NationStates Jolt Archive

Why? why would the US embassy in london stop the US troops in the uk from going into london? just when we are trying to say business as usual & london is open the US does this..... why?

(btw im very much in favour of our allies across the pond, i just cant understand this)

Why? why would the US embassy in london stop the US troops in the uk from going into london? just when we are trying to say business as usual & london is open the US does this..... why?

(btw im very much in favour of our allies across the pond, i just cant understand this)
The US embassy stops their own troops from going into London?
That doesn't make much sense...

It seems somewhat obvious. If I am understanding correctly, the troops would be used for British security after the London attack. But considering Britain is a proud country, it would be a mistake for America to send the message that Britain needs our troops.

For me, its not so much that the US stopped its troops from going into London (not just the embassy, but the guys in the Air Force base nearby, at least, according to Yahoo :P), but the fact that a few London newspapers have decided that the US government is 'timid' because its concerned for the safety of its troops.
Seriously, if theres a group of organized terrorists in London (not likely, but it seems possible now), do you REALLY want US troops in there? Its best if they stick to the US-owned areas until somebody figures out whats going on.

The troops were not stopped by the US embassy, they were given orders not to go into London on the day after tha attack by a local level commander. In the same way as civilians were advised not to travel into London. The differance is that you dont advise military personnel, you give them orders. The situation is simply that the order has not been recinded. In fact it is under review this morning and no doubt whoever issued the order can expect some kind of reprimand for not recinding it sooner.

The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the media and those seeking to make political capital out of the situation. I'm not defending the Americans here, its largley down to them that we are in this situation to begin with, but in this case it is nothing more than an oversite on behalf of an officer who thought he was doing the right thing.

It seems somewhat obvious. If I am understanding correctly, the troops would be used for British security after the London attack. But considering Britain is a proud country, it would be a mistake for America to send the message that Britain needs our troops.

I like you. You're silly. :)

For me, its not so much that the US stopped its troops from going into London (not just the embassy, but the guys in the Air Force base nearby, at least, according to Yahoo :P), but the fact that a few London newspapers have decided that the US government is 'timid' because its concerned for the safety of its troops.
Seriously, if theres a group of organized terrorists in London (not likely, but it seems possible now), do you REALLY want US troops in there? Its best if they stick to the US-owned areas until somebody figures out whats going on.

The US-owned areas being the entirety of the UK besides London? Or did I misinterpret something? :p

The troops were not stopped by the US embassy, they were given orders not to go into London on the day after tha attack by a local level commander. In the same way as civilians were advised not to travel into London. The differance is that you dont advise military personnel, you give them orders. The situation is simply that the order has not been recinded. In fact it is under review this morning and no doubt whoever issued the order can expect some kind of reprimand for not recinding it sooner.

The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the media and those seeking to make political capital out of the situation. I'm not defending the Americans here, its largley down to them that we are in this situation to begin with, but in this case it is nothing more than an oversite on behalf of an officer who thought he was doing the right thing.


exactly.

Real problem is, that cell is still active. I doubt they would go underground. Really though, UK needs to look at their policy of not kicking the more radical elements of islam that they have allowed to fester in the city, thats why i think they were caught off guard really...because the attacks on London I can almost bet came from Londoners. Well i wouldnt really call them Londoners more like...migrent jihadists, islamotrash that wouldnt even be allowed in their home countries...the british trying to be fair and just takes them in (just like canadians do) and they paid the price for it

Why? why would the US embassy in london stop the US troops in the uk from going into london?

US has a habbit of not removing troops after "helping out".
Just be glad you werent invaded "for your own good". ;)

It seems somewhat obvious. If I am understanding correctly, the troops would be used for British security after the London attack. But considering Britain is a proud country, it would be a mistake for America to send the message that Britain needs our troops.

OK lets puts some facts in here.

US troops are not used for UK security EVER. We don't need them on our soil they're here as a forward strike force as part of a post WWII agreement.

The US do not OWN any parts of the UK they use RAF bases as in RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath.

US forces have been banned from going to London by their commanding officers. This goes right against Britains "business as usual" deal.
What? do US servicemen wear cowboy hats so they can be spotted by terrorists? Do they go site seeing in uniform? They are no more a target in civillian clothes than I am.

This looks very bad on a day that Bush says that we wont let terrorism get us down (to paraphrase)

Of course US personel are so insular that when I visited a US base in the 80's they were suprised that I was English (as if the world outside their door didn't exist) and the vast majority of them had never left their base and didn't want to (not even to go to the local pub!!!)

Grrrrrrrrrr. :mad:

It seems somewhat obvious. If I am understanding correctly, the troops would be used for British security after the London attack. But considering Britain is a proud country, it would be a mistake for America to send the message that Britain needs our troops.

Personally I can't understand why there is US troops in Britain.

As if they don't have enough countries to invade, they occupy the ones that are their allies too.

WW2 ended ages ago. They should be gone. Now. It should have been sooner.

OK lets puts some facts in here.



The US do not OWN any parts of the UK they use RAF bases as in RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath.


They own Blair. It's good enough.



Of course US personel are so insular that when I visited a US base in the 80's they were suprised that I was English (as if the world outside their door didn't exist) and the vast majority of them had never left their base and didn't want to (not even to go to the local pub!!!)

Grrrrrrrrrr. :mad:

That does not surprise, but it still shocks.

I'm not defending the Americans here, its largley down to them that we are in this situation to begin with,

Well said.

Ban lifted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm

US troops are not used for UK security EVER. We don't need them on our soil they're here as a forward strike force as part of a post WWII agreement.

The US do not OWN any parts of the UK they use RAF bases as in RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath.

Menwith Hill, Yorkshire, was leased to the Americans during the 1950's and it remains operated by the NSA today.

If they wanna visit London its all good. The best time would probably be now because everyone is extra vigilant because of the attack. Just as long as they can deal with the slight disruption that will cause. Because America has been so supportive they would probably get a warmer welcome aswel

The troops were not stopped by the US embassy, they were given orders not to go into London on the day after tha attack by a local level commander. In the same way as civilians were advised not to travel into London. The differance is that you dont advise military personnel, you give them orders. The situation is simply that the order has not been recinded. In fact it is under review this morning and no doubt whoever issued the order can expect some kind of reprimand for not recinding it sooner.

The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the media and those seeking to make political capital out of the situation. I'm not defending the Americans here, its largley down to them that we are in this situation to begin with, but in this case it is nothing more than an oversite on behalf of an officer who thought he was doing the right thing.

Yes, will have to agree with this view of the situation. It is not uncommon for your CO to tell you not to go into areas of recent unrest. This is fairly common with overseas deployments. In fact there is alot of things that US troops are not advised to do when in certain areas. The middle east for example has alot of restrictions on troops. Mind you not to upset the natives. But as an safety procaution. It is obvious that this CO would have given it for London the day after an attack.

The US do not OWN any parts of the UK they use RAF bases as in RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath.

The extraterritorial status of their embassy aside...

The US-owned areas being the entirety of the UK besides London? Or did I misinterpret something? :p

Careful... :p
As much as we seem to have become halfway between the 51st State and the 10th Partially-United State of Europe, the only things that own the entire of our country are entropy, dissatisfaction and governmental ignorance.

Yes, will have to agree with this view of the situation. It is not uncommon for your CO to tell you not to go into areas of recent unrest. This is fairly common with overseas deployments. In fact there is alot of things that US troops are not advised to do when in certain areas. The middle east for example has alot of restrictions on troops. Mind you not to upset the natives. But as an safety procaution. It is obvious that this CO would have given it for London the day after an attack.
See, British troops are different.
When I visited the Black Watch a few years ago their guardroom had a notice listing the places which were out of bounds. it went.....
The Heron,
The Red Lion,
The Bull,
The town of Market Drayton.
The British army get banned from places that they have had fights in.
You might find a CO advising troops to be careful is going to London but putting it out of bounds would be Very very unlikely.

The British army get banned from places that they have had fights in.

So that's most of Asia, Australia, North America, South America, Africa, Mainland Europe, Ireland and Scotland out the window then.

So that's most of Asia, Australia, North America, South America, Africa, Mainland Europe, Ireland and Scotland out the window then.

I think he means areas where they had a whole bunch of off duty soldiers cause one heck of a ruckus. Not sure though. I could be wrong.

I think he means areas where they had a whole bunch of off duty soldiers cause one heck of a ruckus. Not sure though. I could be wrong.
Lol
Both are probably true.
They play hard. :p

See, British troops are different.
When I visited the Black Watch a few years ago their guardroom had a notice listing the places which were out of bounds. it went.....
The Heron,
The Red Lion,
The Bull,
The town of Market Drayton.
The British army get banned from places that they have had fights in.
You might find a CO advising troops to be careful is going to London but putting it out of bounds would be Very very unlikely.

Well London is home turf for British soldiers. US soldiers no. This wouldnt be the same if it happened in Washington DC for example.

CO's sometimes get the case of the stupids. I had one that banned personnel on my ship from going to a fast food restaurant on our own base because one guy got into a fight there.

Ban's lifted. Everyone that said something something really grand in favor of the ban might wanna start hypocrating right about now. ;)

Why? why would the US embassy in london stop the US troops in the uk from going into london? just when we are trying to say business as usual & london is open the US does this..... why?

(btw im very much in favour of our allies across the pond, i just cant understand this)
As an American soldier who has dealt with something that pretty much the same thing in Korea, the reason is so they are not targets and don't end up providing the terrorists with an excuse to try to kill more inocents.
Anytime you have a place that has been the location of recent anti american activity or violence, you will have a ban on american troops going there.
It prevents soldiers from getting in trouble in situations where they don't know what is going on.
It's not meant to be an unfriendly gesture. Its just the lower enlisted are likely to get into trouble and create pr nightmares in such places.
Its supposed to protect us and protect the people in London.
The other thing you should already know, is that while native Londoners want American troops there, the muslims in London hate us and have a long history of preaching violence against Americans. I don't know why that is since I've never been there and no little about how you guys operate.
It might be concern for free speech but that doesn't cover stuff like "take these bombs and blow yourselves up in a subway" or anything like that.
Also, it might be concern for religious freedom. But that does not sound right.

Why? why would the US embassy in london stop the US troops in the uk from going into london? just when we are trying to say business as usual & london is open the US does this..... why?

(btw im very much in favour of our allies across the pond, i just cant understand this)
As an American soldier who has dealt with something that pretty much the same thing in Korea, the reason is so they are not targets and don't end up providing the terrorists with an excuse to try to kill more inocents.
Anytime you have a place that has been the location of recent anti american activity or violence, you will have a ban on american troops going there.
It prevents soldiers from getting in trouble in situations where they don't know what is going on.
It's not meant to be an unfriendly gesture. Its just the lower enlisted are likely to get into trouble and create pr nightmares in such places.
Its supposed to protect us and protect the people in London.
The other thing you should already know, is that while native Londoners want American troops there, the muslims in London hate us and have a long history of preaching violence against Americans. I don't know why that is since I've never been there and no little about how you guys operate.
It might be concern for free speech but that doesn't cover stuff like "take these bombs and blow yourselves up in a subway" or anything like that.
Also, it might be concern for religious freedom. But that does not sound right.

The troops were not stopped by the US embassy, they were given orders not to go into London on the day after tha attack by a local level commander. In the same way as civilians were advised not to travel into London. The differance is that you dont advise military personnel, you give them orders. The situation is simply that the order has not been recinded. In fact it is under review this morning and no doubt whoever issued the order can expect some kind of reprimand for not recinding it sooner.
I'm amazed that it took until post #5 to reach the obvious, correct explanation.

How infantile of people to think that this makes the US Army "weak" - they are concerned about the safety of their soldiers. Getting blown up and not surviving it doesn't make you weak.

The other thing you should already know, is that while native Londoners want American troops there, the muslims in London hate us and have a long history of preaching violence against Americans.

In which category do native Muslim Londoners fit, or are you implying that Muslims cannot be true 'native Londoners'?

In which category do native Muslim Londoners fit, or are you implying that Muslims cannot be true 'native Londoners'?
which ever catagory of muslims it is that is preaching "go out and kill americans".
but to answer your petty triviality, I think it is the immigrant muslims. But how do I know. It looks to me like the Muslims in Britain are seperate from the rest of British society so you can't really tell whether it was natives or immigrants can you? They were saying earlier on CNN and on FOX that 3 suicide bombers who killed some children in Israel were muslims native to Britain. So we can't rule out native Muslim Londoners then can we?

which ever catagory of muslims it is that is preaching "go out and kill americans".
but to answer your petty triviality, I think it is the immigrant muslims. But how do I know. It looks to me like the Muslims in Britain are seperate from the rest of British society so you can't really tell whether it was natives or immigrants can you? They were saying earlier on CNN and on FOX that 3 suicide bombers who killed some children in Israel were muslims native to Britain. So we can't rule out native Muslim Londoners then can we?
You are complicating things...

Bush laid down the rules..("with me or against me")

there is 2 kinds of Brits...Brits are either with "Bush or against Bush".

any1 in the world is either "with Bush or against Bush"...at least thats what Bush thinks...

but to answer your petty triviality, I think it is the immigrant muslims.

The current reports from the police on the matter seem to indicate pretty strongly that the bombers were all British born. Leeds natives rather than London natives, but anyhow, sufficient to complicate the dichotomy your produced earlier.

...So we can't rule out native Muslim Londoners then can we?

So why make an 'either...or' comment?

The current reports from the police on the matter seem to indicate pretty strongly that the bombers were all British born. Leeds natives rather than London natives, but anyhow, sufficient to complicate the dichotomy your produced earlier.



So why make an 'either...or' comment?
what's the difference between Leeds and London? Isn't Leeds just a suburb of London?

what's the difference between Leeds and London? Isn't Leeds just a suburb of London?

Leeds is in the midlands, London is in the south east. Different cities

what's the difference between Leeds and London? Isn't Leeds just a suburb of London?

You could consider it as such. However, only if you are also prepared to consider Washington DC as just a suburb of New York. The distances involved are much the same (180 miles versus about 200 miles).

Anytime you have a place that has been the location of recent anti american activity or violence, you will have a ban on american troops going there.

anti american activity? they attacked London! technically London (or indeed the rest of England) isnt part of america yet!

I'm amazed that it took until post #5 to reach the obvious, correct explanation.

How infantile of people to think that this makes the US Army "weak" - they are concerned about the safety of their soldiers. Getting blown up and not surviving it doesn't make you weak.
Wrong. Wrong . wrong.
hidding behind your barbed wire makes you weak.
When Londoners are going about their business with a F**K you attitude towards the bombers and US troops are in secure compounds that make you look weak.

US troops look exactly the same as normal everyday Londoners when they're on the streets in civilian clothingand so are at no more risk of being a bomb target than the everday Londoner.

You see a threat which is larger than it really is. Americans were not specificly targeted here. This isn't about you guys for once.

The fact that htese orders were withdrawn shows that at least someone in the US system has realised exactly how unsupporting to the British public and exactly how weak it made you look.

If you're not in this country to stand by us why the F**K are you here?

Wrong. Wrong . wrong.
hidding behind your barbed wire makes you weak.
When Londoners are going about their business with a F**K you attitude towards the bombers and US troops are in secure compounds that make you look weak.

US troops look exactly the same as normal everyday Londoners when they're on the streets in civilian clothingand so are at no more risk of being a bomb target than the everday Londoner.

You see a threat which is larger than it really is. Americans were not specificly targeted here. This isn't about you guys for once.

The fact that htese orders were withdrawn shows that at least someone in the US system has realised exactly how unsupporting to the British public and exactly how weak it made you look.

If you're not in this country to stand by us why the F**K are you here?

I think you mis-understand the situation:

The troops were not stopped by the US embassy, they were given orders not to go into London on the day after tha attack by a local level commander. In the same way as civilians were advised not to travel into London. The differance is that you dont advise military personnel, you give them orders. The situation is simply that the order has not been recinded. In fact it is under review this morning and no doubt whoever issued the order can expect some kind of reprimand for not recinding it sooner.

The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the media and those seeking to make political capital out of the situation. I'm not defending the Americans here, its largley down to them that we are in this situation to begin with, but in this case it is nothing more than an oversite on behalf of an officer who thought he was doing the right thing.

This standard precedure, mainly because like everyone else they would get in the way of the emergency services doing their job. The order should have been rescinded the day after but somehow lasted to yesterday and the pressmade a huge deal about it. Well when you have had the ups and downs of last week this week is always gonna be a slow week in the news.

Leeds is in the midlands, London is in the south east. Different cities

Leeds isn't in the midlands! its in Yorkshire, which is classed as north.

Leeds isn't in the midlands! its in Yorkshire, which is classed as north.

meh You class Yorkshire as the north, I class it as midlands. The point still stands that it isn't "a suburb of london"

meh You class Yorkshire as the north, I class it as midlands. The point still stands that it isn't "a suburb of london"

Yeah, if Yorkshire is north what does that make Orkney. Very North ;)

meh You class Yorkshire as the north, I class it as midlands. The point still stands that it isn't "a suburb of london"

True to the point, but there is still no way it classes as the Midlands.

Link (http://www.picturesofengland.com/mapofengland/regions.html)

Ask anyone in leeds of the area if they are from the North of England or the midlands I guarantee almost all will say northern.

Yeah, if Yorkshire is north what does that make Orkney. Very North ;)

Lol :D Anything north of edinburgh is classed as 'strange alien lands' ;) :p

True to the point, but there is still no way it classes as the Midlands.

Link (http://www.picturesofengland.com/mapofengland/regions.html)

Ask anyone in leeds of the area if they are from the North of England or the midlands I guarantee almost all will say northern.

fair enough. I still think its boarderline though

Lol :D Anything north of edinburgh is classed as 'strange alien lands' ;) :p

Anything in north of Hadrians wall :D

Oh for heaven's sakes. You guys would have been bitching even more if US troops were involved with the cleanup, where they would have been imposing (British troops were already doing their best to hide from cameras and media,) useless, ill-informed, and unequipped to deal with the situation. These are stationed soldiers. They are in Britain so that they can be deployed elsewhere, so that they can recieve advanced individual training, and so that they can work with deep intel and other tactical work. They are not really there to protect the UK and honestly, the UK does not need protection. Your military is hella powerful enough.

Also, I will gouge the eyes out of the next person who claims the US is causing radical Islamist agression. Does anyone here know what the Kalimet is? These fanatical minorities are not opposing US agression, they are launching an all out cultural and religious war on the western world and the eastern bloc, and they have aspirations of a unified Islam state strecthing from Spain to Malaysia. These people are crazy, and they have been at this for decades.

After I finish college I will be joining the US Army as an officer if I can to work for intelligence (if I get the position) so that I can at the very least help make an impact here. These conflicts will go on for another while. The US and UK are an important and effective alliance and the people of both nations should get over petty prejudices, cooperate, and learn from each other.

fair enough. I still think its boarderline though

Yeah, get on a train to Nottingham and within 30 miles, then you are in the midlands

as for the Hadrians wall thing, you ever see the Blackadder special episode?

Blackadder et al standing on Hadrians Walls all dressed as Roman Soliders:

Baldrick: Whats that moving over there?

George: It's a giant orange bush running straight for us!

Blackadder: No, thats the Scots.

:D

Oh for heaven's sakes. You guys would have been bitching even more if US troops were involved with the cleanup, where they would have been imposing (British troops were already doing their best to hide from cameras and media,) useless, ill-informed, and unequipped to deal with the situation. These are stationed soldiers. They are in Britain so that they can be deployed elsewhere, so that they can recieve advanced individual training, and so that they can work with deep intel and other tactical work. They are not really there to protect the UK and honestly, the UK does not need protection. Your military is hella powerful enough.

Also, I will gouge the eyes out of the next person who claims the US is causing radical Islamist agression. Does anyone here know what the Kalimet is? These fanatical minorities are not opposing US agression, they are launching an all out cultural and religious war on the western world and the eastern bloc, and they have aspirations of a unified Islam state strecthing from Spain to Malaysia. These people are crazy, and they have been at this for decades.

After I finish college I will be joining the US Army as an officer if I can to work for intelligence (if I get the position) so that I can at the very least help make an impact here. These conflicts will go on for another while. The US and UK are an important and effective alliance and the people of both nations should get over petty prejudices, cooperate, and learn from each other.


No, you still owe us a tea shipment.

:D

meh You class Yorkshire as the north, I class it as midlands. The point still stands that it isn't "a suburb of london"

Possibly the 'Midlands (of Great Britain)', but not the 'Midlands (of England)' which is how the term is standardly used.

as for the Hadrians wall thing, you ever see the Blackadder special episode?

Blackadder et al standing on Hadrians Walls all dressed as Roman Soliders:

Baldrick: Whats that moving over there?

George: It's a giant orange bush running straight for us!

Blackadder: No, thats the Scots.

:D

Blackadder: Ah Shakespere this is for all the School children *smack*

Blackadder: Ah Shakespere this is for all the School children *smack*

Actually I didn't mind Shakespeare, I got to play Tybalt in a play, which meant i got to wack a complete prick I didn't like with a metal ruler during rehersals :D

Actually I didn't mind Shakespeare, I got to play Tybalt in a play, which meant i got to wack a complete prick I didn't like with a metal ruler during rehersals :D

I got to play benvolio

I think you mis-understand the situation:



This standard precedure, mainly because like everyone else they would get in the way of the emergency services doing their job. The order should have been rescinded the day after but somehow lasted to yesterday and the pressmade a huge deal about it. Well when you have had the ups and downs of last week this week is always gonna be a slow week in the news.
On the contary I understand fully.
It was a local order by a local CO. However these are usually not issued to the press. When I served in the RAF daily orders were usually restricted.

I realise that this was a CO saying to his men "look guys stay out of the way and stay safe" but this is all about PR and any CO in a foreign country will have a PR man to check his public orders unless he's an arogant fool.

I still say it looks bad. Very bad. British forces were not publiclly issued with the same kind of order. Why are the yanks different? They were not the target and no-one suggests they were.