NationStates Jolt Archive

Please, read the source first before posting.
I would like some educated discussion that does not boggle down into mindless flaming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3944741.stm


It essentially tries to tell us the difference between American and British tactics.
Have fun.

Bump.

Please do not make me bump a third time. Be courtious.

Bump.

Well, it's obvious, isnt't it? If you mistreat people they're going to respond in kind, plus the US doesn't have much experience in occupation, while Britain's colonial past make them much better suited, even if they don't have the numbers now.

People become what you expect of them; we expect terrorists, that's what they become.

Essentially it comes down to a profound difference in military culture. The British have had centuries of experience of occupying foreign territory, the Americans are relatively new to it. The average British soldier understands the occupation's political goals, and is trained to understand the wider political goals of a deployment, while the average American soldier probably has neither the comprehension of, nor the interest in the bigger picture. Maybe if they thought more in terms of what political goals they are trying to achieve, rather than in terms of which of the guys in the crowd might shoot them, then they might get somewhere.

I think the Americans will probably screw up a few countries over a period of decades before they accumulate the experience that the British have.

Also got to do with psychology. The British are more inclined to comprimise following the fall of teh Empire. The biggest factor of course is Ireland. British troops have dealt with a terrorist situation like this before and are more adept at handling it. The US on the other hand is still riding high in its sense of superiority. And they arent particularly used to dealing with uncertain natives.

American Government:Hmmmm.......What to screw up next?Hmmmm.......

Thats a bit harsh, they arent all the same.

Although some did say something like "Presidents come and but the Government always remains the same"

Essentially it comes down to a profound difference in military culture. The British have had centuries of experience of occupying foreign territory, the Americans are relatively new to it. The average British soldier understands the occupation's political goals, and is trained to understand the wider political goals of a deployment, while the average American soldier probably has neither the comprehension of, nor the interest in the bigger picture. Maybe if they thought more in terms of what political goals they are trying to achieve, rather than in terms of which of the guys in the crowd might shoot them, then they might get somewhere.

I think the Americans will probably screw up a few countries over a period of decades before they accumulate the experience that the British have.
i thought the goal WAS to shoot them?

crap chess squares er w/e ur post came up right when mine did!

The Americans?

True

I mean 2nd to last

Maybe we do expect terrorists coming from the Middle East. I'll tell you why I do. Every other day in Israel or in Palestine, I hear stories of another car bomb exploding outside of a school, a church, a mosque, an embassy, a police station, a library. In Iraq I hear the same things. A car bomb on the side of the road explodes, killing 23 civilians, a car bomb near a police station explodes and kills 15, wounds 43. What the hell is wrong with a world in which so much violence and destruction occur on such a daily basis?

Ahh, i think you hit the crux of the problem there my friend, dont think of the evils themselves but why you always hear those evils......did i hear someone say corrupt media?

I live in the U.S.Don't u guyz over in the U.K. hear 'bout car bombs in Israel?Also when we enetered Iraq when car bombs went off and terriost poured in?

Yes, the Uk get it too.

But do we hear about people starving over the world? Do we hear about violence anywhere else? There are lots of things just as bad that are never reported.

The media uses people's fear to sell the papers and many of them use it to suit their own political agenda.

Or when we hear about Iraq we hear lots about Car Bombs but little about "Tactical Strikes"

Yes becuz if u were a true leader of a country u wouldn't give out info. on weaponary for security purposes.In England who do ppl want to win Bush or Kery?

What I mean by true leader I didn't mean a good leader I mean like a president,dictator,etc.

or do they not care about the U.S. election?(I'm sure thtz the anwser)