Bush asks for more british troops

[Vanhalen 0]

Why dont we just hand the fucker the keys to Number 10 while we are at it, and become the 51st state.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3751794.stm

 

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said an American request for help in Iraq is a military one and has nothing to do with the US presidential election.

The defence secretary said the request, received on October 10, was designed to free up US forces for anti-terrorist activities in trouble spots.

 

No decision had been made, Mr Hoon said, adding "careful consideration" of the issues would be undertaken.

 

There would be no need to change the rules of engagement, Mr Hoon added.

 

Foreign secretary Jack Straw earlier dismissed Tory claims the changes were designed to help President Bush's electoral campaign as "utter nonsense".

 

'Chain of command'

 

Reports suggest the Americans want a UK force of about 650 to move into an area 25 miles south of Baghdad, called Iskandariya, because a US unit there has been earmarked for "combat operations" in the insurgent stronghold of Falluja.

 

The Scottish-based Black Watch, which is the reserve battalion in the British controlled-southern sector, are thought to be the most likely candidates for the role.

 

About 30 members of the regiment have already been redeployed to Iraq after recently returning to the UK.

 

BRITISH FORCES IN IRAQ 

9,200 troops deployed to the Gulf

1,400 of those are reservists

Most troops in Basra and al Muthanna provinces

1 Mechanised Brigade is currently 'lead formation'

6,315 troops from 10 nations also serve in the area

 

A response to the request will only be given on the basis of recommendations by British military commanders, Mr Hoon is expected to tell MPs.

 

And he is also expected to rule out British troops being sent to Baghdad or Falluja, where US bombers continued their attacks on Sunday.

 

Earlier, the prime minister's official spokesman stressed all decisions on troop deployment in Iraq were made "from the ground up".

 

But Conservative shadow defence secretary Nicholas Soames warned the government needed to be careful about the timing just before the American presidential election.

 

'Political fraud'

 

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy warned against Britain "allowing itself to be sucked further into the mire in Iraq".

 

As the election neared, Mr Kennedy said, the Bush administration would be "looking for some major breakthrough in terms of their Iraq campaign, and that they want to divert forces accordingly" .

 

Troops might expose themselves to greater danger in a new sector and under a different chain of command, he added.

 

But armed forces minister Adam Ingram said any suggestion British troops would be kept in Iraq to help President Bush's electoral chances were "media and political fraud".

 

He told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland that deployment decisions were based on "operational criteria" and that troops were not used as "political playthings".

[Vanhalen 0]

Bit more of an update from the same site

 

Geoff Hoon has said Britain will "have failed in its duty as an ally" if it did not agree to send UK soldiers to fill in behind US troops.

Mr Hoon was responding to a question from Lib Dem MP Jenny Tonge, who asked what penalties the UK would incur if it did not agree to the US request. Mr Hoon agreed that "penalties would have been faced" if the UK had not complied with the American request.

 

Earlier Mr Hoon had said no decision on deployment would be made before the middle of this week.

[Guest INXS]

I think this could be a good idea for the trouble spot areas in Iraq such as Baghdad and Fallujah. The mentality of the British forces is that of peacekeeping which has been achieved in Basra which is of course a stark contrast to the attitude and strategy of the Americans.

 

I don't have faith in American forces being able to bring relative calm to the trouble spots, especially with their gun ho, shoot first, ask questions later attitude, as seen by the vast amount of civilian deaths in Baghdad and Falluja.

 

So, while it seems unfair on British forces having to risk their lives to clean up after the Americans, it is necessary in order to try and create some kind of peace and stability in the area.

 

Of course, i'm fully aware that possibly the only reason that Bush has asked for more British troops to be involved in the trouble spots is because that it would mean less American deaths and casualties and the possbility of American soldiers being able to return home quicker, which isn't a bad thing for Bush in the run up to the election. I'm not sure how much water that arguement may hold however as any British troops going up the country probably wouldn't happen until after the election anyway.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think this could be a good idea for the trouble spot areas in Iraq such as Baghdad and Fallujah. The mentality of the British forces is that of peacekeeping which has been achieved in Basra which is of course a stark contrast to the attitude and strategy of the Americans.

 

I don't have faith in American forces being able to bring relative calm to the trouble spots, especially with their gun ho, shoot first, ask questions later attitude, as seen by the vast amount of civilian deaths in Baghdad and Falluja.

 

So, while it seems unfair on British forces having to risk their lives to clean up after the Americans, it is necessary in order to try and create some kind of peace and stability in the area.

 

Of course, i'm fully aware that possibly the only reason that Bush has asked for more British troops to be involved in the trouble spots is because that it would mean less American deaths and casualties and the possbility of American soldiers being able to return home quicker, which isn't a bad thing for Bush in the run up to the election. I'm not sure how much water that arguement may hold however as any British troops going up the country probably wouldn't happen until after the election anyway.

Wow. I, for a while, assumed you weren't ACTUALLY this stupid and that it was all a put-on.

 

Well, INXS, you just disproved the whole "The British are intelligent" notion.

 

Kudos to you.

 

Your ability to understand America is seconded only to your fidelity and honesty to people in your personal life.

-=Mike

[Vanhalen 0]

I have absolutly no problem whatsoever with our troops assisting in any and all ways with the American troops, what I do have a problem with, is American generals assuming direct control over our troops, they fight for Queen and Country, not for Bush and McDonalds

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But didn't you see the video Mike?

 

We put panties on the heads of prisioners and don't let them wear pink bunny slippers when they pray to Allah.

 

And Allah doesn't like the infidels that don't wear the pink bunny slippers when bowing to him five times per day...

[Guest MikeSC]

I have absolutly no problem whatsoever with our troops assisting in any and all ways with the American troops, what I do have a problem with, is American generals assuming direct control over our troops, they fight for Queen and Country, not for Bush and McDonalds

And I fully agree with your complaint. NO country should subjugate their troops to DIRECT command by another country.

 

If it's a coalition, one country needs to be the "lead", simply to make it a coherent strategy, but the troops themselves should ALWAYS be under their own country's military leadership.

 

Besides, it's not like British leadership has ever been viewed as being less-than-impressive.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

I think this could be a good idea for the trouble spot areas in Iraq such as Baghdad and Fallujah. The mentality of the British forces is that of peacekeeping which has been achieved in Basra which is of course a stark contrast to the attitude and strategy of the Americans.

 

I don't have faith in American forces being able to bring relative calm to the trouble spots, especially with their gun ho, shoot first, ask questions later attitude, as seen by the vast amount of civilian deaths in Baghdad and Falluja.

 

So, while it seems unfair on British forces having to risk their lives to clean up after the Americans, it is necessary in order to try and create some kind of peace and stability in the area.

This has to be the dumbest statement ever. I mean, seriously, this ranks up in ignorance with Murmuring Beast's "My granddaddy was in the Army back in the day, and they knew who to shoot and who not to shoot" comment a long while back.

 

To say that American troops have a "Gung-ho" attitude is great because, well, GUNG HO MEANS "STRIVE FOR PEACE" IN CHINESE, IDIOT.

 

Shoot first and ask questions later? Excuse me, but proof anyone? I don't remember American troops being truly accused of this. And if you can, give me a day and I'll bet I can find a similar instance of a British trooper doing the same.

 

I love this superiority complex INXS has over there. I mean, seriously, he honestly thinks he can lecture us on American Politics ("What is affirmative action?") and criticize our military without any actual knowledge of either of the subjects.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, Brits on this board, is INXS the way a lot of you think about America?

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

1. Let the British do whatever they want. If they want to help out then fine. SO be it.

 

 

2. I guess its ok to use matters of a personal nature used from confessions made in other folders against posters in this board. OK, fine. Its not like SOMEBODY I know went and dished about something personall on here that could easily be used aganst him. Just saying.

[Justice 0]

Edit: Nm. I missed the little remark. My bad.

[Guest GreatOne]

You gotta love INXS bringin' the funny.

 

Even if it's not, you know, INTENTIONAL.......................

[Guest BDC]

I think this could be a good idea for the trouble spot areas in Iraq such as Baghdad and Fallujah. The mentality of the British forces is that of peacekeeping which has been achieved in Basra which is of course a stark contrast to the attitude and strategy of the Americans.

 

I don't have faith in American forces being able to bring relative calm to the trouble spots, especially with their gun ho, shoot first, ask questions later attitude, as seen by the vast amount of civilian deaths in Baghdad and Falluja.

 

So, while it seems unfair on British forces having to risk their lives  to clean up after the Americans, it is necessary in order to try and create some kind of peace and stability in the area.

This has to be the dumbest statement ever. I mean, seriously, this ranks up in ignorance with Murmuring Beast's "My granddaddy was in the Army back in the day, and they knew who to shoot and who not to shoot" comment a long while back.

 

To say that American troops have a "Gung-ho" attitude is great because, well, GUNG HO MEANS "STRIVE FOR PEACE" IN CHINESE, IDIOT.

 

Shoot first and ask questions later? Excuse me, but proof anyone? I don't remember American troops being truly accused of this. And if you can, give me a day and I'll bet I can find a similar instance of a British trooper doing the same.

 

I love this superiority complex INXS has over there. I mean, seriously, he honestly thinks he can lecture us on American Politics ("What is affirmative action?") and criticize our military without any actual knowledge of either of the subjects.

Funny how the American troops are all pissed that they have to CODDLE the insurgents.

[Guest Cerebus]

Bush asks for more british troops, And direct control of them

 

Just an FYI, the Multi-National Force reports directly to CJTF-7, i.e. the top commander in Iraq (who, at the moment, is LTG Sanchez). So we already have direct control of the British troops right now.

[Guest MikeSC]

1. Let the British do whatever they want. If they want to help out then fine. SO be it.

 

 

2. I guess its ok to use matters of a personal nature used from confessions made in other folders against posters in this board. OK, fine. Its not like SOMEBODY I know went and dished about something personall on here that could easily be used aganst him. Just saying.

And I've had that mentioned more than a few times, skippy.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

1. Let the British do whatever they want. If they want to help out then fine. SO be it.

 

 

2. I guess its ok to use matters of a personal nature used from confessions made in other folders against posters in this board. OK, fine. Its not like SOMEBODY I know went and dished about something personall on here that could easily be used aganst him. Just saying.

And I've had that mentioned more than a few times, skippy.

-=Mike

Well, maybe i've just drawn a line. I just didn't think it was cool to use that sort of thing in CE.

[Guest MikeSC]

1. Let the British do whatever they want. If they want to help out then fine. SO be it.

 

 

2. I guess its ok to use matters of a personal nature used from confessions made in other folders against posters in this board. OK, fine. Its not like SOMEBODY I know went and dished about something personall on here that could easily be used aganst him. Just saying.

And I've had that mentioned more than a few times, skippy.

-=Mike

Well, maybe i've just drawn a line. I just didn't think it was cool to use that sort of thing in CE.

It's never stopped people from doing it to me, so my sympathy for others in the same situation is non-existant.

-=Mike