tanyatriangles

iTrader: (2)

UK troops out of Iraq in 2009 - PM - News - Virgin Media

Now don't get me wrong on this, I'll be glad to see 'em come home, AND from Afghanistan and the Balkans.

Apparenly, Sh*t Brown says that by then they'll have "completed their tasks in Iraq".

Nothing to do with the fact that the warmongering Bush will have gone by then? Or more likely that he'll need 'em at home when the unrest breaks out? Or that we just can't afford 'em over there any more?

More Lying Labour crap, then. Brown is so transparent as to be ridiculous, but STILL people will vote for him

Jamie

They will have a few weeks leave and then be put straight back to afghanistan.

Leslie

Think I would prefer Iraq to Afghanistan at the moment even if Iraq is not that good.

Les

bullitt_Lynz

its all bull, just means that now mister obama doesnt believe in war... we dont anymore. pull out the troops.

sucks to be honest, when will we have a PM that is interested in the country he is supposed to be looking after?

glad our chaps and chapesses are coming home though.... they've done a cracking job

Martin2005

Nope, it means that Mr Obama doesn't believe in THAT war.

He has stated on numerous occasions his commitment to the Afgan conflict, and is ready to send in many more troops.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Might it be down to the fact they have been their ages and now its time the Iraqi's got on with it ?

Or down to the fact expensive deployment of troops looks a little flash in the current economic climate ?

EddScott

This is what I thought was the reason. If your country is effectively skint, fighting a war for a resource thats halved in value seems a little costly.

PeteBrant

Plus of course it will add a further feel good factor for when Labour call a snap election in spring 2009, and in all likelyhood win it

EddScott

Why would they call a snap election?

I would have thought the last thing they want is an election. Its not actually their fault directly that the world economy has failed but they are the first port of call when it comes to the people who are supposed to save us from ourselves.

I just fancy giving the other lot a run of the wheel - can't make things any worse can they?

PeteBrant

Because in the Summer, the Tories had a double digit lead in the polls, which, thanks primarily to Osbourne and Cameron looking completely out of their depth in the current crisis, has been reduced to effectively zero. Certainly too close to call, where a few months ago a Tory victory was a certainty.

One of the very odd things about this recession, is that far from being blamed, the Government are actually doing pretty well out of it.

Mitchy260

Out of Iraq and straight into Afghanistan.

For safety, they're better off in Iraq. Afghanistan death count is rising quickly, taliban seem to be ''unbeatable''

Russians couldn't do it, i suspect we will not be able to defeat them either.

Jamie

We will see in ten years time.

unclebuck

Just goes to show how stupid the people in this country really are.

MJW

You think it'll take ten years for an away win in Afghan ? Try 10,000 years !

j4ckos mate

this has got more to do with the credit crunch, rather than job done

Removed.

Wasn't it the Mongol hordes that were the last lot to actually make a decent job of conquering that part of the world?

I think the only way to "solve" the issue would be to nuke the whole country. However, I think the neighbours might be a bit upset. I fully and whole heartedly support the armed forces, not only the UK's but all of them. They are doing what they're governments have decided they should. However, as many occupying armies have found out throughout history, wiping out an opposing force fighting on home territory using guerilla tactics is nigh on impossible. A small group of dedicated guerilla fighters can tie up huge resources. No amount of armoured vehicles, planes, choppers and fixed emplacements can negate the advantages of stealth, freedom of movement, surprise that these people have. Add in IED's, the problems of supply and support, the cost, and public resistance to any tactics that would inflict large numbers of innocent civilian deaths, the feeling that a single soldiers life is too large a price to pay for the end result (whatever that is) and your into a no win situation.

Let's face it, if we used some of the tactics that were used in WWI and WWII, carpet bombing of civilian targets, mass charges of infantry to take a village at any cost, mass artillery barrages and chemical weapons, maybe we'd stand a chance of "winning", but what would that say about us?

rr_ww

it's just a plan to draw attention away from our home economic problems.

Blokes a Grade AAA ****. how can he possibly tell me anything, or do anything competently when all he's EVER been is a politician.

Leslie

Fair enough! I bet he is looking to the next general election too!

Les

apples24

iTrader: (1)

they will take then from iraq and send them to afghan

The Trooper 1815

iTrader: (31)

They are.

We are now remitted to "succeed" in Afghanistan not "win the war".

Many of the fighters are not Afghans but Waziries, Pakistani's and a surprising number of Chechens! Iraqi infrastructure in Basrah anyway, is now better than it was with Saddam. The majority Shia's have a vote, $60 billion in production and the marshes may even reflood one day.

The yanks have 100k + troops in Iraq and are itching to get them further north to give Tommy Taliban a scuffing.

Much of the equipment being used will never be fit for purpose because they'll just get a bigger hammer and they will only have a go if they think they can get a few of us first. Just like the IRA they will never come out and fight a conventional war because they will lose but they will all have 24 virgins!

Well done the JC for winning his Millie award for supporting the troops.

It's also good to see the public perception of the troops as changed over the last twelve months too!