Quote:
Originally posted by wellard:
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
You keep comparing the UK veteran troops, who as you admit had years of experience oppressing the Irish.
|
Timber.. You may have been upset by the thread and in my opinion rightly, tho' I did laugh. However this comment I find uncalled for. I will not start an argument on this thread or even this forum on the terrorist actions in Britain unless you wish too. However I am MORE than willing to discuss (put you right [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] ) in another thread, perhaps in GD forum (?).
However to lash out this way was uncalled for and below your usual high standards. Yes you have hit a raw nerve, at least with me. Please lets keep this forum on Iraq, Syria, and Turkey ECT, not Britain.
[img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Wellard - It was Skunk who brought the British troops into the discussion...not Timber. You agreed that Timber had a right to be upset and I do appreciate that. Claiming that our Special Forces units are equal to the "average British soldier" is a bit condescending to say the least. The conflict between Britain and Ireland strikes a nerve with you - fair enough - but I see no chastisement of the member who mentioned it first, only of the member who "lashed out" in retaliation.
Skunk - {sigh}I try to avoid responding to your posts because you often have a very condescending tone towards America in general and our troops specifically. I'll grant you the British troops are far more experienced in the tactics of urban warfare than our own troops - there is no doubt about that. And I also agree that the supply convoy made an egregious strategical error once they came under attack. As you correctly pointed out, this is the first time many of our soldiers have actually faced enemy fire...so a few mistakes are understandable (not necessarily acceptable - just understandable). But that wasn't what upset me about your post. What bothered me were the statements that our Special Forces units are the "as well trained as the average British soldier" and that "virtually every British officer, from the blokes on the ground to those in the air..." hold the opinion that “For the Americans, there just does not seem to be anything between peace and all-out combat,”....“Their military doctrine remains one based on the use of overwhelming fire power in every circumstance”
I thought you were retired from the military, so I didn't realize you were still privy to the opinions of virtually every British officer. Then again, maybe the comment is based on your previous military experience and the opinions expressed by the officers you knew at that time.
Either way, I hope you can see why Americans would consider those comments to be somewhat arrogant and condescending in nature. I'm not accusing you of being "anti-American" (although I do wonder exactly what foreign policy you're disagreeing with in your statements [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img] ) . You're entitled to your opinion and if you feel British troops are just inherently superior to U.S. troops, then good on you (nothing wrong with being proud of your own troops). But I hope you appreciate the fact that all the members here have an equal level of pride in their respective nations and our individual posts should remain respectful even when we disagree.
Timber - I have to agree with Wellard a little bit too. Skunk's post may have been somewhat "baited", but you could have chosen to ignore the bait. I know it isn't easy. I had to leave the forum for a couple of hours myself before I could "respond" rather than just "retaliate". But then I realized that Skunk did have some valid points - it was just his presentation that I disagreed with. So I tried to focus on the issues rather than the emotions they raised.