Still thread impaired I see. And I asked you a direct question. Equivocating again?

It is no use even engaging you. You are Col Gene lite, and with less personality.

at least he is honest.

OK, I'm no Tiddler fan, but *THAT* is a GREAT line!

https://forums.joeuser.com/?forumid=3&aid=162615

  

English 101 Tidler. DrGuy <> Paladin77.

Are you going to answer any of the questions?



Second lesson: Honesty <> Correct.

Guess you cant even find a sellers market.

FYI DG "<>" ∉ English  

 

Your opinion? So you are not basing any of this on facts? Then the debate is worthless since unless you are willing to look at the facts rather than your feelings which base your opinions nothing will change.

Your opinion says that there was no threat. The facts are that Saddam publicly stated on more than one occasion that he would sell or even give his stockpiles of WMD to any “freedom fighters” willing to use them on Israel or the United States. That is a threat to the United States and its friend Israel.






I won’t list them all because the same answer applies to all of your fallacy.

There was no doubt because Saddam and his people submitted a list of what they had to the UN at the end of the Gulf War. The UN went into Iraq to verify the list and they stated the list was correct. So a third party verified that the stockpiles exist. 12 years later not all of the stockpiles had been destroyed and Saddam kicked out the inspectors. The remaining stockpiles that were not verified destroyed by the UN are what we have no doubt that he had. He never provided proof that the remaining WMD was destroyed, there was no evidence that he had destroyed anything. The remaining stockpiles is what Saddam was offering to freedom fighters like Al Qaeda who had already attacked the United States three times and made no secret that they were planning to do it again. That sir is a threat to the United States. Not false pretenses. He had the stuff, he admitted he had the stuff, we verified he had the stuff, then he stated he would give the stuff to our enemies. Should we wait until people are dead before we step in?

People complained that the government did not connect the dots to stop AQ from the attack on 9/11, here we had someone saying they were going to aid our enemies in attacking us and you say we should ignore those dots because in your opinion he poses no threat.

The Brits said they had intelligence that Iraq was seeking material that can only be used to build nuclear weapons. The President stated this in his speech and the democrats left out the words so it seemed that he had made it up. It was not our intelligence agencies that found this out, the next lie was that the Brits sexed up the report in order to go to war. This was also disproved but the slogan remained that Bush lied and people died. So all of your protestations only prove that you choose to believe a lie even when faced with facts. This is not a political debate it is a religious debate. Religion is the belief of things unseen. Your beliefs fly in the face of facts which is more properly in the realm of religion.



Good point, what you leave out is that the IAEA put out a report and based on that report our intelligence agencies put an estimate of how long it would take to build the weapons. So it is not false pretenses just choosing to look at things honestly. Does the President need to make a full disclosure of classified information just to satisfy your conspiracy theory? After we failed to find the WMD people wanted to know why? How could we be so wrong? Even former ambassador Wilson admitted that the British report was true, and the Iraqis were trying to buy Yellowcake. Oops publicly he stated the exact opposite.

The president was quite clear in is opinion that Saddam had WMD and he publicly endorsed a policy of regime change for Iraq, he did not do it but he endorsed it making it the policy of the United States.

Feb 4, 1998 Mr. Clinton said “one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. Feb. 17 1998 “if Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.

Dec. 16 1998 Vice President Gore said, “If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use those weapons.”

Senators Levin, Daschle, Kerry and others sent the president a letter on Oct. 9, 1998 in which they urged the president to attack Iraq.

Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the senate intelligence committee, sent a letter to the President dated Dec. 5 2001 saying “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and maybe be back to pre-gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies”

Vice President Cheney made the no doubt comment in 2002 almost a year after Senator Graham made the statement based on intelligence he had seen while we were still dealing with the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and working on a plan to oust QA out of Afghanistan, Iraq was not even a target to the administration at that time yet the democrats were already lining them up in our sights from this letter.


just to name a few.

Your words on reply #26 are what got me started. I replied that I was tired of this falsehood. Below are your words.



Nice try Taddler you state your opinion that we went to war on false pretenses. I offered to set the record straight.



Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the senate intelligence committee, sent a letter to the President dated Dec. 5 2001 saying “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and maybe be back to pre-gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies”

Guess you were wrong there. Just to be fair the UN also stated Saddam had WMD, and just to be real fair Saddam said he had them! He also said he would sell or give them to people who wanted to attack the US or Israel.

But that was not the only reason we invaded Iraq, besides the 12 violations of the peace treaty dealing with WMD he was supporting Al Qaeda in direct violation of the Bush doctrine which states that any nation state that supported, harbored or aided the terrorist of 9/11 would be treated by the government of the United States as a terrorist state and subject to attack. UN resolution 1441 demanded that Saddam prove he destroyed his WMD or the war would resume. He failed to do so. The war resumed. Not false pretenses in the least. He had fair warning from two presidents the UN and other nation states that he had better do right or die. He chose death.


Do you really want me to go point by point the rest of your statements?