Not needed in Iraq?

[Heinz Guderian]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3671530.ece

he Ministry of Defence made much of the fact that British troops, based at Basra airport outside the city, were not requested in the early stages of the operation. British officials claimed that the Basra offensive was proof that Iraqi troops could cope on their own.

The Times has learnt, however, that when Britain’s most senior officer in Basra, Brigadier Julian Free, commander of 4 Mechanised Brigade, flew into the city to find out what was going on, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who was orchestrating the attacks on militia strongholds, declined to see him.

Brigadier Free flew to Basra city with Lieutenant-General Lloyd Austin, the commander of American and coalition forces in Iraq, on March 27, two days after the operation began. The Iraqi Prime Minister spoke only to the US general.

Ok, i feel a bit embarrassed that the US has taken up the slack for the British. Especially with things still a bit crap in Basra when we declared everything was A-O-K and left.

The US probably knew that everything was not OK, but were probably too nice to complain. Maliki could have requested help from us but it seems he's a bit miffed with us. Our resources are stretched, but if we are not needed shouldnt we just quietly leave without fanfare?

[Mangalore]

The cool thing is that the US helped an Iran backed government to oust troublemaker from the southern provinces to establish a stronger presence there while the same troublemaker is also dependant on Iran friendship.

Whatever the US does (short of starting a war) Iran wins without doing anything. SCIRI with it's Badr corps which has now merged much with Iraqi army and police is a longtime ally of Iran and even closer to them than Sadr who is considered by the West as a Iran puppet. Essentially the continued occupation of Iraq by the US insures that an Iran friendly Shiite government can remain in power with a comfortable majority... Afterall the Iraqi government only declared the Mahdi army an unlawful militia while ignoring all similar organizations. It's absurd.

It would be quite fun if it weren't so damn sad.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Suits me fine. If the Iraqis do not want us there those few thousand troops can go to Afghanistan where they are sorely needed and we can save x billion pounds.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Suits me fine. If the Iraqis do not want us there those few thousand troops can go to Afghanistan where they are sorely needed and we can save x billion pounds.

Now we've got rid of John "Yes Dubya!" Howard, that's exactly what we're doing with our Aussie troops: pulling them out of the idiotic, self-made American disaster in Iraq and trying to fight the real war in Afghanistan.

Leave Iraq to the Yanks. They broke it, let them fix it. Or, more accurately, they wanted it, so let them suffer the realities of keeping it.

Moral? Next time, choose your presidents with more care. Aw shucks, down home Texas goofballs may seem just fine and dandy until you find yourself up to your necks in the real world and realise you've got a stammering frat boy in charge of your destiny.

[Last Roman]

Now we've got rid of John "Yes Dubya!" Howard, that's exactly what we're doing with our Aussie troops: pulling them out of the idiotic, self-made American disaster in Iraq and trying to fight the real war in Afghanistan.

Leave Iraq to the Yanks. They broke it, let them fix it. Or, more accurately, they wanted it, so let them suffer the realities of keeping it.

Moral? Next time, choose your presidents with more care. Aw shucks, down home Texas goofballs may seem just fine and dandy until you find yourself up to your necks in the real world and realise you've got a stammering frat boy in charge of your destiny.

mind you (if you can hear me all the up there on your horse) that a good chunk of the US didn't vote or want the war.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

mind you (if you can hear me all the up there on your horse) that a good chunk of the US didn't vote or want the war.

Of course. And they are exempt from any condemnation for it. The fact remains, however, that when the war was launched the majority in the US were right behind it and only went sour on the idea when things began to go horribly wrong.

In the other countries that made up the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" the actual public were overwhelmingly against the war from the start and have consistently stayed that way ever since. It was only our governments that were keen on the idea, against the wishes of their people. Several of those governments have paid the political price since.

[ZaPPPa]

Of course. And they are exempt from any condemnation for it. The fact remains, however, that when the war was launched the majority in the US were right behind it and only went sour on the idea when things began to go horribly wrong.

On 10/11/2001 the U.S. could have declared war on Luxemburg and the majority in the U.S. would have been behind it. The American people were lied to and their rage at whoever had attacked them was taken advantage of. Now that we have a better understanding of what really went on the American (and international) people have all the right in the world to condemn their administration for it.

[HorseArcher]

Of course. And they are exempt from any condemnation for it. The fact remains, however, that when the war was launched the majority in the US were right behind it and only went sour on the idea when things began to go horribly wrong.

Incorrect. USA was still traumatized by the 9/11 and anything or anyone who was shown as an associate with terrorism (true or made-up association) was immediately thrown under the same hat and since most of the American people have a hard time with the map anyway (anything outside of USA), let alone being able to distinguish between various countries in the middle-east (not mention they couldn't give a , and why would they) , Saddam was someone that everyone heard at least once (Desert Storm) so they had no doubt in their minds that the "man is evil" and capable of anything.

