US to leave Iraq by Xmas – Obama

25 comments on “US to leave Iraq by Xmas – Obama ”

• Comments are now closed

1. travellerev 1

   22 October 2011 at 12:28 pm

   If you believe they are going to leave the biggest most expensive embassy city  in the world and four permanent bases without troops I’ve got a bridge in New York to sell ya!
   They will just pull out troops they need to attack Iran! Mark my words. And this is why they need idiots like our soldiers in Afghanistan.
   And Gaddafi “died” just in time for the NATO to pull out most of its troops to do the same!
   • Brett Dale 1.1

     22 October 2011 at 4:08 pm

     You guys on the left have been saying for decades the states will attack Iran, hasnt happened has it?
2. clandestino 2

   22 October 2011 at 1:13 pm

   The Guardian has a slightly different, more believable take on it:

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases
   • travellerev 2.1

     22 October 2011 at 1:23 pm

     Next more suicide bombers and other assorted false flag attacks and the government will be begging the Americans to stay. Problem solved!
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     22 October 2011 at 4:12 pm

     Quoting article:

     The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East.

     And what would the US say if Iran wanted bases in Iraq to counter growing US influence in the Middle East? You can guarantee that the US would be a) raising a huge cry and trying to stop them and b) initiating their plans to invade Iran.

     The double standards are atrocious. It seems that the US can do what it likes and everyone else has to beg their permission.
     • Chris 2.2.1

       22 October 2011 at 7:53 pm

       Yeah they have some ridiculous double standards as discussed in open mike though I think the worst one was that a sticking point was the fact their forces would no longer have immunity from prosecution.

       Says a lot for what their armies discipline must be like or alternatively that their army is well disciplined and it says a lot for what they are being ordered to do.
   • Puddleglum 2.3

     22 October 2011 at 7:42 pm

     Thanks clandestino, I saw that too and my first thought was “This is either something that will not happen [as travellerev thinks] or it represents real evidence of the US’s inability to exert its power.”

     If the latter is true, then the even bigger question is ‘why the inability?’

     We’ll have to see how it pans out. 
3. clandestino 3

   22 October 2011 at 2:00 pm

   Yeah ok. Because suicide bombers are really into staging false flag attacks. Logic Fail.
   • travellerev 3.1

     22 October 2011 at 2:10 pm

     I should have said “suicide bombings”. But then you probably still believe 19 young predominantly Saudi “terrorists” were able to destroy the entire WTC with 2 planes all as the result of thee flying lessons and armed with a couple of box cutters.
     • clandestino 3.1.1

       22 October 2011 at 2:14 pm

       In the absence of any credible or even circumstantial evidence to the contrary, yes. 

       By the way, I’d love to know how the evil empire persuades young Arab men and women to blow themselves up. I’m guessing it’s not the promise of cheap gas.
       • travellerev 3.1.1.1

         22 October 2011 at 2:34 pm

         Nobody needs to know their car is spiked with explosives activated by a mobile phone. We only get the stories about suicide bombers in the MSM here.

         Here is a good article by respected journalist Wayne Madsen about the destruction of the Golden domed Mosque.

         Funny how you are perfectly happy to believe it was 19 young Saudi Arabs without a shred of evidence but not the fact Nano thermite was used to blow up the buildings with ample evidence:
         • Crashcart 3.1.1.1.1

           22 October 2011 at 2:39 pm

           I’ve seen a lot of what you write about 9/11 and some of it has me interested. there is only one thing that makes me go with the MSM story. The pictures show the planes hitting the buildings. They also show the buildings start to collapse at the point where the planes hit. It would seem to me amazing if they had managed to not only fly the planes into the exact spot where their explosives are set so that this is possible but to also manage to do it without damaging the explosive chain. Which is essential to carry out a large explosion. Seems impossible to me. If you have a reasonable explanation for this I am open to it.

           By the way I am trained in the handling and use of explosives.
           • travellerev 3.1.1.1.1.1

             22 October 2011 at 4:44 pm

             Thanks for showing an interest.

             According to Pilots for 911 truth who analysed the flight paths of all planes involved in the 911 events the two planes hitting the buildings could not have made the manoeuvres with someone flying the plane manually.

             One of the pilots for 911 truth actually flew two of the planes involved off and on. The technology to fly planes remote controlled and computer directed to beacons was available in 2001 and could have been used to fly the planes to the required floors. What was also available was the remote radio controlled sequencing of controlled demolitions.

             As 911 researchers we call the explosive pulverisation of the two twin towers a controlled explosive demolition because they are clearly explosive events as opposed to the controlled demolition of WTC 7 which also collapsed on the same day.

             If you are trained in the use of explosives and are interested to learn more here is the link to a presentation from Niels Harrit, a Danish professor who is involved in an international team of engineers and scientists researching the events of 911. He made this during the Toronto hearings were the best scientific 911 evidence was presented. He explains why they have come to the conclusion that Nano-thermite was used to destroy the buildings. He also talks about the different kinds of destruction and explosives. As an explosives trained person you might want to listen to this in order to form you’re own opinion.

             To get back to the thread: the US and NATO are continuously manipulating public opinion with false flag events and will do so again to stay in Iraq especially now that they are baying for an attack on Iran.
             • Chris …

               22 October 2011 at 7:50 pm

               Hmm I tried to post a comment but my internet seemed to screw up so if this is a double post I apologize.

               But anyway my question was if there were explosives on the floor and a plane was flown intentionally into the same floor what would have stopped the explosives from being detonated by that impact and subsequent fire?

               I’m not trying to argue (don’t know anything about explosives) was actually interested and to be honest I couldn’t really be bothered researching it myself on your links particularly as you seem to know everything in them anyways.
               • Afewknowthetruth …

                 22 October 2011 at 9:39 pm

                 This may help.

                 Steel melts at around 1,500oC

                 Aviation fuel burns in air at around 300oC.

                 Thermite can generate up to around 2,500oC

                 Try melting an iron nail with a candle. Try melting an iron nail over a gas flame.

                 The steel columns in the WTO towers had to be cut with thermite charges otherwise the towers would not have collapsed and Larry Silverstien would not have been able to collect the insurance payout, nor benefit from the put options on airline shares.
                 • Chris …

                   22 October 2011 at 9:59 pm

                   That’s good to know but wasn’t what I was asking?

                   I was wondering how they would have delayed the explosion of the charges (which your saying is thermite that’s fine happy to accept that, as I say I don’t know anything about explosives) that were placed on the floor where the planes hit.
         • Vicky32 3.1.1.1.2

           23 October 2011 at 7:28 pm

           Funny how you are perfectly happy to believe it was 19 young Saudi Arabs without a shred of evidence but not the fact Nano thermite was used to blow up the buildings with ample evidence:

           Seconded… Not because it’s you, Ev, but in spite of you… 🙁
4. freedom 4

   22 October 2011 at 2:04 pm

   perhaps Obama should concentrate on what is happening at home
   • RedLogix 4.1

     22 October 2011 at 7:39 pm

     That is one sobering read…..where is the tipping point I wonder? What will it take to rouse the ordinary people?

     Or are we going to sleepwalk, stupified into the furnaces of hell?
5. Brett Dale 5

   22 October 2011 at 4:24 pm

   Perhaps he is afraid of the big bad wolf?

   As for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you aren’t cemented in any form of reality.
   • RedLogix 5.1

     22 October 2011 at 7:14 pm

     you aren’t cemented in any form of reality.

     You have to know that travellerev has seen and heard every single insulting and demeaning line a hundred times over. Imagining that trotting out the same tired pointless smears one more time was going to have any effect whatsoever, other than giving you a momentary spasm of warm pleasure… could also be characterised as being weakly linked to reality.

     You may also want to pause and think about the many millions of well-educated and capable people all over the world who hold strong reservations about the 911 ‘official story’… a story which is in itself… the ultimate ‘conspiracy theory’ of all.
     • travellerev 5.1.1

       23 October 2011 at 10:35 am

       RL,
       How far I’ve come in those few years. Thank you!
     • Vicky32 5.1.2

       23 October 2011 at 7:33 pm

       You may also want to pause and think about the many millions of well-educated and capable people all over the world who hold strong reservations about the 911 ‘official story’… a story which is in itself… the ultimate ‘conspiracy theory’ of all.

       Exactly!
6. Afewknowthetruth 6

   22 October 2011 at 9:21 pm

   Brett Dale.

   ‘You guys on the left have been saying for decades the states will attack Iran, hasnt happened has it?’

   Wrong, as usual. Britain and the US attacked Iran in the mid-1950s, shortly after the democratically elected Mossadegh government nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, following the breakdown in negotiations to secure some benefits for the Iranian people from Iranian oil. The UK and US installed Shah Palavi, noted for the viciousness of his security forces, as dicator. The oil resumed to flowing to the west, are required, until the Iranian people overthrew the Shah. The US attempt to intervene in 1979 was a shambles.

   Rather than fight themselves, the Americans then armed Iraq and incited Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in a proxy war, almost a re-enactment of WW1. When Iran looked like winning the US military shot down an Iranian passenger airliner. That was enough to bring Iran to the peace table, but not give up the fight for freedom.

   You are partially right. Since the early 2000s we have been subjected to drivel about the danger posed to ‘freedom and democxracy’ by Iran -the ‘Axix of evil’ garbage that came out of the mouths of the biggest liars in history, the Shrub and Tony B Liar, followed by yet more nonsense from O’Bomber.

   However, the US is very unlikely to attack Iran, now that it has so many Russian-made Onyx and Tor defensive missiles capable of knocking out aircraft carriers and the planes they carry. The US far prefers to attack nations that cannot defend themselves well, like Granada, Nicuragua, Afghanistan and now Yemen. Not sure about Somalia: the last attempt there ended in failure but there may be enough oil in Somalia to justify another attempt.

   ‘As for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you aren’t cemented in any form of reality.’

   It is the official narrative which is completley detached from reality, of course. To believe the official narrative you have to believe that the engines of a passenger airliner, with a melting point of 1650oC, evaporated on impact when the plane hit the Pentagon but did not damage the Pentagon walls in any way -not a sinlge mark where the engines hit, just the one hole, only 5 metres across, supposedly caused by the nose of the aircraft. Also, according to the official narrative, almost the entire body of the plane and the tail section evaporated on impact with grass -the first time in all of history that an aluminium bodied aricraft ever evaporated on impact with grass.

   To believe the official narrative of 9/11 you’d have to believe that a concrete and steel building (building seven) which was not even hit by a plane, could fall down at free-fall speed and in its own footprint as a consequence of a short-lived, low tempertaure fire. Again, this was the first and only time in all of history.

   You would also have to believe that the Shanksville plane evaporated on impact, the first occasion a passenger aircraft evaporated TOTALLY on impact. Not a shred of wreckage, just a peculiar hole in the ground.

   To believe the official narrative of 9/11 you’d have to believe that low temperature fires in the top sections of buildings could weaken steel at the bottom, more than 100 metres below the fires.

   There are around 40 major discrepencies in the official narrative which clearly identify it as full of fabrications and lies.

   So, faced with the choice between believing so-called conspiracy theories which challenge the ridiculous official narative of 9/11 and believing you are an uninformed fuckwit, I go for the latter every time. You are an uninformed fuckwit.

   Go and get yourself a degree in chemistry or physics and came back to make comments on TS after you have passed the final exam.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     22 October 2011 at 9:29 pm

     nice ass kicking.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS