British Commander Compares US Troops to Nazis

Mr Manifesto said:
When in doubt, you can always drag up the Clinton adminstration.

Have we mentioned that Clinton had sex and lied in this thread, yet?
Click to expand...
Clancie is making a point about the lack of military experience on the part of Bush and his administration. I tend to think that people first decide if they like a leader and then argue why. If their stated reasons don't jive from one leader to the next then I am right, right? I would just like to know if she is consistent.
 
RandFan said:
Clancie is making a point about the lack of military experience on the part of Bush and his administration. I tend to think that people first decide if they like a leader and then argue why. If their stated reasons don't jive from one leader to the next then I am right, right? I would just like to know if she is consistent.
Click to expand...

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They can blast the cr@p out of anything, but appear to have no idea of how to actually do anything else. War is diplomacy by other means, it is useful to have the full set of skills, I think.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Absolutely correct. All criticisms and concerns should be referred up the chain of command, so that qualified and responsible people can begin to ignore them immediately.
Click to expand...

Is it in your experience to be ignored by qualified and responsible people? Fancy that.
 
Clinton's first big gaffe was trying to deal with the homosexual issue.

Bush had far more experience than Clinton.
Click to expand...
Yes, he didn't commit a gaffe on the homosexual issue until late in his term.
OR
Are you saying that Bush has homosexual experience?
OR
Correct, Bush has more experience with committing gaffes than Clinton, in less than half the time.

I couldn't decide.

Have we mentioned that Clinton had sex and lied in this thread, yet?
Click to expand...
Doesn't someone have to be compared to Hitler first?
 
a_unique_person said:


I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They can blast the cr@p out of anything, but appear to have no idea of how to actually do anything else. War is diplomacy by other means, it is useful to have the full set of skills, I think.
Click to expand...

So, British military are criticising the Americans? You should hear what they say aobut the Aussies.


Let's get real here. Britain has a certain superiority complex when it comes to matters military; "the world's best military forces" is how they are always described domestically. It wouldn't be the same if the Poms weren't dissing on somebody - more usually those they secretly feel inferior to.


I blame the American War of Independence myself. They still seem to have a chip on the shoulder about that one. ;)
 
Drooper said:


So, British military are criticising the Americans? You should hear what they say aobut the Aussies.


Let's get real here. Britain has a certain superiority complex when it comes to matters military; "the world's best military forces" is how they are always described domestically. It wouldn't be the same if the Poms weren't dissing on somebody - more usually those they secretly feel inferior to.


I blame the American War of Independence myself. They still seem to have a chip on the shoulder about that one. ;)
Click to expand...

That was a nice flight of fantasy there, don't know what it had to do with the point.

If the criticism was just bitching, then I might agree with you. Since it appears to be rooted in reality, then I think I might just disagree.
 
a_unique_person said:


That was a nice flight of fantasy there, don't know what it had to do with the point.

If the criticism was just bitching, then I might agree with you. Since it appears to be rooted in reality, then I think I might just disagree.
Click to expand...

It was a flippant point, but with seeds of truth.

Read your own quote again:

They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."
Click to expand...

Now ask youself. Where is the verifiable proof that the US military view Iraqis as "untermenschen". Rather, this is the quote of an "unnamed" British officer is it not?How does this invisible person know what the Americans think?


Next ask yourself what is the criticism levelled in this quote. The ultimate poijnt is that the Americans are ghastly and inhuman. But why? Because they are not like "us British".

The aledged "proof" of the claim lies in these quotes: "the way the British are" and "[they don't view the Iraqi's] the way we see them".
 
Drooper said:


It was a flippant point, but with seeds of truth.

Read your own quote again:



Now ask youself. Where is the verifiable proof that the US military view Iraqis as "untermenschen". Rather, this is the quote of an "unnamed" British officer is it not?How does this invisible person know what the Americans think?