Basically the government used 9/11 as a propaganda and an excuse to invade Iraq with false promises (WMDs, terrorist links etc) and even the mightiest senators/congressmen fell for it (shows how uninformed and ignorant they are) so it was expected that the regular Joe Sixpack and Marry Soccermom would go for it as well.
The reason the people begun to see the light, wasn't because the "war was going bad", but because there was no evidence for the war and some people with a working brain started to question the whole deal.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Hardly a war to be getting self-righteous over. Australia and the United Kingdom were hardly unwilling participants.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Hardly a war to be getting self-righteous over. Australia and the United Kingdom were hardly unwilling participants.

Your goverments were but was the people willing ??

[removeduser_487563287433]

Your goverments were but was the people willing ??

Mmm, no.

[Heinz Guderian]

Hardly a war to be getting self-righteous over. Australia and the United Kingdom were hardly unwilling participants.

We did have that huge march (biggest in British history?) and countless demonstrations. Then again, we re-elected the same guy who took us into war (i voted Greens).
Chocolate Rain
Some stay dry and others feel the pain
Chocolate Rain
A baby born will die before the sin

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Hardly a war to be getting self-righteous over. Australia and the United Kingdom were hardly unwilling participants.

The overwhelming majority of the Australian population were against the war from the start and have stayed every bit as much against it to this day. The protests against it in Feb 2003 were the largest in Australian history. Opinion polls have been consistently against it for the last five years by a huge margin. Polls show that Australians support the war in Afghanistan and want Aussie troops out of the American debacle in Iraq.

Does that sound like we were willing participants to you?

[NakedBarbarian2]

Really the U.S. should just rearm the republican guard. They know how to deal with shiites.

[Heinz Guderian]

Really the U.S. should just rearm the republican guard. They know how to deal with shiites.

That would be a bad choice

[mrmouth]

I think you know what Ferrets was getting at, but nice job skirting the obvious.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I think you know what Ferrets was getting at, but nice job skirting the obvious.

I know exactly what he was getting at. And when TB666 asked him "Your goverments were but was the people willing ??" he replied (quite reasonably) "Mmm, no." I was simply re-inforcing that point. To say "Australia" wasn't unwilling is incorrect. Australia was distinctly unwilling - overwhelming, consistently and loudly so. The Howard Government, on the other hand, was more than supine grovelling pathetic willing.

Which is one of the reasons they are now in the political wilderness, the leader of the Opposition has popularity ratings in single figures and John Howard is only the second Prime Minister in Australian history to not only lose an election but to actually get kicked out of Parliament altogether.

Never heard of Ansar Al-Islam

Many times. The claims by Colin Powell that they were harboured by Saddam caused hilarity on the part of anyone who knows about terrorism, since (i) they were in Kurdish northern Iraq, outside of Saddam's area of control and (ii) they were as much an enemy of Saddam as they were of their rivals the PKK. At best there is some evidence that Saddam made approaches to them to try to use them against the PKK. That's it. To make out that this means Saddam supported Ansar Al-Islam is absurd.

And it's been known to be absurd for about five years now. What 2002 Frankenstein are you going to try to revive next - the Prague meeting with Mohammed Atta perhaps? Go ahead, that will fly about as well as this Ansar Al-Islam crap.

ONe day you guys are going to have to take the reality pills.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Well, the American presence overshadows Britian's and many other country's presence. I think having troops present in Iraq (any number) show a commitment of that country to the fight against global terrorism. This is wh the terrorists are working to end the support of European countries, they want to eliminate America's allies. They suceeded in Spain unfortunately.

[ZaPPPa]

Well, the American presence overshadows Britian's and many other country's presence. I think having troops present in Iraq (any number) show a commitment of that country to the fight against global terrorism.

No, putting troops in places where the terrorist groups are actually active shows a commitment to the fight against global terrorism. Putting troops in Iraq shows nothing more than a commitment to secure oil for the U.S. and the commitment to make Bush Jr. seem like less than a complete failure.

This is wh the terrorists are working to end the support of European countries, they want to eliminate America's allies. They suceeded in Spain unfortunately.

The terrorists are working to end it? How exactly? By blowing them up? That was called 'resistance' in the second world war. A people resisting an occupying force. If the Germans would have won WW2, my grandfather would have been called a terrorist, now he's called a hero of the resistance and his name is on the wall in the Smithsonian.

[Caelius]

No, not a sarcastic answer, provide a source

I wasn't being sarcastic. Look them up yourself, i've already provided the names of two of the biggest groups that were operating there immediately prior to the invasion. There were plenty of others that used Iraq as a transit point and safehaven for their assets as long as Saddam was financially satisfied.

Don't forget to search up on al Zarqawi's Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad terror group which was based in Iraq before the invasion either (would later become the foundation for the AQI network), or the elements of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad that were supported by Saddam before that group began to be assimilated into Al Qaeda.