The British Are Leaving. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2007, 02:16 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but i thought you people invented irony?
Didn't you hear? Irony is dead... It followed Sarcasm a couple years ago...
__________________

__________________
elevated_u2_fan is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 04:05 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
Well the Iraqi people seem to be happy about this.

For some reason, I doubt that any British colony or British-occupied country has been sad about British troops leaving.
__________________

__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 02-21-2007, 07:43 PM   #33
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


This is not news.

Sure it is, you just don't want it to be...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-22-2007, 07:14 AM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
So wait. Prince Harry is about to go to Iraq and the British pull out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:12 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Thanks for sharing that, Lara. Interesting.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:22 AM   #36
War Child
 
Butterscotch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 716
Local Time: 05:23 PM
Whew, now Prince Harry won't have to go. A few days ago they were saying he was on his way soon. It's good the Brits are leaving. This will only make the Americans look worse and our government will have to pull out too. (I HOPE)
__________________
Butterscotch is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:26 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 12:23 PM
Read the article at the posted link above my last post. He is going.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 10:27 AM   #38
War Child
 
Butterscotch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 716
Local Time: 05:23 PM
Oh, is he going to be one of the few who stay when the rest are gone? Is this some kind of political statement for the Blair government? What if he gets killed over there?
__________________
Butterscotch is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 11:41 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:23 PM
It was mentioned in the first article that only a part of the troop is leaving this year, and some 5,100 soldiers will stay there.
Prince Henry and his battalion will go there in about half a year or so to do the tasks they got to do.

I think the decrease of troops over there is partly a political decision, as there will be new elections in England this or next year, and so it could have some positive side effects when the troops come home.
It's definately taken into consideration by him or his advisors that it could save some votes for the Labour party.

As I've read some weeks ago, when Harry mentioned his desire to go to Iraq or Afghanistan with his Battalion it was, many people were afraid of the danger that he could get killed, and especially be a special target for the insurgents/Taliban and that time it was questioned whether he will be allowed to go. One could argue it increases the risk for the whole Army there, not only put him into risk.

Looks like they made up their mind and decided Harry should be allowed to participate.

I'm sure, if he got killed over there, the terrorists will use it as some propaganda.
But I'm not sure how the reaction will be in British society or in the West in general.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 01:02 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Sure it is, you just don't want it to be...
Ok, lets look at the facts. There were 46,000 British troops in Iraq in March 2003. By July 2003 that number was down to 22,000. Over the next 3 years, 15,000 more British troops would gradually be withdrawn.

Were there any major news articles, to this degree, about the withdrawal of 24,000 British troops in 2003, and 5,000 more in each subsequent year?

Now that there is to be a withdrawal of 1,500 troops in southern Iraq over the next few weeks, its "news"? Why would that be "news" to this degree, when the withdrawal of nearly 40,000 British troops over the past 3 and a half years has not been?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 01:12 PM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:23 PM
[q]Number of coalition troops remaining in Iraq after Britain and Denmark complete pullouts announced yesterday.
Country Troops
United States 140,000
Britain 5,500
South Korea* 2,300
Georgia 900
Poland 900
Romania 600
Australia 550
El Salvador 380
Mongolia 160
Bulgaria 155
Azerbaijan 150
Latvia 125
Albania 120
Czech Republic 99
Lithuania 53
Armenia 46
Macedonia 40
Bosnia 36
Estonia 35
Kazakhstan 27
Netherlands 15
Slovenia 4
SOURCE: Associated Press
*South Korea plans to halve its deployment by April.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 01:14 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
so ... other countries (and apparently Denmark is now about to do the same) are removing their small remaining forces in accordance to a timetable.

yet another blow to Bush. Iraq is over.

why would we send more troops precisely when our few allies are removing theirs?
The British have been removing their troops since the summer of 2003 as conditions on the ground warrent it. Over 40,000 British troops have left, but some how the removal of another 1,500 is major "news". The security situation around Baghdad is very different from the security situation in the south.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 01:16 PM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:23 PM
and, goodness, most politicians seem to think that, yes, this is indeed very big news:

[q]Ally's Timing Is Awkward for Bush
By Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 22, 2007; A12

As the British announced the beginning of their departure from Iraq yesterday, President Bush's top foreign policy aide proclaimed it "basically a good-news story." Yet for an already besieged White House, the decision was doing a good job masquerading as a bad-news story.

What national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley meant was that the British believe they have made enough progress in southern Iraq to turn over more of their sector to Iraqi forces. To many back in Washington, though, what resonated was that Bush's main partner in Iraq is starting to get out just as the president is sending in more U.S. troops.

No matter the military merits, the British move, followed by a similar announcement by Denmark, roiled the political debate in Washington at perhaps the worst moment for the White House. Democrats seized on the news as evidence that Bush's international coalition is collapsing and that the United States is increasingly alone in a losing cause. Even some Republicans, and, in private, White House aides, agreed that the announcement sent an ill-timed message to the American public.

"What I'm worried about is that the American public will be quite perplexed by the president adding forces while our principal ally is subtracting forces," said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a longtime war supporter who opposes Bush's troop increase. "That is the burden we are being left with here."

The notion that the British pullback actually signals success sounds like bad spin, added Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). "I think it's Alice in Wonderland looking through the looking glass," he said.

[...]

The news of Britain's partial withdrawal, though, swamped the funding debate for at least a day. "The timing of the British announcement is very unfortunate," said Nile Gardiner, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The British decision is going to be used as a political football by opponents of the president's Iraq plan."

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said the move will undercut Republicans in Congress trying to stave off attempts to limit what Bush can do in Iraq.

"It's probably not going to bode well for those of us who want to make a case against what Murtha and Pelosi plan for the supplemental," LaHood said. "It does not help."

Blair's announcement could also boost calls by Democrats and some Republicans for a serious change in Iraq policy -- not just in the number of troops fighting but also in what those troops should do. The British plan to withdraw 2,100 of 7,100 troops by summer's end and to redeploy the remainder away from combat toward more training of Iraqi troops and patrolling the Iranian border. That mirrors bipartisan Senate proposals for U.S. forces that are spelled out in two stalled nonbinding resolutions, including one co-sponsored by Warner.

"What the British are doing, and what we really need to do, is to tease out the cultural complexities of this thing," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.). "On the one hand, they are signaling to all the Iraqi people, whatever sect they are -- Sunnis, Shias, Kurds -- they are not going to be an occupying force. That's a powerful signal to send. And the other signal is that they are passing the torch to the Iraqis, who are the only ones who can handle this ancient -- I'd say primitive -- sectarian dispute."

The White House argued that comparing the British situation in Basra and the U.S. position in Baghdad fundamentally distorts reality. The south, where the British have been in charge, has no Sunni insurgency and far less violence than Baghdad or Anbar. The coalition plan all along has been to pull out foreign troops when an area is ready for Iraqi control, the White House said.

"The fact that they have made some progress on the ground is going to enable them to move some of the forces out, and that's ultimately the kind of thing that we want to be able to see throughout Iraq," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. He said no consideration was given to asking the British to instead redeploy those departing troops to help their U.S. counterparts in Baghdad or Anbar.

Hadley, speaking to reporters in Brussels, where he was traveling, said he did not mean to suggest the British departure signals "an unalloyed picture of progress," but he rejected a more negative interpretation. "I didn't want people to think it reflected a lack of confidence by the British in the mission or a turning away from the mission," he said. "It is not."

Still, other administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity so they could talk candidly about political strategy, expressed frustration that the British decision will look bad to everyday Americans, and acknowledged that it will provide ammunition to domestic opponents.

"It's a brick in the hands of folks who want to take cheap shots," one official said. "But I think it's unfair."
[/q]



and, further, all the military bases but two are going to be handed over and another 1,500 will be gone by the end of the year.

this is, indeed, a withdrawal, and ironically at odds with the "surge" of 21,000 additional American troops.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 01:46 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 05:23 PM
British troops should of never touched down in iraq, we wasnt repared at all, we had poor equipment.

Boots that melted

Guns that got clogged up with sand

Body armor had to be sharred between troops

Helicopters couldnt perform in heat or sandstorms.



the list goes on.
__________________
vaz02 is offline  
Old 02-22-2007, 03:06 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and, goodness, most politicians seem to think that, yes, this is indeed very big news:

[q]Ally's Timing Is Awkward for Bush
By Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 22, 2007; A12

As the British announced the beginning of their departure from Iraq yesterday, President Bush's top foreign policy aide proclaimed it "basically a good-news story." Yet for an already besieged White House, the decision was doing a good job masquerading as a bad-news story.

What national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley meant was that the British believe they have made enough progress in southern Iraq to turn over more of their sector to Iraqi forces. To many back in Washington, though, what resonated was that Bush's main partner in Iraq is starting to get out just as the president is sending in more U.S. troops.

No matter the military merits, the British move, followed by a similar announcement by Denmark, roiled the political debate in Washington at perhaps the worst moment for the White House. Democrats seized on the news as evidence that Bush's international coalition is collapsing and that the United States is increasingly alone in a losing cause. Even some Republicans, and, in private, White House aides, agreed that the announcement sent an ill-timed message to the American public.

"What I'm worried about is that the American public will be quite perplexed by the president adding forces while our principal ally is subtracting forces," said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a longtime war supporter who opposes Bush's troop increase. "That is the burden we are being left with here."

The notion that the British pullback actually signals success sounds like bad spin, added Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). "I think it's Alice in Wonderland looking through the looking glass," he said.

[...]

The news of Britain's partial withdrawal, though, swamped the funding debate for at least a day. "The timing of the British announcement is very unfortunate," said Nile Gardiner, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The British decision is going to be used as a political football by opponents of the president's Iraq plan."

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said the move will undercut Republicans in Congress trying to stave off attempts to limit what Bush can do in Iraq.

"It's probably not going to bode well for those of us who want to make a case against what Murtha and Pelosi plan for the supplemental," LaHood said. "It does not help."

Blair's announcement could also boost calls by Democrats and some Republicans for a serious change in Iraq policy -- not just in the number of troops fighting but also in what those troops should do. The British plan to withdraw 2,100 of 7,100 troops by summer's end and to redeploy the remainder away from combat toward more training of Iraqi troops and patrolling the Iranian border. That mirrors bipartisan Senate proposals for U.S. forces that are spelled out in two stalled nonbinding resolutions, including one co-sponsored by Warner.

"What the British are doing, and what we really need to do, is to tease out the cultural complexities of this thing," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.). "On the one hand, they are signaling to all the Iraqi people, whatever sect they are -- Sunnis, Shias, Kurds -- they are not going to be an occupying force. That's a powerful signal to send. And the other signal is that they are passing the torch to the Iraqis, who are the only ones who can handle this ancient -- I'd say primitive -- sectarian dispute."

The White House argued that comparing the British situation in Basra and the U.S. position in Baghdad fundamentally distorts reality. The south, where the British have been in charge, has no Sunni insurgency and far less violence than Baghdad or Anbar. The coalition plan all along has been to pull out foreign troops when an area is ready for Iraqi control, the White House said.

"The fact that they have made some progress on the ground is going to enable them to move some of the forces out, and that's ultimately the kind of thing that we want to be able to see throughout Iraq," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. He said no consideration was given to asking the British to instead redeploy those departing troops to help their U.S. counterparts in Baghdad or Anbar.

Hadley, speaking to reporters in Brussels, where he was traveling, said he did not mean to suggest the British departure signals "an unalloyed picture of progress," but he rejected a more negative interpretation. "I didn't want people to think it reflected a lack of confidence by the British in the mission or a turning away from the mission," he said. "It is not."

Still, other administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity so they could talk candidly about political strategy, expressed frustration that the British decision will look bad to everyday Americans, and acknowledged that it will provide ammunition to domestic opponents.

"It's a brick in the hands of folks who want to take cheap shots," one official said. "But I think it's unfair."
[/q]



and, further, all the military bases but two are going to be handed over and another 1,500 will be gone by the end of the year.

this is, indeed, a withdrawal, and ironically at odds with the "surge" of 21,000 additional American troops.


The British started out with 46,000 troops in Iraq. They have been gradually withdrawing troops for several years now. Nearly 40,000 British troops have been withdrawn over the course of the war, another 3,000 in 2007 can hardly be considered news when the withdrawal of the prior 40,000 troops was not.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com