The future of troops in Iraq
"British troops were sent to Northern Ireland in 1969 after violent clashes between Catholics and Protestants."
They are just now, finally, withdrawing, 38 years later.
For Catholics and Protestants substitute various Islamic factions. It has to be said, someone wasn't taking a proper look at case studies before pressing the go button on Iraq.
July 31st, 2007 12:16am
Don't we still have bases in Germany and Japan?
July 31st, 2007 12:19am
But Northern Ireland was active duty with street patrols and live ammunition, and a risk of being shot at by snipers or being blown up by a roadside bomb. Germany or Japan don't count in quite the same way.
July 31st, 2007 12:23am
I suppose not. I was just thinking in terms of just because it's over, it isn't over.
July 31st, 2007 12:24am
Mission accomplished. We have to stay in Iraq.
son of parnas
July 31st, 2007 12:25am
Don't forget Korea.
I've been wondering what we've been doing there for as long as I can remember.
The Americans man the cease fire line and make sure the North doesn't invade again. It's actually one of the most militarized places in the world.
One place that has permanent US troops you tend to forget is the Sinai peninsular where they peacekeep the Israeli-Egyptian border.
July 31st, 2007 8:47am
In Northern Ireland, when Paddy Q. BadGuy was arrested by the Brits, he got a trial, you know, the sort of thing with lawyers. The US, in contrast, throws people in camps with no legal rights at all.
When Paddy Q. BadGuy blew some shit up, it was treated as a criminal matter. They didn't send in troops shooting everything that moved, and then shooting everything that didn't move fast enough.
July 31st, 2007 10:02am
At least the Brit troops vs. IRA in Ireland is a better comparison than the post WW2 occupation of Germany or Japan
July 31st, 2007 11:29am