2006-11-12 22:04:54 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
One would think you Brits would have learned how to crush the insurgency by now, after conquering Baghdad twice in the past. Maybe the introduction of television into war makes it harder to win. It was so much easier to kill without everyone watching. Maybe if we took a page out of the Iraqi militias' book, and just stopped caring, we could wrap this thing up before Christmas.
2006-11-12 22:56:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry for the losses of fine British soldiers...the world knows they are good people, but this is bigger than that. I in no way mean to say your guys should be there, but they are there. Thats the cold hard truth. They are very effective professionals, and you should bear in mind that when one of them falls, the rest get more determined. I hope all this ends soon for their sake as much as for the sake of American troops...and all the "other" allied troops.
The British people need to remember how grim things might be if we had not have gone to Iraq. There "were" lots of WMD's, I was there in the first gulf war, and British troops were right there with us, in our camps...in our patrols. We saw the remnants of destruction that could only be caused by such weapons...so all you peeps that keep saying "there were no WMD's", shut up. They were there.
Just hang in there, and let them do their jobs, nobody could do it better, nor has the balls to really "do it", besides the US and the UK. Always been that way, always will.
2006-11-12 22:32:42 · answer #2 · answered by Diadem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a war that is opposed by the majority of the people who live here. The longer it goes on the greater our guilt and our culpability. We were dragged into it under false pretenses, and we are staying in it in the vain hope that we might be able to improve things there.
It is clear that a democratic solution is not going to work, and it is also clear that when we do leave we will be leaving an Iraq which will be in a far worse state than it was under Saddam.
When are we going to learn the lesson not to meddle in the political affairs of another country?
And to those posters who claim that we are defending our land against terrorism - have you actually forgotten that the terrorism is a response to our invasion, not the other way around? 9/11 was nothing to do with Saddam, who hated Al Q'aeda.
2006-11-12 22:16:32 · answer #3 · answered by langdonrjones 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I doubt that any nationality that loses its sons and daughters in war tolerate or approve of losing them. They may accept that deaths of their young (and not so young) soldier occur in war but never approve.
I worked with both US and British troops during my time in Iraq. And speaking with the soldiers of both nations I found both groups wanted to go home....once they have completed their mission. They understood that simply leaving Iraq and will not eliminate terrorist attacks on their countries or any where else.
2006-11-13 01:21:44 · answer #4 · answered by iraq51 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You must think that by leaving Iraq you won't be under Al Queda's threat anymore. Seriously? Your country is being treatend all the time. You should want to fight back.
2006-11-12 22:27:38 · answer #5 · answered by Rick 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Unless you want more bombings there, they need to be fought and defeated where they live, not where YOU live.
Would you rather it be your friends and neighbors than the soldiers & terrorists?
2006-11-12 22:16:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Aren't the Islamic Terrorists already invading your country? That's why soldiers are fighting.
2006-11-12 22:07:57 · answer #7 · answered by tumbleweed1954 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