« Did you know that emissions from Kyoto signatories are rising faster than from the USA? | Main | Conservative MEP questions USA's treatment of visitors with HIV and AIDS »



Err... since when is "man of the year" generally understood to mean the person National Review picked?

(Along with almost everyone else) I'd assume Time magazine's Person of the Year was meant, and they haven't announced yet.

Ron Paul supporter

Surely the real "man of the year" is Ron Paul who raised over $6 million in one day at the weekend. Ron predicted that the Iraq War would be a disaster and he has been proved right. The war-mongering neo-con scum are reduced to smeaing Ron as anti-semitic. Michael Medved and Podhoretz family are typical examples of thew neo-con smear merchants. Lower than pond life!


Ah yes, Ron Paul supporters are so rational... and polite...

Sure makes me want to vote for him.. /sarc.

Malcolm Dunn

Wonder why Steevo has not commented on this thread. It wasn't so long ago that he was wholeheartedly disagreeing with me regarding the situation in Basra.
As Marie Colvin points out we've got rid of one tyranny only to replace it with another.
Were the lives of 174 British troops and thousands of Iraqi deaths worth it?


You wanna instigate crap in here Malcolm? Because that's pretty much all you've been about. I don't know your personal life but if you are anything off line as on, its hard to imagine you have any friends. You need to grow up but your time here is not helping, to the contrary. You've found it too easy to be an asshole and bigot toward America with your keyboard.

The facts are the situation in Basra is fluctuating. There is transition and adjustment and like the rest of Iraq time is needed. Furthermore I don't hold up *Basra* as any kind of indicator for the remainder of Iraq. Largely everything I wrote is from sources on the ground, there, including citizens. Find just 1 of my statements, quote it, and prove it was false. Do you know what that means?

Here's more...

" The reporting on the transition of Basrah province to Provisional Iraqi Control (PIC) has been filled with stories on the influence of the Jaish al Mahdi (the Mahdi Army), the Badr Brigades, various militias, criminals, United Kingdom forces, and politics. But the reporting has omitted a significant development in Basrah, and a crucial element of the story: the greatly expanded Iraqi Army presence.

"The security situation in Basrah is certainly in need of being addressed, as Iran's attempts to influence the region, coupled with the extensive militia and criminal activity threatens the government's writ. The Iraqi government has committed significant resources to the southern city."

"The Iraqi Army now has four brigades and an Iraqi Special Operations Forces battalion in Basrah province. And the Iraqi Army is not finished; another brigade for Basrah is forming. The current and future units in Basrah include:

• 3-9 Tank Brigade (deployed from Baghdad to cover until 4-14 is formed)
• 1-14 Motorized Brigade (formerly the 3-8 Brigade from Wassit, replaced the 1-10)
• 2-14 Motorized Brigade (formerly the 5-10 Brigade, formed in May 2007)
• 3-14 Brigade (assembled in November 2007)
• 4-14 Brigade (forming by July 2008)
• Basrah ISOF Battalion (assembled from Anbar/Ninawa/Baghdad in August 2007)
• 14th Division Headquarters elements (diverted from Salahadin 12th Division formation; established Nov. 7, 2007)

"The 3-9 Tank Brigade is the one of two tank-equipped Iraqi Army units, and it was temporarily deployed from Baghdad to Basrah. Yet the reporting continues to omit this very important factor.

"In addition, the Iraqi National Police has sent two battalions of the 1st National Police Mechanized Brigade to Basrah. These forces are in addition to the Basrah based 2/IV Border Guards Brigade and the Umm Qasr-based Iraqi Marine Battalion."

These security forces need time to establish. As they are already in the process of transition taking over the central and north, American and Coalition troops are being redeployed south too. But even more for your anti-America/Iraq future hate: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/the_real_surge.php

Saddam is gone. You don't speak for Iraqis, Malcolm.

Your country is pulling out. Your only point is and has been to slime and discredit. You can hope in a spiteful state of mind and heart tho I doubt yours will come true.

LC Mamapajamas

Tory Jim, re: "Err... since when is "man of the year" generally understood to mean the person National Review picked? "

Ever since National Review decided to pick a "man of the year".

