more soldiers in iraq

[cypezokyli]

george w. had two (main) choises after it was made clear that the iraq game is collapsing. either cooperating with the "axis of the evil" and partially withdrawing or play it taugh. obviously he chose the second

[depurple]

As Stalin once said about the German Soldiers invading Russia!
Let the Dead Come Forth!

Fighting for your own ancestral and legal land OR fighting because you are told too by some politician are TWO different things:

Look at CYPRUS!
After 30 or so years we are still fighting AND wont give up UNTIL we get our land back in the North!
WHY?
Because we own it and it is legally ours!
Do the US soldiers really want this war in Iraq?
Do they really think they can win?
The US have NO Idea how the people of the middles east think and what they want and this is there main problem!
Also if they don't solve the Israeli / Palestinian problem nothing will be solved:
cheers
Finger Crossed!

[city]

[cannedmoose]

[depurple]

Blair is on his way OUT and as foolish as he is he wont fall for this again OR his party will never be returned to office:
As for Howard?
As long as Australia has Indonesia breathing down its back we will ALWAYS support the USA and Britain UNTIL Indonesia becomes a more tolerate and liberal country:
cheers

[Xenos 2Fan]

[city]

@Moose: I honestly hope you are right!

[cypezokyli]

a question for those who know how things work in the US :

does this decision has to go through the congress ?
or is it completely a decision of the president ?

thanks

[cannedmoose]

[cypezokyli]

thanks moose.

can i ask also how things look in britain on the topic ?
are there any voices in parliament in favor of withdrawing ?

[thebrix]

[cannedmoose]

I agree with brix about the election issue, but I'm not sure we'll see a public distancing from the USA, a distancing from George Bush certainly, but with eyes on his successor in 2008. Bush is regarded as a lame duck by most British politicians and when questioned about his relationship with the US administration, it was noticeable that Gordon Brown mentioned Bush last in a list of those that he had a long, solid relationship with (he mentioned popular figures like Alan Greenspan first )

I doubt a general distancing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the relationship between the political parties of the US and UK are particularly strong, in terms of exchanging ideas and methods. Secondly, the diplomatic relations are similarly cemented, with significant cooperation at the UN and in other bodies. Finally, there is the strong military connection between the two states. Both are cooperating on the development of the Joint Strike Fighter and other major projects, the UK is due shortly to replace the Trident nuclear missile system with a next generation launch vehicle, for which US assistance will certainly be required.

So, despite loud calls from many for the withdrawal of troops from the quagmire in Iraq, it just won't happen, under Brown, Milliband, Cameron or anyone else that has a realistic chance for No.10. A slow reduction in troops is the likely scenario, with intermittent reinforcement should things go 'belly up' at times. There is acceptance that we're there for the long haul and British people tend to be less inclined to call for us to 'leg it' when the going gets tough than our cousins across the water.

The main problem for Britain in Iraq is one of overstretch. We only have very small armed forces these days and we simply don't have enough boots to meet our current deployments. In terms of casualties, British casualties have been light because of the different way we've dealt with things in southern Iraq. The Americans have too often adopted a sledgehammer approach to the civil war in Iraq, whereas the British have applied the tried-and-tested tactics of peace-keeping developed through bitter experiences in Malaya, Cyprus, Northern Ireland and Bosnia. They haven't worked in some areas, but compared to the slaughter in Baghdad, the south of Iraq is a relative haven.

[Chapfallen]

Even if they elect this black guy from democrats (that I support) for US president the problem will still be tremendous and redraw will never be an option as long as they can’t established a workable democracy to respect all the civilians because if they left behind Iraq in this situation with out guaranties it could turn in to a bigger problem for all of us.

So the election and the speeches to gather votes have no impact in reality and the Americans are not stupid.

The problem can’t be solved with a magic wand and only by a general democratization process of the theocracy states will bring a final solution.

The west in the whole are turning around about the rights of an independent state on his civilians and a whole reforming of policy will be established and this is the way it should be.

There is a big difference with Vietnam, the Arabs are more close to west and they are always attacking with terrorist actions so the redraw will not bring any good with out some guaranties that is just imaginary to speak for in this situation.

And some Europeans may play their role to make speeches against the war to make the Arabs feel what we are not all enemies and to gather votes in their countries but no one in reality will sacrifice his security and some standards of our ages for an idea.

The days where we were destroying civilianization for some ideas (see Christians, Communist’s, Nazi’s and now Muslims) are pass over.

[cypezokyli]

[depurple]

Tell me something NEW!
Ever heard of THE HOLE?
The USA is in one in iraq!

DP!