cancel2 2022
Canceled
I provided the evidence and you chose to gainsay it, you are still wrong nonetheless.
APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
I provided the evidence and you chose to gainsay it, you are still wrong nonetheless.
I read it...and it changes nothing...
Do you deny that Clinton was using US aircraft and cruise missiles to destroy Iraqi installations and kill Iraqi soldiers?
No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....
Do you deny that the official policy of the US under Clinton was "regime change" in Iraq?
No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....
So, the reality of it all is undeniable no matter what HR 4655 says.....Clinton was already using the US military in an attempt to weaken Saddam to the point that Iraqi citizens would rebel against him to provide the final step in "regime change".....the US absolutely playing a vital part....
Its always better to open your eyes to what is actually happening around you instead of just believing what is on the news or in the paper or in some bullshit House Resolution.....
Bombs WERE exploding and people WERE dying in Iraq because of Clinton and his policies.....that is just the unvarnished truth whether you agree or not....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Holy shit, you know you are wrong but the macho side of you will just front it out regardless. Please note that High Noon was a movie, a great one nonetheless, but still a movie for all that.
Well, Its like this TommyBoy....
The only thing that comes to mind is, maybe we are talking about 2 different issues here...
The point I'm making is....Regime change was official policy of the US under the Clinton Administration.....thats just an undeniable fact of history....
and to imply that that policy started under Bush is just wrong.....
Now are you going to seriously deny that fact...???
I never claimed or implied Clinton was going to invade Iraq or drop nuclear bombs on them or anything else.....you can re-read my posts and see for yourself....
If you think I'm wrong about that you going to have to actually prove me wrong....I'll be waiting...
ps
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act[/ame]
Its not difficult to prove historical fact, TommyBoy...
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
What we are arguing about is the means by which the regime change was to be effected and Clinton specifically ruled out an invasion with land forces. I am sure that there is an official policy for regime change in Iran, Burma, North Korea et al but there isn't going to be any military action to bring it about. I had already showed you HR 4655 and guess what, you then said well look here at what I've found...err HR 4655.
Last edited:
I've never heard of any "official" policy of regime change in other countries...note the word "official"....
HR 4655 made Iraqi regime change "official" US policy, Clinton policy....
and I DID NOT say or imply the "well look what I found" crap remark...
what I did say is "I read it"...as a matter of fact I read it in 1998 and thats why I wanted to refute the remark someone made that tried to blame Bush for the Iraqi regime change policy....it was Clinton policy, period!
my opinion about Clinton using action military ?
Its obvious to me that and rest of the world that he did indeed use our military against Saddam and it was an ongoing thing....military action does HAVE TO include ground troops....a cruise missile blowing the shit out of some ground installation is military action to everyone but you it seems....
You seem to think if no ground troops are involved, there is no military action....you're obviously wrong, but I'll not continue to argue the point....
Something tells me we're getting nowhere....you accuse of things I didn't say and its not worth the trouble to explaining it over and over....
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I would have thought that there being over 30,000 US soldiers stationed in South Korea ought to tell you something about US policy towards North Korea. I think you are missng the point deliberately because you don't want to admit that HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.
Last edited:
HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.??
I'd be the first to admit that....thats a fact, and I've never claimed otherwise...
war is war with or without ground troops....and 'regime change' in Iraq was OFFICIAL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION POLICY long before President Bush and no amount of of spin will change that fact of history....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
then you of course must have something other than your alleged evidence in the first post as your quoted part does not specifically state ground forces....
have anything else or are you just spreading meadowmuffins
cancel2 2022
Canceled
od
My God, even Bravo has accepted that HR 4655 precludes the use of ground forces.
My God, even Bravo has accepted that HR 4655 precludes the use of ground forces.
I fail to see the big deal....so what....
Killing Iraqis with cruise missiles and bombs or killing them with M-16 riflemen....
war means killing the enemy, the method is irrelevant...
anyway the real point is what YOU will admit to....
Your claim about Bush and 'regime change' ,in post 9...is at the very least misleading and verges on plain old lying....and its been proven beyond doubt that "regime change" was official Clinton policy....regardless of the methods.....
Its time you owned up to your bullshit and admit the truth....
