Iraqis; US troops WILL be gone by 2012

By referring to the previous provisions it did

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

 

Mind you don't get blisters from grasping that straw.

Absolutely not. Previous Resolutions are noted in order to establish, or maintain, a record of events. The vote from a previous resolution doesn't carry over ad nauseam or there would be no need for new resolutions- and 1441 wouldn't exist. It's not even really a fine point- unless you're a neocon/Zionist desperate for some blood/territory/power/earnings/

 

Don't wear you shoes out dancing around the fact you posted a fallacious statement.

Yes they can carryover and in this case the resolutions specifically state the previous ones are in force.

 

So produce your evidence . Guantanamo George and Tony Blair would dearly love to see it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/103294-brit-inquiry-into-iraq-war-opens-continues.html

....and don't come back, creepos.

 

Much more than that- and it ain't over yet. One million dead and four million displaced leaves one whole mess of vengeful people.

 

Someone else said that, right ? Not you, you're a different person now.

 

Explain this to us please, ' Relevant ', when we have just witnessed the exit of the last troops. We got secret bunkers ? A couple of divisions disguised as Iraqis ?

 

totally unrelated clip:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFyHTU8tg_0"]Kneel before Zod! - YouTube[/ame]

 

From what I hear Al Sadr is a good leader. and I came to that conclusion just by knowing that he was barred from US held Iraqi elections back in around 2005 or so...

 

He's high on the US/Zionist assassination list. It makes it difficult to participate in open democracy. US/Zionists preach democracy and murder the candidates they don't like.

 

sad reality...............

 

Iran=1 USA=0, new just wait ...

 

Actually it as been between $800-$900 billion over 9 years. Obama had a first year deficit of $1,600 Billion. His failed stimulus alone cost $880 billion by most estimates.

 

Mission Accomplished> No need to be there.

 

Oh there's lots of reasons to be there. Obama blew it, we should have an operation base there.

 

There was never any point to being there other than pandering to the Israel lobby.

 

POOF ! All gone.

 

Two acts passed by the Congress and signed by two Presidents say different. And we should have an operational base there now, Obama blew it again.

 

US presidents do as AIPAC instructs- unless it is impossible. Al Sadr made the ' mission ' impossible. Even Tom Cruise thought so.

 

They do as they please as did the Congress, they clearly stated the point we removed Saddam, it was in OUR interest.

 

So then, what's in the cupboard after spending 4 trillion dollars ?

 

...and it all comes unglued on Obama's watch.

Where is it that buck stops, Mr. Truman?

 

How will we ever know? Obama went running from the kitchen.

 

Are you happy about the deaths of all those Americans? It seems so.

 

Obama brings the troops home in political defeat.