Iraqis; US troops WILL be gone by 2012

It does, Albert ? Demonstrate for us how anything I've written has suggested this untruth to you.

 

Tough. Should never have gone there in the first place. I have zero sympathy for anyone willingly signing on the line to fight pointless wars for no discernable reason.

 

OK and your plan to remove Saddam and the threat he posed as was determined by two Congresses and two Presidents and the American people?

 

What planet are you on?

Do you also believe in fairies?

Lies, bigger lies and deceit to the American people by the AIPAC puppets!
Lies to the UN!
Lies to the world....ie dodgies dossier!

They AIPAC pick your congress men and women!

Even those that died on 9/11 cannot get any justice.....according to those who were on the committee!

Bollocks!

Your full of keich!

Regards
Highlander

 

That's the way I feel about all of your people.

 

Enough lives and money were wasted. We would have been much better off leaving Saddam in power. Since we took over the country has been infiltrated with al Qaeda and Iranians.

 

Are you under the delusion you are talking to aliens?

So you had no plan to remove Saddam as was the official policy of the United States?

Oh well you lose.

 

We couldn't afford to leave him in power.

 

What threat? I'm not accountable for the stupidity of your politicians.

 

Why not? What threat did he pose to America? If the answer is 'none' you're doing well.

 

I'll just throw one out.....

The attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush.

 

Yeah, but what threat did he pose to America ?

 

He was a President of the United States. I'm fairly certain that if the US was to assassinate Putin, we'd be at war faster than you can blink your eyes...

 

An attack against any American govt. official or former president is generally considered to be the equivalent of trashing an embassy.

That is, an act of war.

Why only attack others nations if they are threats anyway? If you wait until another nation is a threat, then you've waited too long. Attack long before they are a threat.

 

The people who assassinated JFK got clean away with it and I don't doubt that any serious plot to rid the world of the Bush idiot would also have been successful in terms of anonymity.

 

The answer is in the ILA which made it our official policy that he must be removed and the ATUMF.

Our current Secretary of State explained all very well, since you were not paying attention then I will allow her to do it again for you.

Skip to 1:50 where she starts talking

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

And after tell us what you plan was to remove Saddam, if you don't have one then you lose.

 

Weren't you paying attention at the time? You've never read the ILA? The ATUMF? The UN resolutions?

See the clip of the current SecState I posted above, it will explain it all to you.

 

This was a reason for war if the United States had done so within a year of the attempted assassination. Fighting a massive war costing almost a trillion dollars a decade later is not. If ConShawn can cast his mind back, George Dubya told us it was imminent threat and WMDs and Al-Qaeda links, all of which turned out to be false. Then there was a stable democratic Iraq (well, that's about one-third achieved) after regime change, and oil had nothing to do with it (although the army protected oil sites while looters trashed Baghdad).

If George H.W. Bush's son Dubya still considered the assassination attempt a good reason to go to war and played on the patriotic emotions and understandable fears of the post 9/11 America in order to get that war, the attempted assassination was in fact a very bad reason to go to war.

 

Since when?

That is a lie, they never claimed he was an imminent threat. The threat was that he would become an imminent threat and we could not allow that to happen.

Yes he remained a threat vis-a-vis WMD.

Yes he had ties to al Qaeda and was seeking to further those ties.

All true to this day but more importantly that was what we believed when Clinton made our policy to remove him from office and when Bush carried it out.

It was President Clinton who stated that was a reason for Saddam's removal.

 

Hilarious pseudo-military logic. Let's apply it to Israel.

 

You're a JFK conspiracy nutter? That explains so much!!

Oswald killed Kennedy.

Case closed. There is not a shred of evidence otherwise.

 

Attempt to divert noted. The current SecState made the case in the video I posted, learn from it.

So where is that quote of Bush saying Saddam was an imminent threat?

 

The intended cover.

 

Hey, cut the retrospective waffle. The troops are OUT. Iraq starts to rebuild as a pro-BRIC State. 4 trillion bucks worth of failure.

 

Cut the phony history.

Where is your quote from Bush saying Saddam was an imminent threat, else withdraw the claim.

And your comments on what our current SecState, possibly next VP candidate with Obama, had to say about it.

Is Saddam in power? Is there an elected government in Iraq?

The failure was Obama not being able to negotiate with the Iraqi government to keep our military presence there.