with Spike and TomTom on this

Has the US or UK military been tarnished? Not in the slightest bit. Even supposing that the US/UK Army was not ready for Iraq whose fault is that really? The military? or those in office at the time who decided to ignore the pleas of the military NOT to invade. I remember a brave General named Eric Shenseki who forfeited his future career options because he contradicted our self-appointed military genius Donald Rumsfeld.

A better question is if the former residents on 10 Downing Street and the White House who caused this mess been tarnished enough? Its a real pity we don't tar and feather snake oil salesmen anymore...

The title of this article would tend to suggest political incompetence, unfortunately political incompetence tarnishes the military, and military competence helps win elections for politicians (re Falklands). This article reiterates the point I were making exactly along with the terminology. So you can send out your complaints to the 'military site of the year' Del Boy, it isn't me who is going crazy (I really hadn't seen this )

Government incompetence is destroying the British Army's reputation

Meanwhile our American allies, who have already been embarrassed by our indecent retreat from Basra, are now becoming increasingly frustrated by our failure to deliver in Helmand.

It's not just that we don't have enough "force enablers" - armoured vehicles and helicopters, the government has also failed to provide sufficient force levels to adequately secure the southern Afghan province. As a consequence the Americans - as happened in Iraq - are now having to send their own troops to help bail us out.

As a result the proud reputation of our military for delivering results on the battlefield lies in tatters. All those responsible for this appalling state of affairs, whether in the government or the military, should hang their heads in shame

http://www.military-world.net/Afghanistan/1098.html

 

[Del Boy]

The title of this article would tend to suggest political incompetence, unfortunately political incompetence tarnishes the military, and military competence helps win elections for politicians (re Falklands). This article reiterates the point I were making exactly along with the terminology. So you can send out your complaints to the 'military site of the year' Del Boy, it isn't me who is going crazy (I really hadn't seen this )


http://www.military-world.net/Afghanistan/1098.html

No No No. The title of this article indeed does NOT reiterate yours, and I have no problem with the article itself, which in fact reiterates MY early posts on the subject.

Take a look at this title it is completely different from yours:-

"Government incompetence is destroying the British Army's reputation"

This is in no way reflected by your two demeaning titles, and my complaint initially was with your choice of words, as I have made clear. Check it out.

The title shown here above reflects my case precisely and in detail.

15 rounds is enough for now, I think ; take a breather.

 

[perseus]

No No No. The title of this article indeed does NOT reiterate yours, and I have no problem with the article itself, which in fact reiterates MY early posts on the subject.

Take a look at this title it is completely different from yours:-

"Government incompetence is destroying the British Army's reputation"

This is in no way reflected by your two demeaning titles, and my complaint initially was with your choice of words, as I have made clear. Check it out.

What I said

Has Iraq demolished the British Armies military reputation?

A question open to views, and many reasons can result in reputation being affected particularily politics as is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the military. I am very careful not to blame the footsoldiers in my qualification.

What the article says

"Government incompetence is destroying the British Army's reputation"

A statement, it is armies reputation which is being destoyed. otherwise identical to my whole post. This also contradicts what others have said, suggesting their reputation has not been affected.

All those responsible for this appalling state of affairs, whether in the government or the military, should hang their heads in shame

hang on this suggests the military may be to blame. Oh dear!

As a consequence the Americans - as happened in Iraq - are now having to send their own troops to help bail us out.

Americans 'bailing us out' sounds familiar?

Absolute rubbish Del Boy, I raise an important issue in the form of a question to avoid offending anyone and it is up to an award winning site to answer it because people on here don't have the guts to offend the British (politically or otherwise). Then I get flamed by you, because you can't stand anyone saying anything that doesn't tow the line.

If I wrote this as an opinion rather than a question you would want me banned! Perhaps you should request this, after all I might raise other uncomfortable questions in the future.

 

[rustybolt25]

Topic: Has Iraq demolished the British Armies military reputation?
by perseus

Topic: American bail out British Army again?
by perseus

Anybody else see a pattern here?

First time is an accident.
Second time is coincidence.
Third time is habit.

First time Americans bailed out the British, was when they helped them get rid of 13 unruly colonies.:wink:

Does seem the topics border on bashing, even though they are done by a countryman and put in the form of a question.

Just my opinion and does not reflect the views of management.

I think you are trying to get a rise out of some people here mate. Weak effort!!! Where was the US in 1914,15, 16, & 17 and again in 1939,& 40. ????

 

[Del Boy]

Perseus - you can duck and dive as much as you want; you cannot avoid my complaint regarding your choice of words in your inflamatory titles.

They denigrate our troops.

Furthermore, your method is dodgy, in that you deliberately went off topic in your last post to accuse me of racism; you talk of my 'flaming' you, when in fact I have dealt with you with kid gloves, do not push me to take them off. You now claim that I would seek to have you banned - where did you dream that up? You are very careless with your words.

As I said, I have no objection to the military site article quoted, whether I agree with all of it or not.

