Blair tells Bush that Britain will not send more troops to Iraq

[Blackleaf]

Tony Blair, who is in his last weeks as British Prime Minister before Gordon Brown takes over, tells the Americans that he will NOT said any more troops to Iraq....

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq

8th January 2007

"Poodle" no longer: Blair will not send more troops to Iraq




Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its OWN strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

President Bush will announce a new US policy for Iraq either tomorrow or Wednesday. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 British servicemen and women. Mr Blair, in a rare distancing from White House policy (and a foresight of what Britain will be like under Brown), has been keen for Britain to be seen to be acting under its own initiative.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said yesterday that as Prime Minister he would conduct a foreign policy based firmly on British interests.

dailymail.co.uk
------------------

You're on your own, Yanks.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Tony Blair, who is in his last weeks as British Prime Minister before Gordon Brown takes over, tells the Americans that he will NOT said any more troops to Iraq....

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq

8th January 2007

"Poodle" no longer: Blair will not send more troops to Iraq




Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its OWN strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

President Bush will announce a new US policy for Iraq either tomorrow or Wednesday. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 British servicemen and women. Mr Blair, in a rare distancing from White House policy (and a foresight of what Britain will be like under Brown), has been keen for Britain to be seen to be acting under its own initiative.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said yesterday that as Prime Minister he would conduct a foreign policy based firmly on British interests.

dailymail.co.uk
------------------

You're on your own, Yanks.

good for him! hope pm brown keeps it up.now lets hope our government gets it act together and gets our people out of afghanistan now.

 

[Logic 7]

Tony Blair, who is in his last weeks as British Prime Minister before Gordon Brown takes over, tells the Americans that he will NOT said any more troops to Iraq....

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq

8th January 2007


You're on your own, Yanks.

That is not very nice from UK doing this, i clearly remember blair urging and being arrogant to everyone about supporting the war in iraq, now that everyone are mostly against it, UK are changing their behavior, That is a pretty oportunism to me.

 

[hermanntrude]

the war is over. i agree there's some **** going down in iraq still, but i suspect a lot of it is due to the presence of foreign troops, particularly the brainwashed idiots from the USA who still think "towel-head" is a good word and shoot anything that moves, including the british troops.

get the poor buggers out, that's what i say

 

[Tonington]

That is not very nice from UK doing this, i clearly remember blair urging and being arrogant to everyone about supporting the war in iraq, now that everyone are mostly against it, UK are changing their behavior, That is a pretty oportunism to me.

So the UK should remain there until when exactly? What would be the suitable course of action needed to say no more troops are going to Iraq?

 

[talloola]

Very good for Blair, he should have taken a big step "back" once they found out there were no
weapons of mass destruction, then he would still have his job.

Yes, it's time for a "clear" look at the facts. The U.S. is "more" stuck there for awhile, but they
will be out sooner than later. It's too bad Bush isn't sent to the front lines, in an old hum vee.

Afghanistan is a different story, there is constructive things happening there, there was a good reason
for going there, bush should have stayed there, he made a "huge" blunder, he is such an ass.
The Taliban can be pushed out, and a good military in Afghanistan is necessary, so they can take
care of themselves.

 

[Curiosity]

The reasons for disliking Blair all seem so personal...... what about his performance as PM? I thought he was doing a pretty fine job there.

 

[tracy]

Big surprise. The UK contribution is tiny anyways.

 

[Tonington]

Ever seen the British Parliament in action? I think it's great. If anyone thinks ours is racus, well we have nothing on those blokes across the pond. I love seeing them get up and go to the microphone and give someone a verbal thrashing. Blair is quite good at dealing with it, though I've only seen snipets here and there.

 

[Curiosity]

Tonington

I'll get up in the middle of the night (California time) to watch the British Parliament have at it with Blair especially.

He is a fine orator and does his job with grace and brilliance.

I too enjoy their roiling around in the benches and jumping up to speak trying to outdo each other.... the U.S. Congress is a bore to watch.... the people here talk far too long especially if they are on camera.

 

[Tonington]

I hate to rail on Bush, because quite frankly it's so easy and cliche, but whenever he and Blair are speaking, his(Bush) shortcomings as a speaker are plainly evident.

With regard to the parliament, I enjoy watching Blair's own party members engaging him in a literary battle of wit, very entertaining.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Big surprise. The UK contribution is tiny anyways.

Bit harsh really, when you consider the UK is the second largest contributer to troops in both wars...and also when you consider the size of the UK. And Blair will be out on his backside because we want our labour party back.

it's not about neo-conservatism, it's about moderate socialism, we want the party that gave us a national health system, a party who's leader stood up to the US and vowed that we'd never got to war in vietnam with them.

That's why he has to go. And of course he should be good at talking, he's a barrister (lawyer) he does it in court for a living. Oh and do you know why he's not seen on TV with Bush much anymore?....PR, Because his popularity in the UK takes a complete nose-dive, everytime.

 

[Curiosity]

Tonington

Your description was right on..... they are such talented speakers....

I think the duality of language is what slows Canadian parliamentary debate down.... it drones on in the two languages.....when it could be so feisty....sigh....

 

[tracy]

Bit harsh really, when you consider the UK is the second largest contributer to troops in both wars...and also when you consider the size of the UK. And Blair will be out on his backside because we want our labour party back.
...

Harsh? I would think it was just a simple statement of fact. 7 000 soldiers to the US's 140 000... Seems pretty clear to me regardless of whether you support what's happening over there or not. I don't think the US is 20 times bigger than the UK population wise, so I think it's fair to say the UK contribution of troops is small. Them not sending another 1000 or so troops isn't going to make a difference in the big picture.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Harsh? I would think it was just a simple statement of fact. 7 000 soldiers to the US's 140 000... Seems pretty clear to me regardless of whether you support what's happening over there or not. I don't think the US is 20 times bigger than the UK population wise, so I think it's fair to say the UK contribution of troops is small. Them not sending another 1000 or so troops isn't going to make a difference in the big picture.

1. We have many issues here in the UK, and actually, the war in Iraq probably isnt the biggest, you seem to not understand what I'm saying, people in the UK (at least in England, where I am) no longer want a clone of Maragret Thatcher's conservative party. The Labour Party stagnated in the 80's until they virually copied the tories. Iraq and Afghanastan are certainly not the main reasons for judgement on Blair.

To you it may seem so, but it isnt.

2. RIGHT, the US has a population of 200 million and the UK has 64 Million, that's nearly 4 times the population figure.

 

[Tonington]

The numbers are even more telling when comparing enlisted members. American total armed forces members 2,685,713, British total armed forces 225,000.

 

[tracy]

1. We have many issues here in the UK, and actually, the war in Iraq probably isnt the biggest, you seem to not understand what I'm saying, people in the UK (at least in England, where I am) no longer want a clone of Maragret Thatcher's conservative party. The Labour Party stagnated in the 80's until they virually copied the tories. Iraq and Afghanastan are certainly not the main reasons for judgement on Blair.

To you it may seem so, but it isnt.

2. RIGHT, the US has a population of 200 million and the UK has 64 Million, that's nearly 4 times the population figure.

I do understand that. None of that contradicts what I said about the UK contribution to Iraq being small compared to the Americans does it? I didn't say anything about the political situation in the UK.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

The numbers are even more telling when comparing enlisted members. American total armed forces members 2,685,713, British total armed forces 225,000.

I think Tonington has just spelled it out though, nobody wants to fight in these wars here, we simply dont buy it, we never did. It's a bit like the British Royal Navy and army of old Empire times, they were almost always made up of the scum who couldnt get a decent job here anyway, or ex-cons.

Nobody in the UK wants to volunteer blindly into a war by our government, that might be what differentiates our countries, we question authority and dont follow it blindly.


Although, a woman at my part time job, her son is about to be sent to Afghanistan, on training, he thru his grenade....well, he thru the pin anyway....thats the kind of quality we can send ya.

Daz

 

[talloola]

1. We have many issues here in the UK, and actually, the war in Iraq probably isnt the biggest, you seem to not understand what I'm saying, people in the UK (at least in England, where I am) no longer want a clone of Maragret Thatcher's conservative party. The Labour Party stagnated in the 80's until they virually copied the tories. Iraq and Afghanastan are certainly not the main reasons for judgement on Blair.

To you it may seem so, but it isnt.

2. RIGHT, the US has a population of 200 million and the UK has 64 Million, that's nearly 4 times the population figure

Sorry to correct and sound picky, but u.s. pop. I believe now is 300 million.

 

[gopher]

You're on your own, Yanks.

Good quote there, Friend.

Hopefully, this, along with the fact that so many nations dropped out of the so-called 'coalition of the willing', should serve notice to Bush that his Hitlerian campaign of imperialistic terrorism no longer holds water with anybody.