Time for British soldiers to leave iraq?

Memnoch

I'm not sure how many here have been following the recent events in Basra but the situation grows more interesting day by day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4277532.stm

A judge in the southern Iraqi city of Basra has issued an arrest warrant for two British soldiers.

off course the British claim that their soldiers have immunity, a wonderful little deal really. Personally, I'd love to see them face the music in Iraq, though I doubt they will. Hopefully this will help hasten an end to the occupation, though at this stage I doubt even that would help the country much after the coalition have made a royal mess of the place.

Obviously the Iraqis are competent enough to try Saddam Hussain as a war criminal, but not competent enough to try British Soldiers for crimes they may commit while in Iraq.

gandalf

While I can see where you are coming from the fact is the police handed these men over to a Shia Militia, therefore I think the British were correct to act like they did to free them. That event alone would leave me to believe that these men would be in extreme danger in Iraq custody.

That doesn't mean they should not be held to account for their actions.

mike65

That whole episode highlights all that has gone wrong over the last few years, the influence of Iran can't be underestimated I think. Its starting to look the thier agents have infiltrated most aspects of local governence.

When the next elections are fought the biggest party will be looking firmly east to Tehran.

As for the pull out, its going to happen some day of course. If they go quickly
then civil war is likely if they go slowly they leave themselves open to increased attack from the Iran backed insurgents. Either way Shia fundmentalism is the big winner.

Mike.

Memnoch

mike65 wrote:

That whole episode highlights all that has gone wrong over the last few years, the influence of Iran can't be underestimated I think. Its starting to look the thier agents have infiltrated most aspects of local governence.

When the next elections are fought the biggest party will be looking firmly east to Tehran.

As for the pull out, its going to happen some day of course. If they go quickly
then civil war is likely if they go slowly they leave themselves open to increased attack from the Iran backed insurgents. Either way Shia fundmentalism is the big winner.

Mike.

if somone on these forums suggested that the government was a puppet government, instated and controlled by western powers then it would be a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. I wonder if the opposite also applies?

A Dub in Glasgo

The British Army should pull out of any place where they are not wanted especially when they invade a country and prosecute an illegal war.

The tin-foil hat stupid terminolgy thingy only applies to those liberal do-gooders not the god fearing christians - you should know that already

amp2000

ffs, this is getting ridiculous.

Here, this is a classic example of what propoganda achieves!

gandalf wrote:

While I can see where you are coming from the fact is the police handed these men over to a Shia Militia, therefore I think the British were correct to act like they did to free them.

This ones ****ing great

mike65 wrote:

That whole episode highlights all that has gone wrong over the last few years, the influence of Iran can't be underestimated I think. Its starting to look the thier agents have infiltrated most aspects of local governence.

Iran eh, WTF did iran do now, other than all the bull**** in the US media??
This is basic propoganda, I had a discussion with moriarty months ago in a peak oil thread telling him iran are next on the US's hitlist, I was basically laughed at. Unfortunately it looks like I was correct, mike65 is already repeating the rhetoric.

From reading your BS it's obvious you have no idea what's gone wrong over the past few years, your basing your argument with lies that have been fed into your head through controlled media.
You have the internet, use it to inform yourself, for your families sake at least.

Please people, wake up.

While it would be nice to see the troops leave and it should be the objective,it's not the right time in my view.
They should finish what they started assuming their objective is a stable Iraq and take the medicine for having to do so.They should be given a reasonable timeframe to achieve this and if they cant , then it's out time,together with the associated political fall out at home if any.
Thats a comment on the political masters not the Army.
I don't think their leaving should be determined by hypocrites who blow their own kind asunder without as much as an afterthought as is now the case in Iraq.

As regards it being a puppet government,it was an open free election and the government that arose from it only came after a long protracted negotiation,I suspect they still dont agree on most things.

mike65

amp2000 wrote:

ffs, this is getting ridiculous.

Here, this is a classic example of what propoganda achieves!


This ones ****ing great

Iran eh, WTF did iran do now, other than all the bull**** in the US media??
This is basic propoganda, I had a discussion with moriarty months ago in a peak oil thread telling him iran are next on the US's hitlist, I was basically laughed at. Unfortunately it looks like I was correct, mike65 is already repeating the rhetoric.

Slightly confused, I am noteing the malign influence of Iran on Iraq and you say I'm buying into US propoganda which might include setting up the mood music to invade Iran and yet you say thats whats going to happen in the peak oil thread.

