It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Basra on the verge of civil war

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Basra on the verge of civil war


english.aljazeera.net

Amid warnings that southern Iraq could erupt into civil war when British troops withdraw, Basra's chief of police has publicly admitted that his forces have been unable to clamp down on growing militia warfare in the city.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
The British have been seen to be giving themselves a pat on the back recently in regards to the job they've done in respect to Basra. The reality though of the situation is the British are doing a classical cut and run because of mounting pressure back home in Britain and poor poll results resulting in them lagging behind the Conservatives in the polls.

The initial withdrawal of the British troops was nothing more than a gesture to win votes for the anticipated snap election in Britain.

As we now know Brown bottled the snap election because his spin and lame attempts at winning votes backfired and left him trailing the Conservatives. The labour Government of today are a lame duck which is pretty much stagnant and seeing out whats left of it's time. A good comparison is Bush In the USA, everybody is awaiting a new chapter so we can move on and go forward.

I'm glad our troops are being withdrawn but what is evident is as soon as we withdraw Basra is going to fall into turmoil with all sorts of different factions fighting each other for power.

I don't think the Iraqi army we will be capable of defending themselves so where does that leave the poor Iraqi citizens in Basra?

Where does that leave the American army?

I think the British army have failed miserably in respect to Basra and have decided to cut there losses knowing they have no chance of winning the next general election.

Labour are a weak government and have made mistakes. In my opinion they should finish the job they started in Iraq, not just cut and run to give themselves a chance in the election.

who's going to fill the vacuum?
Who's going to suffer?

One thing for sure is the British Government won't suffer.
Labour won't suffer.
The normal average citizen will suffer again for an illegal war they couldn't even win or see to the end.

Shame on you Labour!



english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6uTuesday07/27/20 by paul76]



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
When the british soldiers stopped patrolling basra and gave control back to the iraqis, didnt the violence actually drop considerablely?

Im sure i read that somewhere, also is al jazeera a credible source?



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I thought the Brits were good at these sort of things (putting down insurgencies). They helped quell our (Malaysian) insurgency back in the 50s. What's changed? Aside from the fact that they're dealing with hot-headed Arabs instead of unruly Chinese communists.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
yes al-jazeera is a credible source...it's a credible source for everyone in the Middle East we also have to look at it in the same light they do.

Well the US will either have to step up and fill in the blanks in Basra or let the civil war happen.

either way, it's the Iraqi people who pay the ultimate price and suffer the most.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I thought the Brits were good at these sort of things (putting down insurgencies). They helped quell our (Malaysian) insurgency back in the 50s. What's changed? Aside from the fact that they're dealing with hot-headed Arabs instead of unruly Chinese communists.


The British don't have the same muscle these days I'm afraid.

The British troops are stretched to there limits as they're fighting two fronts, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan.

There are frequent stories of commanders and soldiers complaining of shortage of simple supplies and equipment.

The Government see themselves as a world leader but in reality we're not a big player anymore on the world stage and for that reason they've taken to much on without ever really thinking of the consequences.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
uk.reuters.com...



BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Residents of Iraq's southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.

Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.



hmmmmm that was 1 month ago


and

uk.reuters.com...




BASRA, Iraq, Nov 3 (Reuters) - A roadside bomb blast targeted a convoy carrying the heads of the Iraqi army and police in southern Iraq on Saturday, but both men were unhurt, the police chief told Reuters.

Major-General Abdul-Jelil Khalaf said he and southern Iraq military chief General Mohan al-Firaiji had been in a convoy of vehicles in Basra when the blast struck. Two guards in the convoy were wounded.


would lead me to say his comments might have a slightly personal slant to them - if they are trying to get him directly he might be somewhat worried.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Its a tricky situation,which I think us Brits will come out of looking pretty silly-never mind the poor population of Basra who will have to deal with the militias when we leave.
I am sure the bad guys would move to Basra when British troops leave.
If we leave sooner rather than later,the Americans won't be too happy,as they will have to move in to secure Basra at a time when they are overstretched.
Its going to be a bloody mess,whatever happens.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by paul76
 


Shouldn't it be shame on both Labour and the Conservatives? After all, both parties voted in favour of the conflict in the first place. The only major party to oppose the war was the Liberal Democrats, as I recall (all of whom voted against it). In fact, due to the number of Labour MPs who rebelled, it was Tory votes that actually got the motion passed. Had we seen a significant number of Conservative rebels too, it's very likely that Blair's position would have become untenable and he'd have resigned in 2003 and the likelihood of British troops being sent to Iraq would have been pretty much nil.

There seems to be conflicting reports coming out of Iraq at the moment (not just Basra) - some say things have got worse, as Paul76's link shows, whereas others indicate there are improvements (the recent suggestion that the surge strategy, coupled with talks between the US and local militias, has led to noticeable drops in attacks and deaths). It's interesting to see both sides of the story, though which part (or parts) are true from either side is difficult to work out.




top topics



 
0

log in

join