UK sending 31,000 troops to the gulf.

Oerdin · January 20, 2003, 17:28

Taken from the BBC's web site.

Quote:

Up to 31,000 UK military personnel - including 29,000 ground troops - are being sent to the Gulf in preparation for possible action against Iraq, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has told MPs.
The defence secretary detailed the deployment, which will include 120 Challenger tanks and 150 Warrior armoured personnel carriers, during a statement in the Commons.

UK troops in the Gulf

Royal Navy Task Group has set sail

Personnel include Royal Marines from 3 Commando Brigade

Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division

Support from the Desert Rats

16 Air Assault Brigade

102 Logistics Brigade

120 Challenger tanks

150 Warrior armoured personnel carriers

Click here for map of UK military build-up

Mr Hoon told MPs that an additional 26,000 troops would be joining some 5,000 service personnel in the Gulf.

The deployment, which includes the Desert Rats, is the most significant step so far in the British military build-up and far exceeds all predictions by military observers.

British armoured troops will be now stationed in Kuwait by the middle of February.

Mr Hoon stressed that the deployment does not mean an inevitable war with Saddam Hussein, adding the threat of military action would bring weight to ongoing diplomatic activity.

"None of the steps we are taking represents a commitment of British forces to military action," he said.

"A decision to employ force has not been taken, nor is such a decision imminent or inevitable."

Desert Rats

Conservative defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin offered his unqualified backing for the decision, saying the significance of the deployment of one quarter of the British army highlighted the seriousness of the situation.

The Desert Rats

Formed in February 1940

Famed for campaign against Rommel's Afrika Korps

Deployed in Gulf War, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo

Equipped with 100 Challenger 2 tanks

Desert Rats Factfile

Aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal, and helicopter carrier HMS Ocean are already on their way to the Gulf.

The package announced included Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division, with support from 7th Armoured Brigade (the Desert Rats), 16 Air Assault Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade.

Together with marine commandos and paratroopers, it could leave the UK with up to 31,000 members of the armed forces in place for war.

'Moment of choice'

Mr Hoon has said that UN weapons inspectors do not need to find a "smoking gun" to trigger war.

"Clearly we believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said at the weekend.

On Monday, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned that time was running out for Saddam Hussein.

At a counter-terrorism meeting of UN Security Council foreign ministers in New York, he stressed: "The moment of choice for Saddam is close.

"He must either resolve this crisis peacefully, by the full and active compliance with his Security Council obligations and full co-operation with inspectors, or face the 'serious consequences' - the use of force - which this Council warned would follow when it passed (Resolution) 1441."

'Difficult choices'

German foreign minister Joschka Fischer said his country - which holds the Security Council presidency next month - was against military action against Iraq.

War could result in "disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability" and, "possible negative repercussions for the joint fight against terrorism," he said.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the UN could not be scared into "impotence" in dealing with Iraq's refusal to co-operate with weapons inspectors and its failure to disarm.

"We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week," he said.

"We cannot be shocked into impotence because we are afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us."

Rumsfeld: Saddam Hussein should flee Iraq
Earlier on Monday, Iraq agreed to a series of concessions with United Nations weapons inspectors as pressure grew on Baghdad to prove it had disarmed.

The UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the head of the UN's nuclear agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, ended two days of talks in Baghdad with a 10-point agreement struck with Iraqi officials.

They are due to report their findings to the UN Security Council on 27 January.

The most important point agreed was that a list would be drawn up of people to be interviewed by inspectors without having any Iraqi officials present.

Interviews with scientists - who will possibly be taken out of Iraq - have been demanded by the US Government, but Baghdad had previously objected.

Inspectors' suspicions have been raised following the discovery last week of chemical warheads and new documents, possibly relating to the development of nuclear weapons in Iraq.

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 17:30

Well, it's getting near that time, you know.

chequita guevara · January 20, 2003, 17:30

Ooh, I'll bet that will go over like a lead balloon.

Drake Tungsten · January 20, 2003, 17:33

I love the British. Our only true allies...

edit: Forgot about the Aussies. They're good friends as well.

Oerdin · January 20, 2003, 17:41

That quote didn't turn out very well. All the side boxes ended up getting mixed in with the main article.

Starchild · January 20, 2003, 17:48

The Americans love our dear leader more than we do these days.

Shi Huangdi · January 20, 2003, 17:51

UK!

Oerdin · January 20, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Starchild
The Americans love our dear leader more than we do these days.

Well you guys liked Clinton more then we did so turn around is fair play.

DanS · January 20, 2003, 18:20

Blair is like Clinton, except Blair has character and a backbone. How could we not like him?

Arrian · January 20, 2003, 18:26

I was in the UK during the election that put Blair into power... I remember watching it and thinking that they were electing a Clinton clone.

He seems to have managed to leave his interns alone and he's a damn good speaker, not to mention doing a pretty good job of moderating/helping us. My opinion of him has certainly improved since that first impression.

