Bush wants 25,000 UK Iraq force

The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 03/10/2002 | Kamal Ahmed, Jason Burke and Peter Beaumont

[glockmeister40]

From a military standpoint, Iraq is not an easy place to invade. Kuwait might be an ally, but you'd still have to bring all your forces up the gulf. It would be difficult to bring that much stuff overland from turkey. It might be better to just go after basra and the surrounding oil fields. Start sending the oil for free back to the US. This would cut off most, if not all, of Iraq's income. You can't buy or build weapons without money.

[airborne]

"With all due respect..."

Respect? Where in your post was respect?

BTW, Bush and Blair do what is best for their repective countries, not what the "world" wants.

[Faraday]

Bush is full of himself.Americans are all to STUPID to learn for themselves to know better.

Yeah. This pile of poor punctuation, misspelling, and fractured syntax convinces me that you're a genius. Why the hell didn't we elect you President? A terrible oversight.

[My Favorite Headache]

September 11 brought the UK fully behind us. It looked like Blair was moving into The White House he was here so much. Now we have people in the UK calling this "Peace Time", and just wanting to get out of the war we are in Afghanistan. I believe when Big Time shows Blair what is up...Iraq will be glassed like we never could imagine by Summer.Then the people in Parliment and the doubters will shut up because I have a feeling the evidence is something that is going to shake Blair up.

[Da_Shrimp]

My first thought was, does the UK have this many people?

Yes, BA strength is around 130,000 I believe (though Tony Cavanagh will be able to correct me if I'm wrong).

Pretty stretched at the moment, though, with Kosovo, NI and various other duties around the world.

[Don Myers]

Yes, I would imagine that 25,000 would be a bit much for the British Army.

[demlosers]

What's the matter? Why don't you tell us what's on really your mind?

[cynicom]

I cannot bring myself to have faith in our "friends/allies" in this upcoming affair. We must make plans to go it alone, if need be, as our EU friends will all be wringing their hands on the sidelines.

[Da_Shrimp]

Yes, I would imagine that 25,000 would be a bit much for the British Army.

Posibly, though we managed more than that in the Gulf War and the army is not much smaller now than in 1991. Recruitment is actually on the rise with lots of TV ads run recently for all 3 services.

[Da_Shrimp]

Yes, I would imagine that 25,000 would be a bit much for the British Army.

What's your view on this? Any ideas?

[OldFriend]

I doubt Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will be depending on anyone but ourselves. We can only be ever grateful that it's Bush and not Gore.

[Mahone]

See post 38, you are missing the joke.

[monkeyshine]

One Minister described those who had questioned Blair's policy of fully backing a US military campaign as 'appeasers'.

The gall of these leftist slime to call those who want action against terrorists, dictators and brutal thugs "appeasers"! The appeasers are those who will leave terrorists, thugs, dictators and brutal murderers in power. Like the British PM Chamberlain gave Hitler Czechoslovakia, these British MP's are appeasers to the worst elements in the world -- the Saddams, Arafat's and other brutal murderous Nazi slimeballs.

Yes, I said Nazis. Saddam and Arafat both were trained in leadership and ideology by a self-professed Nazi lover who recruited and aided Hitler and encouraged the expansion of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Saddam and Arafat are both clinging to this antiquated genocidal ideology, and as such must be destroyed for the betterment of the free world and the people who suffer under their brutal regimes.

[monkeyshine]

maybe I misread the quote? Ok, if so, that means that the Blair supporter was right in calling the leftists 'appeasers' as I explained.

[foreshadowed at waco]

You sound so sure...explain...is there really a 'cost of admission' so to speak...I like the sound of it...like we're in charge of who gets into the game...does the enemy also play this game BTW?

[Da_Shrimp]

I cannot bring myself to have faith in our "friends/allies" in this upcoming affair. We must make plans to go it alone, if need be, as our EU friends will all be wringing their hands on the sidelines.

After the slap in the face regarding the steel tariffs, you may have to shove your 'faith' up your arse.

[cynicom]

Da....

Lets hope your true character is not indicated by your post.

[Da_Shrimp]

As much as I'd rather have a Tory leader in power, Blair has hung his knackers out on the line in support of the US and in in the face of our so-called EU 'partners'. Then Bush decides to play the protectionist game just because the US steel industry is too inefficient to compete in the world markets.

Will UK troops be made available? Maybe, but don't count on it. As you keep saying, you don't need us anyway.

[dennybabyboy-fitzy]

Blair is already known as 'Tory' Blair in the UK....LOL

[dennybabyboy-fitzy]

'they better cough up 50,000'

And how do you come to that? If 50,000 UK troops were sent, there would be no soldiers left on British soil, to defend the UK. We aren't blessed with the massive population the US has.

Considering the size of the British army, and how overstretched it is, 25,000 is a good offer.