This is pretty bad news for the Iraq effort, I'd say. After all, we're extending troops' tours and sending in even more. It doesn't sound like they're as supportive as they once were.

link? i can't find anything at bbc.co.uk.

Originally posted by Fall Down Blue
link? i can't find anything at bbc.co.uk. I'm looking, I just saw it on CNN, but it's not on the farking web page...

Here's a link.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1515762,00.html

London - Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday he didn't plan to increase British forces in Iraq, despite a series of attacks around Basra that killed at least 68 people.

Blair insisted the violence in Iraq, including in the southern Iraqi city where British forces were based, would not derail the coalition's reconstruction of the country nor the progress to democracy.

"The majority of Iraqi people want a stable and democratic Iraq," he told the House of Commons.

"These terrorists want to stop them and we, all of us in the international community, have to join with that majority in Iraq to make sure terrorists do not succeed and that democracy prevails."

Four British soldiers were injured on Wednesday when an explosion tore through a police academy in Basra, which Blair visited during a trip to Iraq on January 4.

A series of explosions also hit three police stations in Basra. A British military spokesman in Iraq said they were believed to have been caused by car bombs.

Keeping the situation under review

Britain has about 8 700 soldiers in Iraq, based in the Basra area, but Blair said there were no plans to increase troop numbers.

"We are satisfied that we have sufficient troops in Basra. We don't have plans to increase the number.

"We always have to keep that situation under review, but at the present time the British troops are managing extremely well down there," he said.


A senior British official said he believed the attacks were carried out either by "former regime elements" still loyal to Saddam Hussein, or by external terrorists "linked, however loosely, to al-Qaeda".

"The one thing I don't think it is, and that is rather important, is any Shiite elements. I am pretty confident of that," said the senior official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.

British patrolling as normal

"I do not think we have had any evidence so far that the Shiites have been involved in these sorts of car bombings or in terrorist activity really of any sort.

"The only violence we have seen from the Shiite side has been related to Muqtada al-Sadr, and he did not operate in that way," he added, referring to the anti-American cleric.

The official said he did not believe the attacks would change the way British troops, who often patrolled on foot in berets, as opposed to helmets, to win the trust of the Iraqi people, would operate.

Shiites make up an estimated 60% of Iraq's 25 million people, although Sunnis dominated the country under Saddam and earlier regimes in Iraq.

blair is eating alot of shit back home for sending the troops in the first place. i think the last thing he would want to do is send more.

Originally posted by Fall Down Blue
blair is eating alot of shit back home for sending the troops in the first place. i think the last thing he would want to do is send more. Indeed. I think it's crap that his country didn't support it all in the first place, but he just went ahead and operated independantly of his people for the sake of sucking Bush's dick.

I just read it on aol news. Also the Prime Minister of Spain said, "We should have never went to Iraq and we left as soon as possible". Har har. Not like it matters...Britain is the largest contributor of troops, 7,500. We have 135,000 there right now, the possibility for many more and also the availibility of the draft(never happen in my opinion). We have enough troops, the question is will Iraq ever accept a government installed by an outside, non-muslim power? I don't think so. Muslim extremists that live in poverty are fucking insane, even the rich ones are crazy. I've also read about how younger Muslims are reverting, becoming more conservative. They are getting angry with their parents for watching tv, wanting to make women wear viels again and shut out the western world. Why? Because Iraq has fallen behind the modern world. They want things to be like they were thousands of years ago when Iraq was a great country. Not a slum with no technology, no food, no jobs, no health system, no education and nothing to do but study the koran and destroy the infidels. Many many many societies have crashes within history, dissapeared, changed, evolved, died out...maybe its just starting to happen to Iraq. They still have a chance to save themselves but if Muslims and Christians(Iraqis and Americans) can't figure out how to negotiate then I doubt their country will ever get much better, free or not.

Originally posted by Guest
Indeed. I think it's crap that his country didn't support it all in the first place, but he just went ahead and operated independantly of his people for the sake of sucking Bush's dick. I don't think he did it to "suck Bush's dick."

Leaders are elected to lead; sometimes, their decisions aren't always at first the popular choice.

Do you think Harry Truman's choice to drop the A-Bomb on Japan would have been the "popular choice" if people were polled ahead of time?

Originally posted by Fall Down Blue
blair is eating alot of shit back home for sending the troops in the first place. i think the last thing he would want to do is send more.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Do you think Harry Truman's choice to drop the A-Bomb on Japan would have been the "popular choice" if people were polled ahead of time?

A lot of people were pretty happy about it after it happened, but that opinion declined when it became public knowledge that it had been completely unnecessary. But that's a whole other thread.

From what I can tell, British troops are actually doing pretty well over there. There seems to be a marked difference in the US and UK military approaches, with British troops taking a much more low-key approach designed to reduce hostility. It doesn't always work (like that incident where some guy almost got a soldier's rifle away from him) but they seem to be getting in less trouble than US soldiers. More soldiers aren't really going to help matters much, especially since they're all supposed to be getting the hell out of Iraq in 9 or so weeks. It's more of a political battle than a military one at the moment.

Originally posted by Fall Down Blue
blair is eating alot of shit back home for sending the troops in the first place. i think the last thing he would want to do is send more.

In his defense he has actually stuck to his guns over this whole thing - he's tried to convince the public he was right to do it, and he's faced some <i>harsh</i> questioning on several televised debates, which he didn't exactly manage to talk his way out of. So I'm not so sure he'd back out of this because of public opinion - it wouldn't really help him now.