This is real good news. It won't play much in the media though. They are trying so hard to make this look as if the US/UK are losing.
"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002
"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002
CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar — The Shiite majority in Basra has started a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein's forces, Sky News reported Tuesday.
Iraqi forces are reportedly firing at the Shiite protesters, who have the support of British troops in the area.
In an about-face, British forces said Tuesday they have decided to move against militia fighters who have prevented them from securing the southern Iraqi city of Basra.
Previously, coalition forces said they wanted to avoid urban combat in Iraq's second-largest city.
The decision to declare parts of Basra "military targets" came after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned of a humanitarian crisis in the city and said "urgent measures" had to be taken to restore electricity and water.
British forces have surrounded the city and secured its airport but have continued to face pockets of resistance, including members of Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen paramilitary force. On Monday there were artillery exchanges throughout the day.
"We're obviously assessing the situation before we commence operations to take out the non-regular militia which seems to be set to opposing our taking of the objective," said Group Capt. Al Lockwood, spokesman for British forces in the Persian Gulf.
With 1.3 million people in Basra, "we need to secure the city for the inhabitants and to ensure that their basic necessities in life are taken care of, and obviously that the necessary humanitarian aid, medical facilities are restored as quickly as possible," he said.
British military officials had said several days ago that they would prefer to negotiate surrenders with enemy troops rather than move into Basra itself to secure it. But with resistance continuing, they apparently concluded that something more decisive was necessary.
It was not clear if British forces would move into Basra itself. They have said they wanted to avoid urban combat for as long as possible.
Basra is Iraq's main seaport and lies in southern Iraq's oil-producing region. It is a mostly Shiite city; a 1991 uprising by Shiite Muslims in Basra was crushed by the Iraqi military during the Gulf War.
A British military spokesman said Basra itself was a military target. But later he said only parts of the city -- regime and military infrastructure -- were now so designated.
In a separate attack on militiamen loyal to Saddam, members of Britain's 7th Armored Brigade captured a member of the Baath Party in nearby Az Zubayr on Monday night, the spokesman said. The goal of the operation was to "separate the party members from the military," the spokesman said.
Also in Az Zubayr late Monday, a soldier with another British unit was killed. It was the second combat death for Britain.
Also late Monday, 25 Iraqi armored vehicles, including a number of T-55 battle tanks, were destroyed after British forces called in air support over the al-Faw peninsula, the spokesman said. The Iraqis were firing mortar rounds and artillery.
Iraqi forces are reportedly firing at the Shiite protesters, who have the support of British troops in the area.
In an about-face, British forces said Tuesday they have decided to move against militia fighters who have prevented them from securing the southern Iraqi city of Basra.
Previously, coalition forces said they wanted to avoid urban combat in Iraq's second-largest city.
The decision to declare parts of Basra "military targets" came after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned of a humanitarian crisis in the city and said "urgent measures" had to be taken to restore electricity and water.
British forces have surrounded the city and secured its airport but have continued to face pockets of resistance, including members of Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen paramilitary force. On Monday there were artillery exchanges throughout the day.
"We're obviously assessing the situation before we commence operations to take out the non-regular militia which seems to be set to opposing our taking of the objective," said Group Capt. Al Lockwood, spokesman for British forces in the Persian Gulf.
With 1.3 million people in Basra, "we need to secure the city for the inhabitants and to ensure that their basic necessities in life are taken care of, and obviously that the necessary humanitarian aid, medical facilities are restored as quickly as possible," he said.
British military officials had said several days ago that they would prefer to negotiate surrenders with enemy troops rather than move into Basra itself to secure it. But with resistance continuing, they apparently concluded that something more decisive was necessary.
It was not clear if British forces would move into Basra itself. They have said they wanted to avoid urban combat for as long as possible.
Basra is Iraq's main seaport and lies in southern Iraq's oil-producing region. It is a mostly Shiite city; a 1991 uprising by Shiite Muslims in Basra was crushed by the Iraqi military during the Gulf War.
A British military spokesman said Basra itself was a military target. But later he said only parts of the city -- regime and military infrastructure -- were now so designated.
In a separate attack on militiamen loyal to Saddam, members of Britain's 7th Armored Brigade captured a member of the Baath Party in nearby Az Zubayr on Monday night, the spokesman said. The goal of the operation was to "separate the party members from the military," the spokesman said.
Also in Az Zubayr late Monday, a soldier with another British unit was killed. It was the second combat death for Britain.
Also late Monday, 25 Iraqi armored vehicles, including a number of T-55 battle tanks, were destroyed after British forces called in air support over the al-Faw peninsula, the spokesman said. The Iraqis were firing mortar rounds and artillery.
the 24 hr news stations are showing so much negative it makes it look as though the Iraqis are in this. the new talk of this being long and drawn out is media created, the talk of heavy casualties coming is media created. by memory I think the Gulf war lasted 43 days and the US suffered about 300 deaths and it was considered very successful. this mission is much more complicated than Gulf 1. i don't think our troops will fall for the white flag and a knife in the back anymore so i expect things to go well.
"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002
"Walter Williams is my hero" outandup 2002
I actually think that all the 24 hr news stations are doing a great job at reporting. The reporters are putting there lives at stake so that we can view and experience our tax dollars at work. We can also relate to the tough job that the military is doing. One could say the reporters are american heroes
more breaking news: inside, Basra, intelligence is reporting that the Fedaheyn (terrorists loyal to Saddam) or the Republican guard are now dressing as US troops within Basra, accepting the surrender of other Iraqi troops (it's night there now, remember), and then executing them.
This is no surprise, just more atrocities - if true. They dress as civilians and now US troops (I'm assuming some camo look-alike uniform) - would anyone now care to characterize that behavior in a positive light? I don't think so.
This is no surprise, just more atrocities - if true. They dress as civilians and now US troops (I'm assuming some camo look-alike uniform) - would anyone now care to characterize that behavior in a positive light? I don't think so.
Well, from the Iraqis perspective, those surrendering are basically committing treason. If American troops surrendered against orders, they'd be tried for treason; Iraq simply executes them. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes sense. Iraq's behavior in the war is criminal, but (in the interests of being controversial) that doesn't rationalize or justify in retrrospec the war in itself.
D2: it's not even close to being the same - they are doing 2 things here, first luring dissenters who have been brutally repressed with some whose family members have been tortured and killed and then killing them to terrorize others, and secondly hoping to blame Americans for doing so.
When did I say this was justification in retrospect for the war? Those were your words. I'm saying, yet more proof of their atrocities.
When did I say this was justification in retrospect for the war? Those were your words. I'm saying, yet more proof of their atrocities.
D2bets, could rationalize the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam.
- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth
- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
Well, from the Iraqis perspective, those surrendering are basically committing treason. If American troops surrendered against orders, they'd be tried for treason; Iraq simply executes them. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, sounds like the same kind of logic and justification that brought down a couple of skyscrapers a year and a half ago. What "sense" did that make?
Well, from the Iraqis perspective, those surrendering are basically committing treason. If American troops surrendered against orders, they'd be tried for treason; Iraq simply executes them. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, sounds like the same kind of logic and justification that brought down a couple of skyscrapers a year and a half ago. What "sense" did that make?
Their atrocities are unquestioned. I can't imagine who was characterizing their behavior in a positive light.
My point was just that none of their actions during the war makes the war itself right or wrong.
I just hope that the conclusion to this war is quicker and less deadly and costly than I fear.
This obviously goes a lot deeper than this topic, but I still fear that the benefits of eliminating Saddam and his crew will be outweighed by the political, diplomatic, safety, fiscal and other costs associated with the war and the policies supporting it. It's only slightly disingenuous of this Administration touting the Geneva Convention after failing to apply it to Taliban prisoners and after withdrawing from 5 separate international treaties in 2 years.
My point was just that none of their actions during the war makes the war itself right or wrong.
I just hope that the conclusion to this war is quicker and less deadly and costly than I fear.
This obviously goes a lot deeper than this topic, but I still fear that the benefits of eliminating Saddam and his crew will be outweighed by the political, diplomatic, safety, fiscal and other costs associated with the war and the policies supporting it. It's only slightly disingenuous of this Administration touting the Geneva Convention after failing to apply it to Taliban prisoners and after withdrawing from 5 separate international treaties in 2 years.
That's a different topic. Every topic here seems inevitably to change to another tack.
The Taliban directly supported the Al Queda and were intricately linked with them - no one disputes that. The Geneva convention is being interpreted by the US as not applying to terrorists - they are treating them decently, though, from what I understand it's not the physical mistreatment being alleged but their lack of other Geneva rights, though I don't know exactly which ones.
My opinion about the Taliban: boo ****ing hoo. But the US had better apply the Geneva convention, as they are, to the POWS in this conflict until such time as they link one or some of them irrefutably to a terrorist connection. A lot of those poor bastards outside of the Republican Guard were forced to join against their will.
The Taliban directly supported the Al Queda and were intricately linked with them - no one disputes that. The Geneva convention is being interpreted by the US as not applying to terrorists - they are treating them decently, though, from what I understand it's not the physical mistreatment being alleged but their lack of other Geneva rights, though I don't know exactly which ones.
My opinion about the Taliban: boo ****ing hoo. But the US had better apply the Geneva convention, as they are, to the POWS in this conflict until such time as they link one or some of them irrefutably to a terrorist connection. A lot of those poor bastards outside of the Republican Guard were forced to join against their will.
Razz, explain the connection to me. One involves Iraqi soliders surrendering during wartime, the other involves civilian terrorists blowing up buildings. I don't see any connecting logic and justification whatsoever. Just to make ti clear too, I certainly wasn't justifying their behavior...I think in fact I said "Doesn't make it right".
