Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 9th January 2009

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

US military to quit Iraq's cities



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 August 2008
AMERICAN military forces will be withdrawn from Iraqi cities as soon as 30 June next year, according to a draft agreement on the future status of US forces in the country.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, flew into Baghdad yesterday for an unannounced visit in an effort to move forward negotiations on the agreement and a wider pact on future relations with Iraq.

"We have agreed that some goals, some asp
irational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Ms Rice told reporters after meeting Iraqi officials, including Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister.

The long-awaited pact will allow US forces to stay in Iraq beyond the end of this year, when a UN Security Council mandate enacted after the US-led invasion in 2003 expires.

Replacing the UN mandate with a formal US-Iraqi pact is seen as a milestone in Iraq's emergence as a sovereign state, giving Baghdad direct say over the presence of foreign troops on its soil for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

But the deal's terms are politically sensitive in both countries, with Mr Maliki determined to show that the 144,000 US troops will not stay longer than needed, and George Bush, the US president, keen to avoid a firm schedule for them to leave.

Iraq's chief negotiator, Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud, said a draft of the agreement was complete and would be presented to Iraqi political leaders to approve and send to parliament.

Other issues that need to be tackled include immunity for US troops from Iraqi law and the status of prisoners held in Iraq by US forces. They hold some 21,000 prisoners they deem dangerous, but have not charged them with any crime.

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, asked about fears expressed by neighbouring countries over such a pact, said: "This decision (agreement] is a sovereign one, and Iran and other neighbouring countries have the right to ask for clarifications … There are clear articles (that] say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighbouring countries, and we already did clarify this."

Ms Rice showed some caution in the news conference with Mr Zebari. "Obviously the American forces are here, coalition forces are here, at the invitation of the Iraqi government," she said.

"What we're trying to do is put together an agreement that protects our people, respects Iraq's sovereignty … But the goal is to have Iraqi forces responsible for the security of Iraq," she added. "That is the goal, and that has been the goal from the beginning."

Ms Rice said the military surge had worked and "we are making progress together in the defeat of Iraq's enemies of all stripes. We're not sitting here talking about an agreement to try to get out of a bad situation".

She called the agreement one that "builds on the success we have had in the last year. This agreement is based on success".

Mr Zebari conceded that officials had hoped to conclude the pact earlier, but said that "it has taken us more time", citing internal political factors.

Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, criticised Ms Rice's visit.

Luai Smeisem, head of the political bureau in the Sadr movement, said: " We reaffirm our stance of rejecting the long-term agreement. We demand the Iraqi government, and on the highest levels, not to sign this unjust agreement, and we demand the withdrawal of the government as soon as possible."

BACKGROUND

IN ADDITION to spelling out that US troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date – most likely the end of 2011 – by which all US forces would leave the country. In the meantime, the US troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while still being able to assist Iraqi forces as needed.

There are about 140,000 US troops in Iraq. US officials have resisted committing to a date for a final pull-out, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security but also progress on the political and economic fronts.



The full article contains 727 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 August 2008 12:05 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Iraq , War in Iraq
 
1

Enquiring Scot ,

22/08/2008 00:39:29
As time goes by conditions are getting better. I was doubtful last year but things have improved and my opinion has changed. I'm not so narrow minded not to admit that the regime change will have been the right decision long term.

Saddam was a very evil man and having another democracy in the middle east will surely be infectious.
2

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 22/08/2008 01:45:33
If you read carefully above, you can see that Condi Rice calls it an 'aspirational timetable' - meaning it is a possible timetable depending on progress made. There is much fine print & many conditions in the agreement regarding the withdrawal timetables. lawyers would say that from a 'constructive' point of view it is meaningless. In other words in reality it means nothing is my guess.

People should listen to the radio broadcasts in this link.

http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=33&year=8&month=8&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%2526ProgramID%253D33%26year%3D8%26backURL%3Dindex.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives

listen to the August 18 broadcast. Apparently now 75% of all the doctors in Iraq prior to the invasion have either fled or been killed. the systematic efforts to murder them began in 2003, right after the invasion.



3

Eboneesha,

22/08/2008 02:02:50
2 Wally,By The Rivers Of Babylon

I've read 3 of your older comments and you seem like a real conspiracy theory nutter and anti American, is this true?
4

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 22/08/2008 02:13:01
Eboneesha in #3:

If you listen to the audio link I referred to in #2, then you'll hear an exile from Iraq living in France tell you that the occupation forces have death squads and that the terror on the doctors that has caused 75% of them to either flee Iraq or already been assassinated is done by these death squads. Here is another link supporting this idea.

