The Iraq thread 4

[Tovarish 0]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm#america

Quote[/b] ] SECRET PLAN TO QUIT IRAQ

Sat Jul 09 2005 19:16:16 ET

BRITAIN and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, the SUNDAY MAIL in UK is reporting.

A secret paper written by UK Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later.

The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush's pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq's own forces are strong enough to take control of security.

If British troops pull out, other members of the Alliance are likely to follow. The memo says other international forces in Southern Iraq currently under British control will have to be handled carefully if Britain withdraws. It says they will not feel safe and may also leave.

Embarrassingly, the document says the Americans are split over the plan - and it suggests one of the reasons for getting British troops out is to save money. Mr Reid says cutting UK troop numbers to 3,000 by the middle of next year will save GBP 500million a year, though it will be 18 months before the cash comes through.

The document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced.

The British Government's public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was 'vital' the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.

Mr Reid's memo, prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks, shows that in reality, plans to get them out - 'military drawdown,' as he puts it - are well advanced.

It says: 'We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces two of the four provinces under British control in Southern Iraq in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006.

Developing...

....and the "Vietnamization" of the Iraq war begins...

[Homefry 0]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm#america

Quote[/b] ] SECRET PLAN TO QUIT IRAQ

Sat Jul 09 2005 19:16:16 ET

BRITAIN and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, the SUNDAY MAIL in UK is reporting.

A secret paper written by UK Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later.

The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush's pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq's own forces are strong enough to take control of security.

If British troops pull out, other members of the Alliance are likely to follow. The memo says other international forces in Southern Iraq currently under British control will have to be handled carefully if Britain withdraws. It says they will not feel safe and may also leave.

Embarrassingly, the document says the Americans are split over the plan - and it suggests one of the reasons for getting British troops out is to save money. Mr Reid says cutting UK troop numbers to 3,000 by the middle of next year will save GBP 500million a year, though it will be 18 months before the cash comes through.

The document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced.

The British Government's public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was 'vital' the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.

Mr Reid's memo, prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks, shows that in reality, plans to get them out - 'military drawdown,' as he puts it - are well advanced.

It says: 'We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces two of the four provinces under British control in Southern Iraq in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006.

Developing...

....and the "Vietnamization" of the Iraq war begins...

You don't take everything you read at face value do you? Or is that just stuff that goes with your thinking?

[Tovarish 0]

You don't take everything you read at face value do you? Or is that just stuff that goes with your thinking?

No, I don't take everything I read at face value, but I do believe that sooner or later a withdrawl will take place. Unfortunately for the Iraqis it seems pretty clear the coalition of the willingly misled didn't know what they were getting into, and things will not get better anytime soon.

Or do you still think the mission was accomplished and that the majority of Iraqi's want to shower their liberators with flowers?

[Badgerboy 0]

Yes, the Mail on Sunday is not what I would call a good paper. Trashy tabloid would suffice.

[Balschoiw 0]

Mmmkay....

1+1 is ?

UK draws up Iraq 'pull-out plan'

Quote[/b] ]Plans have been drawn up to withdraw thousands of UK and US troops from Iraq by the spring of 2006.

The paper, by Defence Secretary John Reid, suggests the UK's 8,500 troops in Iraq could be cut to 3,000, saving around Å500m a year.

The document, leaked to the Mail on Sunday, also sets out US plans to cut its troops from 176,000 to 66,000.

However, Mr Reid said this was only one possibility and troops would stay in Iraq "as long as they were needed".

He said in a statement that "no decision" had been taken over the future deployment of troops.

Decisions needed

The document, called Options for Future UK Force Posture in Iraq, was marked Secret: UK Eyes Only.

In it, Mr Reid, who confirmed he drew up the plan, said later this year Britain would need to reach decisions on troop levels for next year.

The UK's troops in Iraq are currently deployed in four southern provinces.

In the document, Mr Reid said Britain wanted to hand over to Iraqi control the Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces in October 2005, and the other two provinces, Dhi Qar and Basra, next April.

"This should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel, ie small scale," the document said.

Mr Reid's also wrote of a "strong US military desire" for "significant" troop reduction.

He suggested the US wanted to hand over control to Iraqi forces in 14 out of 18 provinces by early 2006.

But the document also said the Pentagon and US commanders in Iraq were divided over the plans.

'Prudent planning'

Mr Reid's statement insisted no decisions had been made.

"We have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases," he said.

"This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios. This is prudent planning. "

BBC political correspondent James Hardy did not believe this document represented a change in policy over Iraq.

"Tony Blair has repeatedly insisted that British forces will stay in Iraq for as long as they're needed.

"That policy hasn't changed, but it's clear detailed planning is under way for at least a partial withdrawal."

and

UK in talks to hand Iraq role to Australia

Quote[/b] ]BRITAIN is negotiating with Australia to hand over military command of southern Iraq to free up British troops for redeployment to the front line in Afghanistan.

An announcement is expected within weeks that several thousand British soldiers are to be sent to Afghanistan.

The prospect of Australia taking command at the Basra headquarters will be a key item in talks that John Howard, the Australian prime minister, will be holding next weekend with Tony Blair and President George W Bush.

Howard, who is also considering sending a few hundred troops to Afghanistan, insisted last week that Australia would remain in Iraq “until the job is finishedâ€.

Australian SAS soldiers are already taking over from their British counterparts in southern Iraq to allow up to two British special forces squadrons to Afghanistan, senior defence sources said.

If Britain hands over command, American commanders are keen for Australia to take over. However, there is widespread opposition to the Iraq war in Australia.

“A framework has been devised between Britain, America and Australia in which the UK will take the frontline role in Afghanistan,†said one senior defence source.

“The aspiration is that the Australians will take over command of Multi-National Division South-East. But the whole issue of Iraq is very delicate in Australia, as it is here.â€

Kim Beazley, leader of the opposition Australian Labor party, called last week for the Canberra government to withdraw its troops from Iraq before committing more forces to Afghanistan.

Delicate negotiations have been under way for some months to determine exactly how many troops the Australians can offer to replace British soldiers based in Iraq.

Australia could easily take command of the relatively peaceful southeastern region, but it has limited numbers of support troops and up to 2,000 British soldiers will remain in Iraq under Australian command.

In Afghanistan, British troops will form a big part of Nato’s 5,000-strong Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, which will take command of allied operations in the country early next year. There are currently just over 1,000 British troops in Afghanistan and 8,500 in Iraq.

You don´t have to read between the lines to know what is going on there.

[SFWanabe 0]

Iraq won't ever be as bad as Vietnam, cause in Vietnam US only supported South Vietnam, they had the NVA and VC fighting against them, they had the russians and chinese supporting North Vietnam with weapons, and they had to fight in the jungle, which was VC and NVAs "home ground". I'm 99% sure that figting in a thick, hot jungle full of traps, where the enemy knows how to hide and how to fight in the jungle a lot better than you is a lot worse than fighting in desert and urban areas...in vietnam US didn't have much use of their high tech shit cause of the jungle...in Iraq it's much easier to evacuate people, and give CAS, cause there's no jungle in your way

Besides, in Iraq there's mostly several small groups attacking US soldiers, most of them ain't working together, most likely...

It will be alot worse because these insurgents are 10 times more dedicated than the VC and NVA combined.

[Panda-PL- 0]

It will be alot worse because these insurgents are 10 times more dedicated than the VC and NVA combined.

Where did You get that from?

VC performed suicidal attacks and terrorist bombings too... Even durring the assaults VC used randomly-selected soldiers as so called "combat engineers" - suicidal squads that were sent ahead of rest to cut trough barbed wire and provoke the defendrs to detonate claymores.

[SFWanabe 0]

@ July 11 2005,20:55)]

It will be alot worse because these insurgents are 10 times more dedicated than the VC and NVA combined.

Where did You get that from?

VC performed suicidal attacks and terrorist bombings too... Even durring the assaults VC used randomly-selected soldiers as so called "combat engineers" - suicidal squads that were sent ahead of rest to cut trough barbed wire and provoke the defendrs to detonate claymores.

the NVA and VC didnt have an undying hatred for the US like these terrorists do. When we withdrew from Vietnam the NVA and VC claimed victory and never held a grudge. So Iraq is worse than Vietnam.

[red oct 2]

@ July 11 2005,20:55)]

It will be alot worse because these insurgents are 10 times more dedicated than the VC and NVA combined.

Where did You get that from?

VC performed suicidal attacks and terrorist bombings too... Even durring the assaults VC used randomly-selected soldiers as so called "combat engineers" - suicidal squads that were sent ahead of rest to cut trough barbed wire and provoke the defendrs to detonate claymores.

the NVA and VC didnt have an undying hatred for the US like these terrorists do. When we withdrew from Vietnam the NVA and VC claimed victory and never held a grudge. So Iraq is worse than Vietnam.

i think your wrong on that. the VC was never ashamed to tourture and execute POWs and had some very sick methoods to kill GI's and SV troops. one way i heard involved a crying baby locked in a car rigged w/ explosives. any GI or SV soldier that would investigate the car would explode. and Ho Chi Minh was also i believe a former ally of the U.S. in WWII who was really counting on US support at the end of the war for his nations independance. having been betrayed i think would tend to stir up quite a bit of anger. and the only reason they never held a grudge was that they really didn't have a methood of getting to us. what are they going to do? send guerilla's to swim across the Pacific? they also had other problems to deal w/ their neighbors like China and Cambodia

[SFWanabe 0]

@ July 11 2005,20:55)]

It will be alot worse because these insurgents are 10 times more dedicated than the VC and NVA combined.

Where did You get that from?

VC performed suicidal attacks and terrorist bombings too... Even durring the assaults VC used randomly-selected soldiers as so called "combat engineers" - suicidal squads that were sent ahead of rest to cut trough barbed wire and provoke the defendrs to detonate claymores.

the NVA and VC didnt have an undying hatred for the US like these terrorists do. When we withdrew from Vietnam the NVA and VC claimed victory and never held a grudge. So Iraq is worse than Vietnam.

i think your wrong on that. the VC was never ashamed to tourture and execute POWs and had some very sick methoods to kill GI's and SV troops. one way i heard involved a crying baby locked in a car rigged w/ explosives. any GI or SV soldier that would investigate the car would explode. and Ho Chi Minh was also i believe a former ally of the U.S. in WWII who was really counting on US support at the end of the war for his nations independance. having been betrayed i think would tend to stir up quite a bit of anger. and the only reason they never held a grudge was that they really didn't have a methood of getting to us. what are they going to do? send guerilla's to swim across the Pacific? they also had other problems to deal w/ their neighbors like China and Cambodia

Just because they tortured PoWs doesnt mean a damn thing. If you've noticed that they didnt just do it to us but more or less everyone who was stupid enough to wage war against them. So you didnt explain how I was wrong sooooooo. Also they didnt single us out for terror attacks they did it to the SVs,civvies,Japs,chinks,etc.,etc.,etc.

[Panda-PL- 0]

If you don't consider suicidal terrorist attacks a fanatism...

Isn't that what terrorers do now?

You pointed out that Al'quida and the others are more determined then VC. I'm waiting for a proof.

One more thing is do You imagine a Ho-Chi-Min trail across a dessert? Durring nightime IR cameras on Cobras can spot a man on a desert miles away, not to mention truck or a group - and then follow them up unnoticed and see where they are headed. Durring Vietnam era this kind of equipment was 100x weaker and rare, plus there was a jungle.

