Blair is Bush's "Poodle" but not many British Soldiers have been Injured,

[KoKo]

at least not from what I've seen reported. So, did Tony get Southern Iraq where there would be less "Insurgency" and Bush said: "Don't worry Tony....we will minimize British casualties?"

Was THIS THE BLAIR/BUSH AGREEMENT? We will give you "SAFE" Iraq Territories, and take the AGRESSIVE ONES if you "just go along with us."

[ComerPerro]

1. You are probably onto something

British get the softer areas. I wouldn't put it past Bush. That motherfucking asshole will do anything just to get the proper approval ratings.
And when you consider how much of the "coalition of the willing" was bribed, then it wouldn't suprise me at all if this were the agreement.

But can we prove it?

No.

We can never prove that they knowingly let 9/11 to happen either. But I still believe it, and mention it to whoever I can.

[KoKo]

2. I'm not even hearing the "Casualty" reports from our GB/Du'ers...Why....

Something is wrong here!

[KoKo]

3. Kick, because I'm still "puzzled" about this.....hoping other DU'ers know

something I don't. Blair has Big Problems coming on with the soon to be released Hutton Report. About the Scientist Kelly's Suicide over giving info to BBC, that Blair was not being forthright in his "intelligence info...which he got from Bush or Bush got from Blair.....:crazy:

Whatever.......there's something wierd that Blair "gets a pass on this" and Bush and America are having MEGA LOSSES of TROOPS.

We deal with the Maimed, Dying, Sick and Dead.....while Blair Coasts????

And what about Spain's Aznar? Where are the huge numbers of Spanish Troops (Coalition) dying? So far he's lost Diplomats....bad enough....but where are all the troops Spain sent to fight.

Seems it's only AMERICANS DYING IN IRAQ! So much for the "Coalition."

Seems it was a SCAM! :nuke:

[Nihil]

5. At 01:27 you don't get a lot of UK responses ...

Koko01,

If you think there was a "coalition" invading Iraq rather than just
the US you might want to review the news from the start of last year
for facts rather than propaganda.

There are several reasons for the difference in casualty figures.
Total number of bodies deployed is an important factor but the
difference in operational methods between US and UK is another.

The UK (eventually) learned that it is not a good idea to shoot into
crowds of protesters as that sort of thing tends to piss off the
natives. The US *might* be learning that lesson as they haven't done
it recently. There again, it might just be one of those statistical
things or even the Darwinistic response that survival depends on
the ability to adapt to the environment.

Walking along the streets being "guarded" rather than driving APCs.
Standing around in shirt sleeves rather than full helmet and body
armour. Talking to Iraqis rather than shouting through megaphones.
All of these things contribute to a more peaceful relationship between
occupier and occupied.

I realise that this thread is probably just flame-bait but thought I'd
try to point out that it's not ALL down to political crap between the
two tossers at the top.

Nihil

[CHIMO]

4. U.S. camp in Iraq mortared

A reference to a question.
Don't know what the ratio is to forces but this number seems quite high for the spin that has been going on.

Elsewhere in Iraq, a British soldier died in a training accident in southern Basra, bringing the toll for British troops to 53, a British military spokesman said.

May include numbers from the start of the conflict(sic).

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1073474014808&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

[legin]

6. Still fitting in with the

1 in 200 chance being killed
1 in 100 seriously injured
1 in 20 injured

I think there are 8000 british troops in Iraq. So there should be 40 deaths predicted by above guesstimate. So the 53 figure is slightly 'above average' as it were.

[wickerwoman]

7. But British soldiers were stuck with Basra- one of the more difficult

cities to take during the "official war" portion of the proceedings. I remember reading an article too about how the British soldiers were amazed at the way American soldiers shelled the shit out of an area before risking any troops, while the British soldiers were trained to empty buildings one by one. They felt they were consistantly being given more difficult assignments.

Anyway, I'd be surprised if the scenario you suggest is accurate.

[NV1962]

8. Not exactly true

The bomb attack on the Italians, killing 18, the ambush killing 7 Spanish intel officers... Known examples of "activity" in the South.

Not exactly "safe" - it's not the Tikrit area, but still...