Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

America asked on October 10, for British soldiers to fill in behind forces north of Basra.

If granted the US troops will then move to Iraq's most volatile areas, such as Falluja.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3751794.stm

Politically, it would be a very foolish move for the Government to comply with the US request. Strategically, and in my view more importantly, if there is a genuine need for British troops to move further inland and sort this almighty mess out, then so be it. Like the majority I am deeply unhappy about the Iraq situation, but unfortunately the time for UN intervention and diplomacy has long gone; it is an unenviable task the Government has made for us, but having started, we cannot just sit back and give excuses for not doing everything in our power to help.
I wonder how people will see us in 40 years time will be known as invaders .

Once again Tony Bliar does exactly as Bush tells him.

What babble is that? "Once again Tony Bliar does exactly as Bush tells him." As if that monstrously ignorant cliche has ever been true anyway, how could you possibly apply it to this example? First of all, it is neither Bush's request nor Blair's choice, in any practical sense. Second, if it was such a 'Yes sir!" operation, why all this darn debate about it? Clearly there is more to the issue than x just doing what y says.

But thirdly, and most importantly, the US and the UK are allies! What part of that are people having trouble understanding? Allies are like friends; when your friend needs some help, you go and help him! You don't just stand by and say 'not my problem.'

This whole request is simply an extension of the UK role in the first place. We are patrolling Basra to spare the US the manpower of doing it themselves so they can concentrate elsewhere. Now there is a crisis in Falluja and the US are asking- not demanding, btw, but requesting- that we now extend that to other areas as well to relieve other US troops who can then concentrate on dealing with that crisis. Ok, that would put us in a part under US control and so taking orders from American officers. But so what? Once again, we are allies; that is part of the deal.

On the face of it, if we say no, that makes us pretty shitty allies. As it is, if we say no, it will be for one reason only- operational practicality. Which is to say, we don't think we can spare the men. That would be a fair reason; any political reason would be reprehensibly cowardly and the betrayal of a fairly pledged alliance.

Most likely in the next 40 years some of the ppl will see them as invaders. But at the same time they maybe more interested in their stocks and in their investsments which currently they don't have that option. I tend to think that in the future Iraq will become more and more open to the world. Unfortunally it will take time.....but things will improve.

the United States has a duty to alleviate the poverty of the Third World by writing off debt... it had a duty to help fight for freedom in the forties without charging the UK the earth for the privilege... it has a duty to prevent malnutrition and obesity by bombing McDonalds....

Mc Donalds is a business and whether you agree with their menu or not...it helps bring business into the country. Which is what Iraq needs....more businesses so that it can compete with the rest of world market.

ah well,... that's what you get when you follow the leader leader leader

bad news though for the british soldiers and obviously also their family of course

Ugh, when will people understand that this war is utter bullshit.

Golly, Who lit the fuse on your tampon?

He's right though......

This war is for oil, there are many other "bad" and "violent" dictators that oppress the people, but Bush wont go there, CUZ THEY DONT HAVE OIL!!!! . Other than that, some of what Ush said I agree with, allies help eachother out, even when the whole situation is fueld by greed. Although, you gotta respect the fact that Bush and Blair are loking out for the financial security and best interests of their country.

Amity75 is right in a certain sense. I have family who live in England and there's a growing frustration that Tony Blair is just a puppet for George Bush. Oh God, I'm discussing politics.

That also has some truth to it.

I'm just waiting for the draft to be enacted.

From ignorant people who would rather make use of a lazy insult rather than bother doing something daring like, say, checking facts.

Rather like thinking the war is for oil...

I agree with you on the allies part and on the part that ppl need to check the facts before making dumb comments ush, however on everything else you know I disagree with you

It won't, to do so would be political suicide.

then again Sil...it's bush

Yeah, I know...but even so...it's not like we even need the draft to be re-enacted here in the US.

I must apologise, I was tired and irritated when I made that ignorant post and you've really rubbed it in. I submit.

Even I appreciate this apology to Mike and it was nothing to do with me

not if he does it AFTER november, which is probably what that bastard is planning.

Its been officially decided to send our troops in.

Good luck guys

Well three have died

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/04/iraq.main/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3983443.stm

Yes but Ush you go on about the UK and the US being allies/friends granted but just because we are in that relationship doesn't mean we have to do or even agree with whatever they say/do or vice versa it doesn't make us any less of a friend/ally if we dispute that claim. Maybe if Tony Blair and co disputed George Bush's reasons for going to war (which in all honesty i feel are not concretely sound reasons but then this a personal opinion) maybe the war wouldn't have gone ahead which in turn would not have lead to the predicament we are in.

But now we have got into this situation it would be quite inappropriate to 'walk away' now, the least we can do is watch it through to the end.

Yes, it would be acceptable to be Allies to America if only they would start war in other countries with a just cause but this is not the case. Having British soldiers there, getting killed because of some dickhead Texan wanting more help when he has enough hardware to obliterate Iraq all by himself. Come on, he wants our soldiers because his are frankly incompetent, dumb, gung-ho, trigger happy and without any concept of how to fight Iraqis who are probably better equipped than they are. They only backed us up in World War 2 because if Britain fell America would certainly have become a tasty target for Hitler.

After six months in Iraq, they must be relieved to get back to their loved ones. To be put in a position like that in Iraq, is unbelievable. They have been brave and courageous and done hopefully their last bit to support and maintain peace in the country.

It is there choice and what ever they want to do is up to them.I don't really care what so ever.But I do think they are not going to help us out in this one.JM

Kind of interesting how Australia has been relatively forgotten in all of this, we haven't been asked for more commitment, or to do more. But then really we only ever there for moral support.

what on hell are you talking about

Me or JM?

JM, look at the post timing and you try figuring out her post.

It's good to know that US troops will get relieved after almost half a year in a crappy county like Iraq

Pure ignorance.

Hmmm, technically the US soldier is seen as the best trained in the world, the problem I would say is that they are badly led, they have been put into a situation that they are not ideally suited to, on a mission that is rather frayed and they are over stretched. It is not really the soldiers fault, rather the man who sent the there.

I don't mind if people say they aren't well trained.. that could be a matter of opinion. But saying they are dumb is rude and ignorant, and saying that the Iraqis have better equipment is just retarded.

Well the Iraqis are technically winning because they don't look like being defeated(as a whole) anytime soon, and the American troops are certainly getting knowhere fighting a militia which employs guerrilla tactics which we all know American troops aren't prepared to fight and err... win.

bit of info, the british sas and the irish army rangers are the best trained, but anywho

i agree that alot of decent men have been poorly led and have been killed for what is still some idiots stupid quest...

I'm not disagreeing with the comment, I'm just wondering what the source of the information is....

I don't particularly see the Irish as the type to produce any sort of highly elite military units, but addmittedly I'm not very knowledgable on the subject.

theres only like 50 of em, they are the best of the best, the course is so extremely difficult for admission. they specialize in everything, infantry, sniper, explosive, medical, its unreal. they were sent to afghanistan when the first troops went in. surely if u googled u'd find something.

otherwise ireland's army is non-existant...

Yah I read up on the Irish Army Rangers and their qualifications seem the same as all the other Special Forces only they, along with the SAS, seem to have very rigid requirements just to be able to recieve training...let alone actually making it through training.

They study and practice several different areas of training and then specialize in 4 additional areas of expertice out of a list of offered fields. Sort of like electives for college students.

no where did I see any sort of numbered ranking system.