Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Free Capercaillie CD

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.

Iraq pushes US troop withdrawal



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: 08 July 2008
NOURI al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, yesterday raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.
It is the first time the US-backed Shiite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

T
he security deal under negotiation will replace a UN mandate for the presence of US troops that expires on 31 December.

"Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty," Mr Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

"One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence] will end in a specific time."

Mr Maliki was responding to questions from the ambassadors about the security negotiations with the US. The exchange was shown on Iraqi state television.

US officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment. Last month Mr Maliki caught Washington off guard when he said talks on the security deal were at a "dead end" after he complained Iraq's sovereignty was being infringed by US demands.

Both sides later said progress was being made.

Mr Maliki said the Iraqi and US positions had got closer, but added: "We cannot talk about reaching an agreement yet."

He said foreign forces would need Iraqi permission for many of their activities once the UN mandate ended.

"This means the phenomenon of unilateral detention will be over, as well as unilateral operations and immunity," he said.

Mr Maliki did not clarify who the immunity referred to.

Officials have said contractors working for the US government would lose immunity from Iraqi law, but Washington is highly unlikely to let the same thing happen to US solders.

Mr Maliki, dismissed as weak and ineffective for most of his tenure since taking over as prime minister in May 2006, has been increasingly assertive in recent months.

He has launched crackdowns on Shiite militias and al-Qaeda, with US forces playing a mainly supporting role.

He has also called on Arab states to re-engage with Iraq.

Sunni Arab countries have long been reluctant to extend full legitimacy to the Iraqi government because of the US presence, as well as Baghdad's close ties to Shiite Iran.

But Arab ties have begun to improve. The United Arab Emirates has cancelled almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, officials said on Sunday. And Jordan's King Abdullah is expected to visit Baghdad this week, the first Arab leader to do so since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Mr Maliki did not specifically refer to the 150,000 American troops in Iraq, but they comprise the vast bulk of foreign forces in the country.

He indicated the memorandum of understanding would be used instead of the formal Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) being negotiated. The memorandum of understanding could be a stop-gap measure given some of the difficulties getting a full SoFA deal in place.

Iraqi officials had said they would submit any SoFA to parliament, where it might be subject to long and bitter debate.

Mr Maliki has long come under pressure from the movement of powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces. Sadr's movement quit Mr Maliki's government last year when the prime minister refused to do so.

Luwaa Sumaisem, the head of the Sadr bloc's political committee, welcomed Maliki's comments on a possible timetable. "This is a step in the right direction and we are ready to support him in this objective. We hope Maliki will show seriousness about it," he said, without saying if the movement might consider rejoining the government.

Washington and Baghdad are also negotiating a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties.

After five years in Iraq, the Bush administration had set an end-July target for wrapping up the negotiations. Some Iraqi officials had questioned whether the deadline could be met.

Found – the flash cars of dictator's ruthless son

CAR lovers in Iraq, tired of an endless parade of Humvees, were given a bit of a treat yesterday, after police discovered five fancy vehicles – each a tad dusty – once owned by a notorious son of the former dictator Saddam Hussein.

The cars, including two Rolls-Royces, had been stolen from Uday Hussein's palace during looting after the US-led invasion in 2003. For years, they were buried beneath the dirt of an orchard in Baghdad's Dora district. A group planned to smuggle the cars out of the country and sell them.

But police learned of the plan through a tip-off. One officer told how they followed large lorries into the orchard to find the spot where the cars were buried, and then arrested three people.

The cars, now in police possession, were shown to the media on Monday.

Uday Hussein and his younger brother, Qusay, were killed in a gun battle with US forces in the northern city of Mosul in 2003, a few months after the invasion.

Saddam's sons lived lavish lifestyles during their father's time in power. Uday, who was in charge of Iraqi sports, was accused of punishing poor performances with torture or prison.

Despite that, many Iraqis now consider the two sons to be martyrs for fighting back against US forces during the gun battle that killed them.



The full article contains 958 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 July 2008 10:02 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Iraq
 
1

2dogs in D.C.,

08/07/2008 00:22:32
Leave? Works for me. How soon? I don't think we can be packed tomorrow, but does next week work for you?
2

2dogs in D.C.,

08/07/2008 00:25:11
P.S. To above-Maybe then we can concentrate on the REAL fight against the Taleban, and get the whole mess over.
3

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 00:53:57
America will never pull-out of Iraq completely. It would take months to withdraw from Iraq completely anyway.

#2

The fight against the Teleban would be won, if NATO actually worked. As usual Britain, America, Canada and Denmark I think do the work while our counterparts sit back in a bar meeting the local woman.

4

2dogs in D.C.,

08/07/2008 01:05:20
ThomasP-My point,pretty much.Except for the stay in Iraq bit. All we would accomplish by staying, would be to provide target practice for up and coming terrorists. Let the U.N. take it, they'll get it straight..
5

yockel,

08/07/2008 06:54:08
Maliki claims he is fighting al-Qaeda the posters think it's about the Taliban.

