Skip to comments.
Bush wants 25,000 UK Iraq force
The Observer (U.K.) ^
| 03/10/2002
| Kamal Ahmed, Jason Burke and Peter Beaumont
Posted on 03/09/2002 4:42:37 PM PST by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 next last
To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
If you can't send 50,000 then don't bother coming at all.LOL
I was poking fun at the made up number the paper was using. If they can make up 25,000 then I figured I could double it.
To: Da_Shrimp; don myers; tony cavanagh; big ern
Current British army strength hovers between 115,000-118,000. The favourite number quoted by top brass being 115,000.
25,000 soldiers would push the army to breaking point, leaving little defence for the UK, and what defence there would be, would only be provided by units like the Royal Signals and Catering Corps, and thats a big no-no (no dis-respect to the Scaleys and cookies).
looking at some of the posts on this thread, I'd like to see there opinion about the whole US armed forces being abroad and not at home, leaving not even a token defence force.
Den
P.S. they'd always have me here holding the fort.
To: Steve Eisenberg
Don't know what debate the Guardian will start. Nobody reads it!
To: My Favorite Headache
"Now we have people in the UK calling this 'Peace time', and just wanting to get out of the war we are in, in Afghanistan"The people you are talking about are in a minority group, not the majority. Contrary to what some people in the US believe, Brits 'Put up'. Families and friends of soldiers, expect those same soldiers to be sent around the world fighting for 'good cause', and don't question it, like people do in the US.
Interesting fact for you. If people in Britain are now calling this Peace time, how comes it, that every day since WW2 (except 3 days after the Suez crisis), British soldiers have been in one warzone or another, including the Soviet-Afghan war, and other little known shoot outs like the Guatemala-Belize border conflicts and many others.
Den.
To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
"I'd like to see there opinion about the whole US armed forces being abroad and not at home, leaving not even a token defence force."
That is why many, many of us have our own guns.
To: cynicom
,,, you'll never land a PR job.
To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
I agree with what you are saying completely. I am a big supporter obviously of the British troops. I know that there is a minority there speaking this...but there are some very liberal people next to the usually liberal Blair.I am just thinking he is going to really see somethings that would probably scare the living hell out of us.He is denying this report now but I believe these numbers of a total of 250,000 troops to take Iraq over will come true.
To: big ern
OK, I would love Britain to be able to offer 50,000 and more, unfortunately, numbers dictate.
Lets hope the Frogs put up, somehow I don't think so. Besides, wouldn't want them there anyway, not after an experience I had with them and the Canadians in Kosovo. Things got hairy, we jumped straight in thinking they would too, but they just stood by and watched as I and 200 other Brit soldiers from the Royal Green Jackets tried to contain an 800 strong mob, in Pristina. Very poor showing from the French, but I suppose I should have expected nothing less from them, judging with hindsight, from the countless exercise I had been on with them in Germany.
Den.
To: Don Myers
Unfortunately, guns do have there limitations, don't you agree?
I've been in the US for nearly a year now, and wouldn't put much faith in some of the lard-arses i've seen carrying guns here. Yes, some ex-military types who you could trust, but the local civvy populations of places, where i've been staying, I don't think so.
I like the US right to bear arms, it is good for the US, maybe not other countries. Its a good second line of defence (after the army). However, Militarily, I think it would only provide a token resistance. It was Ok 200 years ago, against army's who used the same weapons, but not against todays high tech army's.
To: Pokey78
IMHO it's Saudi we should be going after first.
To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
That is why the National Guard does come in handy.
To: My Favorite Headache
I think the two main instigaters, moving against Blair in Parliament are Robin Cook and Clare Short. Both tend to take extreme views on the contrary to what the British public want. The public want in, messrs Cook and Short want out. In general, politicians are only in it for themselves, but make out there not. I believe that, Cook and Short are balatantly obvious about the fact that they will fight for what they want, and not for there constituents.
A lot is written about the comments of Cook and Short, mostly in the lefty Guardian, purely to support its lefty views. But this dynamic duo are generally regarded as no more than comics. They both only have to open there mouths, and i'm in hysterics.
Finally, I hope that Britain does send troops, as I'll probably be taken from my boring existence here, and launched into something more interesting.
Den.
To: recalcitrant
recalcitrant member since March 8th, 2002 Tony Blair has NEVER been so popular.
Blair is a socialist weenie and you are a ?
73
posted on
03/10/2002 5:25:22 PM PST
by
watcher1
To: Don Myers
UH-OH! not the National guard. We have a National guard equivalent called the TA. We call them the SAS, standing for Saturdays and Sundays, or STAB's - Stupid T A Ba****ds. Still shouldn't disrespect them too much. The TA won the NATO shooting championships last year, beating British regular army units, US, Canadian, French, and German units. I suppose the SAS boys have the time on there hands though....LOL.
To: BJClinton
Where can I read a window sticker on the M1A3?
To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
The public want in, messrs Cook and Short want out. Thought I saw a poll article somewhere to the effect that Britons are just a whole lot less than enthusiastic about paying a return visit to Baghdad.
Bad info?
To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
not after an experience I had with them and the Canadians in Kosovo. What did the Canadians do wrong?
77
posted on
03/10/2002 5:39:59 PM PST
by
watcher1
To: lentulusgracchus; tony cavanagh
I don't know. I've not heard anything about that. I read the UK newspapers websites, and haven't seen anything about lack of support in any polls. I do see that the papers 'The Mirror' and 'The Guardian' seem to be running campaigns against action in Iraq/Afghanistan, but no polls results.
Tony
Maybe you could answer this.
To: dennybabyboy-fitzy
Well the National Guard will probably end up going overseas anyway. I think that is the gameplan. They intend to leave the homeland defenceless.
No enemy would dare invade the U.S. They have to think we are all crazy over here, and wouldn't invade in case it is something in the water.
To: watcher1
They stood by and did nothing. Expected it from the French, but not the Canadians, mind you, looking back it could have been a French-Canadian outfit, which would explain. I had served with the Canadians before that, and had nothing but respect for them.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson