America takes control of UK troops

shillelagh · 21-05-2010, 13:17

in Afghanistan ...

Around 8,000 British troops based in Helmand Province in Afghanistan are to come under the operational command of the US, the Ministry of Defence says. The UK force level in Afghanistan is currently 9,500, but with special forces totals some 10,000.

BBC News - UK troops in Afghanistan 'to come under US command'

why? I always thought that the UK troops were more respected in Afghanistan rather than the American troops.

cashman · 21-05-2010, 15:21

Rather obvious to me, Cameron says it makes good sense.

well he would!

accyman · 21-05-2010, 15:46

it would actualy be nice to see the british govenment take control of the british troops because they have been at americas beck and call for way too long and this merely confirms it.

whats going to happen if argentina start messing about again are our soldiers going to go and have to ask their american commanders for permission to go defend our territory instead of fighting americas made up war

Barrie Yates · 21-05-2010, 16:57

It annoys me considerably as troops of the U.S.A. can never serve under a foreign leadership - by U.S. Law

cashman · 21-05-2010, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

It annoys me considerably as troops of the U.S.A. can never serve under a foreign leadership - by U.S. Law

well i would say the usa have got summat right wi that!, it does pose the question to me though, if the USA are now in charge of our troops out yon, will our troops have the same equipment as the USA? as reportedly theres is superior n also they got enough. somehow i doubt this.

cashman · 21-05-2010, 18:47

Thought it odd was no mention of this on BBC 6-00 news tonight.

Wonder if the media would have if Brown was still at No10? i have me doubts.

JCB · 21-05-2010, 19:12

I must have been on a different planet these last few years.
Hasn't America been in control all along?

cashman · 21-05-2010, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCB

I must have been on a different planet these last few years.
Hasn't America been in control all along?

yeh, but not officially.

Eric · 21-05-2010, 19:22

Don't really see what all the fuss is about. After all, there is a difference between "control" and "operational command." And if I read the article correctly, the British will assume operational command in Kandahar ... which means, probably, that Canadian forces will come under the direction of a British commander .... I just don't see that there is a real problem.

cashman · 21-05-2010, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Don't really see what all the fuss is about. After all, there is a difference between "control" and "operational command." And if I read the article correctly, the British will assume operational command in Kandahar ... which means, probably, that Canadian forces will come under the direction of a British commander .... I just don't see that there is a real problem.

how many lost there lives in the Gulf War through friendly fire,is my problem eric, twas more than saddam managed.

accyman · 21-05-2010, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

well i would say the usa have got summat right wi that!, it does pose the question to me though, if the USA are now in charge of our troops out yon, will our troops have the same equipment as the USA? as reportedly theres is superior n also they got enough. somehow i doubt this.

our troops need better protection coz americans keep backing up the enemy from the rear

garinda · 21-05-2010, 21:52

Better under operation control by our American allies, than under the command of our European puppet masters.

cashman · 21-05-2010, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Better under operation control by our American allies, than under the command of our European puppet masters.

Better under our control than any beggar elses, wonder what our army top brass would say, if they were allowed?

garinda · 21-05-2010, 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Better under our control than any beggar elses, wonder what our army top brass would say, if they were allowed?

I agree.

Though if operational control was given to an ally that was a former enemy, I'd rather it be one we last fought over two centuries ago, rather than a few decades.

accyman · 21-05-2010, 22:36

ahh but lets not forget america was going to sit back and let germany beat us until pearl harbour happened.They didnt join the war to save us they joined the war becasuse they wanted revenge for an attack on them infact they seem so unhappy that good old britain held her own so well for so long they re-wrote some of the wars history to show them been resposible for british acheivments in recent hollywood films.

but yeah better the yanks than the germans although the german people do seem ashamed of tehir past where as americans are proud of teh poop storm they have caused by constantly interfereing in other countries matters

oh and america backed the IRA and saw them as freedom fighters and contributed to their cause.

these germans arnt looking to bad an option thinking about it