Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

They won't retake Bashra of course.

Hat Tip: hotair.com

1 posted on 08/10/2007 2:40:25 PM PDT by bnelson44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: bnelson44

Need a surge.


2 posted on 08/10/2007 2:46:46 PM PDT by golfisnr1 (Democrats are like roaches - hard to get rid of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44
Announce and draw down and everybody and their uncles take a pot shot at you.
3 posted on 08/10/2007 2:49:16 PM PDT by Blue State Insurgent (FRee your mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44
They won't retake Bashra of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not without a highland regiment, they won't.

And PM Brown has passed the word, "pack yer bags boys, and hunker down, pretty soon we're out of town."

That's what happens when a socialist , with little or no sense of history ( a la 1938 ), takes power.

Look ye well, for it is but a preview of what we'll see with the "invidious Hillaree".

Just think how many lives we would have saved if the same policy as our Presidents were afloat in 1938 prior to the election of Winston Churchill as PM? Certainly millions of jews would have been saved , and we would not have had the necessity of the formation of Israel.

The Not-sees would have been stopped dead, in their tracks.

Brown just doesn't get it. "Peace in our rhyme," seems to be his calling card.Neville Chamberlain never had it as good.

A pox on Brown and all of his socialist cowens and eavesdroppers.

4 posted on 08/10/2007 2:51:05 PM PDT by Candor7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44
[quote]Earlier this week, US officials suggested the British had effectively lost control of southern Iraq. [/quote]

what US officials ? official press agent ? official senator ? official health inspector ? official water treatment plant operator ?

5 posted on 08/10/2007 2:54:45 PM PDT by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44
They won't retake Bashra of course.

I wouldn't be so sure. The British took it from the Turks in 1914, then retook it, from the Iraqis, in 1940, then retook it yet again, from the Iraqis again, in 2003.

Despite all the patronizing talk a few years ago, out of the Brits, about we Colonials not knowing how to properly conduct a campaign in a manner that turns Islamic fanatics into friends and allies, the British haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in their attempts at nation building in Mesopotamia.

8 posted on 08/10/2007 3:12:09 PM PDT by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44

“Re-dominate” implies that they had dominated the area in the past. This is not true. The Brits used a faulty, low-impact, hands-off approach from the get-go. They allowed corruption and intimidation to continue to be the main method of ‘government’ in Basra and other southern cities. Their main goal - as with the US Democrats - is to keep their soldiers safe. Nothing puts them in more danger than having them hole up in a palace and ‘keep watch’ while the thugs gain power and control.

No need to ask for them to come back and re-dominate. Not until there is a change of attitude... and I don’t think that’s likely.


10 posted on 08/10/2007 3:32:31 PM PDT by Shazolene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44
"Earlier this week, US officials suggested the British had effectively lost control of southern Iraq.

But US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox dismissed the claim and told Today: “That is a totally inconsistent characterisation with how we view our coalition partners, the Brits.

“They are professional, they are competent, they are very capable.”

Being professional, competent, very capable, AND out of control of the situation are not mutually exclusive statements...

...especially if your government has been 1) unwilling to maintain the force levels necessary to dominate the area, and 2) has required such restrictive rules of engagement (ROE) that it effectively hamstrings your ability to use the force you do have available.

14 posted on 08/10/2007 4:34:53 PM PDT by Captain Rhino ( Peace based on respected strength is truly peace; peace based on weakness is ignoble slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44
Does the commander understand instead of passing out candy and favours this time that they might need to shoot (ie. "kill" as in DEAD) a few people in order to achieve that lofty objective?

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

16 posted on 08/11/2007 3:54:34 AM PDT by expatguy (Support - "An American Expat in Southeast Asia")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bnelson44

How about just pulling a couple of those Vulcan bombers out of mothballs and carpet-bombing the place? That’ll get their attention. All the destructive force of a surge without any friendly casualties. And probably no more “collateral” deaths than would happen with “dueling truck bombs.”


19 posted on 08/11/2007 4:40:12 AM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson