BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:20 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 11:42 AM

"F'n" this, "F'n" that. You are so eloquent. Talk about a crutch. I guess that is how they communicate in the trailer park that you live in. Am I right, tough guy?

Or do you fall into the "you can take the person out of the trailer park, but you can't take the trailer park out of the person" category?

I have always wondered why reasonable, intelligent people tolerate Cretans, such as you, Teribus. I guess it is some kind of morbid curiosity to watch the train wreck. To find out how YOU can sleep at night, knowing the type of pathetic, vulgar, despicable, poor excuse for a human being that you are. But, I guess you answered that question "insomnia" boy, you can't cope with your own scummyness.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 12:39 PM

Took you 11 "F'n" hours to come up with that Cap'n?? You're slipping, surely you can do a great deal better than that.

You're no competition at all chum, but nevertheless fume on, I am having a whale of a time.

"kooks", "candy-ass G.I. Joe wanna be", "trailer park"??? you from across on the west side of the pond, you sad little troll? Might explain your "insomnia" remark but that would be taking us into the realms of arithmetic as yet unplumbed by people of your experience so for the sake of brevity I will not even attempt to explain it all for you. Ask your Mum or Dad, best pick the one who is actually using the family brain-cell at time of asking.

BYEEEEEE.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GUEST,Captain Subtle
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 04:16 PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... Blah, blah, blah.

That is what you sound like, Teribus.

You're a bore, but I am sure your wife has already told you that. You repugnant, piece of bottom feeder dung.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 05:25 PM

Pee in the cup, T...

You are so prejudiced (not biased) that you can't even see that just about everything that you said you predicted actually didn't come to pass...

The war in Baghdad hasn't ended yet...

The US military is still fighting and dieing in Iraq... BTW, T, That's why they call it "war"...

The 2000 elections are something that you brought up in yer usual confrontational/argumentative so it was fair game for me to answer that... I mean, why else di you bring it up???

On Turkey, you were correct but I never took an advesarial position on that anyway... Who cares' you were due to be right once in a hundred... Good job, T...

The Iraq army did fight... Gorella style... Many of them still at it...

The book is still out on the Ba-athists... Right now the US is payin' them to not shoot at US... Same on the "Civil war"... When the US leaves (or sets up a miliatry base somewhere away population centers) then we'll see... I still say that there a shit load of bad things yet to happen in Iraq when either of those scenerios comes to pass...

The only reason that the US oil companies didn't glam onto the oil is because the war has gone very, very badly for the US and UK in terms of international reputation... That's a no-brainer.... You don't get credit for that because it happened for resaons other than the above things that you have claimed that are false claims...

What next... Oh yeah... TERIBUS BULLSHIT!!!

Regime change didn't have to involve killing upwards of a million civilains, T... That was a purdy dumb idea...

Lastly we get around to Blix... What is it that you still can't comprehend about the terms "Most important" and "cooperation" both, BTW which are conatined in the same sentence??? Those words to hard for you... Maybe Blix should have given another speech written in crayons using only one syable words???

Did I miss anything???

Don't think so...

Congrates on getting the Turks thing right... Really has nothin' to do with the big picture but at least you did get 1 point... Beats gettin' skunked...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:40 PM

1. The war in Baghdad hasn't ended yet...

Must be the quietest war ever fought then Bobert, either that or nobody is bothering to report it.

2. The US military is still fighting and dieing in Iraq... BTW, T, That's why they call it "war"...

Oh yes Bobert that may go on a while yet. By the way Bobert care to tell us how many of those still "dying" have died in non-combat related events.

3. The 2000 elections are something that you brought up in yer usual confrontational/argumentative so it was fair game for me to answer that... I mean, why else di you bring it up???

GWB your attack-dog trigger, just love the way you start to splutter whenever he is mentioned.

4. On Turkey, you were correct but I never took an advesarial position on that anyway... Who cares' you were due to be right once in a hundred... Good job, T...

Well you did ask for one JUST ONE prediction that I made that was correct, and well, there you have it. Always try to oblige Bobert.

5. The Iraq army did fight... Gorella style... Many of them still at it...

Naw Bobert they didn't. The Iraqi Army didn't like Saddam that much and if many of them are still fighting they are now part of the new Iraqi Security Forces fighting the last remnants of a dispirited and beaten insurgency. Gorella style - WTFIT???

6. The book is still out on the Ba-athists... Right now the US is payin' them to not shoot at US... Same on the "Civil war"... When the US leaves (or sets up a miliatry base somewhere away population centers) then we'll see... I still say that there a shit load of bad things yet to happen in Iraq when either of those scenerios comes to pass...

They will all be making far, far too much money to bother with any of that crap Bobert

7. The only reason that the US oil companies didn't glam onto the oil is because the war has gone very, very badly for the US and UK in terms of international reputation... That's a no-brainer.... You don't get credit for that because it happened for resaons other than the above things that you have claimed that are false claims...

Sorry Bobert, that is just more of your bullshit, the field service contracts were awarded as they were, and to who I said they would go to at the time in exchange for debt cancellation (France; Russia & China) The Iraqis then drove very hard bargains that US companies baulked at, but other oil rich national companies took them up on (Malaysians; Angolans) You were of the opinion that the US was in there to steal Iraq's oil I said that that was impossible - I proved to be right. It had bugger all to do with international reputation.


8. Regime change didn't have to involve killing upwards of a million civilains, T... That was a purdy dumb idea...

What 1 million people and upwards were killed Bobert?

9. Lastly we get around to Blix... What is it that you still can't comprehend about the terms "Most important" and "cooperation" both, BTW which are conatined in the same sentence??? Those words to hard for you... Maybe Blix should have given another speech written in crayons using only one syable words???

Ah but Bobert it was the words, sentences and paragraphs that preceeded, went in between "most important" and "co-operation" as well as the words, sentences and paragraphs that followed that tell you what Blix was actually reporting. I dare say that you will get the jist of it one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

Pee in the cup, T... You are dillusional... Either that or you are watching a much different chain of events...

It's not me that ain't gettin' the jist... You are jist-less... Dillusional and jist-less...

Now pee in the cup and quit with the mythology...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: GRex
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:46 AM

Teribus

      I will not dispute your details regarding the Iraqi oil contracts. What I said was that the intention was to obtain the oil.
      The fact that Bush and Blair failed is not supprising.

      Not sure whether I'm pleased or not. This war is a terrible thing and seems entirely unjustified.

             GRex

Subject: RE: BS: Blair at the Chilcot Inquiry
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM

What I said was that the intention was to obtain the oil.

   The fact that Bush and Blair failed is not surprising.


The economics of what you think they tried to do is ludicrous and makes no sense at all. Iraq at the time that sanctions were applied was ranked 17th in the world for oil exports. Neither the UK or the US took any oil from Iraq all the time that sanctions were in place or if they did it came through traders in extremely small amounts. After 2003 the US bought a token amount of oil from Iraq and contrary to popular believe the USA is not dependent on oil from the region.

You cannot steal oil and although field service contracts have been awarded to foreign companies (Mostly National Oil Companies of foreign countries) the oil still belongs to Iraq or whatever other country an oil field is located in, it is a national resource and is treated as such. That has been the way that the international Oil & Gas Industry has worked for at least forty years. I am sorry but there is just no way at all that Bush or Blair could obtain Iraq's oil even if they had wanted to.