Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks

  1. Apr 18, 2004 #1
    Violence in Iraq will get even worse, says Blair
    By Melissa Kite in Washington and Alex Thomson in Basra
    (Filed: 18/04/2004)

    Tony Blair will tell MPs tomorrow that Britain should be prepared for worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks.

    The Prime Minister believes that British and American troops must brace themselves for "acts of desperation" by anti-Coalition rebels as the June 30 deadline for the handover of sovereignty in Iraq draws closer, senior advisers to Mr Blair said yesterday.

    Brig Nick Carter says Coalition is in Basra only as long as local Shia leader accepts their presence

    The warnings came as the commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all.

    Last month, 14 British soldiers were injured in Basra, at least three seriously, when they came under attack from demonstrators armed with petrol bombs, rocks and a grenade.

    "A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that."

    Senior military officials fear that insurgents may be planning a "spectacular" as they mount last-ditch efforts to disrupt the US-led timetable of restoring sovereignty to Iraq. Fighting in the Sunni-dominated city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, where an estimated 1,000 Iraqis died in clashes last week between American soldiers and mujahideen rebels, is causing particular concern.

    British officers in Basra are also worried about the stand-off at the twin holy cities of Najaf and Kufa, where the fiery Islamic cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, has taken refuge from 2,500 American troops determined either to capture or kill him. "If the Americans go into Najaf, there will be 300 Fallujahs," said one officer.

    A senior aide to Mr Blair said: "We have to recognise that there might be a certain amount of desperation. All the groups realise the significance of the June 30 deadline. Exactly what will happen we don't know. Fallujah is historically a terrible place that even Saddam Hussein could not control."

    Officials at the Ministry of Defence acknowledge that a planned scaling down of British troops in the region in coming months is unlikely to go ahead. There are 13,000 British soldiers in Iraq, and the MoD had earlier said that their number would be reduced first to 9,000 and then to 1,000 in 2005.

    It was revealed yesterday that President George W. Bush gave Mr Blair the option of withholding British troops from combat before the war because of the domestic opposition the Prime Minister faced over the Iraq invasion. According to a book about the war, Plan of Attack, by the veteran Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, Mr Blair is said to have replied: "I said I'm with you, and I mean it."

    Downing Street officials insisted that Mr Blair had not been asked by President Bush to commit more troops during their meeting at the White House on Friday. A spokesman said, however, that the number of British troops would remain under review.

    In an interview broadcast today on ABC News, Mr Blair admits for the first time that he underestimated the threat Coalition troops faced in Iraq. The Prime Minister says: "I think most of us would say we probably underestimated the basic security threat that we faced. And we're trying to tackle that now.

    "In terms of the day-by-day management of the issue, sure, I don't doubt that we'll look back afterwards and say, 'Well, we could have done this differently or that differently'." The admission came during an interview recorded on Friday in Washington.

    During an interview in Basra last week Brig Carter acknowledged that the Coalition's presence in southern Iraq was entirely dependent on the goodwill of the local Shia Muslim leader, Sayid Ali al-Safi al-Musawi. He represents Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's leading Shia cleric. "The moment that Sayid Ali says, 'We don't want the Coalition here', we might as well go home," Brig Carter said.

    Earlier this month, British troops battled to restore order in Basra as 1,000 Shia gunmen loyal to al-Sadr stormed the Governor's office to protest at the arrest of one of al-Sadr's senior aides and the closure of his newspaper. At the time, Brig Carter described the situation as "extremely volatile".

    The United States announced yesterday that 20,000 American soldiers serving in Iraq who had been scheduled to return home in the next few weeks would remain stationed in the country for at least another three months.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/wirq18.xml
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 18, 2004 #2
    Damn Iranians.
     
  4. Apr 18, 2004 #3
    I hope that was a joke.
     
  5. Apr 18, 2004 #4
    An Assassination A Day Keeps The Hawks At Bay

    Well, another assassination by Israel of another Hamas leader (forcing Hamas to keep secret the identity of their new leader).
    This assassination was approved by the USA (actually, sponsored). I remember after the Quad (The Arab "Pope") got wasted, a certain US Senator asking when they would get the guy who was just assassinated.
    A rubber stamp from Washington makes murder all that more easy.
    I wonder if Hamas will authorise the assassination of Bush or Sharon (or their wives or children)?
    Seems only fair game...
     
  6. Apr 18, 2004 #5
    Assassinating Hamas leaders I have no problem with, hey they truly are terrorists. But wait, arent we showing the whole Islamic world that we're completely aligned with Israel, what their propaganda has been saying for years and years? Seems like it's inviting more terrorist attacks on America, and we all know how well that turned out for our leadershp.
     
  7. Apr 19, 2004 #6

    kat

    User Avatar

    I thought we learned over 50 years ago that appeasement doesn't work? I'd rather support what I believe in then appease terrorist. Thanks but no thanks.

    *edit-Schwarz- a bit of reality check. despite what some have written, the entire islamic world is not at war with israel. malaysia does 300,000,000 dollars of trade every year with israel. indonesia also trades and works with israel. israeli companies also sell to many arab nations. Things would be a lot easier if there were peace. For those who do have diplomatic relations, not too many people are willing to go down for rantisi. For those who don't, what are they going to do.....break relations they don't have? Mostly, just rhetoric.
    I also predict (book mark this) that if terrorism increases in Europe (which I think it will, regardless of what they do...the terrorist smell fear, you know.) that Europe will use all means at their disposal to end it, including assassinations.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2004
  8. Apr 19, 2004 #7
    To clarify, I meant that throughout Iraq it is widely believed that the invasion & occupation is part of the broader war on Palestine by Israel.
    "Appeasement" is another generality applied universally by propagandists who wish to legitimize endless killing for profit. Back in the '30's there was a case for stopping Hitler while he was expanding his empire into other sovereign nations, but Europe instead appeased Hitler. There's no valid analogy between Hitler and the Palestinians; the doctrine of appeasement is not applicable at all.
     
  9. Apr 19, 2004 #8

    kat

    User Avatar

    I read your response as suggesting it was a mistake because it would upset terrorist...
     
  10. Apr 19, 2004 #9
    No Problem With Assassinations?

    World War I was started by an Assassination.
    How short our memory is...

    Assassinations are the resort of cowards.
     
  11. Apr 19, 2004 #10
    Yeah, let's compare:
    A) a nation decades ago expanding though conquest.
    B) a nation today NOT expanding through conquest, but attacked by one such as A.
     
  12. Apr 20, 2004 #11
    Israel/USA's Cosy Assassination Relationship

    From;
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_israel_palestinians
    “The United States used its veto power on March 25 to quash a resolution condemning Israel for killing Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Hamas founder and spiritual leader. U.S. diplomats said the measure failed to mention the militant group's record of bombings and shooting attacks during 3 1/2 years of Israeli-Palestinian violence. “
    100% USA Support for assassinations.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
    Supplying weaponry, training, UN Veto power and media blackouts = 100% USA Support for Israel’s assassinations.
     
  13. Apr 20, 2004 #12
    Yep. If you think those Iraqi militants are not wise to or suspect of our intentions with respect to Israel, think again.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks
Loading...