Your words are a different matter, sic :-

Your title:- " AMERICANS BAIL OUT BRITISH ARMY AGAIN"

Your title:- "HAS IRAQ DEMOLISHED THE BRITISH ARMIES MILITARY REPUTATION".

(Note: unlike the quoted site title- no mention of politicians therein.)

I rest my case, regretting that the whole broadcasting of these and other denigration of our troops at this time has been so energetically and repeatedly put forward by a Brit. I find that hard to understand.

 

[Chukpike]

I think you are trying to get a rise out of some people here mate. Weak effort!!! Where was the US in 1914,15, 16, & 17 and again in 1939,& 40. ????

Actually, I don't think you have followed the posts on these topics from the start. Go back and read from the beginning.

Perseus has a problem with the British government handling of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. He chose titles that reflects badly on the troops themselves.

I believe the British troops have operated professionally and accomplished the tasks assigned with the support they have been given by their government. The US and British troops operate as allies and neither one "Bails out" the other as perseus claims.

As far as getting a rise, you are looking in the wrong pew.

 

[perseus]

Your posts conclusively prove you are only interested in ad hominem attacks, that is you are just making things up to show that I'm the odd one out.

First of all you say this outrage which you refuse to apologise for

It seems you would be quite happy to accept Sadaam and Hitler and the Taliban; I suppose any enemy of England will do.

all you are capable of doing is to broadcast as much condemnation of them (our troops) as you can muster

Why are there so many of you guys doing your best to break our morale, weaken our defences wherever possible, wrench away our nationalism, without any idea of where that leads.

Then you say this about the post I found

No No No. The title of this article indeed does NOT reiterate yours, and I have no problem with the article itself, which in fact reiterates MY early posts on the subject

so lets see again what the article said about the UK that you "have no problem with"

Meanwhile our American allies, who have already been embarrassed by our indecent retreat from Basra, are now becoming increasingly frustrated by our failure to deliver in Helmand.

All those responsible for this appalling state of affairs, whether in the government or the military, should hang their heads in shame

http://www.military-world.net/Afghanistan/1098.html

You have put up such a desperate attack on me to try and show that my question was inappropriate as a result you have fallen into your own trap virtually by agreeing with a post that really does denigrate the army!

If you continue to cause trouble, I will remind you and everyone else of this, just to prove how you confuse and distort facts in a desperate attempt to censure important questions and discussion.

 

[A Can of Man]

Del Boy, it's important to accept news, even if (maybe especially if) it is a bad one.

 

[Del Boy]

Of course it 13th, accepted, as I have made clear; I have always said that I was not dismissing discussion of these issues, or of having discussion taking place. Here is an early post of mine on the subject:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/Political-cowards-true-heroes.html


I have made it clear that I consider the wording of titles presented provocative and inviting of bashing.

I have said that I have no problem with the introduction of the military world article into discussion. It had a clear and carefully worded title . I have also made it clear that I have no objection to it, " whether I agree with all of it or not".

The acceptance of news has not been an issue with me, but the pointing of the finger at our Army is another matter at this sensitive battle time.
Early this morning the news was that Admiral Mullen, US joint chief of staff in Afghanistan, said that the big push was on in great numbers, both British and US troops going forward; he said Helmand represented the biggest challenge yet, and that the toughest fighting of the campaign was taking place, and he was not committing to the outcome. So far the Brits have been trying to contain the region alone.

My aim is to add news as it becomes available; I am the one not following any political agenda to the detriment of those at the sharp end. As i told you personally many months ago (2007?), I always understood how difficult Afghan would be, if possible at all, while that porous Pakistan border exists.

In news bulletins of the past couple of days, President Obama has been keen to compliment the Brits on their performance in Afghanistan and desrcibes their contribution as "critical". He also made the point that these soldiers are struggling to prevent the war coming to New York and London, as it has before. But it seems that the morale weakening smears of the troops-out brigades never cease, and criticism of our enemies never starts.

 

[A Can of Man]

Del Boy, I understand your frustration.

Funny thing is, people say that fighting fundamentalists and extremists in Afghanistan and other parts of the world doesn't keep our countries safe.
I think 9/11 showed that by tolerating it, they would strike at us.

 

[perseus]

Del Boy, I understand your frustration.

Funny thing is, people say that fighting fundamentalists and extremists in Afghanistan and other parts of the world doesn't keep our countries safe.
I think 9/11 showed that by tolerating it, they would strike at us.

That is precisely why I agree with the Afghan mission, unlike half of the British population. However, despite making myself clear on this Del boy said I would be happy to accept the Taliban, can you understand my frustration at this sort of reaction? Del boy is frustrated because he expects everyone to tow the line, dig their heads in the sand, and not to question the infallibility of the British and throw mindless unjustified insults at them if they don't.

Only Muslim extremists would complain about Afhganistan since Al Queda struck the twin towers and the Taliban were sheltering them. However, the Iraq situation makes it more dangerous since the less radical Muslims will have a valid grevience. It makes the Americans and British look like imperialists.

 

[Del Boy]

Del boy is frustrated because he expects everyone to tow the line, dig their heads in the sand, and not to question the infallibility of the British and throw mindless unjustified insults at them if they don't.

Complete nonsense , how can you know how I feel. I certainly do not require anyone to toe any line - do you think I do? I am often complaining about heads in sand in Britain, sheep to their own slaughter; I do not consider the British infallible and this ridiculous rubbish amounts to 'throwing mindless insults'.

I will tell you how I have felt on this issue. I have no frustration whatsoever, and I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, as long as they allow me to pass my opinion on the subject.

No, my take has been one of acute embarrassment that a fellow-countryman would stoop to inviting attacks on our Army at the very moment of their greatest danger in recent years, dying on the front line, doing their best on our behalf. I have tried to tell you nicely that I cannot understand such a stance. There is a time and place for everything, but since I first mentioned it you have increased the pressure.

Surely you couldn't have expected to create no re-action?

NOW, HERE IS MY RESPONSE TO YOUR PREVIOUS 33 POST. PLEASE DIGEST:-

AS for ad hominem, you happen to be a bit of an exponent of that.(accusations of Racism, Jingoism, banning, ignorance of WW11, putting words into my mouth etc.)

For my part, I just cannot fathom why anyone would wish to invite criticism of their country’s own troops whilst those troops are on the front line in pitched battles, fighting desperately. I could not imagine an American doing that in the same circumstances, or an Australian, Kiwi, etc.etc.


You said:-QUOTE

“Your own ideology is bordering on racism judging by your posts, remember you implying that it was British Pakistanis responsible for the Mumbai massacre.”


I say:- Completely off-topic and absolutely incorrect.



I said:-QUOTE

“This is only my opinion, and I am not accusing Perseus, but let me say that I would have been happier if the originator of these threads had not been a fellow countryman. And I have no wish to stifle the debate, we are having our own here ( in England ), but based upon the poor hand our troops seem to have been dealt”


You said:-QUOTE

“so lets see again what the article said about the UK that you "have no problem with”


I say:- Here is the link with the article:-

http://www.military-world.net/Afghanistan/1098.html

I say regarding the above link and my case, feel free to remind me of it whenever you wish, I will wear it like a medal.
Be my guest, because the article does indeed present no problems for me, it is very carefully qualified, and coincides with my early posts, for the following reasons, as you can see:-

"From the outset the deployment has been undermined by confusion within the government's senior ranks over why British forces were being sent to Afghanistan in the first place.
John Reid, the then defence secretary, said the mission was primarily about reconstruction, and expressed the utterly naïve view that British forces might be able to conclude their mission without firing a shot in anger.

The inability of the government and the military's top brass to grasp what they were getting themselves into resulted in the initial deployment of 3,000 troops being hopelessly under resourced, both in terms of men and equipment.
Despite the undoubted heroism displayed by our forces fighting on the front line, the end result of this shabby and incompetent treatment of our nation's finest has been to severely damage the standing of the military - particularly the Army, which has borne the brunt of the fighting - both at home and abroad.

It's not just that we don't have enough "force enablers" - armoured vehicles and helicopters, the government has also failed to provide sufficient force levels to adequately secure the southern Afghan province. *As a consequence the Americans - as happened in Iraq - are now having to send their own troops to help bail us out.
*As a result the proud reputation of our military for delivering results on the battlefield lies in tatters. All those responsible for this appalling state of affairs, whether in the government or the military, should hang their heads in shame."

(My underlining above marks the qualifications.)


This is why I am happy to stand by my statement - "As I said, I have no objection to the military site article quoted,* whether I agree with all of it or not.”

 

[perseus]

No, my take has been one of acute embarrassment that a fellow-countryman would stoop to inviting attacks on our Army

Like the times article you mean?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3835580.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3835580.ece

I'm afraid in a democratic country and BBs people have the right to question anything because they pay for the military and sent their families to fight.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-Lewis-Page/dp/0434013897

Max Hastings, Sunday Telegraph
'He writes with force and wit. Page's book deserves attention. Offers a
guide to the armed forces and their problems which anybody who cares about them should read. Page does a splendid job of sharpening axes.'

Independent
'A Fast Food Nation for the armed forces. It is very unlikely that anything
this entertaining or important will be written on military matters this
year. It deserves to be a bestseller, and perhaps it will be if red-faced
civil servants are sent out to buy up every copy before the public can get
their hands on it.'

Believe me this isn't just about the Defence ministry and BA, this is aimed at the top brass as well!

I'm not sure about Iraq, but the critisism of the Vietnam war by the US was even more rampant during that era. No doubt the reporters have been kept at bay this time to censure too much realism!

 

[perseus]

I'm sure everyone is tired of this bickering and the thread is in danger of getting locked. Shall we leave it for any constructive comments which answer the questions?