black watch deployment in baghdad

I have read it...now i put 2 and 2 together.. haha very funny . it was the cambridge thing that puzzled me..its been a long time since i read animal farm

 

I've already buggered my MP... well he is a Tory

 

You have already buggered you MP because he is a Tory..did i read that right ??

I gave a response to that in a way, but did not ask why you think its political...again on something i have read, surely most americans will have not heard about this and care even less about what our troops are doing, being focused mainly on their own troops. Less than is even worth mentioning will base their choice or their opinon changed on what are troops are doing..Don't you think ?.

I don't think our troop movements should be in the public domain and discussed in a way anyway..let the familys know yes, but thats it.

 

Any significant redeployment of British troops in Iraq is a matter of intense national interest and as such should be debated in the Commons. Given the nature of British involvement in southern Iraq since last spring and the fact that the popular uprising againt occupation is most intense in the north, this movement is something which was always bound to grab headlines. The Americans knew this. It will be interesting to see how the issue is covered in the American media once the British bodybags start coming back.

If you did answer this I didn't notice ... what possible logistical reason is there for a redeployment of 0.5% of the number of troops in Iraq from the south of the country to the north (this being a massive logistical feat and a complete change of military policy), when America has 95% of all troops in the country and their own reserves are already based in the north? To me it looks like nothing more than a cynical political manoeuvre on the part of the Bush administration, in direct response to Kerry's criticism of Bush's Iraq policy as outlined in my first post.

 

The insurgent forces will make a significant attempt to disrupt upcomeing elections , any planning now to stop this is prudent . I don't like the way you say 'popular uprising' like a group of peaceful anti war protesters are marching around with placards . That would be better, but this is not realy what is happening is it?.

I agreed with this :



Sticking with Iraq
Kidnappings illustrate the need for troop redeployment

The kidnapping of Margaret Hassan shows the sadism of the supposed “insurgents” (in reality: criminals; displaced Baathists; extremists; religious fanatics and committed terrorists) in Iraq and the need to enhance the security situation there. Even by grim recent standards, seizing a woman who has worked in Iraq and for ordinary Iraqis for three decades, then parading her on television and issuing threats is a mix of macho medievalism and barbarism. It is easy enough, however, to condemn such vile deeds and to offer sympathy to the families of the individuals affected. The key political question is what Britain can and should do to improve matters.

It is clear from the reaction to the proposed redeployment of 650 British troops in Iraq that for a range of people and institutions who really should know better, the answer is “nothing”. Ministers struggled yesterday to convince rebels in their own ranks, an uncommitted Conservative Party and opportunist Liberal Democrats that moving a modest number of soldiers to the south of Baghdad was not a political gesture designed to re-inforce George W. Bush’s re-election drive or a reckless gambit that would condemn the forces concerned to certain attack and likely death in impossible terrain. The Cabinet must deal with this issue sensibly in the face of a debate that has drifted from logic.

NI_MPU('middle');Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, made a respectable attempt yesterday to restore an element of common sense to the controversy. He declared that ministers were instinctively “very sympathetic” to the US Army’s request. He then rightly condemned the claim that this is a political and not a military move as “complete and utter nonsense”. Indeed it is. The idea that this switch in resources will boost the President on the campaign trail is ridiculous — if anything, it will support the case of those in the US who falsely contend that Iraq is a “quagmire”. And furthermore, as Mr Straw observed, it is a “myth” that the UK sector in Iraq is entirely safe while all those under US control are in peril. The present difficulties in Iraq are the work of three distinct groups that have often forged alliances. These are the remnants of those once loyal to Saddam Hussein, a number of foreign “jihadist” terrorists, and bandits motivated by economic opportunism. They draw strength from their ability to operate with relative freedom from parts of a limited number of towns and cities. If firm action is not taken against them in places such as Fallujah in the coming weeks, then not only will it be difficult for the will of the Iraqi people to be expressed in free elections but much of the conduct of their day-to-day lives will be rendered intolerable. It is for this reason that the best US troops must be released for active combat. It is rational for experienced British soldiers to fill the void rather than throw others less familiar with Iraq into the fray. Geoff Hoon’s statement on Monday that Britain would “fail in its duty” to an ally by not redeploying forces was accurate — if unpopular. More important, we would be letting down the people of Iraq.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1318397,00.html



what possible logistical reason is there for a redeployment of 0.5% of the number of troops in Iraq from the south of the country to the north (this being a massive logistical feat and a complete change of military policy), when America has 95% of all troops in the country and their own reserves are already based in the north? To me it looks like nothing more than a cynical political manoeuvre on the part of the Bush administration, in direct response to Kerry's criticism of Bush's Iraq policy as outlined in my first post.




Possibly because the reserves are not upto the job, maybe because of the american troops those that are capable of doing the mission, would be better served doing the job they are doing at present. Shifting well trained troops to a situation that needs experiance is a good thing. Say this mission is a sucsess ? If it is a failure do you consider that Bush is not concerned about the troops he has requested from our goverment ?...We have full veto on how the deployment is managed and if the re-deployment is a futile gesture. It has been deemed Its not some political game IMHO. Merely a plan of action that will hopefuly work. Yes debate it in the commons, but not in the press.


Questioning the redeployment from the viewpoint of trying to get our troops out of iraq as a end goal (i think) . Wrapping it up with the notion that Mr Bush cares little about our troops and is willing to sacrifice them (wich may or may not happen,let hope it does not happen), merely for political gain..is a puzzling way of looking at it .

 

I don't know how well you understand English but a 'popular uprising' is an uprising of the people: this is precisely what we are seeing in Iraq. A population fighting a hostile occupying army following an unprovoked aggressive invasion of their country.

The assumption that there is no political agenda behind this redeployment is I would suggest naive in the extreme. This entire war is political; all of Bush's actions in Iraq are political; furthering his own agenda and bolstering his presidency. Now that he has an election just around the corner do you not think he will do everything he can to make the situation look better for him in the eyes of middle America? There is no way of proving what was going on in the mind of those who made this decision, but it would not surprise me if it is more for show than for purely logistical reasons. The figures speak for themselves. The logistics of moving a battle group halfway across the country for "a matter of weeks", when you look at the numbers concerned, and the relative numbers and locations of British and American troops is so unbelievable as to make it appear quite fantastic. So there are not 850 well trained US troops in reserve among that 138,000, but there are 850 troops who can be spared from Britain's 8,000? Ludicrous.

Things which happen in the Commons are usually reported and discussed in our media, making this rather a vacuous statement.

Then you are very trusting of those in power. Naively so. It has been proven too many times that political self interest comes ahead of official professionalism for me to think this is any different.

 

No, this is what the British and American propagandists tell us is happening in Iraq. In truth the number of "foreign terrorists" and "Baathist loyalists" is much lower. There is practically an irregular guerrilla army of perhaps 50,000 doing the fighting against the coalition. Clearly a majority of these will be average Iraqis fighting against what they see as a hostile occupation. There probably are foreign fighters, opportunists and jihadists and Zarqawi might well be one of them. I have no idea how many foreign fighters are in Iraq, possibly thousands. But clearly even Zarqawi's forces if he is in Iraq will consist in large part of Iraqis joining up with any force which is resisting imperial occupation. The sheer scale of the insurgency, which is managing militarily to stretch the resources of the American and British armies speaks for itself: these are not primarily opportunists or foreigners. These are primarily Iraqi citizens fighting to defend their homeland by means of guerrilla resistance. This is a popular uprising by any definition.

I've read enough to be well aware of the personal financial gain that prominent members of the Bush administration will be getting from all this global warfare. But that's not what I'm talking about in terms of political advancement: basically Bush represents an elite interest group of neo-conservatives who are seeking to further the interests of the corporate elite and military industrial complex, while turning America into the world's ruling empire. This is reflected in their foreign and domestic policy. I think Kerry and the democratic party are pretty much another side of the same coin.

*edit*
I think our system requires our politicians to be cynical and self-serving. But Bush is so personally ignorant and his cohorts so shamelessly cynical and manipulative that their lying and the self-interested nature of their political decisions are very clear for all to see. I'd say it goes further than naivety and probably borders stupidity for anyone to think that Bush and his regime acts from anything other than self-serving ideological interest rather than the interest of the wider population. His own soldiers in Iraq are political pawns to him; if it makes him look good and serves his political interest to bloody some British troops he would not bat an eyelid at that decision.

 

If the British government thought like that then they wouldn't have sent British troops to Iraq in the first place. We agreed from the start to work as a team with America in Iraq and that is what we are doing.

 

I don't think that we should send just 600 troops into a highly volitile war zone, sending a small number like that is suicide. Inorder to be able to protect themselves several thousand more need to be sent as part of the same contingent.

I don't however think we are wrong in principle to send troops there as our government agreed from the start to work as part of a team with other coalition forces in Iraq.

 

I'm inclined to agree with this. While I don't believe we should be there in the first place, if we've agreed to be American's lapdog then it's a bit pointless complaining when they throw a stick and shout "fetch".

 

It seems like they've just had their first fatalities:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3983443.stm

 

Sadly the soft cap approach is unlikely to be carried on much longer.

When I saw the news earlier I found myself wondering how old they were. No doubt just kids.

 

I wonder how many more Iraqis have died too?

 

Yes what a fucked up state of affairs all round....and the Republican shits celebrate.

 

The dead soldiers have been named http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3984575.stm

 

Who is causing the violence and destruction now in Iraq though? Our troops would not still be in Iraq if it was not for the Islamic terrorists who have chosen to pick a fight with us in Iraq and who have also kidnapped and beheaded numerous western workers there, many who have nothing to do with the military but are merely helping to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure like Ken Bigley was.

I lay the blame for the continuing death and destruction at the hands of these Islamic terrorists not our troops who are only there to ensure security while Iraq makes the transition to democracy. If we pulled all our troops out now there would be no hope of democracy in Iraq. We cannot abandon Iraq to Al Qaeda and every other terrorist who has flooded into Iraq.

 

Yes...an avoid reader of the rightwing press. You already told us.

1. Al Qaeda don't really exist in the way you think they do you fool.

2. If a bunch of foreigners invaded my country and blew up my friends and family I would pick up a gun too.

3. No body has the right to impose their political ideals on another culture.

 

What was written by right wing papers about Iraq today was written by left wing papers like The Morning Star about Hilter in the 1930s!

Yes they do, Bin Laden publicly sent an order to them to attacked coalition troops in Iraq. Evidence has also emerged of Bin Ladens hand picking of the terrorists who attacked America on September 11th 2001

And is kidnapping and beheading westerners and suicide bomb attacks what you call legitmate resistance?

Oh so tyranny, torture, execution and persecution are OK then if they are only being committed by a national government against their own people?

 

I'm surprised to see you still wheeling out the old Hitler analogy when it's already been demonstrated how stupid this is. Hitler was a threat. Saddam was a spent force with an economy in tatters and no military worth speaking of.