Next ask yourself what is the criticism levelled in this quote. The ultimate poijnt is that the Americans are ghastly and inhuman. But why? Because they are not like "us British".

The aledged "proof" of the claim lies in these quotes: "the way the British are" and "[they don't view the Iraqi's] the way we see them".
Click to expand...

As I said, "British Commander Claims". You can take or leave it on that basis. I would point out, however, there is other evidence that the relations with the Iraqi people are not going too well. Right from the start, there were claims that the knowledge of Arabic was very poor, for example.
 
a_unique_person said:


As I said, "British Commander Claims". You can take or leave it on that basis.
Click to expand...

Quite.

I would point out, however, there is other evidence that the relations with the Iraqi people are not going too well.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that is true, although shooting makes the news and middle class placidity in the Baghdad suburbs does not.

Right from the start, there were claims that the knowledge of Arabic was very poor, for example.
Click to expand...

As opposed to those erudite British squaddies.:)
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Absolutely correct. All criticisms and concerns should be referred up the chain of command, so that qualified and responsible people can begin to ignore them immediately.
Click to expand...

And that's the breaks. Any disagreement about Miliatry strategy should be taken up at a political level.

Does this British Commander expect that Bush will read age.com and go "oh he's pissed we'd better rethink our strategy?" Does he think that bellyaching about the country that has by far the biggest presence there (and faces a far greater degree of threat) is going to help co-operation? I think most British squaddies would rightly tell this whinger to shut his trap and put his energies into seeing if he can get decent kit and equipment suppiled for his troops, instead of the garbage they currently have(if they get it at all). That's worth moaning about........
 
Posted by RandFan

Bush had far more experience than Clinton. And Cheney and Rumsfield have experience dealing with the military from 3 different administrations.
Click to expand...
Well, we disagree that being in the Texas National Guard (and not for the full time required of others, either) qualifies as "far more (military) experience than Clinton." Had Clinton been privileged enough to have that kind of option, he might have done the same thing. (Yes, I think they both share a tad of opportunism, although I fault Bush more, as a war supporter for not going to help others fight for his country).

But...I veer off topic. :( Anyway, much as it greatly pains me to address your bigger point...I'm going to concede it somewhat.

Looking at the comparative records (military, academic, government-service-wise) of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Bush vs. Gore, Perry, Christopher, Lake, and Clinton...if you take out the "philosophical preference", no, there's not a whole lot of difference there. (However, I think there's a philosophical difference--with Clinton's group emphasizing diplomatic over military solutions--a difference which, yes, I greatly prefer).
Posted by RandFan

I personally doubt that they are seen as neophytes by many if any from the military.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't say they were neophytes. I said that Rumsfeld is disliked by the Pentagon and that, other than Powell, they had no first hand knowledge of combat. And I -do- still feel that some first-hand experience of what its like on a battlefield is good for a Commander-in-Chief to have, regardless of party affiliation, before sending people off to fight. Would that mean JFK or Eisenhower was a better president because of wartime service than Reagan or Clinton? Not necessarily. But I still think it's valuable for a President to know what its like when he's telling others to go out and fight--and die--for their country.
 
Clancie said:
Well, I didn't say they were neophytes. I said that Rumsfeld is disliked by the Pentagon and that, other than Powell, they had no first hand knowledge of combat. And I -do- still feel that some first-hand experience of what its like on a battlefield is good for a Commander-in-Chief to have, regardless of party affiliation, before sending people off to fight. Would that mean JFK or Eisenhower was a better president because of wartime service than Reagan or Clinton? Not necessarily. But I still think it's valuable for a President to know what its like when he's telling others to go out and fight--and die--for their country.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response Clancie.

RandFan
 
To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out.
 
Clancie said:
To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out.
Click to expand...
Let me say that I disagree with you. I don't think this administration is necessarily arrogant. I think Bush took a great number of steps to try and bring the French and Germans on board. We tried to work with the U.N. but it became clear that they had other priorities.

