Jump to content

Stuart Galbraith

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Stuart Galbraith

  • Rank
    Just Another Salisbury Tourist
  • Birthday 05/17/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,931 profile views
  1. In absolute fairness there is an account called 'Iraqi perspectives' by the Joint advanced warfighting program which gives an interesting insight in the account of its the commander of the 17th Brigade in the Hamurrabi Division. He too deprecated the Kuwaiti resistance, and said that lead elements of the 35th Brigade ran into Iraqi lead elements and abandoned their tanks. OTOH, they still continued the resistance in a hit and run method for 2 days according to this account. The Division reported the loss of 99 killed and 249 wounded and 15 missing. Its not clear if those are tankers or infantr
  2. It means is that the US now for all practical purposes has zero control over Israeli foreign policy. They have alternative allies now. All they need the US for is spare parts and ammunition. No, the Israeli/ Arab peace feelers was purely down to the feeling that the US could not be counted on to stay the course anymore. Remember when the US had its drone shot down, and nobody acted? When Saudi Arabia was attacked by the drones? When allies shipping in the gulf was seized, with no US actions whatsoever. When the sole US action against Iran, killing solemani, was resulting in an Iranian ba
  3. Page 26. https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1995/SEP_OCT/ArmorSeptemberOctober1995web.pdf There was another account I was reading the other day, that suggested the Kuwaiti's lost about 2 Chieftain's, and the Iraqi's lost something like 34 armoured vehicles.
  4. Oh, i thought it was excellent, and I told him so. Because it accurately described the inability for Germany to introduce high tech weapons more than it actually did. Ok, so they get the Type 21 early, and they get ATGM's into service. And that really is about it. Well in the novel we win singapore, and we gut the bulk of the Japanese navy in a pyrric victory that makes life an awful lot easier for the Americans. And we land in Normandy in 1943. Not too sure about the last one, but I guess if we didnt tie up so many in the far east fighting in Burma... Germany, looked at objectively,
  5. What for, 'I love the President Day' parades? ISIS is reforming. Iran is infiltrating Iraq, and putting greater forces in Syria, which is hardly going to be good news for Israel. NK is building a SSBN and ICBM's that can at long last reach the US Coast. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are slowly retaking power in Afghanistan. Russia is rearming with tactical nuclear weapons, IRBM's and a new generation of Ballistic missiles. Its ground forces are more powerful than they have been since 1992, that is when he isnt trying to murder people with WMD. China is flexing its muscles and testing interna
  6. Bad comparison. Even up to September 1939, Chamberlain always wanted to avoid one. Churchill always wanted to fight one he believed was inevitable. Churchill started strategic bombing, Chamberlain didnt. Ill grant you there wasnt many other avenues open to Chamberlain pre May 1940, but there were enough differences, even in statement of intent, to show there was a massive gulf between the two. I dont think the US could possibly have been further from Europe than it was in the Trump years, so im not buying that. Anti Israel, I cant see that either. They might not be unashamedly
  7. im a what if'er, but I like to think I keep at least one foot on dry land. There was a rather nice book by Tony Williams written some years ago called 'The Foresight War', where two historians, one British, one German, get sent back in time to help their respective countries war effort. And Britain wins, not because we were so amazing or anything, but because Germany didnt really have much capablity to do all the different things it would need to do to win. It cant build jet aircraft in 1940. It cant launch an invasion of the British Isles. It cant build tanks much more effective than i
  8. The point is not to fight China though. The point is to demonstrate to China resolve, that there is such a thing as liberal Democracies with spine, despite the best efforts of our leaders to pretend otherwise. The idea seems to be, 'why not trade with us. We will help you, so why not help our economy rather than enabling those who will just sell to you and give you nothing in return'. Perhaps less Pax Britannia than Pax you scratch my back, ill scratch yours, but im not deprecating it as an idea. That seems to be the basic idea. Whether it will work or not really depends on how inteillige
  9. Justin Trousersnake is playing next. I can speak for his policies, but Biden's MP3 playlist must suck.
  10. Oh NOW they act all butch, now that Trump has gone. If they wouldn't talk sternly with an ally going astray, why does anyone thing they are going to show resolve against an adversary?
  11. It's not the 1990s unless Noel Gallagher is singing. Badly.
  12. I've never had a problem with America doing anything it pleased. Ive only wished two things, that it thinks for longer before blowing the crud out of someone, weighing up carefully the consequences. And in foreign policy, that it was consistent for more than 4 or 8 years at a time. Other than that, smack away, I'm sure they are asking for it.
  13. You will remember I never defended Obama stupid foreign policy. Just because he was a democrat doesn't make smugness acceptable, then or now. So let's examine the changes. Obama wanted to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump wanted to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama didn't want to confront Russia. Trump didn't want to confront Russia. Obama wanted to resolve the NK nuclear issue. Trump wanted to resolve the NK nuclear issue. Obama wanted to contain Irans nuclear ambutions. Trump wanted to contain Irans ambitions. A difference to be sure, but not a massiv
  • Create New...