Reports about Iraq

[SasaS]

Sorry, I didn't know all that, I always thought Britain had the biggest navy in the world for several centuries, that guerilla warfare was invented in order to fight the British in the Boor war and Napoleonic wars were an alliance of reactionary feudal continental powers against the  post-revolutionary French in which British had a relatively minor role (I seem to recall Napoleon's Russia expedition as slightly more important) outside of protecting its colonial interest elsewhere against the French.

 

On "alliances on land" - interesting how you see this - British strategy has always been and it is now, to side with the challenger or challengers against the biggest potential or real power in Europe. Hence wars against the French for centuries later in alliance with  Prussia and Austria followed by alliance with the French against Russia, Prussia, Germany. Even current position in the Ukraine has a similar origin, there is the support as a main American European ally but also positioning against Russia as the current great(est) pretender. Just before that, leaving the EU created as a Franco-German alliance hoping to trigger the dissolution of the union.  

[Section_31]

Britain having a big navy was misleading in a sense as the ships were spread literally all over the world and not all were ships of the line. The Bounty for example, only had one gun.

 

Britain was outgunned at Trafalagar and its ships were smaller, it was Nelson's tactics that won the day coupled with the superior speed and ability of the British sailors. 

 

I'm not saying Britain was some sort of plucky underdog, I was comparing the way it fought with that of America and how it's informed the strategies of both in subsequent conflicts.

 

Britain is a small island. Its victories have been built on tactics other than raw force. Usually by bringing the ruling classes of invaded countries on-board. When taking on powers of similar sizes it's needed allies.

 

It spent most of the early parts of the war only weeks from defeat. Outnumbered in the air and on the ground. Relying on the natural defences of being an island, coupled with stuff like Radar. 

 

The sas were guerilla fighters, we also relied on subterfuge such as operation mincemeat.

 

The yanks have never needed to fight like that due to their sheer size, resources and industrial might. The Japanese knew if they didn't sink the USA's Pacific carriers their were fucked, and so it proved. 

 

Churchill said when the yanks entered the war it was the best night's sleep he ever had, because the Japanese and germans would be "ground to dust".

 

Look at the shit the yanks were throwing at the axis from 43 onwards. Fucking thousands, and thousands of bombers at a time. 

 

They were popping out GIs called Kawalski from philadelphia hatcheries faster than they could be put down. 

 

Meanwhile the British were leaving briefcases called "secret war plans, honest' on Berlin Park benches.

[Creator Supreme]

Are Blair and Bush in jail yet?

[Captain Turdseye]

BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES

[Mook]

6 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

Are Blair and Bush in jail yet?

 

They'll be on here, brushing up on military strategy.

[Arniepie]

That documentary on Iraq on the BBC a while ago was outstanding 

[SasaS]

55 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Britain having a big navy was misleading in a sense as the ships were spread literally all over the world and not all were ships of the line. The Bounty for example, only had one gun.

 

Britain was outgunned at Trafalagar and its ships were smaller, it was Nelson's tactics that won the day coupled with the superior speed and ability of the British sailors. 

 

I'm not saying Britain was some sort of plucky underdog, I was comparing the way it fought with that of America and how it's informed the strategies of both in subsequent conflicts.

 

Britain is a small island. Its victories have been built on tactics other than raw force. Usually by bringing the ruling classes of invaded countries on-board. When taking on powers of similar sizes it's needed allies.

 

It spent most of the early parts of the war only weeks from defeat. Outnumbered in the air and on the ground. Relying on the natural defences of being an island, coupled with stuff like Radar. 

 

The sas were guerilla fighters, we also relied on subterfuge such as operation mincemeat.

 

The yanks have never needed to fight like that due to their sheer size, resources and industrial might. The Japanese knew if they didn't sink the USA's Pacific carriers their were fucked, and so it proved. 

 

Churchill said when the yanks entered the war it was the best night's sleep he ever had, because the Japanese and germans would be "ground to dust".

 

Look at the shit the yanks were throwing at the axis from 43 onwards. Fucking thousands, and thousands of bombers at a time. 

 

They were popping out GIs called Kawalski from philadelphia hatcheries faster than they could be put down. 

 

Meanwhile the British were leaving briefcases called "secret war plans, honest' on Berlin Park benches.

 

 

But every nation has a mirror in which they are see themselves as some kind of ingenious individualists fighting the uniformed, often numerically superior force in a war demanding they rely on their  wits. Even Americans see themselves like that in the WW2  films, never as simply having vastly superior fire power.

 

I am pretty sure that if Germans have won, my German would be much better now and there would have been an avalanche of stories and films about exploits of Brandenburgers and Otto Scorzeny and how the Desert Fox outsmarted stupid Montgomery and other Tommies (if they in fact called them that) and operations of German intelligence in which they got all the Allied plans and how they fooled Stalin and invented rocket science and so on. 

 

All European countries with access to Atlantic ports were colonial powers, even the Dutch created a descent empire. Having globally superior navy, based in warm sea ports with easy access to Atlantic therefore must have been crucial for creating the biggest colonial empire of them all. I think there was even a doctrine that British navy must be twice the size of the next two combined or something like that, a bit like the US military today.

 

[Jose Jones]

50 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

 

But every nation has a mirror in which they are see themselves as some kind of ingenious individualists fighting the uniformed, often numerically superior force in a war demanding they rely on their  wits. Even Americans see themselves like that in the WW2  films, never as simply having vastly superior fire power.

 

I am pretty sure that if Germans have won, my German would be much better now and there would have been an avalanche of stories and films about exploits of Brandenburgers and Otto Scorzeny and how the Desert Fox outsmarted stupid Montgomery and other Tommies (if they in fact called them that) and operations of German intelligence in which they got all the Allied plans and how they fooled Stalin and invented rocket science and so on. 

 

All European countries with access to Atlantic ports were colonial powers, even the Dutch created a descent empire. Having globally superior navy, based in warm sea ports with easy access to Atlantic therefore must have been crucial for creating the biggest colonial empire of them all. I think there was even a doctrine that British navy must be twice the size of the next two combined or something like that, a bit like the US military today.

 

 

Yeah, back in ye olden days the British Navy was easily the biggest in the world, for something like 300 years right up until the Second World War I think. 

 

With the US (and I guess any post-war interventions by any country) you could say that these mirror the prevailing domestic politics of the day.  America spent 7 years occupying Japan after the second world war - the first thing they did was set up food distribution networks.  They also then rebuilt manufacturing industries, set up trade unions, and gave women the vote.

 

Not surprisingly Japan (and South Korea) have been US allies ever since.

Nowadays it is more like "how can we make a fast buck here, no matter what happens to the local population".  Which is a reasonable reflection of prevailing capitalist thought in the US (and UK) at the moment.  

 

I suppose you could say the US spent a lot of time in Afghanistan, so maybe my point is a bit too simplistic.... 

[Kepler-186]

“Mistakes were made. Now watch this drive.”

[Bjornebye]

12 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Britain having a big navy was misleading in a sense as the ships were spread literally all over the world and not all were ships of the line. The Bounty for example, only had one gun.

 

Britain was outgunned at Trafalagar and its ships were smaller, it was Nelson's tactics that won the day coupled with the superior speed and ability of the British sailors. 

 

I'm not saying Britain was some sort of plucky underdog, I was comparing the way it fought with that of America and how it's informed the strategies of both in subsequent conflicts.

 

Britain is a small island. Its victories have been built on tactics other than raw force. Usually by bringing the ruling classes of invaded countries on-board. When taking on powers of similar sizes it's needed allies.

 

It spent most of the early parts of the war only weeks from defeat. Outnumbered in the air and on the ground. Relying on the natural defences of being an island, coupled with stuff like Radar. 

 

The sas were guerilla fighters, we also relied on subterfuge such as operation mincemeat.

 

The yanks have never needed to fight like that due to their sheer size, resources and industrial might. The Japanese knew if they didn't sink the USA's Pacific carriers their were fucked, and so it proved. 

 

Churchill said when the yanks entered the war it was the best night's sleep he ever had, because the Japanese and germans would be "ground to dust".

 

Look at the shit the yanks were throwing at the axis from 43 onwards. Fucking thousands, and thousands of bombers at a time. 

 

They were popping out GIs called Kawalski from philadelphia hatcheries faster than they could be put down. 

 

Meanwhile the British were leaving briefcases called "secret war plans, honest' on Berlin Park benches.

That’s a brilliant post. I particularly like the Kawalski and Berlin Park bench additions. 

[SasaS]

11 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

 

Yeah, back in ye olden days the British Navy was easily the biggest in the world, for something like 300 years right up until the Second World War I think. 

 

With the US (and I guess any post-war interventions by any country) you could say that these mirror the prevailing domestic politics of the day.  America spent 7 years occupying Japan after the second world war - the first thing they did was set up food distribution networks.  They also then rebuilt manufacturing industries, set up trade unions, and gave women the vote.

 

Not surprisingly Japan (and South Korea) have been US allies ever since.

Nowadays it is more like "how can we make a fast buck here, no matter what happens to the local population".  Which is a reasonable reflection of prevailing capitalist thought in the US (and UK) at the moment.  

 

I suppose you could say the US spent a lot of time in Afghanistan, so maybe my point is a bit too simplistic.... 

 

I don't think this has changed much, or that people (well connected Americans) didn't make a fast buck in Japan and Korea.

 

What amazes me is how people often don't get the US. In a largely simplistic nutshell, the Americans (political establishment) in general think that their country, political and economic systems are the best and that if you allow other nations to get rid of whatever autocratic regime they have and start living in a form of representative liberal democracy (freedom!) they would fully embrace it and naturally become their allies, because that is what they ultimately want - freedom. This was basically neo-con mantra about Iraq. There is often nothing sinister in their interventionist policies (apart from, obviously, protecting and furthering their economic interests and overall geopolitical and ideological superiority). They see it as doing you a favour. 

 

I remember thinking about Afghanistan, if they only invested as much they spent on security and military, that there is no way Taliban could counter that. Then I watched something, I think it was Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis, which chronicles all the post WW2 decades of exactly that, all in vain. It is often difficult to admit that some culture resist what we may see as natural and positive. I didn't know that there was a full blown anti-Communist insurgency in Afghanistan even before the Soviets invaded, and from some contemporary documentaries by embedded film makers in and around Kandahar, it was pretty evident that they didn't fight the foreign invaders, they fought infidels or nonbelievers. it's barely a nation state, if at all, they certainly don't want to be westernized, some form of the Taliban seems to be how the majority of Afghans or at least the Pashtuns want to live.

[Section_31]

12 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

 

But every nation has a mirror in which they are see themselves as some kind of ingenious individualists fighting the uniformed, often numerically superior force in a war demanding they rely on their  wits. Even Americans see themselves like that in the WW2  films, never as simply having vastly superior fire power.

 

I am pretty sure that if Germans have won, my German would be much better now and there would have been an avalanche of stories and films about exploits of Brandenburgers and Otto Scorzeny and how the Desert Fox outsmarted stupid Montgomery and other Tommies (if they in fact called them that) and operations of German intelligence in which they got all the Allied plans and how they fooled Stalin and invented rocket science and so on. 

 

All European countries with access to Atlantic ports were colonial powers, even the Dutch created a descent empire. Having globally superior navy, based in warm sea ports with easy access to Atlantic therefore must have been crucial for creating the biggest colonial empire of them all. I think there was even a doctrine that British navy must be twice the size of the next two combined or something like that, a bit like the US military today.

 

 

Again though, you're misunderstanding me. 

 

I'm saying that the British have never been in a position to conquer anyone by steamrollering them. There's never been a British Blitzkrieg, there's never been a battle where the British overwhelmed a power of similar technological ability with superior numbers and equipment. 

 

Its greatest victories like Trafalgar and the Spanish Armada were pulled off with chicanery or simple blood and sweat. 

 

I'm not saying this to make out that the British are great or geniuses or whatever, I'm saying they've had to deploy other methods to win fights, and that that has informed how it deals with countries it's planning to engage. 

 

America just fucking hammers its targets with guided bombs, drones and tanks because its mindset is based around the fact it can outspend and outnumber everyone on the battlefield with unlimited supplies of tanks, bombs, guided weapons, jets and all the rest of it. Most British equipment was garbage, British tanks of the era looked like someone's high school DT project. 

 

In World War 2 the British were making bombs out of socks. When GIs turned up in Britain it was like Father Christmas had come to town because they were doling out packets of fags, chocolate and stockings left and right. They had thousands of ships, thousands of planes, it's a completely different mindset born of a completely different method of waging war - born of different realities around land mass and industrial capabilities. 

[SasaS]

53 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

Again though, you're misunderstanding me. 

 

I'm saying that the British have never been in a position to conquer anyone by steamrollering them. There's never been a British Blitzkrieg, there's never been a battle where the British overwhelmed a power of similar technological ability with superior numbers and equipment. 

 

Its greatest victories like Trafalgar and the Spanish Armada were pulled off with chicanery or simple blood and sweat. 

 

I'm not saying this to make out that the British are great or geniuses or whatever, I'm saying they've had to deploy other methods to win fights, and that that has informed how it deals with countries it's planning to engage. 

 

America just fucking hammers its targets with guided bombs, drones and tanks because its mindset is based around the fact it can outspend and outnumber everyone on the battlefield with unlimited supplies of tanks, bombs, guided weapons, jets and all the rest of it. Most British equipment was garbage, British tanks of the era looked like someone's high school DT project. 

 

In World War 2 the British were making bombs out of socks. When GIs turned up in Britain it was like Father Christmas had come to town because they were doling out packets of fags, chocolate and stockings left and right. They had thousands of ships, thousands of planes, it's a completely different mindset born of a completely different method of waging war - born of different realities around land mass and industrial capabilities. 