Until the US actually understand who or what they are for or against they have no chance of success and will continue to train, arm and fund their enemies.
6

bluehead,

edinburgh 08/07/2008 08:28:03
about time to!the quicker the better,when strangers are in your house to long they become a nusiance,on top of that you have to watch them all the time,or perhaps one could start losing thing's,if you know what I mean.
7

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 10:11:34
3

"The fight against the Teleban would be won, if NATO actually worked"

If NATO worked as what exactly? an extention of US military policy perhaps?
Do you think NATO was created in order to supplement US armed forces to be put at the disposal of the US in order to engage in US foreign policy?
8

M.Corleone,

2nd Vatican State...... Coatbridge 08/07/2008 10:23:16
What ?
Has Iraq run out of oil ?
Is this April the 1st ?
Absolutely No Danger...by the way
9

we the people,

08/07/2008 11:58:05
sure it suits the u.s fine to leave (apart from the permanent bases they´ll leave to launch their next act of mass murder) when they´ve signed the deal that steals 75% of iraq´s oil for themselves. which will be soon, by all accounts.
10

hertscot,

08/07/2008 13:26:02
8 & 9,

Too true, where there's oil, there's an American/Russian controlled gun.
11

Gere,

Scotland 08/07/2008 13:51:31
The Iraqis had no nuclear weapons to defend themselves against occupation by the American servants of Israel and consequently lost their sovereignty. America has no reason to relinquish their oil rich colony of Iraq. In any event Israel will never permit the Americans to withdraw from Iraq.

Having American troops rape a 14 year old girl, the subsequent murder of 24 members of her family and having to suffer an American torture centre set up to operate on an industrial scale such as Abu Ghraib are the prices to be paid by the subjugated Iraqis to their colonial masters. The American Justice system will always see to it that the American perpetrators are found not guilty. In addition, the American mercenaries such as Blackwater were given the right to murder unarmed Iraqi civilians without consequence.

The message to the world is very clear, the nuclear deterent is all that will stop America from enslaving and ruining your country.
12

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 08/07/2008 14:05:02
11# I'm surprised the Americans aint done that yet. Obviously they want the Iraqi oil so they cant contaminate that yet...It's only a matter of time b4 oil free technology is introduced then im quite sure the balloon will go up in the Middle East..
13

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 15:10:32
7 MisterN,Scotland.

Without one commander NATO can not work. NATO then relies on the individual countries to donate and volunteer their own forces which as we seen in Afganistan as a failure.

Why should I sleep with my rifle when my German counter parts are allowed to drink all they want at the pubs?

I've not even signed up to the forces but I am already peed off at that fact.

14

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 15:10:42
Yet anyway
15

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 15:12:13
Besides. I agree with the war in the MiddleEast.

The Americans and British attacked the wrong country. Iran should of been the target and Saddem would of been a valuable ally in the region.
16

M.Corleone,

2nd Vatican State..... Coatbridge 08/07/2008 15:59:01
#15
Thomas P...What does the P stand for I wonder ?

There is never any danger of either of our countries attacking Iran because theyr are "unsure if" Iran has nuclear weapons...so we will leave the Israeli's to find out.

Saddam had already fought against Iran at the behest of US of A, and this was one of the reason's he was hanged.
17

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 16:15:25
13

"Without one commander NATO can not work."

what is that supposed to mean?

One commander one nation is in charge all others subordinate? is that what you think NATO is all about or are you engaging in wishful thinking and self delusion?

And dont you think that if NATO were engaging in German foreign policy then it would be the Germans sleeping with their rifles and US and UK soldiers getting p*ssed in the pub?
18

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 16:16:33
15

Aye well that establishes your intellect then.
I must remember to post down to you form now on.
19

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 16:34:21
#16

Iran admitted that they had a nuclear weapons programme in 2002/03

#17

"One commander one nation is in charge all others subordinate? is that what you think NATO is all about or are you engaging in wishful thinking and self delusion?"

NATO was orginally formed to counter the Warsaw-Pact(Soviets). It has outlived its purpose and is still modernising and still has issues and problems.

I am simply expressing my opinion and the way I hope NATO thinks about going. Is that not alrite? No harm or foul right?

I feel that if for example Italy contributes 5% of their military to Afganistan then other NATO countries must also contribute 5% of their military, plus their budget.

There should be an internally elected head commander who can issue a draft of member country states and equipment etc and use them for NATO missions.

It'll stop NATO relying on 'donations' and things like that.

If troops are sent the Commander should have control of them and not their home countries.

20

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 16:39:08
19

By becomming an extension of US foreign policy?
So you think its ok for a foreign power to control the armed forces of other countries in order to further their own political gains?
Are you serious?
21

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 16:46:57
20 MisterN,Scotland

Afganistan is an international issue.

I am also confident it was Tony Blair who russled up support for Afganistan, including gaining the Americans support.

NATO is made by many different countries. The only thing I have a problem with is countries not pulling their weight.

I could not care less if the NATO Commander was American, British, French, German because since this is a NATO issue what we do is for NATO. Not individual gains.
22

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 17:35:37
21

"Afganistan is an international issue"

Says who? opinion fact or more wishful thinking?

