British troops to serve under American command?!

shamrock_uk · 10-16-2004, 08:15 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3748708.stm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3749058.stm

Don't know about anyone else, but after seeing what happened in Fallujah, I for one would rather that orders for British soldiers didn't come from anywhere near the Pentagon.

[ 10-16-2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

wellard · 10-16-2004, 09:11 AM

Though it's not uncommon for troops in a coalition to serve under the command of a foreigner, considering the unpopularity of the 'Telic' campaign in Iraq, it would not be a wise move IMO. My Nephew is in Basra (Royal engineers 22 reg, 5 Field Squadron ) and I would like him to keep a low profile as possible.

10-16-2004, 04:31 PM

Personally I cannot stand the Idea of US troops under the command of another nation, so I can see no reason why the Brits should accept that same condition. Why can they not remain under British command?

Oblivion437 · 10-19-2004, 08:02 PM

Some Athenian fellows are laughing right now...But it's not a 'ha-ha' laughter, it's a nervous defense mechanism, at realising in bleak proportion just how damn circular man's nature is...

Ladies and Gentlemen, the British authorities have failed to learn the basic lesson from the Delian League incidents...

Donut · 10-21-2004, 12:41 PM

This certainly refutes Kerry's many assertions, in the run up to the election, that the US is going it alone in Iraq.

Perhaps one of you that has been in the military can tell me why, with 130,000 troops in Iraq the US military need to move 650 Brits in to support them.

They will remain under British command BTW and will be relieved within 30 days.

So that's 30 days in which to launch an assault on Fallujah and defeat the insurgents.

10-21-2004, 12:57 PM

Donut, It depends on exactly what those British troops do. The military may seem homogenous from the outside, but there are many thousands of "Specialty" fields of training in which it takes a particular person, or groups of people to do a particular job.....not everyone is trained in forward observation and spotting for artillery for example.

Basicly the US military is still geared for taking on large organized armies and less ready to face small unit actions and urban warfare. Im betting they need the Brits to fill a gap where there are not enough specially trained US soldiers available in the region.

But that is just a guess.....you know, Iraq is not a small place and not all 130,000 US troops are available everywhere.

johnny · 10-21-2004, 01:16 PM

And if all else fails, there's always "operation get behind the darkies".

10-16-2004, 09:11 AM	#2
wellard Dracolisk Join Date: November 1, 2002 Location: Australia ..... G\'day! Posts: 6,123	Though it's not uncommon for troops in a coalition to serve under the command of a foreigner, considering the unpopularity of the 'Telic' campaign in Iraq, it would not be a wise move IMO. My Nephew is in Basra (Royal engineers 22 reg, 5 Field Squadron ) and I would like him to keep a low profile as possible. __________________ fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years

10-19-2004, 08:02 PM	#4
Oblivion437 Baaz Draconian Join Date: June 17, 2002 Location: NY Age: 38 Posts: 723	Some Athenian fellows are laughing right now...But it's not a 'ha-ha' laughter, it's a nervous defense mechanism, at realising in bleak proportion just how damn circular man's nature is... Ladies and Gentlemen, the British authorities have failed to learn the basic lesson from the Delian League incidents... __________________ [img]\"http://www.jtdistributing.com/pics/tshirts/experts%20copy.jpg\" alt=\" - \" />

10-21-2004, 12:41 PM	#5
Donut Jack Burton Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Airstrip One Age: 41 Posts: 5,571	This certainly refutes Kerry's many assertions, in the run up to the election, that the US is going it alone in Iraq. Perhaps one of you that has been in the military can tell me why, with 130,000 troops in Iraq the US military need to move 650 Brits in to support them. They will remain under British command BTW and will be relieved within 30 days. So that's 30 days in which to launch an assault on Fallujah and defeat the insurgents. __________________ [img]\"http://www.wheatsheaf.freeserve.co.uk/roastspurs.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> <br />Proud member of the Axis of Upheaval<br />Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas<br />Josiah Bartlet - the best President the US never had.<br />The 1st D in the D & D Show

10-21-2004, 01:16 PM	#7
johnny 40th Level Warrior Join Date: April 15, 2002 Location: Utrecht The Netherlands Age: 59 Posts: 16,981	And if all else fails, there's always "operation get behind the darkies". __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Im here to serve :P	Hivetyrant	Dungeon Craft - RPG Game Maker	4	12-24-2004 12:56 AM
British are anti-Bush not anti-american	Donut	General Discussion	1	11-18-2003 09:38 AM
Report: Powell would not serve second term	Grojlach	General Discussion	3	08-06-2003 07:47 PM
What purpose does fantasy literature serve?	K T Ong	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	21	07-26-2002 10:11 PM
animated gifs first come first serve	RAISTLIN	Baldurs Gate II Archives	26	05-02-2001 04:45 AM

10-16-2004, 08:15 AM	#1
shamrock_uk Dracolich Join Date: January 24, 2004 Location: UK Age: 42 Posts: 3,092	http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3748708.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3749058.stm Don't know about anyone else, but after seeing what happened in Fallujah, I for one would rather that orders for British soldiers didn't come from anywhere near the Pentagon. [ 10-16-2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

10-16-2004, 04:31 PM	#3
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Personally I cannot stand the Idea of US troops under the command of another nation, so I can see no reason why the Brits should accept that same condition. Why can they not remain under British command?

10-21-2004, 12:57 PM	#6
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Donut, It depends on exactly what those British troops do. The military may seem homogenous from the outside, but there are many thousands of "Specialty" fields of training in which it takes a particular person, or groups of people to do a particular job.....not everyone is trained in forward observation and spotting for artillery for example. Basicly the US military is still geared for taking on large organized armies and less ready to face small unit actions and urban warfare. Im betting they need the Brits to fill a gap where there are not enough specially trained US soldiers available in the region. But that is just a guess.....you know, Iraq is not a small place and not all 130,000 US troops are available everywhere.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)