Basra handover feasible in 2007

#3
And it would retain one or two bases around Basra to "protect our investment".
I had no idea the East India Company had been reconstituted.

Is "protect our investment" the latest buzz phrase for 'Permanent Garrison East of Suez' then?
 
#4
PartTimePongo said:
And it would retain one or two bases around Basra to "protect our investment".
I had no idea the East India Company had been reconstituted.

Is "protect our investment" the latest buzz phrase for 'Permanent Garrison East of Suez' then?
Do the East India Company run the SBAs?
 
#6
Is this the govt trying to reduce the damaged caused by the media now latching onto severe overstretch and bad PR caused by the recent stream of causalties making the news daily?
 
#7
Wonder what's happening in 2007?

Strange that the BBC hasn't confirmed the quotes with the MOD or Swiss Tony.

Assuming the handover was carried out with ticks in all of the boxes; security, support of Iraqi government, etc. Then, what are the British interests that are being referred to?

Would someone please ask Margaret to comment, once she's emptied the portaloo in her caravan. Or should we just cut out the middleman and ring Condi now?
 
#9
Well they were the last company I can remember that used a Military force to protect their 'investments.'

..and yes, I was being vague. Wouldn't want to appear to be pointing fingers in a Knowing But Rude manner :D
 
#10
Reduction of Troops in Iraq = Increase of Troops in Afghanistan.

The majority of deaths of soldiers that have been reported recently have been in Afghanistan. This is just government spin at the end of the day. As troops start to withdraw, the attacks in Southern Iraq will increase and whilst we are committing troops to Afghanistan, we will have to over-stretch our troops to counter these attacks.

As Bush starts to put pressure on the Iranians, they will increase their suport for the insurgents in the South and more British Soldiers will die. We will end up being shuttled between whichever conflict gets the most negative media coverage.

I will probably be accused of being overly cynical, but this Government's track record has been one of knee jerk reactions to media pressure. Why should military deployments be any different?
 
#11
ishinryu said:
Reduction of Troops in Iraq = Increase of Troops in Afghanistan.

The majority of deaths of soldiers that have been reported recently have been in Afghanistan. This is just government spin at the end of the day. As troops start to withdraw, the attacks in Southern Iraq will increase and whilst we are committing troops to Afghanistan, we will have to over-stretch our troops to counter these attacks.

As Bush starts to put pressure on the Iranians, they will increase their suport for the insurgents in the South and more British Soldiers will die. We will end up being shuttled between whichever conflict gets the most negative media coverage.

I will probably be accused of being overly cynical, but this Government's track record has been one of knee jerk reactions to media pressure. Why should military deployments be any different?
Because they are planned of course!!!
 
#12
combatintman said:
Because they are planned of course!!!
You sure about that??? 8O
 
#13
ABrighter2006 said:
Wonder what's happening in 2007?

Strange that the BBC hasn't confirmed the quotes with the MOD or Swiss Tony.

Assuming the handover was carried out with ticks in all of the boxes; security, support of Iraqi government, etc. Then, what are the British interests that are being referred to?
The stability of the country and it's oil supply? :wink:
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top