In joint military operations, it is not uncommon for troops from one country to fall under the leadership of another. Fred - I am getting the impression that you do not like Americans.
I get the feeling Fred doesn't know much about any subject! GO BLAIR! Let me guess, Fred, you either support the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats, right?
Fred, John Kerry should be in command of the British troops in Iraq. This way they can shoot the backs of unarmed, butt-naked civilians fleeing for safety, and then turn against their own country and run for presidency. No, seriously.. According to the Geneva UCMJ Code 958697-JR4, “In a joint coalition of three or more allies against enemies of freedom, the most superior force (in this case the US of A) shall assume command of the battlefield.” Look it up. It’s all in black and white.
Quote: Yes, we run the show over there. Yeeehaaaa! I could not vote for the above, due to the way it was worded. It inserts too much national pride into the issue. Having said that... I would not mind having British troops under my command because they are well trained.
On the contrary, I do like Americans. Well, those who don't believe the "Greatest Nation on Earth" bollocks. Everyone's nation is the greatest. It is called National Pride.
Setting national pride aside... the United States is currently the world power; this includes economically, politically and militarily. It is an unequivocal fact. Great Britain, Spain, Rome and other great nations once shared this title. It just so happens that it is in the hands of the United States right now, for how long, your guess is as good as mine.
The "United States" of Europe is pretty powerful my friend. If the title is in the hands of the US as you suggest, your answer is: not long. We all have China to worry about yet. PS The USA is in heavy debt. Lets not forget that.
Since the British created Iraq (and Kuwait, too, don't let's forget) forcing diverse religious and ethnic groups to co exist on whatever terms they could work out, I think the U.S. should get out and leave the whole mess to them!
Quote: Posted by Fred Wilkinson The "United States" of Europe is pretty powerful my friend. If the title is in the hands of the US as you suggest, your answer is: not long. We all have China to worry about yet. The USA is in heavy debt. Lets not forget that. Yes, I agree that the United States is now deep in debt, just as are all the other nations. It wasn't always so. There was a time when the United States was not in debt was was, rather, the lender to the world. I envision a day when all national currencies are abolished on a global scale and are replaced with a global electronic system. For example, in the U.S., the use of debit and credit cards is now used the way currency used to be used. Currency is taking on a lesser role with time. Today, currency is used mostly for small transactions (pocket change). The role of currency will continue to be diminished with time and the role of electronic transactions will continue to increase, particularly in the developed countries. How long will it take to abolish all national currencies and replace them with a global electronic currency??? I do not know, but it is coming. As an example of how the use of hard currencies are becoming diminished with time... Gold has an eternal value, per se, but if you take a United States 20 dollar gold piece, the everyday utility of such a coin has been drastically diminished i.e. it can't be readily used at a grocery store or at any other store. While it retains it's value, it's everyday utility is drastically diminished. I write this simply to demonstrate that there is coming a day when non-gold currencies will completely lose their transactional utility and will have to be replaced with a global electronic system. The U.S. dollar has lost about 90% of it's value in the last 50 years -- and it will continue to erode with inflation. It's interesting to note that gold doesn't lose it's value. Anyways, regardless of national pride, the American dollar, the British pound, the yen and all other national currencies will eventually be abolished and replaced with a global form of currency that is delivered electronically. Sci fi? Not so!!!
An MBA friend of mine, who is no fool, follows the price of gold and silver bullion as an economic indicator. I am not sure that the gold standard was such a good idea; it existed in this country for only a few decades, from about the tail end of the nineteenth century when Congress ceased to authorize the free coinage of silver dollars through the prohibition against owning gold in, what, 1933? Before we adopted the gold standard, we had in essence a silver based currency. Bi-metalic in theory but silver coins were overvalued as compared with gold, so silver drove gold out of circulation. Anyway, there's a lot more of it, silver coins can carry relatively small value and still be physically large enough to use in daily transactions, and there isn't the unlimited ability to print money that inevitably causes fiat money to inflate. Interesting side note (for me, anyway) the ancient Hebrew word kesev means both "silver" and "money".
Quote: Posted by nosborne48 Snip... Silver coins can carry relatively small value and still be physically large enough to use in daily transactions, and there isn't the unlimited ability to print money that inevitably causes fiat money to inflate. Absolutely facinating!!! The bulk cost of silver makes it a more expensive choice to forge, thus making it a less likely choice!!! That's good for the government. I never thought of that before. Snip... Interesting side note (for me, anyway) the ancient Hebrew word kesev means both "silver" and "money". And there's even a biblical precedent for using silver as money. Facinating!!!
Actually, "silver" is the Talmudic money. Gold is allowed to fluctuate around silver but not the other way around. (I said it's Talmudic, not that it makes sense!) And why? Well, my theory is that the ritual of pidyen ha ben, the redemption of the first born son, has something to do with this attitude. The price is five (I think?) pieces of silver. Since the ritual value of a human being does not fluctuate, neither must the value of silver. One last REALLY arcane note: "kesev" probably isn't a Hebrew word per se. I think it's a segelate noun, its two vowels are both segels, meaning that it is MUCH older than Hebrew, Phoenician, maybe? The emphasis is on the penultimate syllable, KE-sev, which usually means that the word is "borrowed". Most Hebrew nouns stress the ultimate syllable. Sooo, if the usage is the same, "silver" and "money" have been the same thing for a VERY long time. Of course, I could be COMPLETELY wrong about ALL of this!
I agree with Airtorn. I have no objection to British troops serving under higher US command, nor to US troops serving under UK command. Both countries have competent military officers and if we are going to be serving together as allies, we have to respect each other and cooperate when needed. I guess that it usually happens on the level of entire units. In the war in Iraq, Americans command the overall operation and British commanders under them have a sector around Basra and the small Iraqi seacoast (important because of its oil terminals) as their responsibility. My understanding is that smaller American units have operated in that British commanded sector when their various specialized capabilities were required. I gather that there's a sector around Nasiriyah with a mixed international force under a Polish sector commander. Americans have operated there too.
