In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Brits preparing for war

susiesusie Member Posts: 7,685 ✭✭✭✭
edited September 2002 in General Discussion
London Daily Telegraph
September 13, 2002

British Troops Head For Iraq War

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent and George Jones, Political Editor

Advance parties will begin deploying to Kuwait within two weeks in preparation for an attack on Iraq which could involve up to 30,000 British troops, defence sources said yesterday.

At the same time, attacks on Iraq by aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones will be stepped up with the intention of piling the pressure on Saddam Hussein to agree to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

There are signs that this has begun with a 100-aircraft raid on the H3 air base in western Iraq. The aim was to clear a corridor allowing special forces into western Iraq to prevent Saddam moving Scud missiles to threaten Israel.

The British deployment will begin after Sept 24 when Parliament debates support for American action against Iraq, the sources said.

RAF leave has been cancelled in preparation for reinforcement of the no-fly zones.

But it will take at least three months for the British tanks to get to Kuwait, ruling out any attack on Iraq this year. Government officials said the US was now determined to try pressure through the United Nations before any attack.

The MoD denied reports yesterday that two British armoured brigades would be in the desert within two weeks. But defence sources confirmed that plans were in place to deploy a "light" armoured division to Kuwait.

US war plans will require a five-division assault on Iraq's southern flank, including four of its own divisions.

In the north, US airborne troops, possibly supported by Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade, would occupy Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and a Marine Expeditionary Force would most likely mount an amphibious attack from the northern Gulf. That could involve the Royal Marines' 3 Commando Brigade.

Every British Army unit has been asked to provide a full status of its readiness for deployment, the sources said.

However, the British division is expected to be made up of the HQ of 1 Armoured Division plus 4 Armoured Brigade and 7 Armoured Brigade, the so-called Desert Rats. With logistical support that would be a total of about 20,000 troops.

The number of RAF aircraft in the region will be tripled with the six Jaguars based at Incirlik in Turkey increasing to 20. In the event of war these would move to bases in northern Iraq already prepared by US engineers.

The number of Tornado GR4s would increase to about 30 aircraft based in Kuwait and the number of RAF personnel would rise to about 5,000.

The Navy is expected to provide an amphibious carrier task force led by Ark Royal, which is on its way to the Mediterranean. The group would include the amphibious assault carrier Ocean, which is in the Indian Ocean, and would involve a total of about 4,000 servicemen and women.

The leaking of the plans comes after discussions on US preparations for Iraq between Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, and his US counterpart Donald Rumsfeld. Senior officers also took part in the talks.

Gen Tommy Franks, US commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, has decided to start moving his command post to the Gulf tomorrow in a clear sign that America is preparing for war.

Tony Blair yesterday received strong backing for the dispatch of troops from Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative leader.

Mr Duncan Smith, who met Mr Blair at No 10, said action would be needed if Saddam refused to comply with new UN demands that he give up all his weapons of mass destruction. "If he won't do that then military force is the only way to make that happen," Mr Duncan Smith said.

The Prime Minister also met Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, and Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, to brief them on the quickening pace of preparations for conflict.

Mr Blair promised that Britain would play an active role in the discussions on a new UN resolution.

British officials said they wanted the UN to set a deadline of weeks, rather than months, for Saddam to comply with all existing resolutions or face attack. Downing Street later confirmed that Parliament would be recalled on Tuesday, Sept 24, for an emergency debate on Iraq.

The Government's long-awaited dossier of evidence on Saddam's weapons programme would be available to MPs from 8am that day, said a No 10 spokesman.

But Mr Blair rejected demands from Mr Duncan Smith and Labour backbenchers for a formal vote on the crisis. The Tory leader argued that it would send a strong signal to Saddam, but Mr Blair is concerned that it would be exploited by Labour opponents of military action to embarrass the Government.

Robin Cook, the leading Cabinet "dove" on Iraq, stepped up the pressure on Mr Blair to allow MPs a substantive vote when a decision is taken to commit British troops to military action.

He said it was "inconceivable" that Britain could go to war with Iraq without the consent of MPs.

He refused to rule out the option that he could resign as Leader of the Commons if Britain joined a US-led attack without a UN mandate.

Yesterday, using his authority as the minister responsible for the conduct of Government business in the Commons, Mr Cook made clear that the Government must seek the formal backing of Parliament to send British troops into battle.

However, he indicated that this was likely to happen after rather than before the decision was taken.


***There's a difference between living and living well!***

Comments

  • SUBMARINERSUBMARINER Member Posts: 1,362 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    is it just me or does it seem the brits are the only friends we got anymore

    SUBMARINE SAILOR,TRUCK DRIVER,RUSTY WALLACE FAN AND AS EVERYONE SO OFTEN POINTS OUT PISS POOR TYPIST e-mail:WNUNLEY@USIT.NET
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have more respect for a man in the British military than any politician in the U.S..
    A. When we went to war with IRAQ the first time and Saudi asked for our help, the French and the British said 'Alright we'll help you but you laws don't apply to us on your soil'. The U.S. said 'OK we'll help you and follow your laws with no SOFA agreement'.
    B. The Brits drink in Saudi, speed in their trucks
    C. The American's get persecuted and face getting body parts chopped off for violating Saudi laws, no booze and no speeding. Saudi Arabia searches each and every American entering their country looking for contra-band. Allies my shiny white behind.
    D. The American flag flies no where's in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, someone needs to clone George Washington and let him run again for President
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I wonder if the Brits are still using those Enfield Assault Rifle's still, didn't they have alot of problems with them?

    If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.

    The sound of a 12 gauge pump clears a house fatser than Rosie O eats a Big Mac !
  • Big Sky RedneckBig Sky Redneck Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Somebody please explain to this dumb backwoods hillbilly redneck hick why we always need help to kick someones butt?!?!?! We are the worlds superpower right? Then why do we alays need to have help to open a can of a$$woop on another country. Screw the UN, if we are so powerfull why do we need them?? Lets do it ourselves and show the world who we are!



    Edited by - 7mm nut on 09/14/2002 12:38:57
  • NighthawkNighthawk Member Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with 7MM,but the UN stated yesterday Iraq must let inspectors back in or face Military action.The only reason we seek their approval is because the sanctions were developed by the UN,President Bush openly questioned their resolve.We have sighned so many agreements with the UN and Nato we have to consult with them,not have their approval.Some one in the other thread disapproved of Nuclear weapons.Im glad we have them,its kind of like Karate you dont learn it to fight you learn it so you dont have to fight.Same rule apply's to Nuclear weapons.The US arsenal of nuclear weapons have detered this Country from attack more than we will ever know.Ill toss this one in,we watched a special on the Discovery channel not long ago.They stated the fact that the US has enough Nuclear Missles based in the continental US,not counting Alaska over sea's bases or ships and subs to destroy the Earth 7 times.To me I can sleep well knowing of such a Deterent.Someone else on the other thread from a foreign Country stated it wasnt fair for the US to put a defensive ballistic Missle shield in Space.Truth be known its already their.And will be used to protect US allies as well from ICBM attack.

    Rugster


    Toujours Pret
  • SUBMARINERSUBMARINER Member Posts: 1,362 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    yada yada yada blah blah blah....screw the u.n.

    SUBMARINE SAILOR,TRUCK DRIVER,RUSTY WALLACE FAN AND AS EVERYONE SO OFTEN POINTS OUT PISS POOR TYPIST e-mail:WNUNLEY@USIT.NET
Sign In or Register to comment.