APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again

Originally Posted by tom prendergast
I provided the evidence and you chose to gainsay it, you are still wrong nonetheless
Click to expand...
.


bravo said:
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....

Actually, it is YOU who are OMITTING FACTS, like the FACT that Clinton's actions were part of the "containment" measures that were started by the Reagan/Bush era. Mind you, the "strategic bombing" decimated the Iraq infrastructure, people and army...making the Shrub's claim of "imminent danger" all the more preposterous. But it was "more or less" in line with the UN agreement of containment. Slick Willy, under pressure from the neocon GOP, initiated the INfamous aspirin factory bombing (for which the GOP ridiculed him for), which interrupted the UN inspectors on the ground..... No one is excusing Slick Willy, but he DID NOT INVADE IRAQ BASED ON DOCTORED INTEL.

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....

Ahhh, but it is YOU who can't deny the FACT that Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq based on doctored intel, and kept within the parameters laid out by the UN...EXCEPT for the strategic bombing, which was a grey area he exploited.

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....

But it was NOT invading via doctored intel under Clinton....big fucking difference. Clinton did what he was famous for...straddling the fence and doing just enough to keep both sides happy. Looking back, which has been more damaging and detrimental to Iraq, the region, the American military and American economy.....the Shrub's bogus invasion/occupation or Slick Willy's containment policy?

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..... You're willful ignorance and myopic revisionism is always a sight to behold.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....
Click to expand...

See previous responses above.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
.




See previous responses above.
Click to expand...

that Clinton's actions were part of the "containment" measures????

Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq ?????

Who the fuck cares, Clarabell....its all irrelevant...if you dont know what the thread is about, you might just as well STFU and stop making an ass of yourself at every opportunity...


The undeniable fact remains....

regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......
so the article "US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)"....By John Byrne

is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy and had been since 1998.....
 
tom prendergast said:
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
Click to expand...

now you resoprt to lying...

you said it specifically mentioned ground troops.....

because you don't want to admit that HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.
Click to expand...

you are again wussing out and claiming its "blindingly obvious"......yet, you said "specifically"......further.....your point was that bravo arguing about clinton's military action and regime change is wrong because --> HR 4655 SPECIFICALLY ruled out military action with GROUND TROOPS (in contra to the military action re the no fly zones, engaging in military combat with saddam's troops under clinton)

it is no wonder you want further discourse on this subject to end.....you're dishonest. at first i thought you just didn't want to admit you're wrong, now, you have elevated it to outright dishonesty.

what a shame
 
bravo said:
that Clinton's actions were part of the "containment" measures????

Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq ?????

Who the fuck cares, Clarabell....its all irrelevant...if you dont know what the thread is about, you might just as well STFU and stop making an ass of yourself at every opportunity...


The undeniable fact remains....

regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......
so the article "US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)"....By John Byrne

is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy and had been since 1998.....
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the frustrating sputterings and spewings of a intellectually impotent neocon parrot when faced with FACTS they cannot refute.

Who cares? Obviously YOU do, you dumb fuck! Because if you didn't, you wouldn't be trying so desperately to separate fact from your supposition and conjecture.

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=560411&postcount=41"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again[/ame]

There was NOT any military build up or call by Slick Willy to invade Iraq. Period. That little gem is the sole possession of the Shrub & company. TFB if you can't handle the truth.

Regime change via economic and political pressure WHILE WORKING WITH ALLIES IN THE UN is one thing to contend with, regime change through invasion/occupation on false pretenses is quite another.

FACTS, you blithering idiot, historical facts that You cannot distort or BS around. Carry on.:cof1:
 
TuTu Monroe said:
No one knows know what Clinton would have done, but he did manage to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan. Now, that was brave.:eek:
Click to expand...

Yep, that really compares with the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians, nearly five thousand military deaths and getting on for around three trillion dollars spent so far.
 
tom prendergast said:
Yep, that really compares with the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians, nearly five thousand military deaths and getting on for around three trillion dollars spent so far.
Click to expand...

I love watching you come back time after time and having your arse handed to you. Then Vinny and Christie come in to save the day!

It just doesn't get much funnier!

You're like a virulent case of herpes. You NEVER go completely away and you're ALWAYS flaring up!


Oy vey! :palm:
 
usaloyal2theend said:
I love watching you come back time after time and having your arse handed to you. Then Vinny and Christie come in to save the day!

It just doesn't get much funnier!

You're like a virulent case of herpes. You NEVER go completely away and you're ALWAYS flaring up!


Oy vey! :palm:
Click to expand...

I glad to know that you had a good time with all the other blue rinse broads at Lake Tahoe, I can just imagine you sitting in front of the slots hour after hour waiting for the big one.
 
Amazing....two pinheads get pwned on the specific subject matter in debate...then deflect admitting their stupidity by trying to introduce issues not in question and whine that we don't try to refute those irrelevant issues....its laughable....


 
Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, ALL the FACTS have a way of frustrating the neocon parrots still defending the Bush/Blair bullshit about invading Iraq.
Click to expand...

.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl:
 
bravo said:
.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl:
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA, you'll never get that guy to shut up. He's nuts.
 
bravo said:
.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl:
Click to expand...

The regime change that was being discussed by the Bush admin, within days of entering the White House, was a full scale land war and not in the least bit comparable to Clinton's use of cruise missiles and no fly zones. Anybody with an ounce of nous knows this is the case, to say anything else is just a pathetic attempt to try to link the two and say they are the same.

There has been years and years of lies, obfuscation and dissemination on the run up to the Iraq War, the truth is finally coming out at the Chilcot Inquiry for all to see, deal with it.


Bravo said earlier:

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....

 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
tom is dishonest
Click to expand...

And you are an anally fixated pillock, why don't you read this and then try to spin it?

(Source)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in late September in order to give our President additional tools with which to confront the continuing threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein. For almost 8 years, since the end of Operation Desert Storm, we have waited for Saddam Hussein's regime to live up to its international obligations. After dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and compromise after compromise, we have too little to show.
The dilemma of current U.S. policy is dramatically illustrated by the events we have witnessed this past year. In January and February, our Nation was on the verge of launching massive military strikes against Iraq in order to compel Saddam to afford U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain sites that he had declared off-limits. Our Nation stood down after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan brokered a deal in which Saddam promised to behave better in the future. But, our leaders said, if Saddam violates his agreement with Kofi Anan, we will retaliate swiftly and massively.
After spending over $1 billion to build up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, those additional forces were slowly drawn down and brought home. And then, of course, Saddam reneged on his commitments once again.
Today is the 61st day without U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. The situation as regards weapons inspections is far worse today than it was back in January and February when our Nation was threatening military action.
One of the reasons our Nation did not undertake military action in February, and one of the reasons our leaders are not today delivering on their threats of swift and massive retaliation, is that the kind of military action they have in mind just might not work. Certainly we can inflict massive damage on Saddam with air strikes. But what if he simply absorbs the damage and continues to defy the U.N.?
As things stand today, we would have only three alternatives in such a situation. First, we could forge ahead with our air strikes, bouncing the rubble in Baghdad, but increasingly making it appear to the world that we are the aggressor, not Saddam. Second, we could mount a second invasion of Iraq by U.S. ground forces. Or, third, we could admit failure and give up.
Of course, none of these alternatives have been considered acceptable. And so today we find our Nation paralyzed by indecision. Saddam has never before been in such clear violation of his international obligations. Our government has never before been so obviously unwilling to do anything about it.
The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act is to try to break this logjam. It creates a fourth alternative, an alternative that meets both our short-term and our longer-term requirements with regard to Iraq. In the short term, we need to be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on Saddam in order to force him to comply with his international obligations. In the longer term, we need to remove his regime from power.
 
tom prendergast said:
I glad to know that you had a good time with all the other blue rinse broads at Lake Tahoe, I can just imagine you sitting in front of the slots hour after hour waiting for the big one.
Click to expand...

Yeah me and the other "blue rinse broads". Hee-hee-hee. Gives me immense satisfaction that you see me so.

'Course you running around skipping like Little Lord Fauntleroy has always been a vision that produces the most giggles, but the fact that the other men here see you for what you truly are, a hysterical, hand-wringing, simpering sop is worth every last second of your disdain and animus.

Carry on chap!

:good4u:
 
tom prendergast said:
And you are an anally fixated pillock, why don't you read this and then try to spin it?

(Source)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in late September in order to give our President additional tools with which to confront the continuing threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein. For almost 8 years, since the end of Operation Desert Storm, we have waited for Saddam Hussein's regime to live up to its international obligations. After dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and compromise after compromise, we have too little to show.
The dilemma of current U.S. policy is dramatically illustrated by the events we have witnessed this past year. In January and February, our Nation was on the verge of launching massive military strikes against Iraq in order to compel Saddam to afford U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain sites that he had declared off-limits. Our Nation stood down after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan brokered a deal in which Saddam promised to behave better in the future. But, our leaders said, if Saddam violates his agreement with Kofi Anan, we will retaliate swiftly and massively.
After spending over $1 billion to build up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, those additional forces were slowly drawn down and brought home. And then, of course, Saddam reneged on his commitments once again.
Today is the 61st day without U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. The situation as regards weapons inspections is far worse today than it was back in January and February when our Nation was threatening military action.
One of the reasons our Nation did not undertake military action in February, and one of the reasons our leaders are not today delivering on their threats of swift and massive retaliation, is that the kind of military action they have in mind just might not work. Certainly we can inflict massive damage on Saddam with air strikes. But what if he simply absorbs the damage and continues to defy the U.N.?
As things stand today, we would have only three alternatives in such a situation. First, we could forge ahead with our air strikes, bouncing the rubble in Baghdad, but increasingly making it appear to the world that we are the aggressor, not Saddam. Second, we could mount a second invasion of Iraq by U.S. ground forces. Or, third, we could admit failure and give up.
Of course, none of these alternatives have been considered acceptable. And so today we find our Nation paralyzed by indecision. Saddam has never before been in such clear violation of his international obligations. Our government has never before been so obviously unwilling to do anything about it.
The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act is to try to break this logjam. It creates a fourth alternative, an alternative that meets both our short-term and our longer-term requirements with regard to Iraq. In the short term, we need to be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on Saddam in order to force him to comply with his international obligations. In the longer term, we need to remove his regime from power.
Click to expand...



Is that steam rising out of your knickers I see?

Compose yourself ol chap! :eek:
 
tom prendergast said:
And you are an anally fixated pillock, why don't you read this and then try to spin it?

(Source)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in late September in order to give our President additional tools with which to confront the continuing threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein. For almost 8 years, since the end of Operation Desert Storm, we have waited for Saddam Hussein's regime to live up to its international obligations. After dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and compromise after compromise, we have too little to show.
The dilemma of current U.S. policy is dramatically illustrated by the events we have witnessed this past year. In January and February, our Nation was on the verge of launching massive military strikes against Iraq in order to compel Saddam to afford U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain sites that he had declared off-limits. Our Nation stood down after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan brokered a deal in which Saddam promised to behave better in the future. But, our leaders said, if Saddam violates his agreement with Kofi Anan, we will retaliate swiftly and massively.
After spending over $1 billion to build up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, those additional forces were slowly drawn down and brought home. And then, of course, Saddam reneged on his commitments once again.
Today is the 61st day without U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. The situation as regards weapons inspections is far worse today than it was back in January and February when our Nation was threatening military action.
One of the reasons our Nation did not undertake military action in February, and one of the reasons our leaders are not today delivering on their threats of swift and massive retaliation, is that the kind of military action they have in mind just might not work. Certainly we can inflict massive damage on Saddam with air strikes. But what if he simply absorbs the damage and continues to defy the U.N.?
As things stand today, we would have only three alternatives in such a situation. First, we could forge ahead with our air strikes, bouncing the rubble in Baghdad, but increasingly making it appear to the world that we are the aggressor, not Saddam. Second, we could mount a second invasion of Iraq by U.S. ground forces. Or, third, we could admit failure and give up.
Of course, none of these alternatives have been considered acceptable. And so today we find our Nation paralyzed by indecision. Saddam has never before been in such clear violation of his international obligations. Our government has never before been so obviously unwilling to do anything about it.
The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act is to try to break this logjam. It creates a fourth alternative, an alternative that meets both our short-term and our longer-term requirements with regard to Iraq. In the short term, we need to be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on Saddam in order to force him to comply with his international obligations. In the longer term, we need to remove his regime from power.
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with anything? it doesn't take away from the fact that you lied when you said it specifically mentioned ground troops
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top