Associate
To me it sounded like he was trying to imply that ALL british people thought like that. Apologies if that wasn't your intent fadetoblack.
that's ok mate
To me it sounded like he was trying to imply that ALL british people thought like that. Apologies if that wasn't your intent fadetoblack.
The UK's counter-insurgency strategy played it far too safe. It had the right idea in the beginning (i.e. don't antagonise the locals), but that isn't nearly enough once it kicks off. Stopping an insurgency requires holding ground with troops and taking casualties, as the Army did in NI and is doing now in Afghanistan, but it was unwilling to do the same in occupying Iraq. The Army might as well have come home after pulling back to Basra airport for all of the good they were doing there. The Americans and Iraqis had to come down to Basra to deal with the problems that could have been prevented if the British government, military and public had been prepared to accept casualties.
United States - 26,215
The question is, how many of them were killed by the enemy
I wouldn't consider myself anti-armed forces; we just need to fix our own problems before we start running halfway across the world and allegedly "fixing" things.
I think some village is missing it's idiot.
I think he was implying that a lot of people die from 'friendly fire'.
This country needs to grow a pair of ****ing balls.
Look at the battle of the somme. 350,000 casualties in less than half a year for a couple miles of useless land.
Its a war, an ugly one, but one that can be won.
people do have short memories...
going back to the falklands the welsh guards lost 32 people in a single incident, 23 killed in a single engagement on mount longdon and many more.