RE: What did you think of the Jubilee flypast?

Glenn,

I sincerely hope not! Now, before anyone accuses me of treason and sends me off to the Tower, I don’t wish the Queen any harm. I think after fifty years of serving the country she certainly deserves the opportunity to enjoy her retirement. Remember she is 76 years old now. I also think the impetus given to the Royal family during the recent celebrations may mean it’s time to capitalise on that. It is said that the first child of the King or Queen is groomed to take over the ‘reins’ as it were. And now, I think it’s time for Prince Charles to be given the oppotunity to take on the role he has been groomed for for the last fifty-four years.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Sauron,

have to agree with you. I also remember NO mention of US atrocities during the fort incident. I think the CIA agent, who was working as an interrogator, was named Mike Spann and I’m sure I’ve seen references to another CIA agent being rescued by British special forces. As far as I can recall, the Taliban prisoners were gathered in the fort but for some reason were not disarmed or they had a number of concealed weapons. They then turned on their Northern Alliance captors and re-took the fort. Ithink all this happened well before Royal Marines were deployed to Afghanistan.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

First of all we’re now a long,long way from where this thread started, and it’s all getting a bit confusing (sorry Gef).

World War II. No one in their right mind can diminish the role the US played in that conflict. Lend-lease was a lifeline that Britain desperately needed. American involvement in Europe and the Middle East was, of course, vital. But if Britain and her Commonwealth allies had buckled between 1939 and 1942, there would not have been a chance that the US alone could have defeated Germany and freed Europe. This American involvement in Europe is why I started the thread in the first place. I was disgusted that a current US President could openly be so disrespectful to his fellow countrymen.

Other people started to rip the US military to pieces (you know who), and I responded to a piece about Gulf War Tornados. It was said that the USAF and their allies took the same risks. I just pointed out that low and fast to a heavily defended target in daylight entails considerably more risk than bombing from altitude, at night in an aircraft that is virtually invisible to radar.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Sauron,

“Are you so insecure about the real contributions and capabilities of the British troops that you find it necessary to do so?”

I don’t think so, the British forces have served us well since their inception.

“Just for the record, elements of the US 10th Mountain Division have been deployed in Afghanistan, British troops didn’t play any significant role in the ‘fort’ incident, they haven’t found large quantities of radioactive materials in caves, and they haven’t done anything in the mountains that US and Canadian troops have not done equally well.”

O.K., I wasn’t aware that the US 10th Mountain Division were in Afghanistan. The press widely reported in the UK that a British unit was being used for clearing the radio active materials which were hidden from the Taliban by scientists who were afraid the Taliban would use these materials to create dirty bombs. As for not doing anything equally as well as US and Canadian forces, this may be true, but I don’t think the British have managed to kill any of their allies in friendly fire incidents yet. I know this will be attributed to the ‘fog of war’, it just seem that the US encounter it more than most.

“As far as British Tornados in the Gulf war going in hard and low, yes they did, but their targets were no more difficult that what US pilots had to contend with.”

Flying low enough to be shot at by everyone armed with anything larger than a peashooter seems very risky to me. Flying at night, at altitude, in an aircraft that is all but invisible to radar certainly seems to pose less of a risk.

“As far as the US military is concerned, if the US is only deploying to Afghanistan because they know they will met no serious opposition, does that apply equally to the British forces as well? It would seem to me that the US military is as well trained and professional as most.”

When committed to operations in Afghanistan, the UK was warned by both politicians and the Commander of the Marines being deployed that it was likeky that they would sustain signifiant casualties, so I think there was an expectation of meeting strong opposition. If the Taliban are no longer being encountered, they must have fled, probably to Pakistan. I believe someone else claimed the US were to provide the anvil or blocking force?

“Anyway we all know that that the British Royal Marines are good because we saw them invade Spain a few weeks ago.”

Very true. There is an old saying that no-one is more dangerous than a ‘Rupert’ or a ‘Rodney’ with a map! (Rupert and Rodney are, shall we say, terms of endearment regarding junior Officers). This was a training exercise, and as far as I understand it, they were given directions by Spanish police and politely left. I doubt they will receive anything other than ‘constructive criticism’ from their colleagues , for the rest of their service lives. But, if you want to talk about making ‘simple mistakes’, didn’t the US manage to hit the wrong country with a cruise missile a few years ago?

I have no doubt that the US forces are doing as well as they can, and I agree that America did not start every war since 1776, but they have been responsible for a few. I also agree that they committed and fought well in both the World Wars and Korea, and this now goes back to my original post. Americans landed on that Normandy beach in 1944, and so many of them remain there still. Good men fighting and dying to free the world of tyranny. And the US President of today, George W Bush cannot or will not show them the respect they deserve. Using the example of their sacrifice to try to gain further support for, or to justify, the war against terror is unforgiveable.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

“I know several Marines doing THEIR DUTY in Afghanistan who trained with me for the Irish Guards before transferring to the Marines. They and every other Marine in the region are doing their duty…the only problem is that it isn’t for “Queen and Country”, its to reduce the number of US casualties. If Bush cares only for his own troops….then he should bloody well keep it to that…HIS OWN TROOPS!!! He shouldn’t risk the lives of “allied” nations to spare his own.”

Although we’re going slightly off the original points I started with, Flanker has raised some interesting points. British Forces which are always decreasing in number are being committed in the support of the US led war on terrorism. I suppose if you take the shilling you just have to go with it. However, it seems to me in recent conflicts that the US, with unparallelled air and sea power are happy to commit these forces, who, on the face of it, are unlikely to meet any serious opposition. The current deployments in Afghanistan are also a case in point. Are the Royal Marines working in the mountains because they are the best? The Americans have their own Mountain Division. Is the reason they have not been deployed because they are not good enough or to lessen the US casualties? The caves in Afghanistan are littered with discarded weapons and Afghan scientists have said that enough radioactive material was hidden by the Taliban to make ‘dirty bombs’. These are being cleared by British troops. In the incident in which a CIA agent was killed in that fort where the Taliban prisoners revolted, it was British special forces who rescued the remaining CIA agent and are being decorated for it! In the Gulf, it was the Tornados which went in low and hard those first few missions, and suffered heavily for it.

I suppose I’m saying I understand what Flanker is saying and it does seem like British forces are getting the s****y end of the stick with little or no recognition.

Regards,

kev35

RE: Did Bush upset anyone else?

Roger,

I fear he may be too dangerous already. His father was twice the man he’ll ever be. I have become increasingly concerned about President Bush’s role as ‘world leader’ in the ‘war against terror’ as I don’t think he is the right person for that role. I know I am an outsider, a European and a Brit to boot but I don’t think he acted as the world might have expected on September 11th or in its aftermath. I know a nation needs a leader but when chaos visited the USA with all the other threats and rumours prevalent on the day, if I was an American I wouldn’t have expected my President to hide away but to face the dangers with me. I know President Clinton had a problem keeping his trousers fastened but I firmly believe he would have made his presence felt in the aftermath of this tragedy. America had one President on September 11th and that man was Rudy Giuliani! The American public, the firefighters, police, national guard all rallied round in any way they could and all were heroes, and heroes deserve a better man to lead them.

Just as an aside, I also find the way he speaks in public a little disconcerting, the way he says a few words and then pauses. It’s almost as if someone were whispering in his ear, telling him what to say….

I mean no disrespect to the American public or the military, I just believe they deserve a better leader.

Regards,

kev35