the americans seemed to have a got it all wrong, they had no skills at peace keeping in a foreign country where as the british have- north irealand, also it seems every thing the british said seems to been along the right lines but the americans simply didnt want to listen.
2007-10-28 11:43:13 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
North Ireland peaceful? never. After HUNDREDS of years of occupation the Brits still had problems with IRA terrorists until recently.
Let's not forget that Britain has lost: America, India, African holdings, Canada, and just about every other territory it settled or once occupied.
Finally, let's rememer that england drew the lines for present day Iraq and Iran, and was the initial spark in the tenderbox by putting a massively shiite country into the hands of a sunni family. Essentially, a large number of the post WWII problems in the middle east are a direct result of their bumbling in the region. Britain has a lot of experience in occupying a region... a lot of BAD experience.
Now, let's compare that with the USA... we've successfully occupied Germany AND Japan (both MUCH larger and much further away than north ireland is from england.
Ultimately, I'll go with the nation who's successfully deployed troops worldwide over the brits, who have loud voices about their knowledge, but no practical success with which to back their claims up.
2007-10-28 12:54:47 · answer #1 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The British have been given it proper. The left became in want of going into Afghanistan as became many of the international. If we had under no circumstances invaded Iraq shall we've captured Osama binLaden, destroyed the Taliban and been completed with it by ability of now. the in the previous we get out of Iraq and concentrate on the actual perps of 911, the in the previous we are able to win the "conflict on Terror".
2016-10-02 23:22:32 · answer #2 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually neither country should have even messed with iraq, They didnt have a thing to do with 9/11.. We paid and gave weapons to saddam to fight iran ,and they had a war,, well we claim that he had weapons of mass destruction, there wasnt any left after the iran iraq war,,,
We ahould have left him alone gone after iran,and part of afghanistan,and let saddam fight again against iran,,,
both us and brits messed up... Saddam wasnt about to let osama bin laden in his country,,, saddam was a jealous person,.... I would have to say this is bushes war,, jr and Sr,s.. but we have to clean up after their mess... Well haliburton is trying, dick cheneys former country that up and moved from houston this year to Dubai,,, Now where is the 12 billion cash thats missing ,,,hmmm
2007-10-28 12:50:38 · answer #3 · answered by John N 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No Australia, look at our record in Afghanistan, plus the Britts blundered Gallipoli !
2007-10-28 12:09:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the decision to go to war is made it is important to WIN!
Whoever did the planning forgot to read Von Clausewitz.
Basically when you go to war you have to have enough guys.
2007-10-28 12:59:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does Britain have enough cctv's for Iraq?
2007-10-28 12:09:18 · answer #6 · answered by Give Pee a Chance 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nah. look how bad the europeans messed up africa.
2007-10-28 12:42:04 · answer #7 · answered by Bao Pham 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we would have left it to them, nothing would have been done.
2007-10-28 11:58:53 · answer #8 · answered by l1qu1l 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no,we did a marshall plan
2007-10-28 13:18:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no... they can't even protect their own Navy's boats.....
2007-10-28 12:13:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