1. Yeah, I did predidct that Iraq would break into 3 states... Stayed tuned... As long as the US is pouring it's treasury into Iraq that ain't gonna happen... I never said it would happen as long as the US is throwing $$$ and arms into Iraq... It's when the US leaves... That has always been my prediction... We both know it...

Yeah, well Bobert we both know that that is your 20x20 hindsight in operation as it leads me to recall another of your predictions and a standpoint of yours taken at the time:

The US was NEVER going to leave Iraq they were there to set up permanent military bases in order to control the region and the regions oil.

Make your mind up sunshine cant have it both ways. Oh and of course there was this one:

"the CPA was permanent wasn't it Bobert, the US were never going to hand over to any Iraqi Government."


2. I never saw a successful outcome in Iarq and I still don't... That's why I have consistenetly opposed this war going back forever...

Well Bobert there are millions of Iraqis who would disagree with you.


3. As fir the 2000 elections... Hey, show me where I ever supported Al Bore

Illustrates your poor skill in English comprehension Bobert, you show me where I stated that you supported Al Gore, I merely stated that you could not accept what Al Gore did accept – that GWB won the 2000 Presidential Election. I did not say that you supported Al Gore there now did I (Pssst Bobert here is a chance to do something that you have never done before – admit that you got it wrong)

4. As for your predictuions, T???? Name one that has come to pass??? Just one... Don't hurt yer head on this one... What, are you gonna say that Iraq is a sterling success??? If so, pee in the cup so we can find out what drugs you are on...

Let me see now as you brought up Iraq:

- That the taking of Baghdad would not result in a house-to-house middle-east version of Stalingrad

(I was correct there was no "Stalingrad type stand was there)

- That if committed to the invasion offensive military operations would be swiftly completed

(The War phase lasted about eight weeks)

- That the Iraqi Army would not stand and fight it would simply melt away.

(Totally correct there wasn't I Bobert)

- That the failure of the Turks to allow access into Northern Iraq for US Forces would have a negative impact on the operation.

(Correct there as well, had Turkey allowed US forces access the border with Syria to the west would have been sealed cutting off western and central Iraq to foreign jihadi fighters and the Ba'athists in Syria)

- That any Ba'athist inspired insurgency would never succeed.

(Didn't did it? Also AQ's second-in-command admitted that Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq had failed completely and turned muslims against the movement)

- That there would be no "Civil War" in Iraq

(Correct again - How many elections have they had now Bobert?? I mean ones where they can actually vote, not just slip a premarked slip into a box?)

- That US & UK oil companies would not be allowed into Iraq to "steal" Iraq's oil.

(Correct again Bobert, how depressing for you. Only present in two fields as part of joint ventures, the rest went to the French; the Russians; the Chinese; Malaysians; Angolans; Dutch; Norwegian and guess what Bobert the oil still belongs to the Iraqis, not stolen by the US at all.)



5. As for me admittin' I am wrong??? I'm not... Historians will get it right... Most allready have... But you wouldn't know about the many people who have said that Iraq was the largest blunder in US history because you don't want to face that reality...

Of course you are not wrong Bobert as all your arguments are based upon those things that we have come to know and love – THE BOBERT FACT – which is more accurately described as BOBERT BULLSHIT


6. If you wanted regime change, T, why didn't you just kill Saddam??? You won't nawer that question becuase you have no answer for that...

FFS not this again!! This so-called "tuff question" of yours has been answered so many times it has now become boring, you keep bringing it up because you do not like the answers. But nevertheless:

The objective (the aim if you like Bobert):   Regime Change In Iraq (Official US Foreign Policy from summer 1998)

Proposed Bobert solution: Kill Saddam Hussein

Why it would not work:

1. Killing Saddam Hussein does not effect regime change

2. Ba'athist Regime would remain in power in Iraq

3. The policies of the Ba'athists in Iraq would not have changed in any significant way

4. Likeliest candidates to succeed Saddam would have been one of his two sons who were actually both worse in their excesses than their father

5. Since the many failed and bizarre attempts at the assassination of Fidel Castro by the US over the years I believe that deliberate targeted assassinations are illegal under US law.

There you go Bobert that is your "Tuff question" answered for the umpteenth time. You might not like the answer but even you cannot doubt that an answer has been given to your question - or will BOBERT FACT deny that??

Now you tell me what you think killing Saddam Hussein would have achieved??


7. You cherry pick Blix but ignore the here and now in his report of Jan 27... You ignore the "most important"... You ignore "cooperating"... Those realities (facts) don't jive with yer little pathology/mythology...

So I produce and link to actual transcripts of what Blix actually said in full and I stand accused of cherry-picking the speech?? You are the one who should be peeing in the cup.

I highlight the speech dividing the sections as Blix wrote them to cover the various points of his report. You accuse me of ignoring "most important", accuse me of ignoring "co-operating" where just by review of my posts on this thread anyone can clearly see that far from ignoring them I actually highlighted them and put them into the context in which they were used by Blix.

Your trouble Bobert is that you just cannot read anything and "GET" what is actually being said, and that Bobert is your problem…… It is certainly NOT MINE.