Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bnelson44

“Re-dominate” implies that they had dominated the area in the past. This is not true. The Brits used a faulty, low-impact, hands-off approach from the get-go. They allowed corruption and intimidation to continue to be the main method of ‘government’ in Basra and other southern cities. Their main goal - as with the US Democrats - is to keep their soldiers safe. Nothing puts them in more danger than having them hole up in a palace and ‘keep watch’ while the thugs gain power and control.

No need to ask for them to come back and re-dominate. Not until there is a change of attitude... and I don’t think that’s likely.


10 posted on 08/10/2007 3:32:31 PM PDT by Shazolene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Shazolene

Uk troop losses in Iraq are unfortnately proportionally higher than those suffered by the US. UK troops are carrying out offensive operations daily.
See this article:http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/british-forces-at-war-as-witnessed-by-an-american.htm

UK troops are taking the lead in Afghanistan. The problem is, our military is very overstretched taking a lead in Afghanistan and Iraq.


11 posted on 08/10/2007 4:03:46 PM PDT by uksupport1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson