Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pei on October 22, 2004, 07:00:30 AM
-
The UK reserve Battlegroup in Iraq (1st Battalion of the Black Watch, 100 members of the Royal Dragoon Guards, 50 members of 40 Commando Royal Marines plus support troops) is going to be deployed north from the UK area of control to a province just south of Baghdad to relieve US forces.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3764912.stm
Statement from Geoff Hoon, Secretary for Defence to the Commons:
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/statement_sofs_21oct04.htm
This is decision is quite controversial in the UK.
-
A junior officer with the Black Watch has been quoted as saying they're "up for it" which in British slang terms means the lads are keen and ready to kick some arse.
Yes there is some vocal opposition to the decision but there would have been either way, politicians will always say the government has done the wrong thing whatever they do. Let's not think about this from a political viewpoint, let's just remain confident in the abilities of our lads and cheer them home when they finally make it here.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Limeys
-
thanks guys.
lazs
-
Salute to the Brits.....they have character and balls, a combination not found throughout most of Europe.
I'm partial to the Aussies as well.
-
BW and RDG. For all the mostly good-natured barbs that fly around this board between Americans and Brits, it's still good to know we've got you as an ally.
-
Yep, big
to one of our few involved allies.
TY Brits.
-
Brits, doing a good thing, and thank you for the support so far.
-
-
Thank you, and best wishs to all of them.
-
Yup - Jolly good show, mates.
-
bagpipes... now THATS payback :)
-
Blair out in 2005.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Blair out in 2005.
Yup, OMRLP (http://www.omrlp.com/) all the way!
-
Such a coincidence that we are being asked to send troops to a 'vacuum' which the Americans could fill ten times over with theirs at the eve of an election.
Or could it be they are being asked to go there because Kerry has been beating Bush over the head with the argument that the US has no Allies in Iraq?
If there is a good military reason for the Black Watch to be sent there, then I'm all for it. If it's to get some politician re-elected, then I think it's plain wrong.
I'm suspicious that it's the latter.
Ravs
-
Although.......I gotta say sending the 835 soldiers of the Black Watch to protect the 135,000 American soldiers in question......well it's kinda overkill don'tcha think?
It's alright yanks, you guys can get some sleep now, the Brits are here. Don't worry, nothing's gonna disturb you lads now, sleep well. Yes, ok, we'll leave the light on. Aw ok, you can have your comfort blankets. Yes and the teddy bear. What? Another glass of water? Jeez.
Ahem.
The British government have also released the following statement to the families of the soldiers of the Black Watch:
"It is true that sending the Black Watch further north will increase the danger they may be in but that's only due to them being within rifle shot range of the American troops."
ok, I'm done making jokes now in my attempt at not letting this thread get all political.
Yanks.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
"BATTALION......FIX ......BAYONETS"
-
what happens to the american troops if the insurgency stops once the british get there?
-
Originally posted by Curval
"BATTALION......FIX ......BAYONETS"
My favorite British Sergeant Major was the guy in "Zulu". Love that movie.
We need those guys.
-
I prefer the 'Carry On' version where they lifted their kilts and all the baddies ran away!
Ravs
-
Luckily, being European they also have brains, so perhaps an improvement in the situation can be achieved.
More anti american gibberish from an envious assshole
-
I liked the Monty Python SM,
SM: "Is there anything you'd RATHER be doing that marching up and down the square?"
Private: "Reading a book?"
SM: "RIGHT off you go then".
-
well its about time some of our allies climbed out of there forts and get in the same zip code of where the metal meets the meat.
:aok
-
LOL! Guy round the corner from us is a colonel in the army. He went to Basra for 3 days and got shot at and rpg'd on each day.
But he didn't make a fuss about it
Ravs
-
Well, you do have a rather good saying,
Here's another: plow you, you salamander.
I have no idea why Skuzzy tolerates your existence. As long as he does, I guess it's ok for me to behave in kind.
-
must...resist...backseat...mo deration.
-
Ravells, he's a brave lad. I don't consider myself a coward but I'm certain that I'd be pretty damned scared if I got shot at..... especially the first time or 10.
Brits
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Luckily, being European they also have brains, so perhaps an improvement in the situation can be achieved.
I'll be happy when the first one of these Europeans make it to this Board...
