BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Stu
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 05:00 AM

"Orders are just that, and even Guardsmen are expected to execute them"

Is this not the defence used by German Soldiers on trial at Neuremberg for carrying our atrocities?

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 05:00 AM

This morning on British Television the news quote was that the UK troops redeployment was likely to be in the order of a couple of weeks rather than months.
Is this a coincidence - Brit troops there until just after the US Election results then move them back to where they were before.
It STINKS to high heaven - Blair the liar and hypocrite trying to help Bush the incompetent to win a second term.
Quack!!
GtD.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 07:50 PM

Doug R: "Probably most of the Guard members joined for the benefits. They do not consider fulfilling their obligation to fight if necessary one of them."

Can you be surprised? Consider the attitude of our current alleged "Commander in Chief" circa 1970----"joined for the benefits",--- foremost of which was, in 1970, avoiding Vietnam. They're just hoping to follow in the footsteps of the most prominent member of the Texas National Guard----the hypocrite in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:52 AM

Don't you think that joining the military, and watching your kids grow up is an oxymoron?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 06:59 PM

You'd think the Guard would be sent over to augment active duty troops, but at least in the first Gulf War, it seemed to me they bore a disproportionate burden.

In 1998, there were some representives from the Pentagon who came to my base and had a meeting with a bunch of folks to ask what problems they saw. This was peacetime, mind you, and the only things going on were humanitarian missions. Still, everyone there agreed that people were being sent on missions too often and for too long, and that we were simply stretched way too thin. Many of the ones who spoke about their personal experiences said they wanted to be there while their kids grew up and would get out rather than put up with the long separations as 'business as usual'. I don't know if anything was planned to remedy the situation, and it sure doesn't look like anything was done. It was peacetime, and the military always shrinks during peacetime.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 06:17 PM

Well done for the correction, DougR.

Old Guy, watch and learn. This is discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:18 PM

Jeri: You are absolutely right. I misread SRS's post. I would never advocate taking the right to bitch away from people in the service. I think it is entirely appropriate that they do not like their commander in chief if that is their feeling. Also, it is not surprising that the members of the Guard do not agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I doubt many soldiers, sailors and marines cheered when they were sent to Korea in the 1950's or to Vietnam in the sixties and seventies.

Sorry SRS.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:51 PM

The US is in over all command, but the day to day admin is done by the Brits in and around Basra, this is why we were sent down to that end of Iraq on our own, it makes life easier for Tony Blair, as it's one less accusation that his opponents can throw at him. ie Ceding sovereignty to the US, which is as much of a problem with us Brits as it would be for you guys to let us take command.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 11:51 AM

Thanks, Jeri--you said it very well!

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:39 AM

As to your original question, Giok/John, I figure it's got something to do with the coalition the UN would have put together with a unified commander vs. Bush's posse, It looks better to be a commander of two countries' forces instead of one, and it looks great to have Tony Blair say, in effect, "Yes, I trust you with the lives of our citizens." In for a dime, in for a dollar, right? (Or is it "in for a farthing, in for a quid?") One wonders if a majority of British voters trusts Bush that much.

Looking at this from a purely practical viewpoint, there should have been a unified command from the beginning, else one hand doesn't know what the other's doing and there's a waste of effort. It's just a part of the lack of planning that this is being talked about NOW, instead of at the beginning. I wonder how communications and control of the different forces' commands was handled during the war.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:45 AM

"Send in the Highlanders, it matters not if they fall"
This remark was said to have been made at the storming of the Plains of Abraham, when the British under General Wolfe captured Quebec. Not much appears to have changed since 1759.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:25 AM

Let me get this straight, SRS says a friend in the Nat' Guard reports that the prevailing view in her unit is they don't like Bush or the war. You say it's not their job to question orders. These are two completely different things, Doug! She's talking about opinions and you're talking about actions. She's talking about what is, and you're talking about the way you think things should be.

It is their right and their duty to VOTE. Orders they have to follow or suffer the consequences.

It is also a soldier's duty to inform their commanders of problems. It's their commanders' duty to pass it up the chain. At the level where decisions are made (for this one, the Commander in Chief), it's their duty to listen and make decisions based on everything they know, including what problems are reported up the chain of command. This commander doesn't seem to be listening, or he's not doing enough about problems he's hearing about.

If you're saying soldiers don't have a right to complain or hold opinons contrary to the President's, I'd suggest it's you who don't have as much knowledge of the way the military is today as you think you do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:06 AM

Blair faces revolt from lawmakers
October 20, 2004 - 9:44PM; AAP

Prime Minister Tony Blair has faced a revolt by lawmakers over a US request to redeploy some British troops closer to Baghdad. Forty-five lawmakers, including 44 members of the governing Labour Party, have signed a motion insisting the House of Commons should be allowed to vote on whether the request is granted. Many are suspicious the request is politically motivated and designed to bolster US President George W Bush before presidential elections on November 2. "We are about to enter a period of increased activity in Iraq. This is nothing to do with the American elections," Blair told the House of Commons. "It has everything to do with the Iraqi elections in January."

"I believe we are right to be in Iraq," Blair added. "I think the stabilisation of Iraq and bringing democracy to that country is in the interests of this country." American military commanders asked Britain on October 10 to reposition a small number of soldiers, now stationed in southern Iraq, to the US-controlled sector farther north, to free up American soldiers to step up their assault on insurgents. The government has not said how many troops might be redeployed, or to where. But military sources have said that if the request was granted, Britain's reserve regiment, the 650-strong First Battalion Black Watch, which is stationed near the southern port city of Basra, would be the obvious choice....
© 2004 AP

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:26 AM

"....It is not the role of the National Guardsman to question the orders of higher authority even if they disagree with it. Orders are just that, and even Guardsmen are expected to execute them."

Do you want to qualify that Doug, or do you really believe that "I was only obeying orders" should be an acceptable defence if the orders obeyed were unlawful?

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:28 AM

Sick of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:14 AM

SRS: your lack of knowledge about the military is apparent in your post. It is not the role of the National Guardsman to question the orders of higher authority even if they disagree with it. Orders are just that, and even Guardsmen are expected to execute them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:06 AM

It is glaringly obvious that the transfer of less than a thousand Black Watch personnel to the "American sector" is simply a political ploy so Bush mobsters can say "see, our allies in the coalition are with us all the way". A load of shit propaganda which will deplete the British garrison around Basra and the South, put Black Watch lads in the midden created by the US military, and invite opportunistic guerilla attack in the weakened south. And all for re-election of Tony Blair's "special friend". Vomit-inducing.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:04 AM

Bobert:

Do you suffer from paranoia?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:35 PM

Why would Bush care one danged bit? If the elsection is within 2%, his boys who own tyhe counting machines will do their part. Kerry has to win by 4% in order to have a chance...

UK troops can't manufacture 2%, but Dielbold can....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: GUEST,Churchill
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:30 PM

We are paying 8 millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano, out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.

Sir Winston Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:51 PM

So, DougR, you would impugn the integrity of the National Guard if they object to Bush's immoral war, and suggest that they're cowards? Take off the blinders. Pull up your socks. No one should be over in Iraq occupying that country. If they have the common sense to see it, more power to them.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:16 PM

I'm not surprised, SRS. Probably most of the Guard members joined for the benefits. They do not consider fulfilling their obligation to fight, if necessary, one of them.


Giok: I am under the impression that the overall command of troops in Iraq is under a U. S. General, and has been since the outbreak of the war. Do you have different information? I know that Bush has urged Tony Blair to send more troops, and I read in the newspaper today that he probably will, but I didn't see anything in the story that suggested a change in command from what it always has been.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:13 PM

The U.S. troop/friend I know who's headed to Iraq in a month or two is NOT a fan of Bush. Seems that's a prevailing view in her Natl. Guard unit. From Texas, no less.

Subject: RE: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:49 PM

Why indeed, Giok?

Subject: BS: UK troops to win US election for Bush?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:43 PM

Why is it that Bush wants to bring UK soldiers under US command, just two weeks before the election?
Giok