tony blair bushs lapdog
2006-10-05 09:50:30 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree with abularaby. An army is there to protect the country of origin. An army is also there to interfere and to gain peace. But an army should not fight in a war where there is nothing to fight against. There should never be a war no more without real reason. Oil and more land or power is no reason!
2006-10-05 10:22:44 · answer #1 · answered by kobe 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The point of having an army is to protect the country, not to go to another country 5000 miles away to steal -together with Bush- their OIL, claiming that Iraq got WMD!! UK and USA have lost the war: Both together lost more than 3200 soldiers, they created thousands of terrorists who are eager to kill western, 7/7 was a result of the war, an average of 50 civilians are killed daily in Iraq which never happened at the time of even Saddam!!
2006-10-05 10:13:15 · answer #2 · answered by Abularaby 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it was not for the US in WW2 you Brits would be speaking German. Tony is the greatest man you have had since Maggie & Winston. He is just repaying us for our help. If something schould happen to your freedom(God forbid), who will be the first person you ask for help from THE GOOD OLD USA. We will be your lapdog & come runningGOD BLESS THE QUEEN & Tony blair//
2006-10-05 10:16:31 · answer #3 · answered by BUTCH 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
no longer adequate for pensioners, ill, disabled human beings and their carers. @Avalon - properly carried out for elevating the issue @Prodigal Son - would you concentrate on status for authorities? You made some very exciting and valid comments there. D. xx
2016-11-26 19:33:21 · answer #4 · answered by meriwether 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ermmmm what is the point of the Army? Bring them back here to do what exactly? Run around in the woods going Bang bang?
As Britain is not under threat as such they are not needed here to defend us.
2006-10-05 09:57:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
We (United Kingdom) are a member of NATO. The USA was attacked on 9/11 and proved that Afghanistan was complicit.
Hence we are adhering to article 5 of the NATO charter and assisting them in Afghanistan.
Iraq is a different matter of course but the USA did kind of help us out in WW2, no?
2006-10-05 10:11:17 · answer #6 · answered by ns 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You'd better have an interest in helping to stabilize IRAQ. France is about two years - maybe less - from having a complete collapse of their gov't with muslim instability. If we don't have your help now, you won't get ours (US) when you need it in a couple of years.
2006-10-05 09:54:50 · answer #7 · answered by bardstale 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That sort of comment is expected from Londonisthan.
2006-10-05 10:52:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree,British troops should not be fighting wars on behalf of American oil companies.In fact AMERICAN troops should not be fighting for them either.
2006-10-05 10:01:15 · answer #9 · answered by michael k 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Naw.
2006-10-05 10:09:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