they claim to be our closest ally, but they are not even giving 1/4 the effort we are. we have over 200000 troops in iraq and the uk has less than 15000. If they claim to want to see us win, then why dont they send in more troops to aid us. we are the only thing keeping that country together, the least they can do is help more. Mabye they forgot we saved them in WWII.
Or mabye its because they are preparing and regrouping in account from chinas large military buildup, and russias unpredictable actions. could this be?
2007-08-04 12:57:04 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We don't make our British cousins carry our water.
The US Military prides itself on doing the heavy lifting. We don't really "need" a single allied troop anywhere but its nice to have the token support.
2007-08-04 13:05:19 · answer #1 · answered by Tommy B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mabye they forgot we saved them in WWII.
maybe you forgot they are more smart about iraq then the average pro bush fanatic
Or mabye its because they are preparing and regrouping in account from chinas large military buildup, and russias unpredictable actions. could this be?
china wont do a thing and russia will stay where it is the whole world has problems of its own china and russia cant be f'd thinking about invading and occupying helpless nations during the time of significant economic and demographic changes
personally id like to see america loose in iraq in the terms that they didnt acheive the pro american iraq
al quaeda is a lost cause among iraqi's who are rejecting the savage actions of their tactics
the loss in iraq will teach the american govt to rethink their foreign policy and learn from iraq and afghanistan that playing with other people's destiny unexpectedly bite's back pretty badly
2007-08-04 19:17:46 · answer #2 · answered by YR1947 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think 15,000 is such a small number.
Their democracy is a bit different than ours also. If enough members of Parliament withdraw their support from the Prime Minister, he can be voted out of office (a no confidence vote) before his term is up. So British Prime Ministers have to be more responsive to public sentiment, and the war is not very popular in England.
They are doing what is politically possible, and the areas of Iraq they managed are fairly stable. Our own congress is trying to get our troops to withdraw ASAP. Can't complain too much if Parliament is doing the same thing.
2007-08-04 13:08:21 · answer #3 · answered by Yaktivistdotcom 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They dont just CLAIM to be our closest. They ARE our closest and we're lucky to have them. Keep in mind they are a fraction of the size of us, thus they the military presence in Iraq is a fraction the size of ours. If it weren't for the Brits stickin with us we'd be going it alone all over the world. And if the Brits didnt exist, who would keep europe from complete Liberal insanity? The french and germans would have free socialist reign.
Thank god for the Brits, thank god the new PM Brown is not an anti-war hippie when it comes to foreign policy, thank god his predesessor was just as good a guy.
And God Bless every British man and woman fighting over there along side us right now.
2007-08-04 13:05:21 · answer #4 · answered by James924 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The answer is that the UK's involvement in Iraq was opposed by the majority of the population.
It was only Blair and his willingness to believe the lies of Bush that got the UK involved.
Blair's credibility ran out a long time ago and he has had to hand over power to Brown who is not so easily fooled.
The UK has been involved in Iraq before .in fact it was responsible for the creation of the state and most people knew that military occupation would lead to disater.
At last the voice of common sense is being heeded but it is too late for a lot of soldiers who have died for the vanity of Bush and his cronies and for the many thousands of Iraqis who have been slaughtered.
2007-08-04 18:51:08 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
USA did only joined in WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour, the war was half over by then...How do you see that as saving the UK. ??
The population of the US and the pop of the UK could have something to do with the numbers of troops sent from each country. There are many other countries involved in this war in Iraq and surrounding territory. The American journalists only focus on the U.S troops there fore making everyone think that the eagle is the only one dieing over there..not true.
2007-08-04 13:05:19 · answer #6 · answered by wahoo 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
" Mabye they forgot we saved them in WWII."
give it rest, the USA did not save the UK in WW2, the USA stayed out of until Germany declared war on them
and the UK paid for all of the equipment that was lent to them to the point of bankrupting Britain
and if you think the UK's job as an ally is to follow whatever foolhardy decision a US president makes, perhaps the UK should no longer be the US's best ally
2007-08-04 13:42:52 · answer #7 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, they are like 1/10th our size, so cut them some slack. And the war is even less popular there than over here, so it's a miracle they have stayed engaed this long. Now that Blair is gone, Brown will be looking to scoot out soon, no matter what he says in press conferences with the president.
2007-08-04 13:02:33 · answer #8 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
UK has problems with the PM's, Exchecquer being Cheapskates frankly....
British Troops are Very Brave, Very Professional, but their Army is Very Small, and their not using their TA Forces the way US ARNG forces are being used.
2007-08-04 13:09:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do some research and you will find that we are owned by England.
Who do you think owns the Federal Reserve Bank?
Research and you will find out that this country is darn near bankrupt.
The debt incurred as a result of the Iraqi war is only going to get us there faster.
2007-08-04 16:06:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