Should UK pull out of not only Basra but leave Iraqi too?

#1
On channel 4 news last night an un-named officer leaked that when Basra kicked off a couple of weeks ago the Iraqi prime minister ignored asking UK forces for help and went directly to the yanks. alledgedly:

1. 900 yank forces deployed to Basra airbase to help Iraqi army

2. 2 yank generals tipped up to take charge

3. when Iraqi PM had a meeting with one of the yank generals - he told a Brit Brig to leave the meeting as he did nt want to speak to him

4. Brit forces were not capable of helping out the Iraqi forces.

Before anyone has a go at me this is what the program said.

The Deputy Chief of the General Staff was interviewed and its sad to say came of really badly againt the presenter, Peter Snow - I was very disappointed especially when he let Peter Snow of far too lightly when he said UK forces were just sitting there in Basra doing nothing. To be honest this general came of as a petulant child and certainly not as No2 in the UK armed forces.

If this is true about the Iraqi PM snubbing the Brit Brig then I say **** the Iraqi's ! and pull out to let them fight their own battles as far as I'm concerned not one rag head is worth risking our peoples life over - the ungrateful fucks have short memories and dont remember what let them be in power.
 
#2
Con Coughlin, writing in today's Daily Telegraph, says that in light of the Iraqi Prime Minister's actions regarding his ill-thought out foray into Basra last week, that the UK should withdraw from not only Basra, but from Iraqi in total. He blew-off Brg. Free's attemtp to assess the situation, and called in the US 82nd Abn to save his butt. A gross betrayal of an ally in my book.

Thoughts?
 
#3
jeffwas said:
Con Coughlin, writing in today's Daily Telegraph, says that in light of the Iraqi Prime Minister's actions regarding his ill-thought out foray into Basra last week, that the UK should withdraw from not only Basra, but from Iraqi in total. He blew-off Brg. Free's attemtp to assess the situation, and called in the US 82nd Abn to save his butt. A gross betrayal of an ally in my book.

Thoughts?
Where is this place Iraqi?

I take it you pronounce it eyerackey?
 
#4
Personally, I think its a waste having our boys stuck in an airfield while the enemy can take pot-shots at them with rockets, mortars etc. Yes it's a risk them being out on the streets but since the troops left, violence soared so it showed that, at least they were effective in curbing the violence with their presence.
 
#5
Laaa la laaaaaa la la la la lalaaaaaaaaa

I predict a journo, I predict a Journo.


(Even with the poor speeeling).

Watch the blogs for "Even British Soldiers want to betray the GWOT"
 
#7
No journo here; see my other posts. I thought this would be topical given the many posts on the list about the whole debacle. I just forgot to spell check in my haste to post - I will start writing my lines immediately to atone for my lack in attention to detail.
 
#9
jeffwas said:
Con Coughlin, writing in today's Daily Telegraph, says that in light of the Iraqi Prime Minister's actions regarding his ill-thought out foray into Basra last week, that the UK should withdraw from not only Basra, but from Iraqi in total. He blew-off Brg. Free's attemtp to assess the situation, and called in the US 82nd Abn to save his butt. A gross betrayal of an ally in my book.

Thoughts?
In short, we cannot afford the troops to do anything useful in Iraq.

If we can do nothing useful - we should not be there.

We remain there, in order that the liar at No 10 Downing Street can continue to pretend to himself and to The Shrub that we are doing something useful.

The US military is not fooled: they will know that 150 Brits on the street is a token effort: I wonder how many Americans are still in Basra.

The one-eyed Jock is also trying to fool the Brit electorate into believing that we are withdrawing - but he cannot have it both ways.

Broon should shit or get off the pot, but whenever he is faced with that kind of choice, he shows is incapable of facing up to it.
 
#10
If, as you say, its true, then lets get everyone out of Iraq and leave the Yanks to clear it up.
 
#11
Stonker said:
Broon should shit or get off the pot, but whenever he is faced with that kind of choice, he shows is incapable of facing up to it.
Yes - he's afflicted by the previously undocumented medical phenomenon of 'Terminal Constipation'.
 
#12
The problem as I see it is that if we do completely pull out of Iraq & it really hit's the fan,then the lilly liberals & joe public will blame the British ARMY first & not where the blame should lie,with that pack of lying 2 faced bar stewards we have as a government who started it off in the first place.
 
#13
I get the impression that Brown has not got the heart or interest to get involved in Iraq. His policy of doing nothing and behaving like an ostrich, in the hope of keeping British casualites down, for purely selfish political reasons is shameful.

The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq, whether we like it or not and we should be performing our role to maintain order and assist a fledgling Iraqi government. To quit and run would be a disgrace for this country and our armed forces, who are a professional and dedicated body, when properly led.

The spectre of body-bags and an election in the UK in a couple of years, are far more likely to occupy Brown and his government, rather than to do what is morally and economically right.
 
#14
spike7451 said:
The problem as I see it is that if we do completely pull out of Iraq & it really hit's the fan,then the lilly liberals & joe public will blame the British ARMY first & not where the blame should lie,with that pack of lying 2 faced bar stewards we have as a government who started it off in the first place.
I strongly doubt it. Even the Grauniad has become pro-Tommy, without becoming pro-war, or even pro-LieBar.

Highflight said:
I get the impression that Brown has not got the heart or interest to get involved in Iraq. His policy of doing nothing and behaving like an ostrich, in the hope of keeping British casualites down, for purely selfish political reasons is shameful.

The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq, whether we like it or not and we should be performing our role to maintain order and assist a fledgling Iraqi government. To quit and run would be a disgrace for this country and our armed forces, who are a professional and dedicated body, when properly led.

The spectre of body-bags and an election in the UK in a couple of years, are far more likely to occupy Brown and his government, rather than to do what is morally and economically right.
Broon - in his previous and guise as much as his current incarnation - has run down the military to the point where - as we have seen in Basra - it no longer has the manpower to effectively sustain 2 interventions simultaneously; "performing our role to maintain order and assist a fledgling Iraqi government" as you put it, is not a realistic proposition without larger numbers of troops, and other resources we simply do not possess.

Even under a willing leadership, that deficit could not be remedied rapidly, and Broon is anything but willing. Result: our gunmint is playing gesture politics with soldier's lives. If we pulled all our troops out of Iraq tomorrow the Brit public would cheer, and they would know exactly where to point the finger: at the lying jocks in Westminster.

Broon's real concern is that The Shrub would disown the UK - and then he'd have to find the money for stuff like strategic lift, and figure out how to function without access to US intelligence support and other such stuff.

Fecking shame his lot didn't figure out the likely outcomes - and their financial/strategic implications - before they agreed to go play in the sandbox in the first place.
 
#15
Unsworth said:
Stonker said:
Broon should shit or get off the pot, but whenever he is faced with that kind of choice, he shows is incapable of facing up to it.
Yes - he's afflicted by the previously undocumented medical phenomenon of 'Terminal Constipation'.
Is that not what did for Elvis :?
 
#16
Stonker said:
spike7451 said:
The problem as I see it is that if we do completely pull out of Iraq & it really hit's the fan,then the lilly liberals & joe public will blame the British ARMY first & not where the blame should lie,with that pack of lying 2 faced bar stewards we have as a government who started it off in the first place.
I strongly doubt it. Even the Grauniad has become pro-Tommy, without becoming pro-war, or even pro-LieBar.

Highflight said:
I get the impression that Brown has not got the heart or interest to get involved in Iraq. His policy of doing nothing and behaving like an ostrich, in the hope of keeping British casualites down, for purely selfish political reasons is shameful.

The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq, whether we like it or not and we should be performing our role to maintain order and assist a fledgling Iraqi government. To quit and run would be a disgrace for this country and our armed forces, who are a professional and dedicated body, when properly led.

The spectre of body-bags and an election in the UK in a couple of years, are far more likely to occupy Brown and his government, rather than to do what is morally and economically right.
Broon - in his previous and guise as much as his current incarnation - has run down the military to the point where - as we have seen in Basra - it no longer has the manpower to effectively sustain 2 interventions simultaneously; "performing our role to maintain order and assist a fledgling Iraqi government" as you put it, is not a realistic proposition without larger numbers of troops, and other resources we simply do not possess.

Even under a willing leadership, that deficit could not be remedied rapidly, and Broon is anything but willing. Result: our gunmint is playing gesture politics with soldier's lives. If we pulled all our troops out of Iraq tomorrow the Brit public would cheer, and they would know exactly where to point the finger: at the lying jocks in Westminster.

Broon's real concern is that The Shrub would disown the UK - and then he'd have to find the money for stuff like strategic lift, and figure out how to function without access to US intelligence support and other such stuff.

Fecking shame his lot didn't figure out the likely outcomes - and their financial/strategic implications - before they agreed to go play in the sandbox in the first place.
Can only agree with this.

But if we are sitting coralled in the airport then what are we doing that is effective apart from presence?
It seems we have failed in the task, due to govt. restrictions not to the lads on the ground. So we either beef up everything and do the job properly or bog-off. Broon hasn't the balls for either call, so we sit around doing what until when?
 
#17
Well what are we doing there? Is Basra Airport a potential airhead if IRCG swarms across the border? Are we guarding DC's LOS up to Emerald City?

Well no. The truth is the US army could easily replace the often irritatingly critical British presence. The privatized military is now much more significant.

If the British Army is there for any practical reason it's to maintain the fantasy that Uncle Sam is not alone in his Quixotic entanglement with Iraq. Playing Sancho for the benefit of a war weary American electorate while our eccentric master tilts at windmills.

How useful that is is increasingly debatable. At some point the demands of the Pashtun war will bring the British mission to a close.
 
#18
alib said:
Well what are we doing there? Is Basra Airport a potential airhead if IRCG swarms across the border? Are we guarding DC's LOS up to Emerald City?

Well no. The truth is the US army could easily replace the often irritatingly critical British presence. The privatized military is now much more significant.

If the British Army is there for any practical reason it's to maintain the fantasy that Uncle Sam is not alone in his Quixotic entanglement with Iraq. Playing Sancho for the benefit of a war weary American electorate while our eccentric master tilts at windmills.

How useful that is is increasingly debatable. At some point the demands of the Pashtun war will bring the British mission to a close.
Amen to that.
 
#19
The Basra thing was a good sign imo. Things calmed down enough, and Iraqi army built up enough, for Maliki to take a punt on knocking Sadr back a bit before the elections. Internal politics more than anything to do with insurgency.

Now the Sunnis will join in I think the US should try and bring the October elections forward. I think Maliki is more pro-Iran than Sadr and the government will function better when it is more representative and Maliki's faction is diluted a bit.

If the US end-state is a semi-stable Iraq so they can leave then I think this is attainable and we should stay until things are calm enough for a US force to take over the airport.

If the US end-state is a tame semi-colony then they'll be there forever and we should split as soon as possible.

Hard to say what their political end-state is.
 
#20
There is only one person to blame in this brown, hes in charge, he takes aledged advice from browne.

Its rather clear he does not understand what he is doing, every decision he makes is based on money. he does not care about the military as its not a vote winner and it does not solve econonmic issues.

he has firmly tied the hands of the military with under funding which has not only tied them to a base where self defence is the only financial option

he lives in a lonely world of tree huggers. He created this mess with is Liabour chums, he has to sort it out and stop killing the men and women who serve over there in a slow painful death.

the guy is a complete and utter .******. is not fit for office or fit to serve this country, he should be out of office and the sooner the better. Liabour have weakend this country, and the people have lost all self respect for its neighbour as well as for its self.

get out brown get out now
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top