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
no he didn't...he put a question mark (two actually) to that issue
regardless....appealing to the authority of bravo doesn't provide evidence....so i'll ask again, do you have anything else? because what you showed did not specifically say ground troops....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Jeez, you love to get bogged down in details, Clinton never sanctioned a ground war and Bush did. Both Bush and Blair lied and distorted the facts to go to war, those are the facts and a matter of public testimony from any number of people who were in the know. I would also point that HR 4655 refers to a sum of no more than $97,000,000, so tell me just how long you could finance a ground war with that amount of funding?
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you made a claim and because you can't back it up, you have to whine about details....details matter, as the "ground troops" was the cornerstone of your argument....without it, your argument with bravo fails...
you said "specifically"....yet you are now crying about details....if you can't handle someone questioning your SPECIFIC claim, then go tell mommy she needs you to cut some more onions
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You're the only one arguing the toss, please explain how you can run a ground war on a budget of $97,000,000? That would hardly pay for the fucking Starbucks, MacDonalds and KFC franchises in the Green Zone. You came in like a white knight to ostensibly defend Bravo who conceded the point already.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
wrong again....
i didn't come here to defend bravo, he or she can take care of his or her self....you made a claim that i knew wasn't true, and all you have done since i called you on your bullshit is deflect, the one thing you haven't done is provide any evidence or proof of your claim....the entire bill doesn't say what you claim, hence why you're running around trying to deflect
you obviously can't stand on your claim, can't find any evidence....and you're too much of a wuss to admit you're wrong....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I am not sure if the Chilcot Inquiry, which has just opened in London, has had much coverage in the US thus far. I suspect this will change soon enough.
Blair lied and lied again: Mandarins reveal that 10 days before Iraq invasion PM knew Saddam couldn't use WMDs
By Tim Shipman
Last updated at 10:57 AM on 26th November 2009
No chemical weapons: Tony Blair speaks to British soldiers
The full extent of how Tony Blair misled the public about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before and after the Iraq War was laid bare yesterday.
The Chilcot Inquiry heard that just ten days before the invasion of Iraq Mr Blair was told Saddam had no way of using weapons of mass destruction.
And weapons experts revealed that the former Prime Minister took Britain to war based on intelligence that his own spies rated just 'four out of ten' for accuracy.
On the eve of the conflict, intelligence chiefs told Mr Blair that the Iraqi dictator had no warheads capable of delivering chemical weapons, dramatically undermining the Prime Minister's case for war.
Yet Mr Blair gave the go-ahead for the invasion despite strong evidence that Iraq was no threat to Britain.
Then, after the war, officials had to tell Mr Blair not to 'declare success too rapidly' in the quest to find WMD in Iraq as he continued to make misleading statements claiming that 'massive evidence' had been found.
The revelations reinforce the case that intelligence evidence that Saddam was no threat was ignored by Mr Blair to take Britain to war on a false prospectus.
Sir William Ehrman, former Director General of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, said that on March 10, 2003 - ten days before the start of the war - British spies reported that Iraq had 'disassembled' what chemical weapons it had.
He said: 'On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.'
The evidence was summarised in a Joint Intelligence Committee report circulated in Whitehall on March 19.
Sir William blamed 'contradictory intelligence' for the failure to put the brakes on.
Blood on your hands: A protester dressed as Tony Blair outside the inquiry into the Iraq war
But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter-proliferation between 2000 and 2002, also revealed that a month earlier, in February 2003, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had made clear that he did not believe the mythical weapons existed.
'He raised it at a meeting with ministers,' Mr Dowse said.
More...
- What an insult to the dead: Brown accused of 'suffocating' Iraq inquiry by blocking incriminating evidence
- UK anger as America refuses to share secrets of new radar-evading fighter jet... that Britain helped pay for
- British officials ruled against 'illegal' ousting of Saddam, Iraq inquiry told
- Defence Secretary blasts Obama for 'dither' over more troops for Afghanistan
- 9/11 as it happened: Website releases pager messages sent on day of attacks
The most damning testimony concerned Downing Street's decision to write the now infamous dossier in September 2002 to make the case for war.
Both WMD experts made clear that 'huge gaps' in intelligence on Iraq were flagged up to ministers, leaving them with no excuse when the caveats were removed from the final dossier.
