egafd.com

I watched this excellent two part documentary about why and how the US and Britain haven't got any plan to sort out Iraq after it's occupation.

It was really interesting to see that the Americans thought they'd be welcomed with open arms after their invasion - how wrong they were.

Warmonger Bush and his arse-licker Bliar, simply did not forseen the carnage that engulfed Iraq after it was attacked and occupied.

From the start it was, and has been, an almighty disaster and debacle. It's becomming the 21st century version of Vietnam for the Americans.

They were greeted with open arms. I saw the news of thousands cheering and dragging Saddam's statue around town, tied to the back of a truck so people could spit and whack it with their sandals.

Trouble is, these people will just side with whoever they think is the strongest force at the time. They've learnt that that's the only way to survive - conform and praise your superiors, and you might just keep yourself, and your children alive.

The biggest problem, was we never kept enough soldiers in to keep the peace. Once Saddam's backers and enough Islamic fascists got over the border from Iran/Syria/SA etc, then the people begin to think that the shift in power is on the cards, and they flip alliance accordingly. Even if they wanted the coalition forces to stay, why would they stand against the Islamic extremists, only for our troops to pull out 6 months later and leave these people to be tortured like we did in 2001?

There are more police on the streets of New York, than there are troops in the whole country of Iraq. One's a successful, developed, fully educated city, the other a medieval war zone where people grow up with death and destruction on a daily basis.

It's a combination of the Afghan war, and the antiwar brigade which has hindered more troops being sent to Iraq, from both here and the US.

Al queda even stated recently that the west hasn't the 'bottle' for war, and that to carry on fighting because the western forces will be gone soon anyway. Our own in-fighting and hesitations just gave the extremists hope. We should have categorically stated that we were 100% behind the war, and were in for the long haul. The Iraqi people would have backed us in rebuilding their country from years of suppression, and become more confident that they could do so without some mad mullah from over the border beheading them for it.

The anti-war brigade probably know that rousing up a big fuss will make the war harder, and bring on the troops coming home quicker. Then when the extremists take over Iraq fully and start mass hangings again, these anti-war people will shout 'I told you so!'

It's all bollocks to me.

Sam Slater wrote:

> The biggest problem, was we never kept enough soldiers in to
> keep the peace.

The Americans didn't want to send in a large force. They wanted a 'light touch' approach.

> It's a combination of the Afghan war, and the antiwar brigade
> which has hindered more troops being sent to Iraq, from both
> here and the US.

A war on two fronts. History has taught us that this never succeeds.

> We should have categorically stated that we were 100% behind the war, > and were in for the long haul.

But US leaders didn't think like that from the beginning. That was not part of their mind set.

> The anti-war brigade probably know that rousing up a big fuss
> will make the war harder, and bring on the troops coming home
> quicker.

This war is was always going to be difficult and ultimately unwinable from the outset. No amount of western anti-war rhetoric was going to have any influence over US war policy against Iraq.