Let me get this straight, it's OK for you to use a analogy that that in all probability is a false statement ( Great grands to pay the tab) but yet I'm not allowed to inject a statement that is whole heartily true(because he's not here)?
I don't see the logic in your debating rules, one is the future and one is the present
I'm I to be embarrassed by the little innuere of the Guage wording? You would be wrong on that too.
Well, lets see. I claim a thousand of my neighbors say they don't think the Iraqis, in 2003 before Shock and Awe, posed a threat to us, especially today when it is plain for all to see Saddam had no WMD or ties to Al-Qaeda. So what? I can actually quote either of my two sons on the subject, too. So what?
My point is that something unsupported that my neighbors or son believes and I quote doesn't make it "supported" by either logic or facts. Does it? Even if it is true, which it is in this case (another unsupported claim). Same if I quote my neighbors. So what?
A claim was made, through the quote of a male offspring, that Saddam and the Iraqi people were a mounting threat to Americans in America by suggesting that if we didn't take care of the threat now it would come and get us later, like when our unborn grandchildren are paying taxes. All I ask is for the claimant to make the case. I don't believe that is even remotely true. I didn't make the claim though. Another did, and it is up to the claimant to support it if they would like it to be taken as something other than a claim to have at least a 5 inch long dick without any evidence. No one is directly suggesting the male offspring may not have made such a statement, only that the statement is bullshit without logic, facts or logic and facts to back it up.
My objection to the US remaining embedded in the quagmire in Iraq is that it is costing us the steady stream of lives of our service people, and huge increases in our national debt (apparently to such an extent our President has refused to even list the cost of the war in his budget request as if that made it more affordable or the debt less real) and there is no evidence today that Saddam posed any real threat to the United States then. So there is no "business case" that can be cited that describes with facts or logic or facts and logic, how remaining in the quagmire is the best interests of America. Which is all I care about. Iraqis should care as much about Iraq.
To presume that the UN sanctions and the US enforced "no-fly" zones were not working in 2008 requires that one remain forcefully ignorant of the situation that existed in Iraq the night before Shock and Awe. Go get and actually read the Duelfer Report. Written by a Bush lap dog sent to find those elusive WMD, it is pretty comprehensive and conclusive. Saddam was a crippled dog, posturing to try to keep Iran at bay.
Further, the threat to our grandchildren from Iraq that was suggested would require an explanation of how Saddam could have assembled a force of WMD and means to deliver them to the United States that has not been either described or justified. Or mounted some other kind of as yet unspecified and unjustified threat. Without some backup it can't be viewed as being realistic by anyone willing to apply a minute or two of critical thinking to the claim.
It is clearly a fact that if the costs of the US remaining stuck in the quagmire that we made in Iraq are not inside the budget, which is already a deficit spending plan, then the cost of the President's Iraq Quagmire is not being paid for today. Or tomorrow. By your taxes or mine. Is being funded by debt. By the time this debt is paid, along with the interest, those of us alive and posting here today will be dead and gone. And especially if no one raises taxes like certain others are advocating out of one corner of their mouth while they advocate other policies that are essentially unfunded, like continuing this aggressive foreign policy.
So, the rules, while not documented and enforced by banning are simple. If one expects to be taken for other than a bobbing hard-on and expects one's statements to carry any weight, they have to be backed up by facts, logic or facts and logic. Something other than just speaking from one's offspring's heart, who isn't here to verify the word that were put in his or her mouth. Or merely chanting talking points from the GOP.