"Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood."
I never had a problem with Brit troops going into Iraq. Many people here did. I can fully understand their position. It wasn't our war, we had no place there. We were simply following the lead of a country, bigger and more powerful than us. Many people here thought we were better than that. That Blair was better than that and him sending Brit troops over there was a sign of weakness more than anything. I don't think it was. It was something that had to be done. To show our support of a nation, who was putting to an end a terrible tyranny. We were showing support for our biggest ally. As I said I fully agreed with this. As time has gone on, and more information about this war has come forward this opinion hasn't always stood, but this isn't relevant. We started something and it needs to be finished. That is my opinion. We can't just go into something, maybe lacking information, but then find things out and decide we shouldn't of done it so we'll just walk away. The world doesn't work like that. It is a job that needs to be finished. By the Brit troops as well as the US troops. Listening to the news recently and finding out that they want to place Brit troops under US command was taking it a little far for me though. We may be an ally of the US. They may be in charge of these proceedings, but we still have our own identity, our own way of doing this and I think that needs to be respected. I don't think putting us under US command will do any good. Except annoy people here, and want people to pull Brit troops out even more.

Currently Downing Street is denying claims that Brit troops will be put under US command in Iraq as part of a political deal with Bush. Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is to make a statement in commons saying such a decison would be purely operational.
This comes as thousands of people were demonstrating in central London calling for the withdrawal of Brit troops. The US is apparently requesting for a UK force of about 650 to step in because a US unit has been earmarked for "combat opereations" in the insurgent strong hold of falluja.

Robin cook (former foreign secretary) fears Brit troops will be blamed for US aggression if redeployed. Mr Cook, who resigned from the government over the decision to invade Iraq, said: "The real risk of sending a British battalion into the US sector is that our troops could become associated in Iraqi minds with US methods."

The biggest march in the UK this year organised by Stop the war coalition is supported by Paul Bigley, brother of murdered hostage Ken. They just want our troops out completely. No being under US command. Downing street wants to make sure this doesn't look like it has anything to do with the American election, and Blair showing support. As I said, I don't have a problem with Brit troops being there, I think under US comman is a little to far though. Maybe it could work out for the best though, we are supposed to be working together after all. I think it will happen eventually whether we like it or not.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #14 By: Solitair - 10/21/2004 3:05:59 AM
Actually that statement should read,

'This is America and we tend to do things the Bush way anywhere we want'.

Just pointing out the facts that almost half the US disagree with the Bush way, and that we're not talking about doing things in America but elsewhere on the planet.


Actually my statement should read exactly the way it does. *Almost* half? What about the majority that you refer to. From your comment I guess the *other* half of the people in the US count for shit. Right?


Yes you do. Good job Bush is a leader you can trust to do the right thing, huh. Otherwise listening to no one else would get you into difficult situations



Better leader than Kerry could ever be!
on Oct 21, 2004
drmiler,
what majority do I refer to? You commented that Bush does not need to listen to other world leaders as he does things the American way. Just look at the election in the US, with America split 50/50 as to whether the Bush way is right. Bush is president and so the US currently does things his way not 'the American way'. When Clinton was president things were done his way. This is a fact of life. There is no such thing as a unified 'the Ameican way', just the way the current president wants to run things.
I was also commenting that Iraq is not in the US and ignoring other world leaders to do things 'the American way' does not make it right. Saddam was doing things 'his' way there and it was his country! We felt he was wrong though and took action. Doing things the American way in the US is fine. Doing things outside the US 'the American way' by ignoring the objections of other world leaders is not.

To bring the article back to topic, I see that the UK today has agreed to send the troops to support the US areas. No big surprise there as most people think they made the decision weeks ago.

Paul.
on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #17 By: Solitair - 10/21/2004 3:47:16 PM
drmiler,
what majority do I refer to? You commented that Bush does not need to listen to other world leaders as he does things the American way. Just look at the election in the US, with America split 50/50 as to whether the Bush way is right. Bush is president and so the US currently does things his way not 'the American way'. When Clinton was president things were done his way. This is a fact of life. There is no such thing as a unified 'the Ameican way', just the way the current president wants to run things


Excuse me, you very specifically said "almost" half! Not a 50-50 split.


Reply #14 By: Solitair - 10/21/2004 3:05:59 AM
Actually that statement should read,

'This is America and we tend to do things the Bush way anywhere we want'.

Just pointing out the facts that almost half the US disagree with the Bush way, and that we're not talking about doing things in America but elsewhere on the planet.


And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.
on Oct 21, 2004
And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.


*Shakes his head*

WRONG. The Supreme Court voted him in. Yeah, he "won" the election, but you can't say that the American People voted him in. I mean I guess if you're gonna get technical, the Supreme Court justices are Americans, and they voted 5-4 for Bush to win and become president... but strictly speaking... the electoral votes, the popular vote... none of that mattered. I'm not trying to say Bush stole the election or Al Gore won or anything that extreme, but the fact remains that "we" had very little to do with Bush getting into office.
on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #19 By: CraigAlan - 10/21/2004 4:15:55 PM
And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.


*Shakes his head*

WRONG. The Supreme Court voted him in. Yeah, he "won" the election,


Excuse me....But if he won the election we voted him in. Case closed, next case. BTW Bush DID win the electoral vote!
Final score Bush 271 Gore 266
on Oct 21, 2004
Excuse me....But if he won the election we voted him in. Case closed, next case. BTW Bush DID win the electoral vote!
Final score Bush 271 Gore 266


Excuse me, but did I SAY that Gore won the Electoral Vote? No, I don' t think that I did. But again, I think maybe you didn't read my whole post. Maybe you don't care. That's your right, I suppose, but once again you missed the entire argument of my post.
on Oct 21, 2004

Reply #19 By: CraigAlan - 10/21/2004 4:15:55 PM
And BTW his way IS the American way. We (the american people) voted him into office.


*Shakes his head*

WRONG. The Supreme Court voted him in. Yeah, he "won" the election, but you can't say that the American People voted him in. I mean I guess if you're gonna get technical, the Supreme Court justices are Americans, and they voted 5-4 for Bush to win and become president... but strictly speaking... the electoral votes, the popular vote... none of that mattered.


Yes I read your *entire* post! And no, I missed NOTHING! What you said was that the electoral vote didn't matter. (Your words, not mine.) And I'm pointing out that it *did* matter.
You *also* made an inference that he did not *win* the election. On this I refer you back to the electoral vote count.
on Oct 21, 2004
Yes I read your *entire* post! And no, I missed NOTHING! What you said was that the electoral vote didn't matter. (Your words, not mine.) And I'm pointing out that it *did* matter.


Before this turns into a "tastes great" "less filling" debate... let me just come right out and say it: Bush won the Presidency, but NOT by the strict rules of the American voting process. He won because the Supreme Court decided the countless, incessant recounts for Bush, and voted 5-4 that Bush won the election because THEY ruled Bush won the electoral college. This fact is entirely separate from your argument that the electoral votes were 271 to 266. I won't even get into the popular vote issue... we both know it was in favor for Gore, but we also both know that's not the way the "system" works. I'll give you the fact that the Electoral Votes were, when all the incessant recounting was done, in favor of Bush. I can't argue with that, really. My original point, which I will restate, was the Supreme Court ultimately decided the outcome of the 2000 election. Which was a direct response to your original statement "we (the american people) voted him into office." You can spin doctor this any way you like but the fact remains that it's the truth.
on Oct 22, 2004
the Supreme Court ultimately decided the outcome of the 2000 election.
Right, no other way to explain it.
on Oct 22, 2004
Regardless of who actually decided the US election I believe my point stands that there is no 'American way', just the way of the current president. Likewise there is no 'British' way, just the way of the current British prime minister. And he seems quite happy to keep his head shoved up Bush's ass. That does not mean that ass kissing is the 'British' way.

Today those British troops get ready to move nortwards as talk begins of a possible 1500 more British troops being sent to Iraq. Increasing troop levels just before a US election feels too much to me like Blair getting involved in US politics.

Paul.
2 Pages1 2