Skip to comments.
Battle to retake Basra was 'complete disaster'
Telegraph (UK) ^
| 12:34am BST 20/04/2008
| Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Posted on 04/19/2008 7:18:10 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: NormsRevenge; elhombrelibre; Allegra; SandRat; tobyhill; G8 Diplomat; Dog; Cap Huff; ...
Not sure I believe this report....
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The repeated Israeli victories of years past (leaving aside last year’s Lebanon crap) over ‘vast Arab armies’ are looking less and less amazing every day, I fear.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
At one stage during the battle, stories were circulating at the British headquarters that Iraqi troops were demanding food and water from coalition forces at gunpoint. I guess rumor and falsehood counts as reporting from this media outlet.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Now which is it
we kicked arse in Basra or we didnt? Conflicting news reports. ????
5
posted on
04/19/2008 7:26:29 PM PDT
by
doc1019
(Acts 16:31, Romans 10:13 ... nuff said.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Kind of opposite to the story you posted
here. The Telegraph (UK) seems to be a lot like Reuters in their reliability.
6
posted on
04/19/2008 7:26:36 PM PDT
by
SunTzuWu
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
...wasn't there a story; week/two weeks ago, how the USmil saved this battle from being lost?
7
posted on
04/19/2008 7:26:37 PM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(just b/c you're paranoid,doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you..our hopes were dashed by CINOs :)
To: SunTzuWu
thanks, for the illumination.
8
posted on
04/19/2008 7:28:27 PM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(just b/c you're paranoid,doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you..our hopes were dashed by CINOs :)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Not sure I believe this report....I'm pretty sure that I don't.
9
posted on
04/19/2008 7:28:50 PM PDT
by
Bahbah
(Typical white person)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Telegraph is a blatantly Left wing publication. They’ll say ANYTHING to help the enemy.
10
posted on
04/19/2008 7:30:18 PM PDT
by
navyguy
(Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don't want to be a Brit basher, but it always bothered me that it took Britain almost as long to take Basra as it took for the US to get to Baghdad. I really don't take too much stock on any criticism from the British media on this. Some of the neighborhoods of Basra will have to be won block by block.
11
posted on
04/19/2008 7:31:53 PM PDT
by
Chgogal
(When you vote Democrat, you vote Al Qaeda! Ari Emanuel, Rahm's brother was agent to Moore's F9/11.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don’t think I believe it.
What’s more, although the British military is certainly competent, from what I understand they held back from doing anything in their area for the past several years, which is one reason why there’s a problem now.
The last thing they would want to admit is that the Iraqi army, imperfect as it is, accomplished something they never even tried.
12
posted on
04/19/2008 7:32:20 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Basra was handed back to Iraqi control last year after the Army withdrew from its last military base in the city.
Withdrew?? When I read about it last year I thought it was a retreat.
13
posted on
04/19/2008 7:35:58 PM PDT
by
Selmore
(A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This is total BS. A terrible hit piece.
14
posted on
04/19/2008 7:37:07 PM PDT
by
golfisnr1
(Democrats are like roaches - hard to get rid of.)
To: doc1019
“We” were in a support role. Measured in terms of a US or UK miltary op, it was a train wreck. Measured in terms of a fledgling Iraqi Army with troops and officers that wouldn’t even be allowed in a US or UK force as janitors, it was a big win, if severely flawed from a modern ops perspective.
15
posted on
04/19/2008 7:37:59 PM PDT
by
piytar
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
A little reading between the lines is necessary. The reason the British are whining to the press (and that's all this article is) is explained in the following sentence:
They said the failure had delayed the British withdrawal by "many months".
The British have been winking at the Sadrists and the Mahdi Army in Basra for five years and have done absolutely nothing about the presence of a private army of terrorists basically running the second-largest city in Iraq. Sadr would run the city, and would keep a "peace" that would in time allow the British to leave.
Maliki's military action against Sadr destroyed the understanding that the British had reached in Basra--but it was an understanding that needed destroying.
16
posted on
04/19/2008 7:39:24 PM PDT
by
denydenydeny
(Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Its just UK Forces brass too embarrassed to admit that the Iraqis did what they refused to do. If they’d turned the Squadies loose, the problems could have been handled long since.
17
posted on
04/19/2008 7:40:45 PM PDT
by
Uriah_lost
(This space reserved for a decent candidate,,,lemme know when we get one.)
To: GOP_Party_Animal
What a crock. It seems that there is nobody willing to put their own name on all of these accusations. Nothing but hearsay.
18
posted on
04/19/2008 7:44:10 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
20
posted on
04/19/2008 7:49:18 PM PDT
by
golfisnr1
(Democrats are like roaches - hard to get rid of.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson