No Blaire's just found the guts to tell Bush we are in a war we cant win.
Anyway we went in to remove Saddam, Job was done long time ago. So why are we still there?, if Iraqis want to kill each other that's up to them.
2007-02-21 12:12:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Geoff E 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The British are pulling out of Iraq for several valid reasons as far as they are concerned. First is pressure from the people at home. Next is because they occupy the Southern region of Iraq and things are relatively quiet down there. I wonder what they would do if things flared up in Southern Iraq? Would they change their minds and remain? Things are also quiet in the North of Iraq, but the real trouble is within the center of the country where the American troops are staying.
2007-02-21 12:12:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe it is supposed to look like everything is going well while the reality is that British people don't want their troops involved in this war. So the politicians have found an excuse to exit Iraq.
2007-02-21 12:10:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it is a sign of higher thinking. They have realized, like most of the world that Iraq is currently in a state of civil war. That being said, foreign occuppying forces have no right to become involved in a civil war. Also their politicians are showing that they actually do care about their countrymen and women by bringing them home before they sustain anymore casualities. Too bad there doesn´t seem to be a deathtoll high enough to get the Bush Administration to do the same.
2007-02-21 12:21:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by sarcasm_gurl 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Odd because Cheney already came up with that reasoning, but is Bush sending more troops there instead of pulling them out? Affirmation/Mission Accomplished or is it because the English people are being heard better by their government than the American people are being heard by their government?
2007-02-21 12:15:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by furrryyy 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think this as much to do with Prince Harry heading to Iraq then anything else. Ever hear of depleted Uranium? I'm sure the Queen doesn't want the 3rd in line to the throne or any of his offspring to be tainted by the munitions of Raygun Ronnie's (that's Ronald Reagan) military legacy. In my mind its just to much of a coincedence that the Brits would be pulling out just as Harry was headed to Basra.
2007-02-21 12:23:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Third Uncle 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The British troops are located in Basra, the US in Baghdad. Basra's doing OK, Baghdad isn't. The British are able to pull troops out.
2007-02-21 12:13:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by MATTHEW A 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, right. Sure. Absolutely. Actually it's an affirmation of how Britain is coming to its senses (again). In case you didn't know, they spent 18 years bogged down in the Middle East in the 1920s and 1930s.
2007-02-21 12:11:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by bullwinkle 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Affirmative.
2007-02-21 12:07:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Harriet 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
it rather is what i do no longer understand...British troops shoot and kill a terrorist. The act is executed and over with. here in solutions, all posative responses...my reaction? extraordinary. Now, had it been American troops that had shot him, all of sudden he will become a civilian, harmless and unarmed. We broke into his residing house unwarrented and killed him in chilly blood. that should have been the reaction of anti-conflict sympathizers and the clicking. here in solutions, human beings might have long previous nuts saying that American squaddies are murderers. only unhappy.
2016-11-24 22:51:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