-Arrian

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 19:07

Except for Churchill the Brits always hate their leaders. If Blair didn't show backbone now and 10 years from now a terrorist blew up an Iraqi nuke in London, or an Iraqi made bio weapon, oh Blair would then be Chamberlained right up the wazzoo.

The average Brit has gotten too synical to believe in anyone or anything. Under such circumstances a good man like Tony Blair comes along and does the right thing...yeah we Americans admire him.

Case · January 20, 2003, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
edit: Forgot about the Aussies. They're good friends as well.

The Australian government is America's good friend, but the Australian people arn't so keen on war. A poll published on the weekend shows that 6% of Australians would aprove of Australian troops taking part in the non-UN mandated attack on Iraq which Bush & Blair seem so wierdly keen on.

Provost Harrison · January 20, 2003, 19:26

How democratic. The majority of British people do not support war, but we are still being geared up for war

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 19:41

Yup PH, same thing happened in the US prior to WW2.

The Japanese bombed some sense into us...

Dauphin · January 20, 2003, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Except for Churchill the Brits always hate their leaders.

Yet we still threw him out of office by a landslide in the 1945 elections.

Sandman · January 20, 2003, 20:21

Shameful. I hope that little weasel Blair's government collapses over this.

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 20:24

SD

Brought him back later though didn't you? That was after he had been made an true English saint by the media though, yes?

If my history serves...

MichaeltheGreat · January 20, 2003, 20:27

Just think, we started out as your colony, subject to the foreign policy entanglements of your rulers, with no independent power of our own.

A couple of centuries and change, and the roles have become reversed.

I wonder if the UK government is still at all capable of doing anything other than towing the line on US policy?

Sandman · January 20, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Brought him back later though didn't you? That was after he had been made an true English saint by the media though, yes?

He won a minority of the vote. He only made it back because of the unrepresentative voting system.

Dauphin · January 20, 2003, 20:30

We brought him back for a while before he resigned (due to ill health IIRC).

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 20:33

They stuck it to the Agentines without our help or guidance.

Blair is paying a big price for his support of the US, as this thread shows, so his government is certainly strong willed. Clinton would have taken a poll and abandoned his convictions (if he ever had any in his life) by now.

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Yup PH, same thing happened in the US prior to WW2.

The Japanese bombed some sense into us...

I like that. Brief, to the point, and 100% truth.

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 20:36

MichaeltheGreat · January 20, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
They stuck it to the Agentines without our help or guidance.

Blair is paying a big price for his support of the US, as this thread shows, so his government is certainly strong willed. Clinton would have taken a poll and abandoned his convictions (if he ever had any in his life) by now.

If the US isn't careful, the US is going to be paying a big price (not from that clown in Baghdad, but in foreign cooperation, wearing down of the military from pace of operations {per Shelton's and other's remarks}.

The difference with Clinton is he apparently had the freedom to be spineless if he chose. Blair's policy looks more like he's a state governor, or a member of the cabinet, not a leader of an independent country.

Jaakko · January 20, 2003, 20:40

Wasn't it just a while ago that Blair tried to reassure the anti-war crowd?

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 20:44

MtG, are you suggesting he's helping the US because he has no other choice? That Great Britain has somehow lost its soverienty? That they just can't say no? Well I have heard that about the women but...

chequita guevara · January 20, 2003, 21:08

So, when's the next UK election? Guess the Liberal Dem's are gonna take the government.

Ned · January 20, 2003, 21:39

It is clear that Blair and Bush both know that Saddam has WoMD and is continuing to hide them. He had four years to perfect his methods.

I still think that Blair and Bush will make their cases both to the UN and to their own people before launching any attack.

There will be some very interesting moments when we order the UN inspectors out. Will Saddam let them go peacefully once more?

MichaeltheGreat · January 20, 2003, 21:48

North Korea has WoMD's, and a leader and government that makes Saddam look like Mr. Rogers and makes the Iraqi government look like a model of democracy. Why aren't we sending forces to thump his ass?

Pakistan has WoMD's, a constant brink-of-war relationship with it's nuclear power neighbor, and intelligence services still riddled with supporters of Islamic fundamentalists (it's not disputed that Pakistan and India used the Taleban and NA as proxies in Afghanistan). It is run by a military dictator who doesn't dare allow full democracy, as much of the country actively supports Islamic fundamentalist movements. We don't do anything to Pakistan's nukes, and we praise it's government for "cooperation" in the war on terrorism, at the same time Pakistan has had it's fingers just about everywhere, from the DPRK's weapons programs, to Kashmir, to ongoing support for al Qaeda and Taleban. Gee, a country with nukes, which has disloyal members of it's military, police forces, and intelligence services. But that's A-OK.

Saddam, however, he just has to go, regardless.

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 21:52

I have high hopes Blik will offer his services as a human shield. Watching him speak on TV is like getting hit by a large cold wet noodle.