Iraqis; US troops WILL be gone by 2012

Saddam to the US Ambassador in 1991

And then in 1993

And a few weeks later in February of 93 an Iraqi bombmaker and Ramzi Youssef, traveling with Iraqi passports detonate a bomb in the basement of WTC, and flee to Iraq.

In 1998, Clinton threatened to attack Iraq in a speech at the Pentagon,
and 5 days later, like a puppet on a string

From Iraqi newspaper in July 2001

Identifying all 3 targets of 9/11. Then Ramzi Yousefs uncle, Khalid Muhammad orchestrates the 9/11 attacks. Weeks after 9/11, saddams letter to the US.

and finally

 

They allowed any member state to use whatever force necessary to remove Saddam if he failed to comply with the resolutions.

Yes, as Clinton and the Congress at the time determine the cost of leaving him in power would have been far greater, that was fully borne out in what we found after he was removed.

 

The ILA and AUTUMF fully spell it out, go read them.

In the meantime have a listen to our current Secretary of State

Skip to 1:50 to save having to listen to them sing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g"]Hillary Clinton talks about her vote to go to war, Saddam, and WMDs - YouTube[/ame]

 

We also sided with Joe Stalin during WW2, do you understand anything at all about geopolitics?

 

How can the Iraqis say that U.S. troops will be gone by 2012 when the most bloated American embassy on the planet is sitting in the so-called Green Zone in downtown Baghdad? The last I heard, there were about 16,000 people employed there! This breaks down to about 5,500 personnel (and a fair number of them have to be intelligence/covert ops types), around 500 Marines and around 11,000 (11,000!) "security consultants".

This means the U.S. Embassy in the heart of Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, has 11,000 mercenaries at its disposal! If I were the Iraqis, I'd consider that situation a ticking time bomb. If the Iraqi politicians really have control over Iraq now, they should chop the permitted staff to perhaps 25% of current levels!

 

A ripe dollop of hopeful tripe.

Another one. These two sentences comprise falsehoods supported by fallacy for the purposes of deceit.

 

UN Security Council Resolution 678, Iraq / Kuwait

Published November 29, 1990

The resolution is an update of Security Council resolution 660 and ultimately gives authorization for invasion. "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.
http://www.cfr.org/un/un-security-council-resolution-678-iraq-kuwait/p11205

UN1441 reiterated it.

Are you denying the existence of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act too?

You really need to do some reading.

 

Bollox. 1991 was a completely different event.

Incredible arrogance from one so busted.

 

A continuation of the same "situation between Iraq and Kuwait"

 

Bollox;

You see Kuwait mentioned eleven years later ?

 

They were one continuous event and 1441 SPECIFICALLY cites the previous resolutions.

Sorry the facts are well documented.

Just being helpful as you seem unaware of the document and resolution history. Such as it was the official policy of the United States that Saddam should be removed from office and we engaged in specific actions to accomplish that BEFORE Bush even announced he would run for President. That Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power originated in the Clinton Administration.

And that need to remove him only grew as the years went by with him still in power.

 

"Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities, which the council said threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored."

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-09-12/...tors-commitment-peace-and-security/2?_s=PM:US


Yes, how'd you miss it?

That need to read more thing.

 

Well, I was citing the UN website, but if you would rather instead rely upon the word of Bush, from the referenced speech. Yeah, I see Kuwait mentioned. You are so full of it.

 

UN was referring to it as the "situation between Iraq and Kuwait" through 2004. Wasnt until 2005 that they begin considering it a separate issue.

 

Mention people being kidnapped and having their head sawed off for everyone on the Internet to see, and youR ilk dream up justifications.

 

And all member states involved.

 

Now try it this way ;

" TWELVE YEARS AGO Iraq invaded Kuwait "

So you can quit the bollox that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the issue of Kuwait- except in the minds of those peddling the neocon message for the benefit of the military-industrial complex .

There was no mandate to invade Iraq. If there was then Bush wouldn't have been seeking one and the Brit government of the time wouldn't be on the rack for pandering to the Zionists' call for war.

 

Them, and the UN.

 

A postscript for blundering buffoons;

Now, explain to us how you know better than those who passed Resolution 1441.

 

British Muslims. Now there's an oxymoron for everyone to chew on.

 

You said there was no mention of Kuwait in that speech, that was demonstrably wrong as cited.

And yes there was a mandate to invade Iraq, it started with the ILA an ended with the AUTUMF.

 

You're busted. ' Mention ' means included with relevance, not an aside by some neocon prick hoping to use a UN resolution from over a decade past to ' justify ' a new crusader adventure.

Anyway, you're done. Dixon too.

 

Nothing there to dispute a thing Ive said. Grasping for strawmen again? UN website confirms all my assertions. Not sure what it is I am done with.

 

I am. So's anybody else who knows that Res. 1441 didn't legitimize invasion. And they know that by reading my link.

...................

 

Well no it doesn't but it did so your statement is specious. He DID mention Kuwait, you were factually wrong on the matter.