Sorry to say, but the chances are now better as the terrain is to our advantage.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]You don´t have to read between the lines to know what is going on there.

You skip my posts but hey, last time I checked, Iraq was not invaded to make it a new state or territory of the United States or any of the coalition members. Even the United States is planning, or trying, to cut back on the numbers in 2006 but it is too early to see.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050711/D8B9ECKG0.html

I thought you would be cheering in the streets...

but, you skip my posts so bah bah bah bah.

[SFWanabe 0]

@ July 12 2005,03:16)]If you don't consider suicidal terrorist attacks a fanatism...

Isn't that what terrorers do now?

You pointed out that Al'quida and the others are more determined then VC. I'm waiting for a proof.

One more thing is do You imagine a Ho-Chi-Min trail across a dessert? Durring nightime IR cameras on Cobras can spot a man on a desert miles away, not to mention truck or a group - and then follow them up unnoticed and see where they are headed. Durring Vietnam era this kind of equipment was 100x weaker and rare, plus there was a jungle.

Sorry to say, but the chances are now better as the terrain is to our advantage.

Whatever you say. I stand beside my opinion.....

[philcommando 0]

A misconception here that must be corrected. Uncle Ho of the sandals combat footwear was not interested in oversea terrorism. He only wanted to unite his country after decades of being colonised by foriegn powers and greedy landowners. He made it clear that his enemies were the snobs of South Vietnam. Early in the vietnam war, US prisoners were removed of their weapons and sent back to their bases intact. It was only when the war became brutual, both sides no longer give a damn about human rights.

However, at no time did Uncle Ho thought of killing innocent civilians in America even though US bombers were bombing the shit outta North Vietnam. He kept his sanity and restricted the war to combatants in his homeland.

Unfortunately, one cant say the same for the terrorists. Village idiot Mullahs had been badmouthing the western and infidel world for 60 years, even when no one invaded them but instead gave them trillions of dollars ( OUR tax monies) in aid to allevate and modernise their countries, and yet they brayed for our kind hearted blood incessantly. So much so that any ali or mahmoud deem its ok to massacre infidel innocents. Thank heavens they havent got nukes...or at least no yet. The secular world welcomes him as a tourist in their bleeding heart human freedom of religious rights correctness. Some of his faith in foriegn countries gives him shelter and information. After all, he is a brother-in-faith. assumalaikum. And best of all, 72 virgins await for eternity. All the VC got was a life sentence in Hanoi Hilton for disobedience. No brainer who would be a better killer.

But tell me this. Who is actually the 'iraqis' who is creating trouble in Iraq?

[Crazysheep 1]

An article on links between Iraq and AQ. I have never believed there was a link, but there's some points brought up here I didn't know about:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content....qnr.asp

*Saddam agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi messages at the request of AQ

* In 1998 there was a series of payments to Bin Laden's second in command (Ayman al Zawahri) of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

* Other documents recovered from Iraqi intelligence show that there were meetings between a high-level Al Qaeda operative and Iraqi intelligence officials in Baghdad.

*Evidence a former Iraqi soldier worked with AQ and Iraqi intelligence to blow up an American embassy in Pakistan with a chemical bomb.

What do you all think?

[Balschoiw 0]

Not much:

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

as the author himself says:

Quote[/b] ]It's possible, of course, that the evidence presented by military prosecutors is exaggerated, maybe even wrong. The evidence required to designate a detainee an "enemy combatant" is lower than the "reasonable doubt" standard of U.S. criminal prosecutions. So there is much we don't know.

[Crazysheep 1]

I thought the same.

[billybob2002 0]

Edit:

[ralphwiggum 6]

check military humor thread or SAPI plate thread here.

[billybob2002 0]

check military humor thread or SAPI plate thread here.

WTF

     

[kerosene 0]

This is a really good article by a guy who spent a month or so with an "elite" Iraqi National Guard unit.

Quote[/b] ]After one of the deadliest weekends in Iraq since the fall of Saddam, calls for foreign troops to be pulled out of the country have redoubled. All hopes of future stability rest on the shoulders of the Iraqi army - but as Ghaith Abdul-Ahad discovered when he spent a fortnight with an elite unit, poor equipment, rampant sectarianism and the 'Saddam mentality' mean they have little chance against a ruthless insurgency

With their lights switched off, the long column of military vehicles hisses through the farmlands: 20 Iraqi army pickup trucks and five US armoured Humvees on a dark rough road in the early morning. Darkness shrouds the palm grooves and mud houses on the two sides of the road. Inside one of the pickups, a chubby Iraqi major, his driver and an informant are quietly listening to tapes of Shia chanting.

Continued

Taken from the Guardian Unlimited website.

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/25/guardsman.charged.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]FORT KNOX, Kentucky (AP) -- An Indiana national guardsman pleaded guilty Monday to negligent homicide in the death of an Iraqi police officer, a crime he was accused of attempting to cover up by shooting himself in the stomach.

Cpl. Dustin Berg, 22, who had been charged with murder, testified that he felt he did not properly assess the threat that he faced and acted rashly.

"I shouldn't have automatically considered him a threat," Berg said. "I misread the situation."

Berg, of Ferdinand, Indiana had changed his story multiple times during the investigation, initially saying the Iraqi had pointed an AK-47 at him to prevent Berg from reporting insurgent activity. On Monday, however, Berg said that Iraqi police officers as a matter of habit carried their guns with the barrels pointed slightly upward.

It was the latest in at least a dozen courts-martial of U.S. troops accused in the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

Berg was accused of killing the Iraqi police officer in November 2003, then shooting himself in the stomach to give the impression of a gun fight and block an investigation.

"I thought I was going to die," Berg testified during a May hearing. "I felt I had no choice but to fear for my life."

He later admitted that he shot himself with the Iraqi's weapon in an attempt to limit questions since there were no witnesses. Three other soldiers from his unit were under investigation at the time, and Berg said he was scared he would be too.

The charges against Berg raised questions about whether a soldier's right to defend himself depended on the presence of a witness.

Most military personnel accused of murder argue self-defense because there are few other options available on the battlefield, said Gary Solis, a law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Soldiers can claim they were acting in self-defense or that they were following orders, Solis said.

"To say that it happened in combat can be nothing more than a convenient cop-out -- because there can be murder in combat," Solis said.

At least eight U.S. soldiers have been convicted or have pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the deaths of Iraqis.

hmmm......stress maybe? unusually high number of investigations for his unit. perhaps a little to trigger happy?

anyway, on saturday there was a CNN's assessment of Iraq. So far, unemploment remains at 30-40 percent, electricity is allowed about 9 hours(13 before the war). Good news is that there are 3 miliion cellphone users, and far more internet user than Hussein's time.

[Acecombat 0]

A load of good cell phones and internet are gonna for the people   .

People over here also waste so much money on cellphones especially its stupid really , its become more of a social status symbol and its a constant battle of getting the coolest , a load of good it does for the average joe except waste his money which would have been better spent on something more productive and with more practical implications in his life.

People first need to be taught what all this tech is about and how to properly use it to their advantage instead of barging right in to this to be considered 'modern' and 'hip' or whatever, and end up buying a gadget for which they have no use or misuse as it sometimes is the case and no understanding.

Sorry if this is a bit offtopic but i just had to say this   .

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Over There: Under Fire

short trailer

Created by Steven Bochco and Chris Gerolmo, "Over There" centers on the members of a U.S. Army unit sent to Iraq for their first tour of duty, exploring the effects of war on these soldiers and their families. "Over There" premieres Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 10pm E/P.

Please some watch it and report how it was.

there is very mixed feedback!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/233932_over26.html

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

so noone watched it? Great! Thanks!

I would have appreciated some feedback!