I don't think the US wil attack Iran as they are not able to commit the resouces required, nor would they have any 'coalition of the willing'.

As for Iranian influence, its does'nt take a geo-political genius to work out that religious/ethnic affiliations cross borders. A majority of the southern Iraqi population is Shia which is the overwhelming religion of Iran. The Iranian establishment would dealy love to have controlling influence over the south of Iraq if only for the oil. That should sound familair to any anti-war poster.

I do not "buy" into US propaganda I dont even have Fox News! I just use my eyes and ears and form a view based on logic and reason.

Some reading
http://hnn.us/articles/1455.html

Who are the main leaders within the Iraqi Shia?

Until the Mahdi returns many Shia believe that there will be just ayatollas (a 20th century designation) and other levels of Shia scholars in hawzas (scholarly systems) to help explain the religion. The Hawza Al-Ilimi in Najaf is a socially, politically, culturally, and theologically powerful institution. The ayatollas in Iraq are seen as something like translators of the Koran, the Hadith, sayings of Mohammed, and the lives, words and deeds of the 12 Imams. They are also political leaders. They have massive power in Iraq. Some of them control vast throngs of former and present students, some who have power in Iraq and elsewhere, and control large amounts of financial and other assets - or at least the ability to garner them for what they see as their cause. Some, like Al-Hakim, have their own armies. His is called the Badr Brigade and it may have as many as 40,000 soldiers.

The main Ayatollahs are Al-Sistani and Al-Hakim. The one who was murdered a couple of weeks ago, Al-Khoie, was from a long line of Ayatollahs from the Al-Khoie family. Their Al-Khoie Foundation also gets about 80 percent of the khums tax (a 20 percent tax of profits of all businesses). This foundation also controls a huge number of prominent scholars, schools, and more. Al-Hakim is the head of SCIRI, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iran. He is supported by the Iranians and has lived in Iran for a couple of decades. He has real clout in Iraq. Al-Hakim was one of the most important voices calling for the 100s of thousands to go to Kerbala a few weeks ago. He also called for the demonstration asking the US to leave Iraq to occur at the end of the event. Sistani is the Grand Ayatollah of Iraq and has massive power in his community. The followers and the family of the slain Ayatollah Al-Sadr also have a significant following. The slain Ayatollah's son Muqtada is their leader. He is only 30 years old, however. In this part of the world age can matter. But time will tell how much.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050906-093816-2656r.htm

http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/energy/2005/09/20/iraq-iran-oil-cx_daa_0920commentary.html

Mike.

Hagar

I wouldn't bet on them leaving anytime soon. After all Yanks and the Brits are still occupying bases in Germany.

Please don't insult my intelligence by saying the Germans want them there. They have no choice, so for the sake of national pride they just smile and swallow down the shít with as much dignity as they can muster. Much like we do for Northern Ireland.

Moriarty

The Germans do want them there though. Not for defence, but they provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and lots of disposeable income from those stationed there into the economy. Never mind any 'rent' payable to the german government.

bonkey

Its not a question of want. The Germans - the people - accept the presence of the Americans. The only reason anyone would back out of Iraq now is the lack of acceptance by some elements. For that reason, the two are not directly comparable.

jc

Hagar

Germany has been occupied for 60 years. Thats a long time. Leaving aside possible childhood memories that means anyone under about 65 to 70 has never known anything else. This will form a basis for submission whatever about acceptance.

Factor in the vast oil wealth involved and its fairly obvious nobody will leave Iraq any time soon.

Strategically it is a good jump off point for the imminent invasion of Iran.

Moriarty

It's hardly a good 'jump off point' if they have to use a large proportion of their active duty military force just to secure this jump off point, now is it? Since you seem to know, what exactly are they planning to invade Iran with? The boy scouts?

Hobbes

I notice that the fact that the non-uniformed SAS guys were found in a car wired with explosives and shot at the police. If they weren't in uniform then they are not covered by the geneva convention? :rolleyes:

Moriarty

Are Iraq and the UK at war with each other? No. The geneva convention does not apply.

If Iraq and the UK were at war with each other, the members of the SAS/whatever they were would be covered under the terms of the geneva convention as prisoners of war because they're members of the armed forces of the UK (Article 4.1).

If you're going to try and create an argument via smoke and mirrors, at least know what you're talking about..

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Are Iraq and the UK at war with each other? No. The geneva convention does not apply.

Geneva convention applies in a warzone, regardless of who is attacking who.

Driving a car rigged to explode and being in plain clothes and attacking police when questioned is smoke and mirrors? :rolleyes:

For that matter if they had been picked up by the milita first would you expect them to abide by the geneva convention? Or what?

the_syco

Iraq can't handle the insurgents. True, they fought and won a large battle, but they "forgot" to mention that the US airforce and tanks also helped.

If the US pull out now, the insurgents will take over the country again, and Iraq may become part of another country. How? Invasion. Iraq doesn't have much to stop it, without the US.

As for the puppet goverment: it failed in the elections. The present goverment can't agree on the consitution, and without US influence on the picking of the members of the goverment, there wouldn't be 2 Sunni's in there: there'd be none.

Hobbes

Btw let me clarify the story... They were found in a car wired with explosives, shot at the police, killed a police officer and were dressed as Arabs with disguises on (wigs) and an Iraqi police investigation claims they were planting explosives throughout Basra. Also car bombs two days later were tied to them.

Of course, its not like we should trust the Iraqi police.

the_syco

Hobbes wrote:

Btw let me clarify the story... They were found in a car wired with explosives, shot at the police and were dressed as Arabs with disguises on (wigs) and an Iraqi police investigation claims they were planting explosives throughout Basra. Also car bombs two days later were tied to them.

Of course, its not like we should trust the Iraqi police.

/me looks at RUC collusion with the loylists...

Victor

the_syco wrote:

/me looks at RUC collusion with the loylists...

But who plays what role?

And guess who the main group of Irish passport holders in Iraq are?

Memnoch wrote:

Obviously the Iraqis are competent enough to try Saddam Hussain as a war criminal, but not competent enough to try British Soldiers for crimes they may commit while in Iraq.

This would assume that Iraq has a single centralised source of power. That is one thing we know doesn't exist.

amp2000

I apologise for jumping down your throat, it just really frustrates me watching the world go downhill while most people believe the utter garbage in the mainstream news.

mike65 wrote:

Slightly confused, I am noteing the malign influence of Iran on Iraq and you say I'm buying into US propoganda which might include setting up the mood music to invade Iran and yet you say thats whats going to happen in the peak oil thread.

I don't think the US wil attack Iran as they are not able to commit the resouces required, nor would they have any 'coalition of the willing'.

I hope your correct but with irans location in the middle east I think it's inevitable, a few tactical nukes will set the ball rolling, again, hopefully I'm wrong.

mike65 wrote:

I do not "buy" into US propaganda I dont even have Fox News! I just use my eyes and ears and form a view based on logic and reason.

You don't need fox news anymore, the same person owns sky news & many others! It's all controlled & nothing of any real significance is broadcasted to the masses unless they have a reason.

Just my 2 cents...

Hobbes

Update on this.. Rumour going around that the two in question may not have been British at all. Still looking for more information on this but here is a link to get you started.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Basra_IDF.htm

bonkey

Reads like a bit of a tinfoil-hat link to me Hobbes.

I'm not saying that there's something behind it, but the link suggests that the men might not be British, might have had Canadian passports, and then concludes that everything points to them being Israeli commandos.

How it concludes this, I have no idea, since the word Israeli appears three times on the entire page - once in the title, once in the summation that I've just mentioned, and one other time when it refers to the men as "presumably israeli" or something like that.

In short, it seems to conclude that they almost-certainly were Israeli because there is some doubt over their British status. You could replace the word Israeli with Irish, Icelandic, or even Martian and the content of the article would be just as "solid".

Maybe there is more info out there (not in an appropriate location to search right now), but on the basis of that link, I'd be highly skeptical.

jc

soma

hmm.. are these rumours trying to suggest that it was israeli involvement with the co-operation of the brittish..? I seriously doubt the brittish would that stupid to risk inflaming the civilian population.

However if they were suggesting these two were just mossad agents on the ground.. they've pulled off some pretty impressive stunts down thru the years so it'd be well within their ability (Iraq is porous these days).

Still I dont see anything to suggest the nationality of these two..? You have to remember that often when wierd/unexplained things happen people just tend to point the finger at Israel.

Hagar

soma wrote:

I seriously doubt the brittish would that stupid to risk inflaming the civilian population.

