Brits see writing on wall in Iraq, announce partial pullout schedule..

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe confirmed this afternoon.

ON DEADLINE: Latest developments

"While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we're pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis. The United States shares the same goal of turning responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces and reducing the number of American troops in Iraq," Johndroe said.

"President Bush sees this as a sign of success and what is possible for us once we help the Iraqis deal with the sectarian violence in Baghdad," he added.

Blair will announce on Wednesday a new timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, with 1,500 to return home in several weeks, the BBC reported. Sky News, a British satellite news channel, reported the withdrawal would begin in April.

Blair will also tell the House of Commons during his regular weekly appearance that a total of about 3,000 British soldiers will have left southern Iraq by the end of 2007, if the security there is sufficient, the British Broadcasting Corp. said, quoting government officials who weren't further identified.

The announcement comes even as Bush implements a surge of 21,000 more troops for Iraq.

But Blair said Sunday that Washington had not put pressure on London to maintain its troop numbers. The BBC said Blair was not expected to say when the rest of Britain's forces would leave Iraq. Britain currently has about 7,100 soldiers there.

Blair's Downing Street office refused to comment on the BBC report.

Blair said last month that he would report to lawmakers on his future strategy in Iraq following the completion of Operation Sinbad, a joint British and Iraqi mission targeting police corruption and militia influence in the southern city of Basra.

On Sunday, Blair told the BBC that the operation was completed.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in January that Operation Sinbad offered the prospect of a "turning point for Iraq, hopefully in the near future."

Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who is likely to succeed Blair by September, has said he hoped several thousand British soldiers would be withdrawn by December.

As recently as late last month, Blair rejected opposition calls to withdrawal British troops by October, calling such a plan irresponsible.

"That would send the most disastrous signal to the people that we are fighting in Iraq. It's a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is actually deeply irresponsible," Blair said on Jan. 24 in the House of Commons.

Blair, who has said he will step down as prime minister by September after a decade in power, has seen his foreign-policy record overshadowed by his role as Bush's leading ally in the unpopular war.
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Yet, Blindly, onward we go............

Yet, Blindly, onward we go............

RESOURCES

Bloomberg TV Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Podcasts Bloomberg Press

USS Stennis Carrier Group Deploys Into Gulf Region (Update3)

By Andy Critchlow

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. aircraft carrier battle group led by the USS John C. Stennis arrived in the Persian Gulf region as part of a buildup of forces amid heightened tension with Iran.

The nuclear-powered Stennis, sent by President George W. Bush last month, arrived in the region Feb. 15 to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower as the second aircraft carrier battle group in the region, according to a statement from the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, which operates in the Persian Gulf.

The deployment of additional naval forces ``is here to help foster stability and security in the region,'' Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, commander of the naval force, said in the statement.

The U.S. and Iran are engaged in an increasingly tense standoff. The Bush administration contends Iran is taking steps to develop a nuclear weapon and meddling in Iraq. Last week, Bush said the Qods Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is supplying explosives to militants in neighboring Iraq who are attacking U.S. troops.

The British Broadcasting Corp., citing unidentified diplomatic officials, reported today that the U.S. has contingency plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites and military infrastructure if the Islamic Republic is confirmed to be developing a nuclear weapon or is linked to a major strike against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Capability

``Certainly another carrier gives the U.S. the ability to act if they are provoked by Iran,'' Mustafa Alani, director of national security at the Dubai, United Arab Emirates-based Gulf Research Center, said in a telephone interview today.

Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department, called the BBC report ``ludicrous.'' He said that while the U.S. has ``significant concerns'' about both Iran's nuclear program and its activities in Iraq, American officials have said repeatedly that they intend to address those issues through diplomacy.

That message was reinforced at the White House, where Bush spokesman Tony Snow said that any speculation the U.S. is looking for a military confrontation with Iran is ``unwarranted.'' The administration has a ``clear commitment to pursue a diplomatic course'' with the Islamic Republic, he said.

Deadline

Iran faces a United Nations deadline tomorrow to suspend work on enriching uranium, which can be used to fuel a nuclear reactor or build a bomb. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, met today in Vienna with Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the UN's nuclear agency. Larijani said they had ``good, constructive'' discussions.

Earlier, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the Security Council's demands.

The Iranian people ``will protect their nuclear rights until the end,'' Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma-deen-ah-ZHAD, told supporters at a rally in Iran's northern Gilan province today that was carried live on state television.

Snow said that while the U.S. is willing to let the Iranians pursue civilian nuclear power, any steps that could lead to development of a weapon, including uranium enrichment, aren't acceptable.

``The United States and its allies on this are standing pretty firm, in terms of sending a clear message to the government in Tehran,'' Snow said. ``Iran should not be in a position to develop or possess nuclear weapons.''

The USS Stennis is accompanied in the Middle East by a flotilla of naval vessels including the guided-missile ships USS Antietam, USS O'Kane and USS Preble, according to the U.S. Navy statement.

Iran, the second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, dominates the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway links the Gulf with neighboring Omani waters and is the main thoroughfare for oil tankers shipping the region's crude exports.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
So, what does it mean when your main remaining ally says it's time to remove troops from the country based on what our President says as being positive, improving scenarios, and a majority of the people in the U.S. agree with that?

To most rational people, regardless of nationality, it would signal a time to bring troops home. To our President and his "advisors", it signals a time to ask for $100 Billion more in taxpayers money, and an escalation in troops and militarism.

And so it goes. I can tell you, without a doubt, I am proud to be one that has always been against this war, and am proud to welcome others who are finally starting to see the light. Welcome, my brothers. Together, maybe, we can change the world.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
So, what does it mean when your main remaining ally says it's time to remove troops from the country based on what our President says as being positive, improving scenarios, and a majority of the people in the U.S. agree with that?

To most rational people, regardless of nationality, it would signal a time to bring troops home. To our President and his "advisors", it signals a time to ask for $100 Billion more in taxpayers money, and an escalation in troops and militarism.

And so it goes. I can tell you, without a doubt, I am proud to be one that has always been against this war, and am proud to welcome others who are finally starting to see the light. Welcome, my brothers. Together, maybe, we can change the world.

Stop the crap chadman and buck up. You ready to go to Iran with me? Hell we can't contain Iraq and Afghanstan is getting worse while we speak, why not start something else. By the way the soviet union with 4 times the troops couldn't cut it in Afghanstan why does this president think we can do it with a quarter of the troops. Are we that good or do our leaders need a history lesson?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Sorry, Sponge, I can't go to Iran directly. I am already busy with my assignment here to aid and abet terra-rism with my liberal views.

And, if anyone is watching this, I was only kidding. I ain't not abettin' on nothing anymore since the 'publicans said I cudent be abettin' on games no more.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top