2007-09-02 08:19:50 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I neglected to mention in my question that it was the Brits who were packing their bags.
2007-09-02 08:37:49 · update #1
Kaiser has really lifted the tone of the argument. Thank you....not
2007-09-02 09:02:39 · update #2
As the mother of a serving officer I am sad to say that I don't think we have achieved very much and I am glad the UK is pulling out, if only to stop anymore sensless loss of life. This loss of life would be easier to accept if we knew what it was we were trying to achieve.
I know that in the early days the British Army did have some success and did manage quite a lot of reconstruction. Unfortunately many projects (such as electricity and water supply) were sabotaged by factions within the Iraqi community who did not want the new regime to succeed and who began to vie for power themselves. The situation seems to have now descended into inter-muslim (Shia) rivalry in the South and the Brits are used as an excuse. It is not our troops blowing up cars in crowded markets but the Iraqis themselves and I personally think we should leave them to get on with it.
2007-09-02 08:35:02 · answer #1 · answered by Patricia C 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No, and never will. The Germans found that invading an others country was unprofitable and had to have their country rebuilt with British money along with the rest of continental Europe. The partisans appeared out of the sand within days of the invasion and will no doubt keep going until all foreign troops are withdrawn. As with WW2 the only losers will be the Iraqi people and the only winners will be the Yanks.
2007-09-02 19:07:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Retreat....I think you mean withdrawal......500 troops being moved from Basra Palace to the Airport where 5000 are already stationed......I think after nearly 5years its about time they came home....whats the bet 2 weeks leave then off to Afghanistan........Anyway I am sure the training that has been implemented will set that country in good stead.....As to the deaths that's what happens when you go to war.....I just hope that when Mr Blair's children are old enough they can join up and then may be he will not make decisions so rashly in the future and at least he might double check information is correct next time especially about an exit strategy.......Second that Patricia
2007-09-02 11:53:11 · answer #3 · answered by valf 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is that spin for the drawdown after the surge....."We're beginning the retreat?"
LoL... so any reduction in forces now is a retreat?
FYI- Surge means more troops then normal... now things are returning to normal levels.
Edit---->
As for the Brits, I have not seen something saying they are leaving. I have seen things that they are consolidating onto bases and closing smaller ones. Basically, relocating within Iraq.
2007-09-02 08:36:46 · answer #4 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The British presence in Basra has achieved a lot more than what people think..
1..They achieved their objective of handing it over to the Iraq people
2.. They trained the military ensuring they were capable of upholding stability
3.schools and hospitals have been built
4. the infrastructure has been rebuilt.. IE water . .electric .. comms ..
5.. The relationships have been strengthened
6.. Our presence enabled social control and stability
Our boys presence has achieved all of the above and also enabled the capture of many war criminals
I think our forces should be proud and as an army wife whose husband has served at Basra three times i am proud of what has been achieved by our forces
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070903/t...
2007-09-02 20:55:19 · answer #5 · answered by sammie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what retreat were still there buddy. were still entering parts of iraq that were not covered yet. Besides that Tora Bora has been occupied again by more terriost. Now were there again cleaning out the caves. Yea the british cant wait to leave there like 2 weeks away from leaving Iraq
2007-09-02 12:13:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
so far we have not retreated, when we do it will be called handing over or a tactical withdrawel.
what we achived is the death of to many of our own for no gain.
we are leaving iraq to the iraqis one day whom will go right back th what they were untill a new dictator takes power.
most of all we will get no oil and most likely neither will the USA. once iraq has controll they will not forget what we have done to them and we will pay even higher prices for our oil. we will suffer more inflation and agin the list goes on.
that is what has been accomplished. saddest of all is the lives lost on all sides for NOTHING
2007-09-02 08:43:07 · answer #7 · answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the word your looking for armchair general is withdraw, just as your father should of before impregnating your mother with you.
we achieved the removal of a tyrant and are still helping to put in place a proper and just government, i take it your a coward who would piss himself if called forward to serve but are quite happy to gob off about it.
2007-09-02 21:56:45 · answer #8 · answered by francis f 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If, for nothing else, we helped the Iraqi people rid themselves of an intolerable tyrant, ...not that it was worth the cost of even 1 human life.
2007-09-02 15:04:35 · answer #9 · answered by CV59StormVet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Counting US deaths, more people died in a day during WWII. The modern American and Britain cannot handle one death. Osama said in an interview in the late 1990s that he knew he could defeat the US (and quicker than they did the USSR) because the American people had no will to fight and our resolve was weak.
Could you imagine people whining like this during WWII???
2007-09-02 11:47:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