posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:12 AM
I think you can't compare the two, because one, the British aren't in as many 'danger zones' as the US. They are down south where it's 'safer'
Britain has deployed the second-biggest military force in Iraq after the United States. Most of its soldiers are based around the southern city of
Basra, which has been relatively calm since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government one year ago, and British forces so far have suffered light
And two, the Birtish have about 13,000 troops, the US ten times that number (don't know exact figures). I think if things were reversed, the US would
look more professional than the British. It's just in relationl to number of troops and where they are deployed. Maybe the British are given a
lighter load because Blair is already in hot water for helping the US out, he doesn't need the daily dead like the US has.
So what UK Occupation Method are you talikng about? The one where you deploy 1/10 of the troops and only occupy pacified areas? I'm not knocking you
or the British, I think they are great soldiers, but I am beginning to hear that question alot from less polite people than yourself.
[Edited on 9-5-2004 by curme]