"NATO is made by many different countries. The only thing I have a problem with is countries not pulling their weight."

Pulling their weight in what direction?
Why should the Germans or Dutch or Portugese or Belgiuns or Scandinavians get involved in US and UK foreign policies? the war in Iraq and Afganistan is certainly not a NATO issue as NATO is all about defending their own territories and not about invading other sovereign nations in order to steal their resourses.
The US and UK lied to the international communities about their reasons for going into Iraq why should the international communities then support this and condone the lie?


23

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 17:37:45
19

"Iran admitted that they had a nuclear weapons programme in 2002/03"

Really to who? and even if they did is there any reason why they shouldnt have a nuclear weapons program when other countries are allowed to have one?
24

M.Corleone,

2nd Vatican State..... Coatbridge 08/07/2008 17:43:39
#19
So did Iraq, they tried to bluff that they had nuclear weapons, or at least "weapons of mass destruction".
There was even reports leading up to the Iraq war that the allies were preparing for nuclear and gas conflict.

Since the west doesn't really know, let's stick to an element of uncertainty.... UK and US have already got a bloody nose in Iraq and Afghanistan; can't get out of the mire and are in no fit state to take anyone else on
25

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 17:50:57
MisterN.

Afghanistan currently produces the worlds opium and also home to Terrorist Organisations. Since NATO contributed I guess that the NATO countries see Afganistan as a problem.

"Pulling their weight in what direction? Why should the Germans or Dutch or Portugese or Belgiuns or Scandinavians get involved in US and UK foreign policies?"

Your statement here is incorrect. There already involved since NATO is already in Afganistan after Tony Blair convinced the countries to take part then the least they can do is ensure there are enough soldiers and equipment to finish the job. Common sense tells me that the countries in Afganistan now has something to gain in someway.

"The war in Iraq and Afganistan is certainly not a NATO issue as NATO is all about defending their own territories and not about invading other sovereign nations in order to steal their resourses."

NATO is not all about defending. The orginal point of NATO was to defend against the Warsaw Pact and unite and share technology and also create new technology together for war.

Iraq is not a NATO issue. It was led my US forces but not under a NATO mandate.

Afganistan on the otherhand is under a NATO mandate. Hence why the countries apart of NATO are in Afganistan and not in Iraq.

Afganistan also has no natural resources and relies on donar countries for her budget, the EU and the EU countries are the main donaters.

"The US and UK lied to the international communities about their reasons for going into Iraq."

They did not lie.




26

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 17:51:55
"The US and UK lied to the international communities about their reasons for going into Iraq."

They did not lie. They overreacted their claims because of some illegal immigrant that made it into Germany from Iraq who said they were apart of the nuclear project.
27

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 17:55:36
MisterN.

"Really to who? and even if they did is there any reason why they shouldnt have a nuclear weapons program when other countries are allowed to have one?"

I feel like I am wasting my time since you appear to be clueless of the world situation.

Iran is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of being anti-Western and also anti-Isreali and have made claims of wiping Isreal off the map.

Would you trust Iran with those missles? Since Isreal have their own nuclear missles how do you think they would react to an Iranian threat of nuclear attack?
28

57Nomad,

california 08/07/2008 19:19:28
#22 Mrn

Mrn said:

"The US and UK lied to the international communities about their reasons for going into Iraq why should the international communities then support this and condone the lie?"

Look, sport, the only liars are those like you who are using Goebbels' dictum to spread lies of their own. Read and heed. Liars, indeed!

"http://.wwwibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300323577877918

500+ tons of yellowcake uranium, what do you think Saddam was going to do with that? Hmmm?
29

Schot,

08/07/2008 19:29:05
Do you mean that fictional yellow-cake that Senator Joe Wilson exposed as a neo-con fraud ? Hmmm ?

How does it feel to be Neo-con meat-puppet five years out of date ? Hmmm ?
30

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 19:35:23
24

Oh is that the new spin on the lie now is it? it was all a bluff by Saddam Hussain.
Did he make up the 40 minute warning as well?

25

They werent terrorist organisations when they where working for the Americans when exactly did their status change?

Your statement here is incorrect. There already involved since NATO is already in Afganistan after Tony Blair convinced the countries to take part then the least they can do is ensure there are enough soldiers and equipment to finish the job. Common sense tells me that the countries in Afganistan now has something to gain in someway.

More wishfull thinking you simply make all this sh*te up as you go along.

"NATO is not all about defending. The orginal point of NATO was to defend against the Warsaw Pact and unite and share technology and also create new technology together for war."

Are you deranged? simple? or just some kind of Walter Mitty?

"Afganistan on the otherhand is under a NATO mandate. Hence why the countries apart of NATO are in Afganistan and not in Iraq."

Since when has NATO ever had international authority outside of its own durisdictions? NATO is not the UN and has no legal authority nor international treaty to impose itself outside of its own borders.
Like I said you are simply making this all up as you go along.
There is no NATO mandate other than a mutual defence agreement between nations.

Afganistan also has no natural resources and relies on donar countries for her budget, the EU and the EU countries are the main donaters.

