speak??????
2007-02-21 23:12:00 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
fox news watcher,,,you mean there is a place in the world where no fox news mummifies viewers?,,,,
2007-02-21 23:18:04 · update #1
It seems to me that Tony Blair is just willing to forget about the terrorist attacks his country has endured. It is so easy for them to make this out to be our war and not look back. Although they did say last fall that they were intending on phasing out of the war sometime in the spring of 07. Bush has had all this time to get off the pot. Thanks for asking my question!!
2007-02-21 23:36:43 · answer #1 · answered by Enigma 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wrong on all counts. The "war on terror" is America's war - the token troop representation in Iraq from the handful of countries speaks for itself. Furthermore 'allied countries' do not want any mass murders of their civilians on their soil (Madrid train bombing frightened the Spanish into pulling out their troops). And unlike the US, "allied countries" (a misnomer) are skeptical about a clean and conclusive ending to the conflict. France especially is the strongest European critic of the war; accuses the US of de-stabilizing the region. What do you think... are they right?
2007-02-21 23:27:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In order to answer this question you need to know the answer to a second question which is. Are we asking the allies to support our efforts in Baghdad? Or is the administration focused on going it alone with the troop surge? I honestly believe that Britain is pulling out because this is what their people are demanding. There was zero dissent in Parliament against Mr. Blair's proclamation. Whether we as Americans agree with the move or not we should respect the fact that this is what their people appear to want.
2007-02-21 23:23:51 · answer #3 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not that I think my answer will suffice for you, but Baghdad was chosen by the U.S. as the city they would clear out. The allies each took different cities and localities in Iraq, which are now mostly settled. Baghdad was, and will remain, the most militant because of the resistance to any change.
2007-02-21 23:16:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of countries that have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan we just don't here much about them because we are doing most of the work.They should help more because if we end up in war with Iran the whole world will be crying for us to help them.
2007-02-21 23:19:19 · answer #5 · answered by one10soldier 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a civil war between the Sunni's and the Shiites. Most nations realize you cannot win a civil war without choosing one side over the other, effectively condoning the genocide of the losing side, which doesn't do much for world opinion.
2007-02-21 23:22:22 · answer #6 · answered by Stan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are and have and in Afghanistan as well ! John Howard (do you know who he is ?) Is strongly urging Parliament to send more troops in, but it will not be widely accepted and will unfortunately cost him his leadership at the next federal election, particularly with the scheduled departure of Brittish trops, if he losers the next election there wont be any more Australian troops sent in a hurry ! The Australian SAS were incase you dont know the first in !
2007-02-21 23:44:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When the U.N. repelled approval of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, that, as they say, decided that. Other countries did not feel a compelling need to invade Iraq, or help, today.
2007-02-21 23:18:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They realize they are getting caught up in a civil war. The rational for the invasion was disproved (WMDs).
2007-02-22 00:10:32 · answer #9 · answered by ropemancometh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fox news is only available here, so they don't get the "facts" of how we are winning.
2007-02-21 23:15:25 · answer #10 · answered by FOX NEWS WATCHER 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