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/BritishBombers.htm

For at least 2 years now opinion polls taken among the Iraqi people have shown that well over half of them believe the sectarian violence in Iraq is somehow caused by the occupier.
5

cramond1,

22/08/2008 04:39:50
The warmongers, invaders and occupiers shouldn't be in Iraq. It's not their land. Don't get used to it. Don't acquiesce in their crimes. What the Americans have done will eventually be known to the outside world. They are there to boost their flagging economy, test and sell their weapons and because they're bullies. They are there because they have the power to be.

They are not there to stop airliners crashing into US buildings. How logical is that?

If they want oil they can buy it or develop their own oil industry, preferably alternative power sources, especially clean coal. Not all Americans are complicit, just as not all Russians were in their hideous concocted soviet empire. The first thing Americans can do is NOT vote for Obama or McCain (son of Cain).
6

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 22/08/2008 05:18:04
Cramond in #5: the only disagreement I have with you is that the Iraq war does not benefit the US economy. The US government spends about $720 million a minute on that war. It is contributing towards a bankruptcy situation for the US. Every year the US government spends over $400 billion on debt service. The Americans themselves get screwed royally by this set-up. The Federal Reserve bank profits massively from it though. It is in the FR's interest that the US government grow to enormous size and spend money massively. Because when they lend money to finance this big-government they create a future stream of profits when the money is paid back. When they lend to the US government they do not have the money to lend. The money is created by the act of lending. therefore, all principal & interest paid back is nearly 100% profit.

There are also some private companies that profit from the war. But Americans themselves do not. The US economy is deteriorating rapidly in recent years. Here are some links documenting that the US health-care system is a disaster.

http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=618599

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=698139

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=3573

The Americans themselves do not cause the US to pursue the policies it does. Likewise, the Russians did not cause the Soviet Union to do what it did.
7

Finnking,

Lempäälä 22/08/2008 07:20:11
""Obviously the American forces are here, coalition forces are here, at the invitation of the Iraqi government," she (Condi) said. ""

---Condi means that the government her government installed via an illegal and immoral, vicious, attack on a sovereign state resulting in the deaths of a million people.

Note too that the US troops have immunity from prosecution (only US troops). So, in this blossoming 'democracy' (ahem) there's a law that applies to the people of the state but does not apply to the foreign occupiers. IE apartheid.

Isn't empire building interesting.

Hi Wally!--thanks for the links. I still want to know what those 'uk' military men were doing dressed as Arabs in an unmarked car with bomb making equipment were doing; as if it wasn't obvious. You remember these guys? The Brit military broke them out of jail. One rule for 'them' and quite another for 'us'.
8

Enquiring Scot ,

22/08/2008 11:54:34
Interesting how the pro terrorists come out of the woodwork for these articles with their anti American rants.
9

Finnking,

Lempäälä 22/08/2008 12:43:31
Enquiring Scot

Er, how can one be "pro terrorist" and "anti-American" at the same time?

How come the only place I hear "anti-Nation State Name" is regarding the USA and Israel?

May I also point out "America" is an entire continent and being against a continent is rather absurd, don't you think?

Google the definition of "terrorism" and then look at recent US history and you will discover that, by definition, the USA is the world's biggest terrorist state. Number two is either 'uk' or Israel.

The EU definition:""given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.""

Would you like to supply you with a list of US activities that meet that definition? Now, how about Afghanstan and Iraq; did those nation states satisfy the condition prior to US attack? No.

Of course, we could widen the remit and include, as Pres. DimWit Bush does, terrorist training and support; School of the Americas, US involvement in the Air India bombing, Lockerbie, coup attempts, assassinations, sale of weapons to monsters like Saddam and Suharto and Israel etc etc.

Nope, you surely must agree that the US is a major Terrorist State, it would irrational for you think otherwise. Care to take back your slur on my character and intellect in 8 above?

Thought not.
10

Whitecaps,

Vancouver, Cda 22/08/2008 13:17:50
Finnking

You sound like a person that definitely sides with the socialist views in life. You also seem like you have a chip on your shoulder and hate the fact that the US has done so well without socialism. I moved to Canada 7 years ago and it has a small dose of socialism, just enough to weaken the spirit of some, not all of the people. Most Canadians are use to the parts of the socialized systems in place and do not know any better.

Your posts wreak of your wish of the US falling apart hence you are a advocate for any terrorist that is willing to rise up and kill innocent Americans or allies of the US.
11

Gere,

Scotland 22/08/2008 13:50:32
Iraq will remain under US domination. Israel will never allow America to grant Iraq full independence that will mean freedom from American occupation. That would entail permitting the Iraqis to vote for and elect a candidate that the Knesset does not approve of.

There are similarities America's actions here and of the 1968 invasion by the then USSR of its neighbour, also the Hungarian uprising of the 1950's.
12

mike - across the pond,

finnking 22/08/2008 15:35:00
first you cant google a definition... and if you believe that the internet is chock FULL of nutters and "sketchy" info, this arguement has nowhere to go...

so rather than quibble with you I went to:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

funny... I see references to Russia.... France... Rhodesia, Cypress, even Israel but nothing with regards to the US... hmmm must be some sort of "vast right wing conspiracy" eh? roflmao

I'm not sure where to find your "EU" definition... and because any refrence to "american" would send you into an apoplectic fit I avoided "american heritage dictionary"...
so try THIS one on for size (from Wordnet)
terrorism noun
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

you really think that the US government is targeting civillians? really?

"targeting civillians" sounds MUCH more Islamo-Fascist than anything the US is behind...

lol stop drinking the koolaid...
13

mike - across the pond,

finnking.... typo... 22/08/2008 15:36:27
if you believe that the internet is NOT chock full of nutters and "sketchy" info, this arguement has nowhere to go...
14

57Nomad,

california 22/08/2008 23:00:46
#3 Eboneesha

Don't worry to much about what wally has to say, he is the Scotsman's court jester. The only difference is that your standard court jester wears one of those hats that look like someone tried to make a crown out of cotton and they have little bells on the end. Wally wears a tinfoil version. He's really not a bad sort and unlike many of the more virulent posters on this forum he does not exult in anyones death. He is a good hearted guy with passionate views but he wishes ill to few and his comments are generally in the vein of making things better (although his methods raise eyebrows among the sane) and improving the lot of Americans. Wally considers America to be in thrall to an unknown and unknowable group of Illuminati, Mason, Jewish cabal, and the proof of this massive conspiracy is that no one knows anything about them.
15

57Nomad,

california 22/08/2008 23:03:57
#11 gere

gere said:

"Iraq will remain under US domination. Israel will never allow America to grant Iraq full independence that will mean freedom from American occupation. That would entail permitting the Iraqis to vote for and elect a candidate that the Knesset does not approve of."

The Iraqis have already had elections, where were you? Are you suggesting that the current elected officials in Iraq were approved by the Israeli Knesset? This is pretty zany stuff even from you, Gere.
16

Enquiring Scot ,

23/08/2008 00:26:16
Finnking must be a carry over Communist

After the inglorious collapse of Communism, Finland was faced with the challenge of defining its neutrality in a completely new way. The Finns adapted their foreign policy at a rapid pace. In 1995, Finland joined the European Union, thus relinquishing its neutrality de facto. The Finnish government announced that it would henceforth adhere to a policy of non-alignment and that it would not rule out the possibility of concluding a military alliance. Finland also had decided to bolster ties with NATO. In May 1994, it joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program and, in May 1997, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. The Finnish army joined NATO-lead peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Despite the molding of a more active, pragmatic foreign policy, no one so far has been willing to take that one final and decisive step: abandoning the status of non-commitment and applying for NATO membership — in December 2004, the Eduskunta (parliament) again reiterated Finland's non-aligned status. At least four reasons can be adduced for this vacillation.

First, the S.D.P. — one of Finland's biggest political parties — does not have a unanimous position on the subject. President Halonen has yet to express a clear position, as also appears from her biography Yksi meistä ("One of Us"), which was published at the end of last year: "Maybe at a certain moment … but that moment is not now." Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja has always rejected the idea of entry, while Paavo Lipponen, chairman of the Eduskunta and a former prime minister, and Martti Ahtisaari, special U.N. envoy for Kosovo and a former president, have repeatedly welcomed it. (Ahtisaari is not an official member of the S.D.P., but sympathizes with the party.)
17

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 00:56:21
Enquiring Scot in #1:

you said that the regime change was good for Iraq. I'm sure you mean the regime change of 2003. You did not specify. What about the regime change of 1978? That is when Saddam Hussein was made president. What about 1973 when Hussein was made chief of security? Saddam Hussein was not merely supported by the US, he was brought to power with US help. Hussein would've been killed by his own government at age 18 if the US had not intervened and sheltered him from Iraqi justice by taking him to Cairo and keeping him there until ready to bring him back and put him in power. Hussein was an assassin as a teen and sheltered from justice by the US. CIA personnel have publicly acknowledged that the agency was involved in the 2 coups that brought him to power.

These things that I just told you should cause you to comprehend that the 2003 invasion was illegitimate. A government that manipulates its own puppets into power and then wages war on a nation for having that puppet over them is engaging in something evil. You should be able to comprehend this.

The Iraqis overwhelmingly disagree with you, the vast majority of the Iraqis say that the 2003 invasion and subsequent was a bad thing. They've lost 1.5 million people who otherwise would not have been lost. They've had almost 3 million flee their country. By all objective standards as well they are worse off, they are still to this day having problems with running water & electricity that they did not previously have. They used to have the best medical care in the arab world, they had almost first-world standards in this realm, now 75% of their doctors have fled to save their lives and the medical systems are dysfunctional.

You are a very arrogant person to make such judgements without thinking of what the Iraqis think. As well I know that we Americans have paid a large price both in money & in people. Generally we Americans don't think it has been worthwhile.

18

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 01:06:41
Enquiring Scot in #16:

FinnKing is not a communist. He's an ordinary person who grew up in Scotland. I suggest Enquiring Scot that you are too concerned with ideologies and factions. Here is a quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts."

The human beings of this earth are now confronted with a particularly difficult challenge in this political group now exercising power that calls itself the New World Order. The phrase 'New World Order' was used by the Georgian president on American tv recently when he said that he started that war against Russia on behalf of the 'New World Order'.

The NWO is a mercantile group that has taken power over many governments and other institutions worldwide. Their systems are over-ruling the democracies in recent centuries. Sovereign governments are now in the process of surrendering to this NWO. as the good book tells us, the love of money is the root of all evil. This NWO is motivated at a base level by this love of money. They also happen to be very evil, willing to orchestrate the deaths of many millions or billions even, have no sympathy for the poor and are godless.

If your conscience has not been seared over, then you should be able to find it in yourself to oppose this NWO and their wars, Iraq war being one of them.



19

Enquiring Scot ,

23/08/2008 01:17:47
17 Wally,By The Rivers Of Babylon

Mike across the pond and several others have stated you are nuts and have no credibility. I will not take your advice.
20

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 01:21:15
Meant to say in #18 that their systems are over-ruling the democracies created in recent centuries. It is true. The NWO is able to get governments to do things that large majorities of their citizens not only disapprove of, but are against the interests of their citizens. Example - 2/3's of the Americans want to bring the troops home from Iraq and forget about the whole thing if possible. Yet the Americans have almost no politicians to even represent that view.

The sovereign governments given legitimacy by their democracies are no longer even attempting to serve the peoples in their nations. This is a very dangerous development. The elite classes worldwide are being corrupted by a mercantile clique. That is why. This is what NWO is all about.

Nomad speaks fantasy as always. he is unable to face reality and escapes into this fantasy world of his. he does not speak for me and he seems unable to face simple realities.

Too many people divide into the factions we're encouraged to divide up into, think only in the paradigms we're told to think in and cannot overcome these challenges. The people are like sheep being herded by their keepers. Our universities, our schools, our newspapers, our media, these things are not 'free' as we think they are. they are contrived. There are many ideas, current events and much history that is not allowed within those institutions.

Worldwide 'we the people' are unable to rise up to the challenges we have. But no empire made by man will be allowed to last forever. This empire will fall. There will be a day when Judgement will occur and these evil ones will receive justice. Unlike in the courts of man, god's judgements are always just.
21

D-945,

23/08/2008 01:38:12
#20 Wally

Do you smoke dope or huff paint before typing? I fear you believe your utter non sense. You pull numbers out of the air as if they were fact. Yesterday you claimed the Soldiers were killed by friendly fire as if it were true. You sir are certifiable.
22

D-945,

23/08/2008 01:41:50
http://news.scotsman.com/world/Three-Canadians-killed-by-Taleban.4417300.jp

Wally's crazy claim.
23

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 01:46:23
Enquiring Scot:

if you wish to be true to screen name, then you'll look at different points of view. Here is an article that will tell you a bit of the likely real reasons behind the military conflict in Georgia.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9907

Its like I told you. Mercantile interests dominate the various governments who are willing to frivilously go into war sacrificing people's lives for the love of money. The politicians learn to make a good living as puppets.

In Iraq there is oil money at stake. Forget WMD's, the WMDs in Iraq are the depleted uranium dust that is spread onto the ground by occupier soldiers. An example is being made of Iraq, leaders all over the world watch & learn. Before the war started oil was flowing freely and selling at one third of today's price.

Afghanistan has lots of natural resources and according to some reports lots of oil. Somalia has lots of oil according to some reports. Kosovo has the $2 trillion mine in it. Wars are started and waged for the sake of somebody's private bank account while many people die and taxpayers are soaked to finance it. This is some of what NWO is about.
24

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 01:47:16
Enquiring Scot:

if you wish to be true to screen name, then you'll look at different points of view. Here is an article that will tell you a bit of the likely real reasons behind the military conflict in Georgia.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9907

Its like I told you. Mercantile interests dominate the various governments who are willing to frivilously go into war sacrificing people's lives for the love of money. The politicians learn to make a good living as puppets.

In Iraq there is oil money at stake. Forget WMD's, the WMDs in Iraq are the depleted uranium dust that is spread onto the ground by occupier soldiers. An example is being made of Iraq, leaders all over the world watch & learn. Before the war started oil was flowing freely and selling at one third of today's price.

Afghanistan has lots of natural resources and according to some reports lots of oil. Somalia has lots of oil according to some reports. Kosovo has the $2 trillion mine in it. Wars are started and waged for the sake of somebody's private bank account while many people die and taxpayers are soaked to finance it. This is some of what NWO is about.
25

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 01:47:26
Enquiring Scot:

if you wish to be true to screen name, then you'll look at different points of view. Here is an article that will tell you a bit of the likely real reasons behind the military conflict in Georgia.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9907

Its like I told you. Mercantile interests dominate the various governments who are willing to frivilously go into war sacrificing people's lives for the love of money. The politicians learn to make a good living as puppets.

In Iraq there is oil money at stake. Forget WMD's, the WMDs in Iraq are the depleted uranium dust that is spread onto the ground by occupier soldiers. An example is being made of Iraq, leaders all over the world watch & learn. Before the war started oil was flowing freely and selling at one third of today's price.

Afghanistan has lots of natural resources and according to some reports lots of oil. Somalia has lots of oil according to some reports. Kosovo has the $2 trillion mine in it. Wars are started and waged for the sake of somebody's private bank account while many people die and taxpayers are soaked to finance it. This is some of what NWO is about.
26

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 01:58:15
The software told me it didn't go through, I tried again (twice). each time it told me the thing didn't go through. (unable to process it said).

D-945: French soldiers who survived the ambush the other day said that NATO aircraft killed 10 french soldiers during the battle. It was reported by LeMonde. I would believe the soldiers on the ground first and NATO's generals last.

I don't blame you for squirming though. You should be uncomfortable that our leaders (on both sides of Atlantic) lie to us and send our citizens to wars that having nothing to do with our interests.

27

D-945,

23/08/2008 02:05:03
#26 Wally

You really have serious problems. You are free to express your opinions but you need to be in a rubber room when doing so. Always keep in mind your crazy statements are YOUR OPINIONS not facts. What is going on in Iraq & Afghanistan is in my interest and my children and grandchildren.

Your friendly fire arguement is very weak, the majority of news agencies say you are a nutter.
28

57Nomad,

california 23/08/2008 02:14:05
#20 wally

wally said:

"Nomad speaks fantasy as always. he is unable to face reality and escapes into this fantasy world of his. he does not speak for me and he seems unable to face simple realities."

Wally you claim that I'm making things up. That's a perfectly legitimate point of view with respect your unalienable right to have them and express them without fear from the government. You see, here we have common ground because I know you feel the same way about my rights, hence, on this most vital human boon, free speech we agree. I'm not saying this trivially. There are many on this site who agree with you in general that do not share this view. Our differences then, should always be viewed in the light of those sacred things we do agree on.

When you say I speak fantasy 'as usual' I think it would help everyone, you and me in particular, if you would be so kind as to back into the archives and cut and paste the 'fantasies' that you are referring to.

It's all well and good to say someone is speaking fantasies, it's another thing to document the item (s) in question, post it so that it is clear to everyone, and then support your contention.

Until then, my little spacefarer, you are asking people to take you at your word. A word by the way of a guy who believes that the Towers were dynamited by Bush Oriented NeoCon Communist Nazi Entrepreneurial Geniuses (I think I may have left out the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bavarian Illuminati)and that the reason you know this is because you have repeatedly come on this forum stating categorically that steel doesn't melt. The question of, "Hey, if steel don't melt, then where'd they get them I beams?" apparently not occuring to you.

I don't believe that I'm infallible and I would rather err in public and learn something than hold a smug belief that isn't true. So, I'm offering you an opportunity to support your contention that I'm making things up. Maybe I did and didn't notice I was doing it, that
29

57Nomad,

california 23/08/2008 02:15:50
#28 contd.

So, I'm offering you an opportunity to support your contention that I'm making things up. Maybe I did and didn't notice I was doing it, that wouldn't be the first time. Kindly point these out to me so that I may either correct myself or rebut your analysis.
30

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 02:27:57
D945 in 27:

It doesn't matter if 10 newspapers say it was not friendly fire and 1 says it was. LeMonde said that French soldiers on the ground who survived the battle say that NATO aircraft killed 10 french soldiers during the battle. That is authoritative because the french soldiers were there, they witnessed it. The NATO/US/ISAF generals on the other hand are commanders who use lies as a normal tactic in dealing with the public. all the other newspapers besides LeMonde are reporting NATO statements, not the surviving soldiers.

I have fist hand experience witnessing that it is normal for these generals to lie in those kinds of situations. just because someone speaks with a mega-phone does not mean that their words are true.
31

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 02:36:31
King Nimrod (Nomad75):

any time you are faced with substance you retreat into fantasy. Several times on this board you've made elaborate posts describe me as a space alien travelling through the universe and accidentally landing on earth, talking about these tin foil hats, Roswell, Area 51. This is all fantasy and it happens to be your fantasy.

Also, you make things up and say that I said this or I said that. I did not say the things that you say I said. For example - I never said that steel doesn't melt.

In #4 above I put up an excellent link that in turn links to about 60 articles from all over the world, bringing together a huge amount of information spanning decades in time and supporting the idea that it is normal for the US military to develop death squads and have those death squads kill civilians while the US military is not publicly blamed for those acts. They show us a 219 page training manual used by the US military indoctrinating their people to do just that.

You should read from some of those links I gave you rather than engage in fantasy. Those horrible truths spoken in those articles are not shouted out in the mass media. This does not make them false. If you want to engage in reality, then lets discuss those things, also as they relate to the article above, but your space fantasies do not.
32

Night Worker,

St Enoch Centre 23/08/2008 02:41:01
here is wally singing about his favourite hat

the league of lady conspirocists and strange behaviour

http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php

33

Night Worker,

St Enoch Centre 23/08/2008 02:44:13
#31 Wally

do you get most of your information from miss prism?

http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php
34

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 02:58:39
one thing I really like about Scotsman's comment section is that it allows to be demonstrated that the same maladies common in us Americans are also common in non-Americans. Enquiring Scot sounds like the bombastic idiot American radio talker named Rush Limbaugh. Night Worker makes up his mind on his world-view based on comic books. To him they're real.

King Nimrod, Lynne, Carolyn and the other nut-case American war-mongers on this board are all psychotic. But on this board we see that there are many non-Americans in the same condition. they buy the propaganda from the media the same as Americans. How refreshing that mankind from all over the world is so flawed!
35

Harry "Dingy" Reid,

Las Vegas 23/08/2008 04:28:19
#34 Wacky Rude Wally

My my, you far left winger always resort to name calling.

57Noman, Lynn, & Carolynn are not nut cases nor war-mongers. I guess you are also too dense to understand the humor Rush Limbaugh has to offer with his sharp spot on political views.

Not sure if Enquiring Scot knows who Rush is but he is no Rush but he should take it as a compliment to be compared to him.

36

Harry "Dingy" Reid,

Las Vegas 23/08/2008 04:29:36
#32 Night Worker

You have posted this before and it's great!!! Everyone needs to watch this video to understand Wally!!!!!
37

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 05:13:28
OK Harry - you got me now.

isn't it funny that on this web-site Democrat Party majority leader of the US Senate Harry Reid posts here. and Democrat Party Speaker of the House (of representatives) Nancy Pelosi also posts. and funny thing both are rabid pro-war republican nuts on this site. in real life they're both pro-war, but pretend to be anti-war for the voters.

Dingy - you never engage in substance. For you I've gotten 2 links that each have lots of stories about the Iraq War and US involvement in it.

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/latestarticles.cgi?cn=34

http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/latestarticles.cgi?cn=53

38

Trade-wind,

USA 23/08/2008 05:42:59
37 Wally,By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA)

Wally hi. You say with a certainty that:
"Example - 2/3's of the Americans want to bring the troops home from Iraq and forget about the whole thing if possible". You are wrong that is the liberal press telling you that. They have tried from the start to dissuade the American people who backed this war in vast numbers. When they could not they started a campaign of disinformation to change the minds of the American people. Every night after showing nothing but the worst film they could get on Iraq they would then give a running account of the dead yound men who served so bravely in Iraq. This is an all volinteer military, those young men joined to serve and protect our country, they knew the risk and were willing to go anyway. This is how the press changed some minds but not nearly enough so they misrepresent the number who are aginst the war. You naturally want to believe the numbers so you repeat them. What do you here these days after the surge worked and life is getting better in Iraq. Nada, Zip the press isn't talking now because it would not serve the purpose of turning anyone aginst it. You are the one being duped by the other socialist crazies on the internet. Anyone can print anything on the web and do. You Wally believe it at your peril.
39

Harry "Dingy" Reid,

Las Vegas 23/08/2008 11:45:37
#37 Wally

"Dingy - you never engage in substance"

Wally, I'm sure there are others that would disagree with you about me and some haters that might side with you.

The fact of the matter as you can see from the above posts is that you are the on that lack in the substance department. Posting falsehoods and links to conspiracy theories dose not count as substance.
40

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 17:19:34
Trade-wind in 38:

I note that you did not put up a link to dis-prove me on that point. In the past I've put up many links to prove that point to be true. Sorry, I'm not going to do it again. Instead, let me review some of the polling data that I've read the last few years.

In late October of 2004 just before the election the first poll came out showing that a majority of Americans favored a quick withdrawal from Iraq. From then on the 55% majority just kept growing. In the last 2 years many opinion polls taken by pollsters including many sponsored by major media groups have shown this majority grow to be anywhere between 65% & 75%. One poll actually showed 78% favoring a quick withdrawal.

The most anti-war ethnic group in America are the jews, followed by the blacks & then hispanics. The most pro-war are the mormons. The various christian divisions are split, some are pro-war, some are anti-war.

As you mention the 'surge' policy and the decline in violence in Iraq has caused the anti-war majority to shrink in America. But it is still a very clear majority that favors a quick withdrawal. and every poll on the matter shows this. I believe it is a solid 2 in 3 that still to this day favor a quick withdrawal.

America is a funny place. Because when pollsters ask the people about the Iraq War the answers are in the significant majority that the people oppose what the government is doing. Yet on American tv there is zero representation of this view at all. The critics on tv will nit-pick at certain aspects of the government’s war policies. But among the people a majority rejects them out-of-hand. F A S C I S M.
41

bikewoman,

23/08/2008 17:35:23
40 Wally

You don't want to re-post those links because like most of your other links they are pure BS and from crazy web sites.
42

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 17:36:12
Trade-wind in 38:

3 times in the past I've put up links on Scotsman to demonstrate the following. About 2 years ago Zogby did a poll among US soldiers actually stationed in Iraq. 72% of the soldiers said that Bush should withdraw the troops completely and expeditiously. That was when we first knew that the soldiers in Iraq do not really support the war and they are more anti-war than the rest of the Americans.

But recently, we've seen another story to document this trend even further. The military in America traditionally votes Republican. McCain has a military background. But US troops deployed in Iraq give financial donations to Obama over McCain by a 6-1 margin. and they gave to Ron Paul the anti-war Republican by a 4-1 margin over McCain. These statistics are through June 31. Ron Paul as you recall dropped out of the race long before June 31. Back earlier this year there were other stories documenting that the US soldiers stationed in Iraq strongly favored Paul over McCain in financial donations. Ron Paul, the anti-war candidate, was the #1 candidate of the troops stationed in Iraq (according to financial donations). Here is a link.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html

Among US military stationed in America they still favor Obama in their donations over McCain, but by a small margin. The deployed troops are the real shocker. They see the war as it is and they know that we are wrong.

Meanwhile, tv jockeys watch tv and are deceived. They don't even know their own neighbors are anti-war. But they know the spin that the tv gives them.
43

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 17:57:08
Bikewoman in 41:

those polls I mentioned in 40 are from major pollsters hired by the biggest media companies. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CBS, ABC, etc. these are the kinds of companies that commissioned those polls and broadcast them. I like to read on a discussion forum where many articles are posted. and so, I've read these things over time.

I challenge you Bikewoman to find a link showing a poll done by a major pollster the last 2 years that shows a majority of Americans do not favor a quick withdrawal from Iraq.

This is a problem we have in America. People are mesmerized by the big media loudspeaker. Six corporations have bought up almost the entire media in America. Even small town newspapers get bought up for far more money than they are actually worth. Essentially the market on communications has been cornered. We have laws in place to stop this consolidation. But the government did not act when it was going on.

People in the government first sounded the alarm that these 6 corps were trying to do this way back in 1972. Both Democrat & Republican presidents allowed it to happen.

and so many of the people have such craven pride in them that they identify with that big corporate media and thinnk that somehow all legitimate American voices are expressed within that corporate media, and that any voices in disagreement or dissent or different are somehow illegitimate.

These people are insane and they are paving the way for our destruction. Our nation is being destroyed from within. Our weak link is our people.

I repeat - all of the polls done in the last 2 years show 60-75% of
44

D-945,

23/08/2008 18:49:27
#43 Wally is Babbling

Dear Wally, why are you leaving out the truth? Of course America wants it's troops back home. But the you weave your lies it that they want them back home now without completing the job.

When you ask the questions correctly the majoity of Americans want the troops brought back safely and in a manner they will not have to return because we brought them back to quickly.

Why must you terrorist appeasers and America haters contantly lie? Can't you ever debate with facts?
45

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 19:34:32
D-945: can you show me a link to a poll? I've posted many links in the past showing that a clear majority want to leave. Sure, the questions vary. But whenever the people have a chance to choose an answer showing a complete withdrawal within 6 months or 1 year or 18 months it is always a large majority that say bring them home. The people do not like the government's plan to just stay in Iraq perpetually, and all opinion polls show that. Can you show me otherwise?

I read a poll recently, 53% of Americans say the government should never torture a person under any circumstances. Yet the government now has the legal authority to arrest Americans and torture them. In foreign countries they have tortured many people to death, and they have paid countries like Turkey & Syria to torture people including to death.

If we did support our troops, then we'd withdraw quickly, because the one demographic group of Americans (according to the evidence) that most favors a change in US policy to simply get out of Iraq are the US soldiers stationed in Iraq or who've been there. Today I showed you a link documenting their swing to anti-war politics. In the past 3 times I showed you the link to the Zogby poll showing that 72% of US troops in Iraq want us to get out completely. It was over 2 years ago they said this, the question allowed them to pick complete withdrawal within 18 months and 72% said 'yes' to that option. In a Zogy poll - 1 of America's 2 or 3 top pollsters.
46

D-945,

23/08/2008 20:18:14
Wally the USA hater

Most real Americans want the troops home sooner than later but not until the job is done and agree with the following.

"To be sure, Al Qaeda will have a new “playground” from which to train, prepare, equip and deploy operatives around the globe. They’ll fly in and out of Baghdad much as they flew in and out of Kabul before the events of 9/11. They’ll also take stark comfort in the fact that having pulled out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, there’s barely a chance in the world that we’ll return. Consider Somalia if you disagree."

47

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 23/08/2008 20:45:11
D-945:

thats a nice quote.

the way I see it is the Iraqis did not attack the Americans. Yet the US attacked Iraq.

The Somalis as well did not attack the Americans. The US hired the Ethiopians to work with the war-lords and throw out the Islamic party that had been in power and popular with the people of Somalia who were happy the Islamic party overthrew the war lords who had terrorized the people for 15+ years. War came to Somalia from the outside, its government was overthrown. Now in US media the Somalians fighting against the Ethiopian invaders & domestic warlords are called 'rebels'.

There were in fact US intelligence people in the bureaucracy who have let it known their info was that Iraq was not a danger to us. As the Downing Street Memo tells us that facts must be fixed to set the policy.

Today US intelligence gathering is sub-contracted out from the CIA to corporations. In the future corporations will feed us intelligence about alleged enemies, they will count our votes, and they will receive incredible booty from the government corruption. Does it register that in the future all information released & generated concerning field intelligence will be provided by private corporations? These things are already happening.

and needless to say, some people posting on this board get their info from a clique of big corporations as well.
48

Rosie's Opinion,

USA 23/08/2008 23:00:41
47 Wally,By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA)

Wally, have you taken your medication today?
49

Finnking,

Lempäälä 24/08/2008 11:51:26
You keep going Wally!

"To call someone Anti American or anti anything is a failure of the imagination".(A. Roy).

50

Gere,

Scotland 24/08/2008 17:31:17
Post#15 57Nomad California

No election result can be said to reflect the true will of the people if it takes place while the country is under occupation by foreign troops. In this case the American troops represent an occupying foreign power whose President lied openly to the world that the reason for invasion was the victim country, Iraq possessed WMD. Then when it started to become obvious that his lie was not fooling everyone he said he invaded to effect regime change! The message is clear elect someone America approves of or else!!!

Free elections will only occur when all occupying forces have withdrawn, this will never be allowed so the Iraqis will always have to elect an American and Israeli approved Puppet government!!
51

Regina,

NH, USA 24/08/2008 17:41:17
50 Gere

You are a nut case, WMD's were 1 of many reasons to go into Iraq. I'm sure a terrorist appeasor like you can think of others.
52

Whitecaps,

Vancouver, Cda 24/08/2008 18:16:43
#49 Finnking

But then again, admitting it is the first step. Wally needs help.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

After five years in Iraq, do you think we will be out of the country by 2013?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.