-
Actually, you began this mess.. so how could you be responding?
BTW, not sure you are referring to me. I'm not anti European. I do not approve of the actions of the French, German, and Spanish Govt's in regards to Iraq....if you consider that anti European... well you got me then.
-
Brits!
Thanks for the support.
Mox
-
Careful Steve, you'll get on GScholz's ignore list.
-
Lol Iron.
I think I earned that honor at one point. It's fun bickering w/ Gscholz... if he put me on ignore, I'd miss the occasional vitriolic tete-e-tete, at least a little
-
But the sadness is that the Brits are being used for a US election campaign in this instance and not because they are truly required, I think.
Now that is really sad.
Anyway, I hope you lot don't let us down if and when we really need you.
Ravs
Hi Scholz! Good to see you !
-
Originally posted by ravells
But the sadness is that the Brits are being used for a US election campaign in this instance and not because they are truly required, I think.
Now that is really sad.
Anyway, I hope you lot don't let us down if and when we really need you.
Ravs
Sad? Hope you don't mind if I'm not feeling sad for you. Along with us you are making the world a better place for almost everyone. Of course it may take many years for that to be evident and some may forever refuse to see it.
Of course we'll never let ya down.
-
'In this instance'
were the operative words. I have always believed that deposing Saddam Hussein was, on balance, a noble objective.
I don't believe sending 850 of our soldiers to prop up your incumbent president's election campaign is a noble purpose. If our boys are dying for your president, then maybe we ought to get a vote in your election
Ravs
-
If it'll make you feel any better ravells, I'll give ya my vote. You can feel proud that you voted for Bush.:aok
-
Need a special group to detect/destroy all these roadside bombs.
-
LOLOL! Iron........I think I'll pass on that one.
Ravs
-
I dunno ravells, it seems more plausible now than it did when it was first suggested. Seems they needed some troops with previous experience and their own armour and even the US army can get a bit stretched.
I may be naive but surely Bush isn't going to get much from this. If he wanted to show a coalition in Iraq he could just pick up some film from the BBC of the UK around Basra.
-
Chortle...they said on 'Question Time' last night that the US Marines have more men than the entire British Army.
Kerry has been constantly using the 'we have no allies' argument against Bush. Deals are being done in the background about the reassignment of the Black Watch. And I hate to say it, but if we lose men in the 'triangle of death' then their lives will just provide Bush with an answer to Kerry about 'no allies'. Nothing more.
Ravs
[edit] The US never needed the UK from a military standpoint to invade Iraq or to hold it. We were only there for political purposes. I for one am proud we were there, but that doesn't mean we are making a signifcant difference apart from saying 'we are standing with the US'.
-
of course, it couldent possibly be to free up some troops for fallujah, or other such insurgency hotspots...
can i borrow some tinfoil?
-
I'm sure they're capable of pulling off some Machiavellian shenanigans behind the scenes but if Bush really wanted to refute Kerrys 'standing alone' thing I can picture the political add Bush could run with existing footage of our troops in Basra. Does it really matter where in Iraq they are?
I didn't know that about the US Marines, it does give it some perspective but I'd like to think the UK military wouldn't agree to being pawns in some political game.
-
Vorticon, Can you be more plain in your answer?
I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Vorticon, Can you be more plain in your answer?
I honestly don't understand what you're saying.
Ravs
me neither.
-
Chortle, I hate to say it, but I think you're being very politcally naive.
Having UK troops working with US troops on the eve of an election where one of the problems that the republicans are dealing with 'no allies' criticisms from the opposition, just really begs for camera footage of one of our most famous regiments working with the US in Bagdhad.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we're backing up the Americans but this is for votes, not for a military objective.
Ravs
-
Brits. Best wishes to all of those persons for a safe return home. And , Thanks:) :aok
-
Then again, when you see all the
Brits comments here, I bloody hope they'll be there when we need them for whatever reason. And I think they will be.
We are now all living in the nightmare scenario where a terrorist detonates a dirty nuke in a big city, which these days is very possible. If it does happen in London, I hope the Americans answer our call.
I feel proud that we have the Americans as allies, but I don't want us to be taken for a ride by one American policitcal party.
Ravs
-
I like to think my naivety is part of my overall boyish charm ;)
Time will tell I guess, best of luck to all of them in the meantime.
