Rice, Bush and rush "....the action of the British government prove that the Iraqi military are capable of protecting Iraq without helps from outside....."
But want 20,000 more US troops to help protect Iraq!!!!?
What!!!!!?
2007-02-21 13:40:55 · 14 answers · asked by Taco . 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Their theory is that the southern half of Iraq where most the Brits have been stationed is so stable that the Iraqis can handle security there.
Ok, thats fine and dandy. If this is the case they best not put one single American soldier in the southern half of Iraq. They are saying its stable-so no Americans should be put there.
Yet they will.
2007-02-21 13:45:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Tony Blair's popularity is down at home, this will help him recover some popularity. GWB owes Tony support for the loyalty Great Britain has given the US. This is the least he can do in support of Blair's legacy.
The hostilities in the south where the British patrol are reasonably calm right now. The Iraqi army should have no big problem replacing the British troops.
This isn't the case in Baghdad and Andwar Province where the really ugly shiit goes on, daily! The commanders on the ground want more troops and they will get them. Does this answer your confusion over the matter?
2007-02-21 21:54:11 · answer #2 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does not make sense, right ? But it does, once we realize that there is nothing Bush/Rice can do to keep British troops. So, instead of admitting Britain is pulling away, saying it is a victory and supporting British will make public think Bush' plans are right on track. Another magnum opus from the great liar.
2007-02-21 22:15:24 · answer #3 · answered by ramshi 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have always been for the eagle, not the left or right wing, but the speaker of the house hit the nail on the head when she commented that if things are going so well, get our troops out! This is neo-con spin.
Nothing more!
Cheney needs to shut his 13% approval rated mouth and let real Americans run the Country!
2007-02-21 22:38:42 · answer #4 · answered by JIM A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too many cooks in the kitchen reasoning. We are talking about less than 1600 soldiers - what is the bid deal. We have had trouble co-ordinating between armies in the past. How about the obvious - they are free to do what they want with their military as are we. They have been valiant allies. 1600 of 7000 will go home & the rest will follow by Dec 2008. The US has 158,000 that 1600 is barely 1% of out troops, we will carry on.
2007-02-21 21:49:56 · answer #5 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They agree that Prince Harry needs to be protected. The Queen is right, and she is Commander in Chief of British Forces. As for people saying it's only 1600 troops, isn't that 2/3rds of the British Army?
2007-02-21 21:45:43 · answer #6 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The British troops were generally in the south of Iraq, which is pretty stable.
2007-02-21 21:48:13 · answer #7 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nomatter what happens or how bad it gets or how many troops are killed, the white house and FOXnoise will always spin it to make it seem everything is right on track!
2007-02-21 21:52:23 · answer #8 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Proof that politicians know not how to fight a war. But honestly, Britain is, was, our only real ally in Iraq and Afghanistan so who would we be to criticize them? Think maybe we knew they were leaving?
2007-02-21 21:44:57 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They don't want to admit that they have no allies left (other than that Parasitic Apartheid Terrorist Welfare State called Israel, which has absolutely nothing to offer except for its hand out demanding another Billion dollar welfare check)
2007-02-21 21:52:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