Afganistan borders IRAN which is now effectively surrounded by potential enemy armies and more vulnerable to attack from hostile forces in its region.
Are you really this stupid? or do you think the rest of us are?

"The US and UK lied to the international communities about their reasons for going into Iraq."

They did not lie.

So where are the WMDs?
31

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 19:46:46
26

Or so they claimed so again WTF ARE THE WMDS?????
and where did the 40 minute warning come from?

27

"Iran is one of the worst countries in the world in terms of being anti-Western and also anti-Isreali and have made claims of wiping Isreal off the map."

That is a blatent lie Iran has never threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the map but Israel has on the other hand threatened to bomb Iranian installations and have carried out their threats in Syria ILLEGALLY.
They are in direct contradiction of International law and have broken more UN resolutions than any other nation on the planet.
Israel is simply a rogue nation outwith any international obligations or commitments it does what it wants to who it wants without concern to consequences.
And what has Iran done this millenia or the last to justify calling it one of the worst countries in the world in terms of being anti Western?
SWEET F*CK ALL.

"Would you trust Iran with those missles? Since Isreal have their own nuclear missles how do you think they would react to an Iranian threat of nuclear attack"

EXACTLY ITS ISRAEL WHO CANT BE TRUSTED NOT TO USE ITS NUKES NOT IRAN.
We all know from experiance the Israelli defence tactic of the "PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE" dont we?
At least you acknowledge that much.
Maybe there is hope for you yet?

32

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 19:56:56
28

Yellow cake Uranium? maybe he was planning on shipping it the UK or US by tanker? or cargo ship? and then dumping on the lawn of the white house or the houses of Parliament what do you think he was planning to do with it in 40 minutes no less?
Do you never get tired of making an a*se of yourself?
33

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 20:08:03
29

What is this about Yellow cake Uranium I havent heard this one is it supposed to represent the 40 minute WMDs that Saddam was going to kill us all in our beds with?
34

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 20:17:00
28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

Oh this Yellow cake Uranium I remember now I thought you were talking about a whole new yellow cake Uranium lie.

Is it because you think other people are as stupid and gullible as yourself? or are you just so full of hate and biggotry you just dont care about helping to spread the lies and deceits as long as it fits your own narrow filtered perceptions as to what is right and wrong?
35

barbour,

in transit to ? 08/07/2008 20:50:07
#30 Mister N
Afghanistan has no natural resources??????
Find the latest report from a recently completed geo survey:-
Quantities sufficient to be viable of,
natural gas.
petroleum.
coal,
copper,
chrome,
talc,
barites,
sulphur,
lead,zinc,
iron ore,
salt,
semi & precious stones.
and of course the invidious poppy.
Try to get your facts at best half right before posting at least.
I was was allways taught that if folk thought you were stupid,don't speak and confirm their views.The same goes for "posting"
Puts the remainder of your posts into relief I think.
36

barbour,

still in transit to ???? 08/07/2008 20:55:05
#30 Mister N
I allmost forgot about the 400mm gas and crude oil pipelines bi-secting the country constructed by KBR from middle Asia.
No,they don't have much in the way of natural resources do they?
37

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 20:55:43
35

Idiot boy I didnt say Afganistan doesnt have natural resourses I copied that statement down from post 25 to answer it.

Dont you feel a right d*ck about now eh?

Puts your posting into perspective right enough.
38

barbour,

ready to slit my wrists 08/07/2008 21:11:15
#37 Mister N
Your right,must read the postings more carefully,accept my apology,will try harder in future!
Sorry.
39

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 21:13:27
38

Ok and I apologise for my over reaction it comes from dealing with too many cyber trolls and the ignorant.
40

Biker,

Ayr 08/07/2008 21:19:09
Cant see the US/UK leaving the region in the near future. Mot at least as long as the US keep spinning the truth about Iran Ect. Iraq makes too good a base for withdrawal
41

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 21:26:59
40

They cannot commit to fighting in all 3 countries at once they will need a lot of allies and the cupboard is running bare with more of their lies being exposed every week. The people in the UK simply wont support a war in Iran and we have an election comming up in a couple of years as well as quite a few bi elections.
Brown is a dead weight to his party and if he commits to a war in Iran he is finished even within his own party. The US will have to go in with Israel and that will kick off a Jihad throughout the Islamic world.
No a war in Iran will be the beginning of the of US influence in the middle east.
Or armaggedon for all of us.
42

MisterN,

08/07/2008 21:27:54
41

That should read the beginning of the end.
43

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 21:30:08
31 MisterN.

"That is a blatent lie Iran has never threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the map but Israel has on the other hand threatened to bomb Iranian installations and have carried out their threats in Syria ILLEGALLY."

You really are blind to International matters. The Iranian president threatened on several occasions to wipe Isreal off the map.

Syria was up to something. Funny how both sides were quite and then Syria started cleaning up before they made a official complaint...

There is no hard evidence that actually shows what Isreal bombed and the case will lead no where since Syria cleaned it up.

"And what has Iran done this millenia or the last to justify calling it one of the worst countries in the world in terms of being anti Western?
SWEET F*CK ALL."

It was a poll actually that was taken in the Arab World. Iran is an Islamic country and of course due to actions in the West (insulting Allah etc etc) and in Iraq and Afganistan the people in Iran do not think highly of us. The sanctions aswell has done harm to our reputation in the country.

You are anti-American.

You are anti-Isreali.

You have brought your personally opinions into what should be hard facts.




44

barbour,

In transit 08/07/2008 21:34:05
Mister N
Cadit Quaestio.
My post should have been addressed to #25 maybe 25 could reply to the perceived lack of resources in Afghanistan.Why do folk think we are in this god forsaken fly blown apology of a country,the taliban are a side issue only and an excuse for a military presence.
45

barbour,

In transit 08/07/2008 21:35:25
Mister N
Cadit Quaestio.
My post should have been addressed to #25 maybe 25 could reply to the perceived lack of resources in Afghanistan.Why do folk think we are in this god forsaken fly blown apology of a country,the taliban are a side issue only and an excuse for a military presence.
46

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 21:43:06
30 MisterN.

You are a total idiot when it comes to NATO and the International World.


"They werent terrorist organisations when they where working for the Americans when exactly did their status change?"

Check your History. The Americans do not back the Taleban. It was something different which then later resulted into the Taleban.

"Since when has NATO ever had international authority outside of its own durisdictions? NATO is not the UN and has no legal authority nor international treaty to impose itself outside of its own borders.
Like I said you are simply making this all up as you go along. There is no NATO mandate other than a mutual defence agreement between nations."

Like I said. NATO is not all about defence. It was originally created to counter the Warsaw Pact but then evolved under Tony Blair. Hence why NATO is in Afganistan.

"Afganistan borders IRAN which is now effectively surrounded by potential enemy armies and more vulnerable to attack from hostile forces in its region.
Are you really this stupid? or do you think the rest of us are?"

Your just a muppet that HAS to be right even when you are wrong. Irans President has signed several treaties with their neighbours that promises that their land will not be used to attack Iran.

I cant remember which countries signed the Treaty but you should do some research because you have shown you are a dope when it comes to the world outside of Scotland.



47

barbour,

in despair 08/07/2008 21:56:51
Mr N
Is the type of poster you were refering to at #39 typified by #46?
Some one should educate the illiterate re spell check,grammer and above all Middle East history.
48

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 21:59:05
46

George Bush invited the Taleban into his home you moron. His family did business with them idiot and before the Taleban became the Taleban they were the Mujahadeen funded armed and trained by the CIA and SAS in order to fight the Russians.
And by the way it wasnt the Taleban who attacked the twin towers it was a group of Saudis not Afgans.
We were simply told by our Governments that these "Saudis" were living in Afganistan along with Osama Bin Ladan who has never been found nor located anywhere in Afganistan nor Pakistan.
The same Osama Bin Laden who is in fact also a family friend of the Bush's and also a member of the Saudi Royal family with very very close ties to the CIA.
None of this is a conspiricy theory its all fact and well documented. Now where are the facts linking Osama Bin Laden to the Taleban? apart from having the Bush family as close friends?

What do you mean "evolve under Tony Blair" since when has Tony Blair ever had authority over NATO?
Its a defence pact between Nations not a international police body or an organisation with international authority to go where it pleases and fight who it wants you dumb sh*t.
Stop making this cr*p up as you go along.

"Your just a muppet that HAS to be right even when you are wrong. Irans President has signed several treaties with their neighbours that promises that their land will not be used to attack Iran"

Would you like to put that past us again?

"I cant remember which countries signed the Treaty but you should do some research because you have shown you are a dope when it comes to the world outside of Scotland."

Can you remember what the treaty was called? how about when it was signed? where it was signed?
And when was it broken? because right now there is fighting going on between Afgan and Pakistani forces.
49

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 22:01:23
47

He is certainly a prime candidate for trolldom.
Have you ever read such stupidity outside of a post from Nomad?
50

Schot,

08/07/2008 22:01:44
ThomasP,

You are a propaganda-spouting war-mongering moron, and your opinion is worth less than manure.

Lie: "The Americans do not back the Taleban. It was something different which then later resulted into the Taleban."
Fact: The US created the Taliban to fight the Russians. Ossama bin Laden was trained in Scotland by the SAS. The US armed and supplied the Taliban for several decades. (Yes, you called them Mujahdeen back then but that is because you are an unthinking meat puppet.)

Lie:
"NATO is not all about defence. It was originally created to counter the Warsaw Pact but then evolved under Tony Blair. Hence why NATO is in Afganistan."

Fact: NATO is still supposed to be a defensive organisation that doesn't operate outseide the North Atlantic. Just because Tony Blair sold our souls for personal profit doesn't change that. There were no new laws or referundum to authorise our modern day Quisling to change that.

Lie:"The Iranian president threatened on several occasions to wipe Isreal off the map."


First off muppet,it is spelled Israel. Are you even old enough to join an adult forum ? SEcondly, what Ahmedinejad actually said - once - was :

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

So Thomas, you are a liar and a war-monger - and given your keyboard warrior status you are also a coward. How typical of your backward nation.
51

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 22:14:14
43

No he didnt he was deliberately misquoted by Israelli media sources how surprising.

"Syria was up to something. Funny how both sides were quite and then Syria started cleaning up before they made a official complaint..."

Syria was bombed because "It was up to something"?

What can you possibly say to something like that?
These posts cant be serious it has to be a wind up.
Nobody this stupid would be allowed to own a computer.

and then he follows it up with

"There is no hard evidence that actually shows what Isreal bombed and the case will lead no where since Syria cleaned it up."

Here read this or get your mum to read it to you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Pay particular attention to the part

"An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment."

"It was a poll actually that was taken in the Arab World. Iran is an Islamic country and of course due to actions in the West (insulting Allah etc etc) and in Iraq and Afganistan the people in Iran do not think highly of us. The sanctions aswell has done harm to our reputation in the country."

A poll taken in Arab countries regarding Irans attitude to the West?

Honestly are you for real or is all this a wind up?






52

Auntie Christ,

axis of evil 08/07/2008 23:16:14
MisterN
For the sake of argument let’s say everything you believe is accurate to the last detail and the hatred that drives you is justified, like so many others that feel the way you do I suspect that the beginning middle an end of your contribution to the cause is to get on places like the Scotsmen and bitch. Question: What’s it like being that impotent? Like so many other supremacists your justification for superiority is illusive.

The only people that “care” about the people of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc. seem to be the ones that wouldn’t lift a finger or put themselves in harms way to do anything about it so why should anyone listen to you even assuming your right? You just don’t seem to have a prayer of making a difference? If your applying for the job of savior let me suggest you don’t quit your day job.

If you believe all the things you have stated are true and are doing nothing about it you are lower than Bush and, as you Brits like to call him Bliar.

Pax Vobiscum

53

indune1,

Canada 08/07/2008 23:30:49

Oh my, once again we are being subjected to Mister Numptie's view of the world.

Such an informed, nay, omniscient,tour-de-force of international relations, strategic studies and mass communications.

Why did he quit his job as head of MI 5 and 6? Why did he leave NASA?

One can only imagine the pain and sacrifice that is required to post such comments from his comfortable den.

BTW, MIster Numptie: check underneath your bed; there might be a CIA agent. If so, it only proves that the CIA are a bunch of idiots.
54

ThomasP,

08/07/2008 23:32:43
Schot:

The Taliban are what was created by the Mujahdeen once the Russians were overthrown. Don't forget the Afgan civil war once the Soviets left.

"NATO is still supposed to be a defensive organisation that doesn't operate outseide the North Atlantic."

You have said it yourself. It is SUPPOSED to be... but it isn't. NATO is currently in Afganistan. I am sure I do not have to show a link to prove it either.

Here is a link to what the President of Iran stated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4912198.stm

MisterN:

America and Isreal have satalite photos of what looked like a nuclear reactor. Syria claimed it was a military base. Military bases do not have what looked like reactors so yes the Syrians were up to something.

There is no actual evidence that can support the idea that nuclear material was ever brought to Syria though. Radiation is not detected in the area but the Syrians begun clear ups to soon so also leads to speculation of why did they clear up quickly?

The poll I spoke about was about Arab attitudes to America, Britain and the West as a whole. It shown that people from Iran are deeply angry at the West for their sanctions against their country, Iraq and Afganistan wars. I apologise for not making that more clear.

Now, war-monger? Perhaps I am. I am away to join the army as an infantry so you can bet I will see some action eventually.
55

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 23:50:45
52

Oh I see just back from there youself are you? working with the UNHCR possibly or the Red Cross or the Red Cresent maybe?
Me I worked with the UN in Bosnia for 2 years how about you?

53

Is that it? nothing to add nothing to contribute? very wise it would only expose your own idiocy and pathetic blinkered biggotry. Best not to put too much down in writing.

54

Idiot boy it doesnt matter whether Syria had or didnt have a nuclear reactor and nuclear facilities it isnt Israels decision who can and cannot develope nukes and it certainly isnt up the the US to deterimine who can and cannot develop nukes. Neither the US nor the Israelli government are the world police force and have no authority to go around bombing other countries on a whim. THAT IS AGAINST ALL INTERNATIONAL LAW and it make them rogue nations.
Never mind the fact that no proof positive has been presented to show there was a nuclear facility in the first place we only have the Israelli government and the US governments word for it.

"It shown that people from Iran are deeply angry at the West for their sanctions against their country, Iraq and Afganistan wars. I apologise for not making that more clear."

And you wonder why? you present this as an excuse for supporting a US Israelli invasion of Iran?

You really are a moron.

"Now, war-monger? Perhaps I am. I am away to join the army as an infantry so you can bet I will see some action eventually."

I sincerely hope you never experiance war first hand and I really mean it.
56

MisterN,

Scotland 08/07/2008 23:53:51
54

Nato is not in Afganistan some member states of Nato are in Afganistan on their own business not NATO business.

Walter F*cking Mitty.
57

ThomasP,

09/07/2008 00:04:22
MisterN.

If you lived in Isreal then you would be worried if Syria aquired nuclear weapons.

Actually, countries have the right to defend themselves if they feel their own security is at risk. Isreal felt that the Syrians were creating nuclear weapons and acted.

"And you wonder why? you present this as an excuse for supporting a US Israelli invasion of Iran?"

You are an idiot. I presented that poll to show how dangerous a nuclear armed Iran could be for us.

If you were not an anti-American/Isreali person you would see the world alot differently.
58

ThomasP,

09/07/2008 00:05:41
MisterN.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html
59

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 09/07/2008 01:07:04
About 3 weeks ago Syria and Iran signed defense agreements while Ahmadinejerk went there.
Their nuclear facility was an exact copy of North Korea's, who admit to helping them.

I'm Sure Mr.N will come up with some lame excuse for Syria's Nuke facility. The UN's IAEA knows what this is...and it all can be traced back to AQ Kahn and his selling of nuclear equipment and plans to North Korea.

btw..the yellowcake is now in Montreal who purchsed it. It was moved in ships across 2 oceans. The Iraqis asked us to help them. LOOK IT UP
It's not hard. It arrived in Montreal Sun. or Mon.
60

indune1,

Canada 09/07/2008 01:18:41
59 - You must understand, Mister Numptie is only interested in attempting to score cheap, uninformed points.

What worries me is the number of posters who respond directly to him/her.

Ignore him/her. At best he/she is a troll. AT worst, he/she is a seriously underdeveloped individual.

Shun him/her.
61

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 09/07/2008 02:01:05
#60..He's just another troll with a lot of IDs, and one warped mind, and other than the ususal name calling he resorts to insults to try and prove his points.
They are just tactics, that anyone with a brain can see right through.
62

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 09/07/2008 02:02:04
Thomas P..good luck in your endeavors and stay safe.

From one grateful American.
63

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 02:11:59
2dogs in D.C.

"Let the U.N. take it, they'll get it straight."

Er... it IS the UN's mandate that is finishing in iraq....
64

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 02:23:11
Lynne,
Palm Beach Gardens 09/07/2008 01:07:04

"Their nuclear facility was an exact copy of North Korea's.."

Really? They don't look anything alike..

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/images/504.jpg

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/10/25/PH2007102502100.jpg


"I'm Sure Mr.N will come up with some lame excuse for Syria's Nuke facility."

Alleged ' Nuke facility '

" The UN's IAEA knows what this is...and it all can be traced back to AQ Kahn and his selling of nuclear equipment and plans to North Korea."

The IAEA haven't said as much...Sources...thx

"..the yellowcake is now in Montreal who purchsed it"

Purchased it legally from the Iraqi Government...

BTW it was already under lock and key by the Weapons inspectors since the eary 1990's.....Now it's a brand new NON-Issue for rabid warmongers to beat up on.
65

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 02:30:38
ThomasP,
08/07/2008 23:32:43

"Here is a link to what the President of Iran stated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4912198.stm"

Where he doesn't mention Israel at all, but the Zionist regime.

"America and Isreal have satalite photos of what looked like a nuclear reactor."

So they claim, however, photos of both sites are completely different.

"Radiation is not detected in the area..."

Source/s...thx

"..but the Syrians begun clear ups to soon so also leads to speculation of why did they clear up quickly?"

To start building again........

"...war-monger? Perhaps I am. I am away to join the army as an infantry so you can bet I will see some action eventually"

I certainly hope so....BTW careful you don't cut yourself on the potato peeler.
66

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 02:42:03
ThomasP,
08/07/2008 17:50:57

//"The US and UK lied to the international communities about their reasons for going into Iraq."

"They did not lie"

Uh huh. What're these???

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

" It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

('possesses and produces', not we 'think' or 'suspect')

"It is seeking nuclear weapons."

('is', not we 'think' or 'suspect')

" We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."

(Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11)

"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do... "

('we know', not we 'think' or 'suspect')

"...the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice."

(In other words if they came clean on WMDs the regime could stay!!! so much for human rights or democracy)

" Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance-- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited"

(In other words if Iraq came clean on WMDs, the regime could stay!!! So much for human rights or democracy)
67

indune1,

Canada 09/07/2008 02:50:33
65 - Chatnic or should I say Chatpric?

Up until your last posting you had posed some interesting questions/observations. However, you diminished all of them by your cheap and unwarranted shot at Thomas P's stated intent to " join the army as an infantry so you can bet I will see some action eventually".

Rather than saying that you disagree with his intentions but wishing him safety, you chose to deliver a cheap shot.

You are the worst kind. You are a 40-mile sniper. A moral coward. A Rear-Echelon Mother F*cker.

You know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Know this. If you were in a combat squad, no one would risk their lives to save you, for they know that you do not value theirs.

You will never,thankfully, be exposed to such a situation. And, more importantly, our soldiers will never be saddled with such a burden.



68

chatnic,

09/07/2008 03:04:59

ThomasP,
08/07/2008 16:34:21

"Iran admitted that they had a nuclear weapons programme in 2002/03"

The program apparently terminated in 2003 according to US assessments..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

"If troops are sent the Commander should have control of them and not their home countries."

Try http://www.nato.int/issues/isaf/index.html

It gives a clearer picture of NATO involvement.
69

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 03:19:40
indune1,
Canada 09/07/2008 02:50:33

"Up until your last posting you had posed some interesting questions/observations."

Care to address them?

"However, you diminished all of them by your cheap and unwarranted shot at Thomas P's stated intent to " join the army as an infantry so you can bet I will see some action eventually""

By joshing with him? Where's your sense of humour? Or ought that be humor? Whatever, you don't seem to have any. Heaps of hypocrisy though, bile and a foul mouth judging by this....

"Chatnic or should I say Chatpric?.....You are the worst kind. You are a 40-mile sniper. A moral coward. A Rear-Echelon Mother F*cker."

Clever debating style.....keep up the good work.
70

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 03:23:47
BTW indune1 You lost credibility at post 60, you lil' olde name caller you:

indune1, Canada 09/07/2008 01:18:41

"You must understand, Mister Numptie ..."

71

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 03:30:08
Lynne,
Palm Beach Gardens 09/07/2008 02:01:05

"He's just another troll with a lot of IDs, and one warped mind, and other than the ususal name calling he resorts to insults to try and prove his points."

Meanwhile indune1 writes "Mister Numptie ...".."Chatnic or should I say Chatpric?.....You are the worst kind. You are a 40-mile sniper. A moral coward. A Rear-Echelon Mother F*cker."

Just thought I'd point that out ... enjoy!
72

indune1,

Canada 09/07/2008 03:49:07

Chatnic - postings 68-71.

Simply put, I thought your "joshing" about a man's intention to join up and possibly see action was not deserving of your condescending advice not to cut himself on a potato peeler.

If it was humour, it was ill-disguised and uncalled for.

As one who has served, I stand by my comments.

As to Mr. Numptie: that moniker pre-dates your involvement on these threads. So stick to your lane.

73

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 03:55:11
ndune1,
Canada 09/07/2008 03:49:07

"If it was humour, it was ill-disguised"

Very clearly humour...(if of course you know what humour is)

"As one who has served.."

Potatos?

"As to Mr. Numptie: that moniker pre-dates your involvement on these threads."

Yes and shows who started the name calling...

"So stick to your lane"

It's a public talk service.....we're all in the same lane, Lois!
74

indune1,

Canada 09/07/2008 04:04:01
73 - "Very clearly humour". Really? You over-estimate yourself.

Public talk service? Hmmm. You are talking publicly but to what service and to what benefit?

Oh well, we can all take comfort in that you are situated in the Antipodes and well out of things of influence.

Do carry on killing your 'roos and abusing your Abos.
75

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 04:21:56
indune1, Canada 09/07/2008 04:04:01
73 -
//"Very clearly humour". "

"Really?"

Yes.

" You over-estimate yourself."

No.

"Public talk service?"

Yes.

"You are talking publicly but to what service.."

I don't provide a service...anything else you'd like to twist around?

"..and to what benefit?"

Informed debate...heard of it?

"Oh well, we can all take comfort in that you are situated in the Antipodes and well out of things of influence"

Strange way you have of talking about allies....

"Do carry on killing your 'roos.."

Will do, they're a much leaner and healthier alternative to sheep and cattle.

".. and abusing your Abos"

Evidence that I abuse 'Abos'? Or is this another of your immature and stupid attempts at insult, instead of discussing the topic?

BTW For all you know, I might be an 'Abo', pal.

76

indune1,

Canada 09/07/2008 05:09:26


Bait taken. No chance of hook retrieval.

G'night mate.
77

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 05:29:17
indune1,
Canada 09/07/2008 05:09:26

"Bait taken...No chance of hook retrieval"

Your fantasy, your hook, your foul mouth, your insults, your name calling, your worm squirming!

And no attempt on your part to actually answer informed points.....pity
78

indune1,

09/07/2008 05:31:38

Hah! You are still a REMF! Accept it and get on with it.
79

chatnic,

Australia 09/07/2008 05:33:55
indune1,
09/07/2008 05:31:38

"Hah! You are still a REMF!"

Ah yes, more stupid insults. That should substitute for reasoned and informed discussion. Very clever....
80

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 09/07/2008 17:08:17
"Iraq pushes U.S Troop Withdrawal" -
They won't have to push very hard once President Obama is elected. Roll on November. :)
81

quaraing,

09/07/2008 17:57:05
#52 Auntie Christ

"Pax Vobiscum"

Why would you want to mimic one of nomads old sign off's or did you come up with it all by yourself
82

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 09/07/2008 19:19:37
chatnik..AQ Kahn has already admitted to the the fact he sold the plans for North Korea and Syria..
Listen, if you want to make statements and not sound stupid...you should do your research first..the man was under house arrest in Pakistan for selling his nuke secrets and plans..
83

Rosie's Opinion,

USA 09/07/2008 19:20:27
81 quaraing

FH Troll
84

chatnic,

Australia 10/07/2008 07:53:42