Sir William said experts concluded that there never was 'an imminent threat' from Iraq, describing it only as a 'clear and present threat'.
Risk: Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il were of greater concern than Iraq
He explained that intelligence knowledge of Saddam's weapons programmes was 'patchy' in May 2001, 'sporadic and patchy' in March 2002, and revealed that an August 2002 briefing note for ministers admitted 'we know very little' about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since 1998, when weapons inspectors were ejected.
Both witnesses said that in the years before the war Iraq was not even seen as the main threat.
Sir William said: 'In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq.' Mr Dowse added: 'It wasn't top of the list.'
Saddam Hussein had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda
The Government also tried to justify the war in Iraq because WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists. But Mr Dowse said that Saddam had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda, had 'stepped further back' after the 9/11 attacks and had never passed WMD to terrorists.
By September 2002, as the dossier was being written, Sir William said the intelligence about Saddam's WMD 'remained limited'.
He added: 'The biggest gap in all of that, and one which ministers were extremely well aware of and used extensively, was the lack of interviews with scientists.'
Yet in his foreword to the dodgy dossier, Mr Blair claimed 'beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce biological weapons'.
That claim was condemned by the Butler Report into the intelligence in 2004 as 'not a statement it was possible to make' because 'intelligence does not have that degree of certainty'.
Mr Dowse, who worked on the dossier, made clear he had not seen Mr Blair's foreword before publication and took aim at the former Prime Minister, saying: 'With hindsight the Butler committee made a fair comment.'
Sir William admitted that weapons inspectors said that six out of ten intelligence reports proved inaccurate. 'Four out of ten as a strike rate is pretty good,' he said.
But historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, for the inquiry, interrupted: 'Not when you are going to war.'
Mr Dowse later cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr Blair's claims after the war, when the Iraq Study Group (ISG) was in the process of exposing that there was no WMD in Iraq.
Day one: Chairman John Chilcot (3rd L) speaks during the Iraq Inquiry in central London
In December 2003, nine months after the invasion, Mr Blair was still insisting: 'The ISG has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories.'
Mr Dowse said: 'I did not advise him to use those words', and admitted that officials had told ministers not to 'declare success too rapidly'.
He said: 'My concern was that we should not announce things until we were absolutely certain of our ground because it would have been a disaster, frankly, in PR terms.'
Last night LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey said: 'This new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.
'A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case.'
And 45-minute warning was misleading too...
Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein could hit British targets in just 45 minutes was misleading, the Iraq Inquiry heard.
The claim was the centrepiece of the so-called dodgy dossier published by Downing Street in September 2002 to justify the case for war.
But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter proliferation when the dossier was being drawn up, said that it only ever referred to short-range battlefield rockets, not long-range missiles.
That crucial distinction was omitted from the dossier and encouraged the drift to war.
How 'threat' was reported
Mr Dowse said: 'When I saw the report I didn't give it any particular significance because it didn't seem out of line with what we generally assessed to be Iraq's capability in terms of weapons.
'I assumed it was referring to multibarrelled rocket launchers that could be rapidly deployed in a battlefield. It subsequently took on a rather iconic status that I didn't think those of us who saw the initial report gave it.'
Asked about suggestions that the 45-minute claim referred to WMDs which could be used by Iraq to strike another nation, Mr Dowse said: 'I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way.'
Inquiry panel member Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: 'But you didn't say it wasn't.'
But Mr Dowse admitted that he had pushed for the inclusion of a paragraph on how some Iraqi missiles could hit British bases in Cyprus.
That became conflated with the 45 minute claim at the time, leaving many members of the public with the impression that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed on longrange missiles to hit British targets.
The dossier eventually read that Saddam's 'military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up'.
In his foreword, Mr Blair wrote: 'What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.'
Explore more:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...MD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#ixzz0Y0Jj8gN3
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I haven't insulted you, yet if you keep on calling me names and I will. It seems to be that you have gone all anal about the fact that the actual words 'ground forces' do not appear in the bill even though it is blindingly obvious what is meant to anybody except a pedant like you. Further discourse on this subject is pointless AFAIK, so I bid you goodnight
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, and what was the age of those shells....and when exactly was your tour?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yeah, ALL the FACTS have a way of frustrating the neocon parrots still defending the Bush/Blair bullshit about invading Iraq.