LC Mamapajamas

Tory Jim, a clarification.

I didn't believe for one second that Gen. Patraeus was Time's "Man of the Year". He's too loyal, patriotic, intelligent, and... well... American to qualify at Time, Inc.


I support the rebuilding of the British Armed forces, but I think there needs to be a discussion on what Britain's role in global security should be.

For all of Blair's resolve, Basra was a bit too much for the British Army (also engaged in Afghanistan).

There is a limit to what Britain can spend on defence (defence budget increases, notwithstanding). But there seems to be no limit to the foreign policy objectives of British politicians.

There should be a realistic match between Britain's resources and British policy objectives.

I look forward to a Britain that does not timidly follow America simply because it believes America alone can bridge the gaps between its military resources and its policy objectives.

The World desperately needs a Britain that can call America to order - if need be. I last saw that Britain twenty years ago.

Malcolm Dunn

Ah Steevo you have decided to comment at last. Glad to see the Iraqi Army have invested so much manpower in Basra. Let's hope it has some effect. Marie Colvin's article suggests it hasn't yet.
I think I'll ignore your moronic personal abuse but I have never tried to be a 'bigot' toward America, I hugely enjoy visiting it and you might be suprised to know that I have several friends there.


I call it bigotry when your responding to that of American has been near complete intolerance to accept the positive, at least in this forum. And nothing moronic pointing out going out of your way with juvenile instigation. You're wrapped up with spite. Do you think people here who've read your posts don't know where you're coming from? You are determined to create the image of American failure and you'd assume Iraq go to hell.

"Glad to see"? You've never had much of a clue. Never given any hard facts. Never really any angle other than "we've got rid of one tyranny only to replace it with another." I'll say here like before with you, say it to the Iraqi people... like you care. About anything of worth concerning human dignity for that matter.


For others here interested in more detail...

From Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite TV Network Friday, December 14, 2007:

Iraqi Forces will take over security command of Basra Province on December 16 as part of the plan to end the presence of British Forces in Basra and restrict troops to one military base near Basra airport.

The date of hand and take over was affirmed by the British Army while the Iraqi Cabinet spokesman confirmed during the development conference in Basra that explosions that occurred in surrounding provinces have no relation with Basra and will not affect security transfer to Iraqi Forces who are now totally prepared to handle the security of the province and preserve its stability."

Meanwhile, Basra residents welcomed the decision of withdrawal saying it's time for Iraqis to take over their country's security. Al Maliki called on Basra residents and officials to deploy all efforts in order to raise the economy of the province."



I've had to break this up because the anti-spam filter won't allow it all in one post.

And this...

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki wants his forces to take over security in the southern province of Basra from British troops within three months, his office said on Thursday.

"Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki confirmed the intention of Iraq's forces to assume the security file of Basra within three months," the statement said.

Britain has handed security responsibility back to Iraq in three of four southern provinces, with only Basra remaining.

Maliki expressed his hopes that after three months, British forces would only play a supporting role. He did not elaborate.



And this, which is very revealing and I suggest Tim read it for deeper understanding of the dynamics involved: http://tinyurl.com/yocd9z


Some excerpts more specific to this discussion:

Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, dispatched Maj Gen Khalaf from Baghdad to Basra in June with the mandate of bringing order to an ineffective police force. The killing rate has since fallen from 140 deaths per month to about 70, he told the Financial Times. However, the majority of deaths are still politically - related and the relationship between the police force and the Islamist groups is fraught with tensions.

Iraqi officials say security has improved slightly in recent weeks, partly because the withdrawal of British troops removed the strongest magnet for much of the large-scale attacks. But the intra-Iraqi violence continues and the city is off-limits to westerners.



Stop it.

"For all of Blair's resolve, Basra was a bit too much for the British Army (also engaged in Afghanistan)."

I believe the problem was one of emphasis not manpower. The Brits did the same thing in Afghanitan and it did not work.


I agree with you davod, exactly. You're quoting Maduka ;)


Thanks for the read. I agree with the points you made. http://www.rapidmediafire.com also has peoples thoughts on the matter.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker