British troops 'in Iraq for ten years'

"Key points
• Brigadier Carter warns UK soldiers could be in Iraq for decade.

BRITISH troops may have to stay in Iraq for up to ten years to ensure security, the commanding officer of British forces in the southern Iraqi city of Basra told The Scotsman yesterday.

Brigadier Nick Carter’s warning came as the security situation in southern Iraq deteriorated after a day in which British troops came under sustained attack from supporters of the Shiite cleric Muqtadr al- Sadr, in the town of al-Amarah.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, yesterday admitted that the coalition underestimated how unstable the security situation in Iraq would become after the toppling of Saddam Hussein."

UUh?? Ten years?
Liberation my ass!!!
:indeed:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

That article is slightly misleading. The 10 years comes from the following quote I believe.

So, the writer of the article took a bit of liberty in stating 10 years. Makes for a more heated article, and suckers people into thinking something that just isn't true.

OH... Then there's the key points in the article which you must have simply overlooked...

Perhaps you are in this cloud-cuckooland that is mentioned? I can't understand why else you'd simply think things can be turned over without any support.

There is no mention that any power other than the Iraqi government would be in power. The article simply states that there may need to be supplemental forces there to ensure a complete breakdown of power doesn't happen in Iraq. 10 years was simply part of a statement made by someone. Doesn't mean it will happen. Does it?

If you're going to read an article and then quote from it, atleast make sure you read the entire article. Don't just skim over it and pick out what you think makes sense. You've missed the entire point of the article by doing that. You've also taken quotes out of context in an attempt to say something. Taken with the rest of the article, you make no point whatsoever.

?????
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Please point me out to where i have said such a thing, please.
And if you can´t, you should pay better attention to what you write. In case you missed it, my only comments were "Liberation my ass!!". Wich part of it didn´t you understand?

As you so blatantly pointed out in your second quote, and yet failed to understand, the british officer is claiming that in order stabilize the situation they need to stay for several years! And yet you have the nerve to use that same quote as a point that the 10 years claim is blown out of proportion??
Learn to read, mate.
Here, i´ll post it back:

"Certainly for a number of years to come, western forces are going to have to be there to support the police force."

Just what do you call "a number of years to come"? A couple of months?
You know what the diference between "a few months" and "a few years" is?
It´s the diference between calling it a "liberation" or calling it an "occupation". Thus my short comments.
The rest of your reply is unworthy of further comment.

But i will tell you this, in case you´re wondering:
NEVER, have i claimed or asked the US should simply leave. They should never have been there in the first place, but that´s a diferent story.What they should do is transfer complete powers to the UN and bring in the Arab League to assure the peacekeeping. The US forces should then leave, AFTER they transfer power to the UN.
Instead of having based yourself on poor past assumptions that you may have of me, you should have asked, before making such outlandish accusations. It would have prevented you making such an arse of yourself.
But no prob.
:rolleyes:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

As the British sector of Iraq seems to be the only part that is not plunging into religeously fuelled violence, is it perhaps a good thing that British troops will have a prescence for the foreseeable future, maybe even replacing gun happy American troops in certain areas where US policies of shoot, first count the bodies later are obviously not as successful as the British army's policy of mutual respect.

Attached Images

cartoon1.jpg (43.6 KB, 119 views)

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

You really didn't say much. That left it wide open for interpretation. You're "liberation my ass" comment made me question why you would make such a statement. The British officer was throwing out numbers, and the writer of the article grabbed on to 10.

No. The size of the force and the purpose of the force is what would define liberation or occupation. Since they are planning on leaving behind troops to assist and support, I would say that the liberation is there. It's just in need of a helping hand. IF the US or England decided to simply keep all their current troops there and rotate fresh ones in every so often, I'd agree with the term "occupation". Lending a hand to their police force is simply ensuring that society doesn't colapse into complete anarchy.

If the UN were capable of assisting in keeping the peace, we would have never gotten to the stage we're at. The UN F'ed up the whole search for WMD. They spend far too much time criticizing each other and arguing over what to do. If the UN had strong leadership and could make a decision, I'd have no problem agreeing with you. So far, the UN has shown is lacks the basics in just about every aspect of leadership.

You didn't say enough in your original post to make much of any sort of statement. That's why I had to criticize what little you did post. Would have been rather helpful if you had taken the time to point out your reasons why you see it as anything but liberation. If you post bits and pieces of an article, leave out some rather important parts, and then post a one line remark, I think you should fully expect people to question what you're getting at.

If you're not going to take the time to fully explain yourself, why should I take the time to ask what you meant? Try putting a bit more thought into your original posts. Explain yourself rather than throw out a one liner comment that does nothing but spark a controversy. You might find that the thread then takes on a whole different perspective. I'd rather debate you on your thoughts, rather than question your entire theory because you've presented absolutely nothing to define it. Think about that. :indeed:

That´s just your opinion. I just happen to have a different one, shared by 20 million or so iraqis. Not that it matters much anyway...
Since you ask, and if you really care about knowing what they feel, check the links thread, where i posted a link to Iraqi blogs. Their opinions are more than clear there. Add that to the media coverage and the latest events, and you should get a clear picture.

You haven´t been paying much attention to Iraq latelly, have you?

Ahh, so you admit there wasn´t enough of a post to comment in the first place. You just decided on yourself to "fill in the blanks" so to speak, on your own.
The thread was not intended as a comment. I posted the link so that others could read it. If i wanted to make a real comment, you should know that i´m a big fan of rather large posts. That small line was just a vent.
However, if you want a comment, all you have to do is read this and the above posts, and connect the dots. And if that ain´t enough, try reading other threads, where i made my opinion more than clear. It´s not my fault that you happened to have just arrived, or is it? The subject "Liberation" vs "Ocupation" has been debated from here to Mars! And back...
:beer:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Hey Startup, that cartoon is about right! The only snagg is that after the handover of power, the iraqis won´t even have a chair and a whip to fight the lion with!! Maybe an empty coca-cola can, or a George W. Bush 5 by 9 poster, but no chair.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

By this you mean what? That they were unable to find the weapons Bush would've liked them to find? The weapons the US inspectors didn't find either? The weapons that were the reason for the war but didn't exist?

__________________

Just because you can't find something does not mean it does not, or did not, exist.

The UN did a pretty pathetic job with their searches in Iraq. They simply could not stand up to Saddam and get the job done, and done right. I don't blame the UN. Afterall, they've always been a pretty pathetic group of politicians.

You might want to start reading the news a bit more often though. Have you not heard of some of the latest developments? The plot in Jordan? Those chemicals may very well tie back to Iraq.

Should be very interesting to see where else the WMD that didn't exist, start popping up. They are out there. The UN simply gave Saddam the time and the freedom to move things around and hide them very effectively.