-
Me too!
But it's ok, it's usually the same arguments repeating themselves!
ravs
-
I like the way Blair keeps on saying it has nothing to do with Politics and is a military request/move.
Who does he actually think believes in that tripe? Obviously political as Bush is looking for a "battle win" before the election and to show how much support he has. lol
British soilders will do a great job, no doubt. But it's hardly anything more then cheap politics before an election.
And if the UK is so much behind the US in Iraq, then why with an army of it's size do they only have around 10,000 troops there? Far less then the number of private security guys there.
...-Gixer
-
I refuse to believe that any Brit leader would knowingly put British lives in danger for a nominal political gain. Come on gents, think this through. The benefit, if any, Bush would gain from this is miniscule. Please, the war is serious business. Hate Bush, hate America, or merely disagree w/ the war in Iraq.. but do any of you seriously believe Blair would endanger British lives for this... this.... perceived trivial gain?
-
Blair turned down an oportunity to pick up a medal some months ago incase it was interpreted as endorsing Bush in the run up to the election. Seems inconsistent to me to think this deployment is politically motivated.
-
The way I see it Ravs is that both the UK and Australian forces are in Iraq for the exact reason you are 'concerned' about.
IE to strengthen military ties with the US, and ensure that when we need their help, and we will need it sooner or later, that the US has no qualms coming to our aid.
Maybe not so much with the Brit forces, but thats pretty much why there are Diggers in Iraq right now IMO(also why there were Aussies in Vietnam, Somalia,Rwanda, Afghanistan etc.), Australia as a nation simply could not afford to do anything but fight alongside the Yanks, having a relatively small population/defence force, and living just south of the world's largest Muslim population, a great deal of our national security in current times lies in the fact that you mess with us, you have to deal with the US military machine to, not just ours.
I think that relatively recent events down here have more than proved that America is indeed capable and willing to offer military assistance to her allies should the need arise.
Every time our neighbours get a bit noisey, a US carrier battle group shows up for exercises with the Aussie Navy in our northern waters.
Nothing like a water borne Death Star and a few thousand Marines to even the odds a little.
Anyway, if the Black Watch are moving north, and that bunch of well 'ard lads are 'up for it', life as an insurgent in their AO certainly isnt going to get any easier.
Brits
-
Oh well.....it went and got all political anyway.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Steve
I refuse to believe that any Brit leader would knowingly put British lives in danger for a nominal political gain. Come on gents, think this through. The benefit, if any, Bush would gain from this is miniscule. Please, the war is serious business. Hate Bush, hate America, or merely disagree w/ the war in Iraq.. but do any of you seriously believe Blair would endanger British lives for this... this.... perceived trivial gain?
yes
Originally posted by Bluedog
Anyway, if the Black Watch are moving north, and that bunch of well 'ard lads are 'up for it', life as an insurgent in their AO certainly isnt going to get any easier.
Brits
Luckily, like us, the Brit forces not only punch above their weight, but also have a professionalism above reproach which not only aids their mission - and like us, helps keep losses to a minimum
Tronsky
-
Of course it's all Political, all of the so called coalition of the unwilling is nothing more then politcal side show. Does the US really need the 850 or what ever the number of troops it is in Baghdad, surely they can fill that gap themselves. Or just hire a few more mercaneries to do the job, since they are the second biggest military force there by far.
Shame to see one of the finest regiments in the world being misused.
...-Gixer
-
Brits. Good luck and god speed.
-
Go get em lads.
(http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/bwbg/bw_prep_turret.jpg)
(http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/bwbg/bw_prep_wr.jpg)
Ministerial Statement to the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon
21 October 2004
Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a further statement about the deployment of UK forces in Iraq.
On Monday I explained to the House that the UK military had received, and was evaluating, a request from the US military command in Iraq for assistance that would involve UK land forces operating outside the MND(South East) area, in support of a combined Iraqi/US force.
A reconnaissance team from MND(South East) deployed to the area in question earlier this week and have now reported back to the Chiefs of Staff. The team provided information on a number of issues including logistics, the length of the potential operation, the likely tasks, activity levels in the area, the force levels required, and the command and control arrangements. After careful evaluation, the Chiefs of Staff have advised me that UK forces are able to undertake the proposed operation, that there is a compelling military operational justification for doing so and that it entails a militarily acceptable level of risk for UK forces. Based on this military advice, the Government has decided that we should accept the US request for assistance.
