2007-02-22 01:14:47 · 14 answers · asked by awder Hamad 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They've done a good job and their part of Iraq has, for the most part, been handed over to the Iraqi Army and Police. They have achieved their mission.
I'm very proud of their service, here.
They have done well.
2007-02-22 01:21:07 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the out lying areas they controlled are stable enough to rely upon the Iraqi military and police force then certainly. This is the mission and in these areas this suggests mission accomplished.
Let's not forget that America has taken the harder areas to gain stability in. Yes, mistakes have been made and we should learn an lesson from our friends the Brits. Peace and stability is possible regardless of left wing rhetoric and the benefits to human kind insurmountable.
World peace can be achieved with a free economy and a liberated Muslim Middle East.
2007-02-22 09:22:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it a good step? In my opinion, I think that the Iraq war is a winless war. I think the prime minister doesn't want any more young soldiers killed in a war that is lasting longer than the World Wars. While the VP says it is a sign of progress, it is NOT. It is a MESSAGE mr. VP. Furthermore, if the British thought it was a winning war they would stay and be transferred to areas where the U.S. soldiers are. Along with the surge this would add more manpower.
2007-02-22 09:21:00 · answer #3 · answered by Yafooey! 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They achieved their goal in the location they were in, and turned security over to Iraq. So there was no need for their troops to be in that location anymore
They still have troops in Iraq though to protect Iran/Iraq border
2007-02-22 09:17:43 · answer #4 · answered by trin 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Tony Blair has suffered the loss of his office by believing Bush like the rest of us. He still needs to secure his place in history and restore his country's confidence in himself. Unfortunately the US claims they see this as a good sign when in actuality they must be reeling.
2007-02-22 09:23:07 · answer #5 · answered by Venita Peyton 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Asking people to grow up and run their own country? Of course its a good step.
2007-02-22 09:26:12 · answer #6 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most definately. Its the equivalent of cutting off a welfare recepient. Why should they continue to sacrifice to clean up Bush's mess?
2007-02-22 09:19:14 · answer #7 · answered by bconehead 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes...For the british
2007-02-22 09:18:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
mixed feelings on one hand less people over seas on another less people over seas could result in war coming to our home land
2007-02-22 09:18:59 · answer #9 · answered by Liz B 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know, maybe there won't be anymore deaths if there is none in Iraq.
2007-02-22 09:17:58 · answer #10 · answered by Not_Here 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