They did a fair to middleing job of inflaming the civilian population in Palestine in 1948 when they set up Isreal. So what's new?

breandan

soma wrote:

hmm.. are these rumours trying to suggest that it was israeli involvement with the co-operation of the brittish..? I seriously doubt the brittish would that stupid to risk inflaming the civilian population.

They have invaded a muslim country based on a lie yet you think the British are beyond risking inflaming the local civilian population!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Make no mistake the British are despised by the Shia in the South but are tolerated simply because it suites Sistani's and SCIRI (the biggest Shia party)long term vision for the South as part of a Shia Superstate.

This will not be a 'one country' superstate (well I cant see it happening, to many different ethnic and tribal groupings), but rather an area heavily influenced by Iran stretching from Northeastern Saudi which has a Shia majority through Southern Iraq, through Iran and into the central mountanious portion of Afghanistan south and west of Kabul where the Shia are in the majority and where Iran is already influencing events on the ground.
BTW for what its worth while Sistani is the top cleric of the Iraqi Shia he is infact an Iranian.

soma wrote:

However if they were suggesting these two were just mossad agent on the ground.. they've pulled off some pretty impressive stunts down thru the years so it'd be well within their ability (Iraq is porous these days).

Isreal/Mossad is in close coperation with the Kurds in the NE of the country (something I think will come back to haunt the Kurds at a future date) and with the clout the Kurds now have with the Shia and Americans I dont think its tinfoil hat territory to think that Mossad may be using this area to stage operations through out Iraq.

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

Reads like a bit of a tinfoil-hat link to me Hobbes.

I'm not saying that there's something behind it, but the link suggests that the men might not be British, might have had Canadian passports, and then concludes that everything points to them being Israeli commandos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/208368.stm

although granted they have since moved onto new zealand since then..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1262362,00.html

It does have a tin hat quality which is why I said rumour. Will wander around some more on it.

Victor

breandan, don't you think that all sounds a little far fetched, do you have anything to back-up your Israeli-Kurd connection?

breandan wrote:

and with the clout the Kurds now have with the Shia

The Kurds are largely Sunni, how or why would they need "[clout] with the Shia"?

Why would the Kurds cooperate with Israel? What with Israel being a Turkish ally?

Why would the Kurds (politicly) cooperate with [Iranian] Shi'ites? After all, the Kurds are only really interested in self rule within greater Kurdistan.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

I notice that the fact that the non-uniformed SAS guys were found in a car wired with explosives and shot at the police. If they weren't in uniform then they are not covered by the geneva convention? :rolleyes:

That gives Sadr even more credibility.

breandan

Victor wrote:

breandan, don't you think that all sounds a little far fetched, do you have anything to back-up your Israeli-Kurd connection?

Read a few articles about the training the Isrealis are giving the Kurds, I will try to find them and post the links here.

Victor wrote:

The Kurds are largely Sunni, how or why would they need "[clout] with the Shia"?

They have clout because of the arrangements put in place by Paul Bremer, under which if any three provinces vote against a proposal (the consititutional vote in a couple of weeks being a good example) then that proposal is automatically rejected. The Kurds have three provinces and so the Shia while being dominant need the Kurds if they want to drive anything through Parliament or the courts.

Victor wrote:

Why would the Kurds cooperate with Israel? What with Israel being a Turkish ally?

Because on all sides the Kurds are being pressed, the Turks to the north, the Syrians to the west, the Sunni Iraqi's to the south (and indeed the AShia over the faith of the oil city of Kirkuk) the and the Iranians to the east. As a landlocked country by the four above mentioned countries the Kurds have had to look to the Americans and the Isrealis as they are pretty much hated and feared by all their neighbours.

Why would the Kurds (politicly) cooperate with [Iranian] Shi'ites? [/QUOTE]

I didnt say they were if thats the way it came across then I phrased my views incorrectly.

Sand

I notice that the fact that the non-uniformed SAS guys were found in a car wired with explosives and shot at the police. If they weren't in uniform then they are not covered by the geneva convention?

The GC is careful to allow partisans/guerillas, who mightnt have much in the way of a uniform, to take up arms without being shot immediately as spies if captured. So long as they bore their weapons openly, the Geneva Convention would apply - assuming of course that the SAS and the Iraqi police were at war with each other, as opposed to an incident exceptional enough to be worthy of international news.