I emphasize again that this was a military request, and has been considered and accepted on operational grounds after a thorough military evaluation by the Chiefs of Staff. As I said on Monday, and as the Prime Minister said yesterday to the House, this deployment is a vital part of the process of creating the right conditions for the Iraqi elections to take place in January.
We share with the Iraqi Interim Government and with our coalition partners a common goal of creating a secure and stable Iraq, where men, women and children in towns like Fallujah can feel safe from foreign terrorists, from the kidnappers who murdered Ken Bigley and from other criminals. Crucially, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi and the Interim Iraqi Government want to establish sufficient security for elections to take place in January.
Recent successful operations by Iraqi Security Forces and coalition forces in Tal Afar, Samarra and the outskirts of Fallujah have been undertaken, to restore areas under the control of militants and terrorists to the authority of the Iraqi Interim Government. As a direct result the political process is now moving ahead.
We cannot consider the current UK area of responsibility in isolation. What goes on in the rest of Iraq affects southern Iraq and affects UK troops wherever they are based. We must therefore consider our contribution in the context of the overall security situation right across Iraq.
This means that a UK armoured battlegroup consisting of the 1st Battalion The Black Watch and supporting units will deploy to an area within MNF(West) to relieve a US unit for other tasks. They will be deploying with the necessary combat support services such as medics, signallers and engineers resulting in a total deployment of around 850 personnel. This deployment will be for a limited and specified period of time, lasting weeks rather than months.
I cannot give the House further details about the location, duration or specifics of the mission. Honourable members on all sides will understand that to do so would risk the operational security of the mission and potentially the safety of our forces. The speculation from many quarters so far has not been helpful. Can I also emphasise that there are no plans to send a further 1300 troops to Iraq as suggested this morning.
There have been concerns about UK forces coming under US Command and about their rules of engagement. The arrangements for this deployment are that the force will remain under the operational command of General Rollo, the UK General Officer Commanding MND(SE).
On a day to day basis the Black Watch will of course have to coordinate their activity with the US chain of command in the locality, but any changes in the mission or the tasking would have to be referred back to General Rollo. As with all UK operations, our forces will operate at all times under UK rules of engagement. These will provide proper protection for our forces, as they have throughout our operations in MND(SE).
It is not unusual for UK and US forces to work alongside each other – they have successfully done so not only in Iraq with US forces often providing logistical support for our own forces and therefore reducing the number of troops and assets we need in theatre, but in operations all over the world. Indeed, in Bosnia, about 22,000 US troops operated under UK command. As I said in my statement on Monday, UK forces in Iraq work alongside forces from Italy, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Japan and others on a daily basis. This is an effective and practical way of ensuring coherence both in our own area and with those that surround it.
There has also been speculation as to why there is a need for this UK force to backfill for a US unit, when there are around 130,000 US troops in Iraq. The armoured battlegroup that will deploy brings important qualities of extensive training, experience, and hard-edge combat capability. It is not the case, as is often implied, that there are 130,000 US troops that could take on this task. In fact, fewer than a third of US forces in Iraq have the requisite combat capability, and of those even fewer have the armoured capability that is needed. These specialised armoured forces are already highly committed across Iraq – a country similar in size to France. The Chiefs of Staff have further concluded therefore that the provision of a UK battlegroup to this new mission would be a significant contribution to and would materially increase the effect of the continuing operations to maintain pressure on the terrorists before the January elections.
Honourable members on Monday raised the question of whether this deployment would leave sufficient forces to deal with contingencies in our own area of responsibility in the south. The roulement of British Forces currently underway includes an armoured infantry battlegroup of the 1st Battalion Scots Guards with their own Warrior armoured vehicles who will fulfil the divisional reserve role currently undertaken by the Black Watch. This will result in General Rollo temporarily having an extra armoured battlegroup under his command which will provide a very robust force capable of dealing with contingencies. It is also worth remembering that the other UK forces in MND(South East) will continue to carry out their tasks in the professional and effective manner which has become so apparent to the people of Basrah and the surrounding area. Restoring power, water and basic facilities and supporting the Iraqi authorities in ensuring a robust level of security.
This deployment is limited in scope, time, and space. It does not represent a significant permanent additional commitment of forces. The overall trend in the numbers of our deployment in Iraq remains down, from the peak of 46000 during the warfighting phase to around 8500 today. This overall downward trend is expected to continue as we continue to train Iraqi Security Forces to take over from UK forces – as has happened for example in Al Amarah in Maysan Province.
The Government remains totally committed in its support of the Interim Iraqi Government and the need to hold free elections in January. We also remain committed to protecting innocent Iraqis, to dealing with terrorists, kidnappers and criminals, to training and equipping Iraqi Forces so that they can take our place providing security and to seeing a democratic government in Iraq that takes its rightful place in the international community. A government that delivers prosperity and a secure future for the Iraqi people. This is something that should unite all sides of the House. It is right that the United Kingdom should contribute to these objectives. And the deployment of the Black Watch will emphasise to the Iraqi people that the UK will continue to contribute to the coalition to see the task through.
-
I refuse to believe that any Brit leader would knowingly put British lives in danger for a nominal political gain.
Extremely naive.
Thatcher was perhaps the most recent example with the Falklands. Check her ratings before and after the conflict.
Blair out in 2005.
-
What are those red things they have on their hats?
(http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/bwbg/bw_prep_turret.jpg)
-
battle honours?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Thatcher was perhaps the most recent example with the Falklands. Check her ratings before and after the conflict.
Ok, hang on there for a sec Dowd. You saying that if you were PM and the Argies invaded the Falklands again you wouldn't send a task force straight down there to kick em off?
Sorry mate but someone invades British soil and they're getting sent home with their bollocks missing. Simple as that.
Um....apols to any Argentinians reading this. No offence meant.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by JoOwEn
What are those red things they have on their hats?
It's known as the "Red Hackle" and is actually a fly fishing.......um.......fly. It was in 1795 that The Black Watch is known to have adopted the Red Hackle in its bonnets, the most distinctive feature of the Regiments uniform. The stories relating to its origin are numerous but it was certainly issued to the men at Royston, Hertfordshire that year. Others began to copy this but in 1822 an Army order laid down that it was "to be used exclusively by the 42nd Regiment".
Interestingly..... ;) ......the 42nd Regiment (The Black Watch) fought Washington and won at Brooklyn, New York in 1776. Good choice to send up there to fight as allies. :D.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Sorry mate but someone invades British soil and they're getting sent home with their bollocks missing. Simple as that.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Sorry mate but someone invades British soil and they're getting sent home with their bollocks missing. Simple as that.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
haha.. brilliant :D
-
Wow, Tron, dowding... I'm not wondering if you guys own tinfoil hats. I'm wondering how many you own. I bet you kooks see a conspriacy in EVERYTHING that a govt does. Whackos!!!
Watch out for the black helicoptors!
-
Oh my god... not the 'tin foil hat' counter argument! How original, how breathtakingly creative! I just don't know how to reply to that.
If 'Black helicopters!' is all you can reply with Steve then I'll just offer my thanks for your participation. You tried your best.
Bravado aside, the Falklands may have been solved diplomatically. And the satan worshipping Maggie certainly benefitted from the war. Prior to the conflict it was our own Foreign Office that made overtures about handing the islands back to the Argentinians, coupled with the MOD announcing that it was to get rid of HMS Endurance - the only permanent naval presence in the area.
These events, didn't exactly give the impression we wanted the place to a nationalistic dictatorship a few miles away. The whole thing started because of a huge diplomatic balls-up.
So Thatcher, who was quite prepared to put whole industries on the scrap heap and raise unemployment to levels not seen since the 30s in the name of reducing the tax burden, writes a blank cheque and hands it the military.
-
If 'Black helicopters!' is all you can reply with Steve then I'll just offer my thanks for your participation. You tried your best.
No, actually I didn't try at all. It's blatantly apparent that you cannot be reasoned with, WHACKO.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Extremely naive.
Thatcher was perhaps the most recent example with the Falklands. Check her ratings before and after the conflict.
Blair out in 2005.
Are you saying she went to war in the Falklands for political gain?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Salute to the Brits.....they have character and balls, a combination not found throughout most of Europe.
Rude clearly posted the first insult here.