Originally Posted by 0311

The US army never bribed the insurgents for a safe withdrawal out of Basrah.
Thats the difference.

I though that they bribed the entire Iraq insurgency by offering them jobs? Or am I mistaken?

Originally Posted by Schaden

I though that they bribed the entire Iraq insurgency by offering them jobs? Or am I mistaken?

Victory in Iraq 2009 for the US, cant change that.

You couldve done the same to the Ottoman army in 1916, instead of loosing Iraq that same year.
Siege of Kut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by 0311

The US army never bribed the insurgents for a safe withdrawal out of Basrah.
Thats the difference.

That and the Yanks haven't won a single modern war either outside that 'sort of' win in Iraq when Patreaus copied the British Malay Emergency strategy in order to do it.

One difference that I did notice was that the US seem to have a one man one job mindset whereas we have one bloke doing 5 or so different things.

So where we would have 2 or 3 people to run a whole det the spams would need about 15 for the same thing.

Comes from having some hundreds of thousands more troops than us I suppose but it always seemed as if their people were very much less skilled and adaptable than ours - at the same sort of rank/time in.

Originally Posted by Steven

One difference that I did notice was that the US seem to have a one man one job mindset whereas we have one bloke doing 5 or so different things.

So where we would have 2 or 3 people to run a whole det the spams would need about 15 for the same thing.

Comes from having some hundreds of thousands more troops than us I suppose but it always seemed as if their people were very much less skilled and adaptable than ours - at the same sort of rank/time in.

If by 'adaptable' you mean that we are chronically understaffed, and often give people jobs they frankly know nothing about, and care even less...then yes, the British Army is very 'adaptable'.

Originally Posted by Gassing_Badgers

If by 'adaptable' you mean that we are chronically understaffed, and often give people jobs they frankly know nothing about, and care even less...then yes, the British Army is very 'adaptable'.

as seen everytime the US hand over an AO to the British or vice versa

"where's the rest of y'all?"

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

as seen everytime the US hand over an AO to the British or vice versa

"where's the rest of y'all?"

Im sorry, but when did this happen?
We entrusted you the Basrah sector in 2003, even letting your desert rats lead the spearhead into Iraq, and then 4 yrs later you loose the AO to the insurgents.
Or maybe Im wrong, did you hand over the AO to the miltia in a formal ceremony?

We also entrusted you with Helmand, because we couldnt take any more of the claims that you were the best military force on the planet....4 yrs later?
You pretty much lost the last province you had to worry about.

In the case of Basrah, it was lost by the best trained army in the world and then retaken by elements of the Iraqi Army. Helmand = USMC and ANA are now running the show.

Please go back to bullying poor Argies and Irish. Leave us the taliban, since you cant keep them out of Helmand. We didnt need you in Iraq and we dont need you in Afghan.

Originally Posted by 0311

We entrusted you...

My bold. So you were there? A soldier, as opposed to a fat, spotty teenager who will never, ever see a real woman naked? What branch of the forces were you in?

This is fun. A watching brief as they say.

Originally Posted by Koschei

My bold. So you were there? A soldier, as opposed to a fat, spotty teenager who will never, ever see a real woman naked? What branch of the forces were you in?

i was just wondering the same thing, all his posts seem to involve miserable attempts at making the british look bad. Personally I think he's spending too much time on wikipedia