Arab soldiers in Iraq

#1
The Black Watch battle group are at Camp Dogwood because we need to support overstretched Yanks, right? Because they need all the soldiers they can get to flatten Fallujah?

Erm, then why did Bush refuse an offer of Arab troops, personally given to him by a Saudi royal, troops who could have taken the place of our lads, who could be enjoying a cuppa back in Blighty at this very moment?

Oh, that's right. Because they would be under UN military command, not American. "Airbs? Forget them, the Limeys'll do it for free."

What crap.
 
#3
er ...... that and the fact they're about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

i mean , who would you rather have watching your back , a bunch of hairy arrsed p*ssed off jocks , or saudi's "finest"

the choice is yours. :roll:
 
#4
Give me a break. Saudi Arabs or Brits?

First, compairing the BW to a bunch of Arab Keystone Cops is insulting. Second, I'll take Brits fighting next to me over any other nation every time.
 
#5
Well, those keystone cops wouldn't be any worse than the Iraqi "army", and they were used in the actual assault. We give them most of their hardware and military training anyway.

If the prez hadn't been so stubborn, we could have had both, and seriously, which is better, more soldiers or fewer?
 
#6
petermtm said:
Well, those keystone cops wouldn't be any worse than the Iraqi "army", and they were used in the actual assault. We give them most of their hardware and military training anyway.

If the prez hadn't been so stubborn, we could have had both, and seriously, which is better, more soldiers or fewer?
this is such a ridiculous statement, i don't know where to start.

so i won't - pint of 80' please!
 
#8
depends on the calibre of the troops , the iraqis are there because it's their country , for political reasons , so it doesn't just look like one big u.s. firefight and to give credence to their new political masters.

the saudis couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag , and would seriously hamper any advance by forcing following troops to have to climb over all the kit they'd dropped , and pick up all the blokes who'd shot each other.
 
#9
Soldiers from a country that supplied most of the 9-11 terrorists? Soldiers who more likely than not have terrorists in their units? :roll:

There are about 12,000 US Marines and Army in Falluja and about 2 to 3,000 of the Iraqi Army. Do you honestly think the Iraqis are leading the fight? They are being used as a policing force in secured areas.

Are you serious or just looking for bites? I can't believe you are that thick.
 
#10
petermtm said:
Well, those keystone cops wouldn't be any worse than the Iraqi "army", and they were used in the actual assault. We give them most of their hardware and military training anyway.

If the prez hadn't been so stubborn, we could have had both, and seriously, which is better, more soldiers or fewer?
Do you really need an answer to that? Iraqi troops were used for political reasons and to show Iraqi's and the world that their troops are being used.

The more numties you have in an area, the more liaison and other troops you need to make sure they're not slotted, go off the rails etc.

You quite clearly have not worked with any soldiers from an arabic nation
 
#11
random-nothings said:
Anyone else note on the news that one of the new Iraqi army guys managed to shoot himself in the foot during the Fallujah raid?
something of course, none of our soldiers would have ever done

"ah, Corporal Stumpty, how are ya?"
 
#12
I put army in inverted commas because I don't really consider it one. Or a proper one. It is a purely political force. Saudi troops fought with us the first time round.

There are no Arab nations in the coalition at present, I think. Even if they don't do anything, it'd be good to have one.
 
#14
Plastic Yank said:
random-nothings said:
Anyone else note on the news that one of the new Iraqi army guys managed to shoot himself in the foot during the Fallujah raid?
something of course, none of our soldiers would have ever done

"ah, Corporal Stumpty, how are ya?"
lol PY, yes that has to be a first in military affairs, :roll:

In response to some other posts. Before the obligatory round of Arab-bashing gets too hilarious, might be worth reminding ourselves that the devilish enemy are mostly arabs too. As to the Iraqi Interim Govt forces, I suspect it takes a bit of courage to join and to stay in them these days. It's early days but without these guys visibly on our side, we really have lost the war and may as well get out now. Good luck to them, and congratulations on their flag flying once again over the police station in Fallujah.
 
#15
Hear, hear Hackle.

The casualties the ING and police are taking are horrendous - and by joining they risk their families as well as themselves.
The deserve some credit and our support.
 
#16
Are not the Black Watch supposed to be interdicting routes in and out of Fallujah? I suggest Sunnis from Saudi would be last people to put in such a role, whatever their martial qualities. They simply could not be trusted - they would let their co-religionists come and go as they pleased.
 
#19
I'd have taken them without a second thought, for two reasons:

1. Far less likely to kick-start an insurgency through arrogance and lack of understanding;

2. If they do then none of our lads get hit.
 
#20
petermtm said:
. Saudi troops fought with us the first time round.
No they didn't. An entire Saudi brigade retreated in panic when faced with a company's-worth of Iraqis at Khafji. US Marines then cleared the town before the Saudis were filmed patrolling victoriously in the streets.

The hand-holding, goat-molesting waste of DNA that was the Saudi "army" contributed nothing to GW1. You could be sued under the Trades descriptions Act for juxtaposing "Saudi" with 'army".
 

Latest Threads