why dosnt bush send his own troops into the afgan war instead of all our british ones?

Answer 1

If my memory serves me right, President Bush is not the commander in chief of the Brits

Answer 2

There may be a problem with British troops having poor equipment, but that does not mean they should not be there. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was home to a regime which harboured terrorists who had attacked the west, and home to training schools which would have produced more terrorists. It is in Britain's interests that we clean this out, and there is a price to be paid. We would not have won WW2 or any other conflict had we turned tail and ran whenever there were casualties. And Bush did send plenty of American troops to Afghanistan. This is not a well-informed question.

Answer 3

The Americans are doing their full share so don't be silly and parochial. Like all former British airmen I was greatly saddened by the deaths of the 14 airmen who were killed in the crash yesterday, and of course all the other personnel who have given their lives. However it is not George Bush who sends our troops to Afghanistan but Tony Blair, so blame him if you're so inclined. Personally I'm in two minds.

heavenlyhaggis

Answer 4

i've got have been given some ocean front materials in Arizona for every physique who thinks those shipments contain humanitarian help purely. The Rooskies are already suspicious and it would not be magnificent in the event that they have been to confiscate and inspect a number of the goodies getting into. the clarification the U.S. is even in Eurasia is for hedgemony over any governments who do not desire to pass alongside with the hot worldwide Order or greater wisely referred to as the undertaking for a sparkling American Century. the government controlled press is making it look like this is all Russia's fault while it grew to become into Georgia, below the prodding of the U.S. who attacked Russians interior the breakaway provinces with a view to elicit a reaction that could desire to grant them a reason to take Russia on. i think of Bush has taken on greater beneficial than he can chew this time. This added to the consistent threats against Iran skill that each and all of the products are coming at the same time for the international conflagration. only using fact the bible says, God is putting hooks interior the jaws of the warring parties. we are able to hate wars all we would like however the bible says wars and desolations are desperate suitable as much as the tip.

Answer 5

I guess you are referring to the plane crash and the offensive in South Afghanistan.

It's not a US-led coalition that's in Afghanistan, but a NATO-led force.

By belonging to NATO, Britain gives some of its troops to serve in Afghanistan.

Britain shouldn't complain, in the last offensive, Canadian, Dutch and Danish soldiers were at the front-line, British soldiers were behind, away from the front line. The reports didn't make mention of US troops though.
For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5309780.stm

In fact, if you look at the history:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5232766.stm
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-07/31/content_4899503.htm
The US troops have vacated and NATO forces (ISAF) under a British general (now you know why the British troops are not in the front-line) have taken over the South of Afghanistan.
http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2006/09/060901a.htm

If you are interested in the history of the ISAF:
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/evolution.htm

Answer 6

Because the UK conceived the first dirty-middle-east-oil operation by the CIA and have been partners in crime with the US all along. I am hardly an Anglo-phobe, but the British government has sponsored some really nefarious business in its history. If you think for a minute this whole thing is just Bush, think again...

Answer 7

Ask the same question to your own government. We are not sending british troops, Brits are sending british troops in.

If you want to ask a question that's fine, just do it with a little knowledge and not the lame method as this one.

Blame your own country for it's decisions and quit trying to put blame off on ours.

Answer 8

Since when can Bush control where British troops go?

Answer 9

Bush has no power to send British troops anywhere...Blair sent British troops there.

Answer 10

Ask Mr. Blair that one. Mr Bush doesn't command British troops. Semper Fi carry on.

Answer 11

Allow me to remind you of something my dear. Bush did not care for Afghanistan or to capture Bin Laden in the first place. Afghanistan was a launching pad for Bush who has always wanted to invade Iraq and to station our troops there for ever. So, he worked out a deal with your idiot PM to get Afghanistan. So, Bush can focus on Iraq. Yes, we have some American troops in Afghanistan, but mostly are Brits. I would say that Blair is in a deep crap like Bush....another looser!