Do Americans reason that British Servicemen combat surrounded by the Afghan time of war on apprehension?

are only playing a Junior role? David Cameron thinks that within WWII Britain was the junior partner in the time of war against Hitler. Is he right and does that still apply today?
Answers:
Psst ... America didn't start the war in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda did. If you don't approaching your treaty obligations under NATO, you're free to verbs out.

And I'm sorry we didn't help you recapture your sheep farms on the Malvinas Islands. Monroe Doctrine and adjectives that, you know. We can't support imperial adventures in the Western Hemisphere, even if we like the Empire. (And we do.)
in answer to Redleg permit us see once again
Troop deployment in Iraq 2003-2009
United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
United States: 150,000 to 250,000 invasion-112,000 (12/09)
The British Army is today concentrating on fighting Taliban forces and bringing financial guarantee to Helmand province. Approximately 9,000 British troops (including marines, airmen and sailors) are currently in Afghanistan, making it the second largest force after the US. Around 500 extra British troops were deployed surrounded by 2009, bringing the British Army deployment total up to 9,500 (excluding Special Forces). From 2001 - 17th July 2010 a total of 321 British military personnel have died on operations primarily in Helmand Province. 37 of these have died of cause other than direct contact from insurgents; in such ways as accident or illness. Source(s): Wikipedia, Perhaps instead of looking at basic numbers of troops involved we should be looking at a percentage of any the respective countries armed forces or population. The US is a much bigger country than the UK so no one in their right mind would expect both countries to deploy indistinguishable number of troops to an area of conflict. As to WWII it should be looked at in context, in attendance were a lot of British troops deployed, not forgetting Commonwealth troops representing the British Empire. Although the US supplied food, ammunition etc it be all paid for. The monetary debt owed to the US for these supplies be only finally paid rotten relatively recently. To suggest that British troops played a junior role to the US in Europe surrounded by WWII is to insult all the troops involved, especially those who died. Don't forget the massive effort put surrounded by by the USSR and the huge losses that country sustained.
Honestly, some naive Americans think so. American servicemen, however, do not. The United States and Great Britain are allies. The British are within in support of the "global" war on apprehension (the U.S. terms it as the acronym GWOT) and should never be termed as a "junior" role. It's an endeavour we all have mutual interest surrounded by and affects all of the countries involved. There are other countries that have troops in that that I've met like Germany, Netherlands, Croatia, Belgium, etc. Junior role? No. Mr. Cameron is wrong.
it's an insult to adjectives those who died in WW2. America didn't come into the war till 1941, it started surrounded by 1939.
America has a bigger role in Iraq/Afghan but after adjectives, they started it
Redleg - How the f*ck can you say that there be no british troops in iraq when there are british fatalities on narrative, my recruiter was in Iraq we fought in recent times as much the americans.

And people like you turn a blind eye and merely they didn't help out at all why don't you articulate that to the parents of the dead british service men who fought bravely along side the americans and other countries in BOTH conflicts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3847051.st…

Why don't you grasp your facts right before you starting talking sh*t stupid idiot!!
I am not really sure what your point, (ridicule) is here Alan but you nouns like a very irrational and angry young-looking man. I doubt seriously that any point of order would affect your beliefs, however you can rest assured that Americans do not consider the British a junior partner in anything.

For the text, I do remember the Falklands very well and by comparison it be a small engagement and support from Americans was limited at the request of the British organization. We provided absolutely everything that the British requested and offered much more than accepted, including an helpful roll in operations via within flight refueling that you did not have at the time.

I believe that your inferiority complex is not serving you well. Americans deliberate very highly of the British relatives, even though our new President does not. We realize that and will correct it immediately.

Have a great sunshine.


Alan, you have to remember that your Prime Minister has to business with a large number of general public including massive numbers of immigrants that flooded your country. He has to calm these people as much as possible or find himself on the business end of a no confidence vote and the trickle of his government.
Give him a break. I seriously doubt that he believes what he said. I know Americans who fight side by side next to your soldiers do not believe that.
The British should have more troops in middle east.

redleg should be redneck. I have an idea that he's about as clever as Cameron. Cameron will pay dearly for his stand still and silly remark which is typical of his thoughtless comments. Thank goodness for the likes of Blu.
Lets see...

Iraq:

US Troops - 88,000
British Troops - 0

Afghanistan:

US Troops - 68,000
British Troops - 9400

What do you estimate?

I didn't say anything about who be doing more, population size, etc. I was simply stating numbers.

And remember we didn't start WW1 and had no grounds to get involved...and we didn't start WW2 and had no rationale to get involved on the European continent...other than our kinship next to your country. So stop acting like you are doing us a favor.

The miniscule military force on the Falklands was not a concern of ours...besides why would you stipulation our help being that you are so effective and all.

67 of your own countrymen murdered on 9-11 says A-stan is your clash...not the US.

Simple math...

Right now the US has 7% of her TOTAL armed forces of 2.9 million deployed to Iraq AND A-stan.

The British own 2% of her TOTAL armed forces of 435,500 deployed to A-stan.

So EVEN IF you figure in for size per capita...it still isn't equal.

Once again I haven;t stated anything excluding sheer numbers. You are all drawing your own conclusions to what you think I am proverb...which is telling in itself.

Never said at hand were none. There are NONE NOW...as of today.


Related Questions: