Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

American Forces pull out of London

  1. Jul 12, 2005 #1
    After the London Bombings, American Forces have been told not to venture near the Capitol:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4673987.stm

    Is this the first sign of 'Defeat' against terrorism?..or am I reading it wrong, maybe it's the first sign of Terrorism gaining the upperhand?

    If London is not safe for American Soldiers, where next Iraq?..Afghanastan? Baltimore?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 12, 2005 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Its been 5 friggen days.... Maybe the US military thinks we need to wait longer then 5 freaken days to make sure everythings ok... The brits i know are barely getting back to criticizing the French! :D
     
  4. Jul 12, 2005 #3

    Art

    User Avatar

    Seems Britain and the US might also be in a hurry to leave Iraq and leave it to the Iraqis to sort out the mess;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671747.stm
     
  5. Jul 12, 2005 #4
    Yes!..it does seem that an 'over-protective' commander issued the 'pull-out' orders in a different context. I am certain that American Soldiers would never follow so obvious irresponsible orders, in fact anywhere there is a chance of a 'Melee-attack' (I got that from a friends son, playstation I think?)..then American Forces would surely want a piece-of-the-action, and this is stated in admiration of all forces.
     
  6. Jul 12, 2005 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh there all of a sudden "In a hurry"?
     
  7. Jul 12, 2005 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    they better follow that order! lol. Thats what soldiers do, follow orders :wink:
     
  8. Jul 12, 2005 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That ban was for soldiers not on duty.
     
  9. Jul 12, 2005 #8

    Art

    User Avatar

    The ban has now been lifted;

    http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13385130,00.html
    Also;

    Police are searching 5 houses in Leeds in connection with the attack on London based on intelligence reports and in a separate anti-terror operation armed police have surrounded a house in Burley, Leeds.

    ps Seems the house is where the suspected bus bomber lived with his family.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2005
  10. Jul 12, 2005 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If I may conjecture, this is in response to the OP's last line (which clearly misses this point).
     
  11. Jul 12, 2005 #10
    Is self abuse legal in this state?
     
  12. Jul 12, 2005 #11
    isn't this over-reacting a bit?

    It is not unusual for the US govt. to protect off-duty solidiers by informing them of regions of possible heightened terrorism against US citizens. And it was rescinded, as expected, in any case.

    This is hardly a 'Defeat' as claimed by the OP, but just simply common-sense personnel management.
     
  13. Jul 12, 2005 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It looks like the Air Force imposed a ban though. That's going a little further than "informing"...but it still does not seem like an extremely unreasonable thing to do. Perhaps not too well thought out, but that's about it.
     
  14. Jul 12, 2005 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well actually, the title of the thread and the last two lines. But yes - I was a little lazy...
    That type of thing is very, very common. Ie, when a ship pulls into a foreign port, the captain has a list, prepared by NCIS and applying to the entire Navy, of places that are off limits to sailors. That can be specific bars/clubs or entire sections of towns/towns. Those rules are enforced.
     
  15. Jul 12, 2005 #14
    My 'Tabloid' post heading is regretfull. Also I want to state, that I think the whole saga is, under the already stressful condition of those many who are around the clock, being made to shoulder a heavy burden of security.

    The current link has been updated, and I made the posting, under shock-horror and disbelief, I knew it had to be a major booby, and it turns out exactly that, but it does not relieve me of the original heading, which was purely my rash and irresponsible action, I do appologise if it was taken out of context.
     
  16. Jul 12, 2005 #15
    So in your view American commanders shouldn't exercise control over the travel of servicemen and women during an emergency so as not to encourage the terrorists? Seems like terribly empty gesture and a dangerous one at that.

    Rev Prez
     
  17. Jul 12, 2005 #16
    Still not reading your own sources, huh? This article talks about hopes to draw down American and British troop presence, not to abandon the mission.

    Rev Prez
     
  18. Jul 12, 2005 #17

    Art

    User Avatar

    I wouldn't just say his view, every British broadcasting station, politicians, the British public and even tourists have criticised the American commander for giving the order to his men and their families to stay out of London.
     
  19. Jul 12, 2005 #18

    Art

    User Avatar

    You are being rude again :rolleyes: However I'll explain. This article refers to a memo discussing the desire to reduce troop numbers significantly in the near term and comes a couple of days after a US gov't report showing a 9 fold increase in insurgency attacks in Iraq (not even counting attacks against military targets).
     
  20. Jul 12, 2005 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Color me impressed. :smile:
     
  21. Jul 13, 2005 #20

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    It also speaks of a desire to reduce numbers dependent upon the training of Iraqi forces to keep the peace themselves. It's a little misleading of you to say they're simply pulling out, or even that they're in a hurry, since this is a target for a year from now. Also, the article makes it pretty clear that not all in the military, particular the commanders on the ground, are in favor of this. It also mentions that Spain has completely withdrawn and Italy plans to do the same, so it's odd that you would single out the UK and US when they are only reducing their numbers.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?