Quiet Britons outpace US in taming Iraq

[Dinner]

The anwser is the same reason they targeted the UN and the Red Cross. They want to kill all foreigners because killing foreigners gets the big splash in the headlines.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whoha
skywalker needs to put sarcasm tags there.

Why? I wasn't being sarcastic.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Why would the Iraqi resistance then target soldiers from Bulgaria and Thailand, like they did yesterday?

To prevent nations like that from joining in. There's no point to doing it to Britain - their participation is a forgone conclusion.

[Zylka]

"I would postulate that" HAHAHAHAHAHA you steaming coil

Perhaps you should off and start PROSTULATING that we're dealing with two entirely separate regions, scales of resistance, and even types of people - here. Furthermore, you might want to take a break from popping zits with the corner edge of your grade 9 history text and PROSTULATE that perhaps this single article on the oh so sophisticated British approach isn't quite holistic authority on sign of the times and "taming the beast"

****, I have so many tidbits from your own material to make fun of in a single post it's difficult to write without balling up in laughter. Please, do share more!!

[Tripledoc]

I think a true Brit would never say "taming the beast", but rather use the more literary "holding the tiger by the tail".

[Zylka]

How about: emasculating the yellow teethed, pseudo windbaggery of retarded 13 year olds on "prostulate" as this weeks learned word?

[Dinner]

Prostulate= Prostitute postulating?

[yavoon]

I'm pretty sure this thread has been hilarious so far.

gj

[The Viceroy]

Bottom line is, you just can't compare Basra and Baghdad as like. Although the British force does have the experience of N.Ireland to draw on, Basra isn't N.Ireland. (If anything, the experience of bloody sunday only goes to show the British Army does have experience through its own mistakes).

Would the Brits do any better in Baghdad ?? Impossible to say, I personally doubt it, but thats just a gut reaction.

If anything good comes out of this, the next time American troops are sent out to be a nations army/police/security .. they can say "We were in Baghdad" .. and be all the wiser for it.

[Whaleboy]

Well it doesnt seem that the Americans are doing much to endear themselves to the locals

[The Viceroy]

What do you think they should do, that they currently don't do ... or maybe that should read "What should they not do, that they do currently".

??

[Whaleboy]

Viceroy: See Basra.

[mrmitchell]

Uh, so, IOW, the British are doing a great job because it's easier for them?

I'm really interested in what your point is here, but I can't figure it out.

[Ted Striker]

Well, I think Brits on average ARE better peacekeepers for a couple of reasons and I don't think it has anything to do with Ireland.

1) They are more culturally sensitive to the nuances of the locals
2) Their demeanor is more easy going

HOWEVER, their area is alot quieter already for 2 reasons:

1) Baghdad and Tikrit are the hotbeds of the troublemakers and that's where the USA deploys its best divisions, the same ones getting blown up on a daily basis.

2) It's worth more politically for terrorists to blow up an American. That's like getting the big prize for them. They will harass other Coalition forces like the other day but to kill an American is like the best thing they could hope for.

[JohnT]

Who gives a shiite: congratulations on your chaps doing a fine job.