Tony Blair is due to announce the return of thousands of UK soldiers from Basra in a speech to Parliament on Wednesday. Is this the beginning of a major drawdown of UK assests in Iraq? It seems to coincide with his eventual stepping down as Prime Minister. Is he trying to protect his legacy by getting the boys out now?
2007-02-20 09:25:50 · 13 answers · asked by Golf Alpha Nine-seven 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I hope so! I applaud what the UK and the USA set out to do in Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But enough is enough. The Iraqis are not ready for democracy. They wont be for a long time yet. That is an ideal that has to grow in a country over the centuries. It is like going back to England in the middle ages and trying to impose democracy. It would not have worked, and it wont work in Iraq. It took a long, long time here, and it will take a long time in the Middle East. They WANT a Strong Man Dictatorship. It's what they need! We should do what we can to make sure it is a benign Dictatorship, where the idea of freedom can be fostered, and grow into a need for democracy. Right now, we should butt out!
2007-02-20 10:01:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it has more to do with the MORI poll results published today: Conservatives 43 percent; Labour 29 percent; Lib Dems 17 percent.
The same poll published statistics on Cameron v Brown as PM candidates. Cameron was again 12 or 13 points ahead of Brown.
"New Labour" is in "Big Trouble". I see this sudden about-face on the troop situation as a cynical ploy to try to close the glaring gap between Labour and the Tories before the general election. Ironic that Blair made the announcement today - the same day as the poll was published.
2007-02-20 10:53:43 · answer #2 · answered by lesroys 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He might before he leaves but who knows his successor might leave them there untill 2008 but it does not really matter. Britain only has about 8, 000 troops in Iraq compared to 140, 000 American troops. Its seems like the only nation eager to stop terrorism in the United States. That kind of commitment should be honored. No other nation even comes close to commiting this amount of troops. If the U.S. was to pull out of every foreign nation, who would be there to protect countries like Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Katar, South Korea, Japan, Europe, etc, from hostile nations like Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia? God bless America.
2007-02-20 11:26:45 · answer #3 · answered by General Vic 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It should be, this is GWB's war and he should be over there fighting it instead of wasting trillions of both countries money and thousands of young mens lives.
They need to find a way out, the easy way for the UK is to quietly hand over to the US, the US has it's wedding tackle in a meat grinder and that is only one person's fault. He is employed to foresee and avoid situations like this. He lied, cheated and failed his country.
2007-02-20 10:46:58 · answer #4 · answered by Chris H 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh God I hope so!!!
1000-1500 troops that`s 1/2 the boys back home by Christmas!! They`re saying all home 2008!!! I won`t hold my breath!!! You know how things change with this bloody government!!
More Americans are going into Baghdad!!!! Is this the divide!!!
Tink x
2007-02-20 09:49:04 · answer #5 · answered by Tink 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Soldiers are coming back from Iraq, but they get send to Afghanistan instead! He gets them out of one place and puts them in an even worse one.
2007-02-21 08:58:23 · answer #6 · answered by carmen1509s 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're going to be in Iraq for years, we may severely reduce our involvement but we won't be out for at least 5 years. We've been in some countries for 25 years, not that they publicise such things!
2007-02-20 09:30:08 · answer #7 · answered by mad_caesar 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's just another vote catcher. May elections? Surely he couldn't possibly think he'd gain a few votes, could he? Probably that strange man GB suggested it to him, as his chances of being PM seem to be slipping rapidly, thank goodness.
In any event, Afghanistan (and, wait for it, Iran) require a further commitment.
2007-02-20 11:24:40 · answer #8 · answered by michael w 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He will never be able to change the amount of chaos he's caused the country.Only he's own disillusioned mind doesn't see it. He really is a pathetic example of manhood.
2007-02-20 09:44:58 · answer #9 · answered by Butt 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Was Tony referring to living soldiers or dead soldiers? If he wanted to protect his legacy he's far too late.
2007-02-20 09:29:38 · answer #10 · answered by John S 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