Are the Brits cut-n-runs like the democrats or is this a sign of progress in Iraq?
Also, will the same people who complained about 20,000 more American troops also complain about 2,000 less Brittish?
2007-02-21 08:44:54 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We dont need the Brits to begin with.
In the Gulf War, we took the lead.
And in Afghanistan we took the Brunt
And in Iraq, the layed in the south, while we went into baghdad.
They didnt do anything!!!!
WHO NEEDS THEM ANYWAY!!!!!!!
CUT N' RUNNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-02-21 08:49:54 · answer #1 · answered by Indio 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it may be a good idea. They are leaving an area that is relatively quiet. Perhaps the rest of the country might get the picture: Settle down and the troops will go home.
2007-02-21 16:51:00 · answer #2 · answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the British still have over 7000 troops there. From what I've read on here, some really don't believe this is a permanent arrangement. The British can talk more to their military than I certainly can.
2007-02-21 16:49:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Evidently these Brits are considerably more intelligent than the low life Republicans who got out troops into this mess to begin with!
2007-02-21 16:49:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's great Now we get their base in Basra.
I wish we had been there years ago when this war started. Think about it, If Rumsfeld had not been stoked on his Transformation Theory. We would have taken Basra and run operations from there.
Go big Red Go
2007-02-21 16:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very bad idea. Falling into the trap of the terrorists.
2007-02-21 16:50:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
so prince harry doesn't have to go.
2007-02-21 16:48:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