No, what I think is that you are cherry-picking examples from history (what about Agincourt?) to support your idea that Britain never had huge technical or numerical superiority over its enemy, as the Americans mostly do since about the beginning of the 20th century and had to rely on ingenuity or guile. Which I don't think is true. Or, it is definitely true if you insist on current comparisons with the Americans, in which case it is true about the rest of the world, not just Britain.

On numerical or technical superiority in battles, what about North African campaign in the WW2 and El Alamein? Surely the Falklands war is an example of fighting with a superior equipment. Or fighting the Taliban in Helmand, was that so much different in terms of technical superiority than Americans have? 

[Kepler-186]

https://open.substack.com/pub/bylinesupplement/p/memories-of-the-iraq-war?r=7i95q&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
 

 

[Section_31]

4 hours ago, SasaS said:

No, what I think is that you are cherry-picking examples from history (what about Agincourt?) to support your idea that Britain never had huge technical or numerical superiority over its enemy, as the Americans mostly do since about the beginning of the 20th century and had to rely on ingenuity or guile. Which I don't think is true. Or, it is definitely true if you insist on current comparisons with the Americans, in which case it is true about the rest of the world, not just Britain.

On numerical or technical superiority in battles, what about North African campaign in the WW2 and El Alamein? Surely the Falklands war is an example of fighting with a superior equipment. Or fighting the Taliban in Helmand, was that so much different in terms of technical superiority than Americans have? 

 

 

 

 

The North African campaigns, what you mean were the SAS were formed and, erm, waged a Guerila war against a force with superior gear? North Africa was basically an advert for the kind of warfare you're saying Britain doesn't wage, it was outclassed in virtually every way. 

 

Or the Falklands, where the Navy had to use a converted cruise ship to ferry its troops across the Atlantic and pull the HMS Hermes out of retirement as she was about to be scrapped, to win a fight against a second world military. 

 

Besides which. I'm talking about history and how the respective attitude to conflict and warfare in Britain and America were framed due to the cards they'd been dealt in terms of resources.

 

Britain was at the height of Empire at the start of the Second World War and yet got its arse handed to it in virtually every field of battle from France to Hong Kong. Being able to take on the Nazis in a situation like, say, Kursk or the Nomandy landings without the allies is absolutely unthinkable. 

 

The British Empire had no subjugated nations which were advanced in warfare or able to defend themselves the way Western nations like France tried but failed to defend themselves against the Germans.

 

You're saying I'm cherry picking. So tell me a time when Britain has ever overwhelmed another force of similar standing by sheer force of numbers and equipment? Ever? 

  

 

 

[SasaS]

15 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

The North African campaigns, what you mean were the SAS were formed and, erm, waged a Guerila war against a force with superior gear? North Africa was basically an advert for the kind of warfare you're saying Britain doesn't wage, it was outclassed in virtually every way. 

 

Or the Falklands, where the Navy had to use a converted cruise ship to ferry its troops across the Atlantic and pull the HMS Hermes out of retirement as she was about to be scrapped, to win a fight against a second world military. 

 

Besides which. I'm talking about history and how the respective attitude to conflict and warfare in Britain and America were framed due to the cards they'd been dealt in terms of resources.

 

Britain was at the height of Empire at the start of the Second World War and yet got its arse handed to it in virtually every field of battle from France to Hong Kong. Being able to take on the Nazis in a situation like, say, Kursk or the Nomandy landings without the allies is absolutely unthinkable. 

 

The British Empire had no subjugated nations which were advanced in warfare or able to defend themselves the way Western nations like France tried but failed to defend themselves against the Germans.

 

You're saying I'm cherry picking. So tell me a time when Britain has ever overwhelmed another force of similar standing by sheer force of numbers and equipment? Ever? 

  

 

 

 

But  I told you (off the top of my head) and you ignored it. Britain never had numerical or technical advantage, except when it did, in which case it doesn't count, because SAS. and it has a different mindset when it comes to military to the United States. I guess unlike every other nation on Earth because the US is unique when it comes to resources in the post WWII Pax Americana world. Similar to British naval dominance in the previous centuries. But Bounty had only one cannon or something.

 

 

[VladimirIlyich]

On 20/03/2023 at 19:44, Section_31 said:

 

The British could easily subjugate people who had no guns, but pit them against a rival of similar technology and they were almost always on the back foot. British tanks, guns and artillery in world war 2 were total shite. Germans were developing U Boats and the Japanese were building aircraft carriers while we were fucking around still with ships that had big guns.

 

Britain survived the war through brains and nous. Radar, cracking enigma, commandos.

As shite as the Yanks are tactically their increased weaponry,men and armour,when used much better (meaning by almost anybody but the Yanks) forces, was vital in turning the war in Europe. Plus Stalin and Hitler falling out was beneficial to the Allies. The British could never have won any war against Germany single handed but well fought campaigns were vital in chipping through German strongholds alongside US might and Adolf's hubris.