Army at breaking point in Iraq (British)

[DoYouEverWonder]

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=410322004

Sun 11 Apr 2004


TONY Blair is to send hundreds more British troops to Iraq in a bid to prevent the south of the country descending into bloodletting and anarchy, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

But the proposal to reinforce the UK force in Iraq with an extra 700 soldiers was condemned by government critics last night as taking British forces up to - and even beyond - breaking point.

Despite the warnings, military planners are desperately attempting to scrape together another 700 troops to back up the existing British force of 11,000 in and around Basra. The back-up force will travel to the country when power is handed back to the Iraqi people in three months? time.

<snip>

American and British commanders have agreed the entire UK force will stay in the south, rather than travel north to combat insurgents, because the continued security of the Basra area is essential to the overall prospects of maintaining peace in Iraq.

Despite the reinforcements, Blair is this week expected to tell President Bush in Washington that - with a quarter of UK forces already serving in various trouble spots around the world - he cannot commit any more troops to the struggle for order in Iraq.




This is very bad news for the US. Because of Bu$h's Blunder, al Qaeda is on the verge of winning a major victory and it will be the end of the American Empire.

[grytpype]

1. Only 700 more British troops can be sent to Iraq

from the article

Despite the reinforcements <700 men>, Blair is this week expected to tell President Bush in Washington that - with a quarter of UK forces already serving in various trouble spots around the world - he cannot commit any more troops to the struggle for order in Iraq.

[schultzee]

2. And it would be Bush who did this to our country.

[patricia92243]

3. AlQuada on verge of big victory - what does that mean?

[MetaTrope]

4. Bush is stuck to Bin Laden's tar baby

Oil, innit.

[0007]

8. `Ya mean like lip to lip?


Please remove your hand

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Because the coalition is failing apart

The Brits are publicly admitting that their forces are stretched to their limit (not a good message to have to broadcast to your enemies).

At least 25% of US forces are already in Iraq. Another 25%, at least, have just finished one year+ tours of duty there and in Afghanistan. Moral of US Troops is in the pits and Iraq is just starting to fall apart.

In the meantime, we are playing right into bin Laden's hands and he hasn't even had to stick his head out of his cave, in order to accomplish his goals, Georgie Boy is handing him everything he wants on a silver platter.

[Laughing Mirror]

5. They're trying to shift the blame to Germany and France

And the UN.

Cowards, thieves and war criminals are our Bush and Blair.

[short bus president]

6. "the entire UK force will stay in the south"

"rather than travel north to combat insurgents, because the continued security of the Basra area is essential to the overall prospects of maintaining peace in Iraq."

(emphasis mine) I think they meant to say "ports."

[Prodemsouth]

7. I keep seeing British people who post here and at other sites

(one frequent guest at smirking chimp is especially annoying) about how the UK is..sniff..still a democracy, if so explain to please why Blair is still around and why he appears so confident. this dumb ass southerner has never understood why.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Because unlike Bu$h who is a conservative

Blair is still part of the liberal aka Labor Party and the Brits would rather have him than let the Tories take control again.

[Prodemsouth]

11. But I thought they could replace him with another member of the party.

Didn't this happen with Thatcher and the guy before Blair, Major? (sp.) They were Tories. Is their something in Labor Party rules were they can't do that? Also our British friend at the other web site complains about Blair much like people here complain about the DLC.
Why worry if the Tories get it if he is that bad? On edit: If the Labor Party refuses to do something about Blair, then it is more likely that the Tories will win and win big in the future with a long period of domination.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. So far Labor hasn't found or groomed anyone

who could win an election against the more well known Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Under the circumstances Blair is definitely the lesser of two evils.

[BillZBubb]

13. Labor should find and groom someone fast

BLiar is an evil slimeball and a poodle. He's done more to harm the US than practically any Repug here. Because of him, Bush* was able to pass off Iraq as an allied effort. Had BLiar any brains, he would have told Bush*, no UN, no UK. We then wouldn't be in this mess.

[The Zanti Regent]

15. Why not Gordon Brown?

Isn't he the #2 guy already. I know he wanted to help Kerry, and B-LIAR stopped him...

[legin]

21. Tony Benn quote

"The New Labour Party is one of the smallest in the world, the problem is they are all cabinet ministers".

[wuushew]

14. What about Robin Cook?

surely he has enough name recognition.

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

16. Why is it?

That the whole frigging world is led by the lesser of two evils?

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Actually the US is led

by the worst of all evil. The Brits must be living better?

[daleo]

20. Although when the lesser of two evils wants to wage aggressive war

There is a bit of a problem. I just hope Kerry doesn't turn out to be Blair-like on this issue, when he gets in power.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

23. Iain Duncan Smith isn't the Tory leader anymore

He was replaced by Michael Howard in November last year

[legin]

19. No complaints from me with that post, Prodemsouth

Blair needs to be chucked. Robin Cook seems on his stance over the war issue to be a logical replacement (possibly until I find out more about him).

The Conservative Party have just restructured themselves to be more suitable for bush*, fuck the british electorate. The Conservatives sort of remind of a party that the Soviets used to have in place in their Warsaw Pact countries.

The new Conservative leader had set up a pro-u.s. think tank before even Sept. 11.

Conservative Foreign Secretary sucks (dumped on that Lib-Dem MP who made those vaguely pro-Palestinian sqeaks).

[bahrbearian]

18. Iraqi victory lap

[cliss]

22. I read recently on LBN that Britain is about to run out of

funding for the war in Iraq. No matter how much Blair would like to continue playing with BeelzeBush, he can't. So why then is he bringing in 700 more troops? It might exhaust the funds sooner.

I have no reason to believe that this article would not be true. So -- no matter what happens, by June 30, they're out.

[Aidoneus]

24. let it break

that is how occupations are ended, after all..

[T Bone]

25. I have always thought the major reason for Britain to be so involved may

only have been to gather intelligence for future use. I am sure that would at least be a significant by-product of their presence. And, a reason for the US to keep them in the Southern regions only -- to limit their ability to gather intelligence on us, actually.

Get my drift?

[Gloria]

26. Australia, Canada, not sending any more troops....Turkey, which

at one time had agreed but then the deal fell through, says that what was planned doesn't apply anymore. Canada is stretched to the limit by being in Afghanistan...

Britain was to send replacements only, just last week or so. But now, it seems they are looking for MORE bodies....

So, where is this "coalition" now?

(stories in the World Media Watch, URL below)