I have not heard of the film about soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis. Do you have any references or links?

There has always been and always will be a degree of animosity between fighting units of different countries (see WWII). I think such comments should be viewed in a critical light. Of course if they simply reinforce your world view and it is easier to accept than question then there is not much that I can do to sway you.

Without doubt Bush has made some mistakes. His decision to invade Iraq may very well cost him the election. I don't have a problem with that since I so value our political process. I only whish people were more skeptical of the propaganda coming from their own side of the fence.

RandFan
 
Clancie said:
To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree too for the most part. I think that despite the common assumption that the US are playing this whole thing with arrogance. (A trap I will not allow myself to fall into, to dismiss many of the joint decisions already made and documented throughout this conflict) I still believe that if the UK had a genuine felt objection to US policy, they would, could and probably do raise the matter BUT via the correct channels. Sniping via the press is not the sort of behavior I expect from professional soldiers. IMO the armed forces are a string in the bow of international politics, reservations of officers have always been sent up the chain of command. Post conflict lessons should be learned. However it is the armed force's duty to carry out the objectives set by their political masters. Unfortunately, to make a military into a viable and reliable organ, this has to be the case.

It is for this very reason that my respect for the UK's armed forces, has and remains as high as possible. A view that is shared, (despite this "anonymous" officer's comments) I firmly believe, by a large number of nations world-wide.
 
Reginald said:
I have to disagree too for the most part. I think that despite the common assumption that the US are playing this whole thing with arrogance. (A trap I will not allow myself to fall into, to dismiss many of the joint decisions already made and documented throughout this conflict) I still believe that if the UK had a genuine felt objection to US policy, they would, could and probably do raise the matter BUT via the correct channels. Sniping via the press is not the sort of behavior I expect from professional soldiers. IMO the armed forces are a string in the bow of international politics, reservations of officers have always been sent up the chain of command. Post conflict lessons should be learned. However it is the armed force's duty to carry out the objectives set by their political masters. Unfortunately, to make a military into a viable and reliable organ, this has to be the case.

It is for this very reason that my respect for the UK's armed forces, has and remains as high as possible. A view that is shared, (despite this "anonymous" officer's comments) I firmly believe, by a large number of nations world-wide.
Click to expand...
I agree but I must say that there are times when officers and soldiers should stray from the chain of command. Daniel Elsberg wasn't a soldier or officer but I think it was important for the information in the Pentagon Papers to get out. I'm saying this as a vocal supporter of the merits of Vietnam. I think the Holocaust would have been an appropriate time to bypass chain of command.

These are just my inexperienced and perhaps ignorant thoughts and feelings. I would love your response to them. Assuming of course that I was coherent enough to respond to.

RandFan
 
Drooper said:


So, British military are criticising the Americans? You should hear what they say aobut the Aussies.


Let's get real here. Britain has a certain superiority complex when it comes to matters military; "the world's best military forces" is how they are always described domestically. It wouldn't be the same if the Poms weren't dissing on somebody - more usually those they secretly feel inferior to.
Click to expand...

Of course, those who have an inferiority complex are prone to accuse those they believe to be their betters of being simply arrogant 'poms'

What exactly does the British military say about the Aussies? Can you give me an example of where the British military have criticised the Australian in the last 50 years or so? If so, can you produce any evidence to suggest that such a point of view is endemic to the British military?

Every army has a superiority complex. Otherwise the whole thing wouldnt work.
 
I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

Sure; but "speaking up" by giving an anonymous interview to the news services isn't exactly "speaking up", is it? It's trying to get attention by making noise in the media, instead of by arguments to the armed forces. It's the equivalnet of the flar-earther going to the media instead of trying to get published in the "biased geology journals who are ruled by the spherical-earth dogma".

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

Whatever makes you think you know what Bush is "shielded" from, if anything?

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out.

Sure--as long as they "speak out" to say that Bush is evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom