Why is It always Americas Troops in Iraq?

You are right. We are the main force but other countries are involved. There is enough credit and blame to go around. It just seems we are the popular ones in all this. All of our soldiers, not just the ones from our country deserve recognition for their sacrifice in service to a common cause.

Hmmm this is a tough question.

Yes president Bush suggested the war, but the way it works if I'm correct is that Congress HAS to vote on the war in order for things to pass. So you cant really blame congress, they were following what they thought to be a good leader.

Enough said about that, in my opinion, The US never should have entered Iraq to begin with, but now that the soldiers are there, I don't think that its a good idea to withdraw either. Its so messy and a withdrawal would leave Iraq in shambles. I definitely think that the strategy needs to be looked over on how the US is handling the situation because something is definitely not working. I don't know what to suggest because I'm not a specialist in these things.

I cant speak for any other countries, however the reason Canada has not gone into Iraq (Aside from the Cretchien government NOT supporting the invasion of Iraq) is that we are already stretched too thin. We have major commitments with the UN in Afghanistan, plus I believe that there are 19 other missions going on in the world that we are a part of. Plus our military does not even consist of a full "army" of people.

My heart goes out to all of those fallen in Iraq, and I hope that things get better there very quickly.

u . s . of america has bought and broken Iraq -- now america is procuring it. And, no longer trillions yet (it extremely is now only only over one thousand billion), even if it's going to be trillions in yet another 2 years at present value of expenditure. america is there to stay, for the foreseeable destiny. a recent information checklist skill that the army would be there until 2016 that's probable on the low side. right this is the irony: the Sunnis, who until those days have been bitterly adversarial to US forces in Iraq, have now executed a one hundred eighty. Now, they choose for the US to have troops there for as long as mandatory; the Shiites there are too a great number of a probability for the Sunnis to take care of, even with the insurgency. And, in case you don't be attentive to, Saddam substitute into Sunni who were bought by utilising the CIA interior the Nineteen Seventies. Now, america is amazingly waiting to oblige approximately staying: no longer only for certain acces to the oil, yet additionally to maintain the no longer-so-secret bases built during Iraq. Grunts come final interior the administration's venture. circulate ask the maimed veterans who've been ripped off, no longer only of palms and legs, yet additionally the allowances they must be getting.

This is not a disrespectful answer I respect the coalition troops' losses as well, but maybe the reason it seems like America is mentioned more, is because there are over 150,000 of them there. I am not sure I ever heard how many troops other coalition countries have there.

It is the war of all our allies. Not just American lives are being lost but the soldiers of countries that decided to help us.

For the same reason that all we hear are the losses. Three years, and for all you'd know from reading newspapers, all the troops do there is drive up and down the roads waiting to be ambushed.

And, apparently, it doesn't even occur to half of the voting population to ask what they are doing.

there are more than 10 000 British troops there around Basra. do the old GANG PRESS and make the other countries join you

The Iraq war is associated with the US because Bush started the damn thing!

We started it. We distorted facts to get into this fight. The rest of the world sees this and does not need to participate any more than necessary.

because americans like to hog the news space,as if its only them doing it all,just as they did in the 1st/2nd world wars,