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

[MikeyDB]

Where's Maggie Thatcher when we need her?

Wasn't she the one that lost a British frigate re-taking the Falklands from a couple of rabid Argentinians riding elks.....or am I getting my metaphors mixed up with my similies....

Maggie'd send more troops....Irish troops....

 

[Fingertrouble]

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.

I agree with Daz and I am pretty sure that your leadership in the White House would not agree with you either. You also seem to forget that the UK also has a large contingent of forces in Afganistan also.

Maybe, you should be looking at the other end of this problem. If there had been an exit stratagy all along and a well thought out plan for "post war Iraq" prior to the war, the US might not now be bogged down in a position that is starting to look like they can't win either way.

If you really feel that the UK contingent is that small, then maybe the Brits should just withdraw and let the US send a further 7000 troops to fill in...I wonder what all of the families of those troops sent would say to you comment of 7000 troops being small???? it doesn't matter how big or small, it's the fact that these men and women are there for their countries and the are ALL getting shot at!

 

[Fingertrouble]

Where's Maggie Thatcher when we need her?

Wasn't she the one that lost a British frigate re-taking the Falklands from a couple of rabid Argentinians riding elks.....or am I getting my metaphors mixed up with my similies....

Maggie'd send more troops....Irish troops....

Actually we lost a few ships...HMS Coventry, HMS Sheffield and HMS Sir Gallahad for sure....and the first two listed were destroyed by Argentines using "French" supplied and built Super Etendard jets armed with "French" supplied and built Exocet anti ship missiles.

Probably the first time French weaponary was successful against the British, as thier crossbows were always outclassed by the English Longbow......

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Actually we lost a few ships...HMS Coventry, HMS Sheffield and HMS Sir Gallahad for sure....and the first two listed were destroyed by Argentines using "French" supplied and built Super Etendard jets armed with "French" supplied and built Exocet anti ship missiles.

Probably the first time French weaponary was successful against the British, as thier crossbows were always outclassed by the English Longbow......

I dunno, the French did pretty well in the 1776 skirmish......

immagine that, a bunch of British colonials uping sticks and siding with the french........what ever happened to them eh?.

 

[Logic 7]

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?

It is just being opportunism doing that kind of move, they were the one who urge everyone else for this stupid war, blair even tell that saddam was an immenent threath,that move let the people think it is an american war, when in fact it isnt just the american, brits should have the same blame on their shoulders, period.

 

[Tonington]

Even if you choose to view it as opportunism, is it still not a wise choice to recognize the situation, and try to correct it? Indeed they have an opportunity now to do such a thing and that isn't a bad thing. If they chose to remain there unwilling to accept the circumstances, that would be much worse, no?

 

[tracy]

I agree with Daz and I am pretty sure that your leadership in the White House would not agree with you either. You also seem to forget that the UK also has a large contingent of forces in Afganistan also.

Maybe, you should be looking at the other end of this problem. If there had been an exit stratagy all along and a well thought out plan for "post war Iraq" prior to the war, the US might not now be bogged down in a position that is starting to look like they can't win either way.

If you really feel that the UK contingent is that small, then maybe the Brits should just withdraw and let the US send a further 7000 troops to fill in...I wonder what all of the families of those troops sent would say to you comment of 7000 troops being small???? it doesn't matter how big or small, it's the fact that these men and women are there for their countries and the are ALL getting shot at!

I really don't need the lecture on the importance of each soldier. Someone I care about is being sent to Iraq in March.

I never said anything about Afghanistan or the lack of an exit strategy (which the Brits probably should have cared about from the beginning as well btw), all I said was the UK not sending more troops isn't going to make a difference in the long run for the US. The US already has 20 times more troops in that country, of course they'll be the ones to make up any increase in troops. I've not heard a single news story here where politicians have even suggested another country would do it. We all know they wouldn't.