How long should I give this liberal to respond to the debate he wanted?

Question

This was my original question, and 'sagacious' responded. I told him I would discuss each one of his points one by one, not mashing it all together like liberals like to do.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Alhmqcz7JG0sh8ZUOm8SFKPty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070907205707AAM9N39

Here is the very short record of the debate, I emailed him my last communication, Friday, and here is the transcript of our communication:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfhs3jqn_0fz7jnd&pli=1

Should I give him more time? Or is he going to ignore me because he can't respond to facts, in an organized fashion?

What do you wish to debate ashley? The person I'm talking about made several allegations in an answer to my question, so I know the topics.

paleolibs,, i love it!

I love it,, I don't check this message for 20 minutes, and I'm running.

Anyways, you have been emailed

Answer 1

I replied to your first email regarding the use of 'neo-conservatives' as propaganda. I didn't save it to a text file, perhaps you would be kind enough to copy that email reply in this question. Here's an answer to your other arguments:

You cited 16 U.N. mandates that Iraq violated prior to the invasion, but you overlooked the fact that the UN did not approve of the invasion of Iraq:
-- Iraq war illegal, says Annan
"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
-- UN Resolution 1441: Blackmailing The Security Council
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew74.php
-- If you think 16 resolution against Iraq justified an invasion, then what do you propose the US do about a nation that has raked up 429 resolutions and condemned 321 times?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

As for WMDs... if all you read is from the whitehouse.gov site, then I suppose I understand why you say we went to Iraq for WMDs. Yes, I know I cited from whitehouse.gov as well, but it was for direct quotes of what Bush said in speeches regarding going after bin Laden, and then him 'changing his mind'.

Now back to intelligence on WMDs:
-- WMD: Intelligence Tested
If the intelligence wasn't faulty as you implied, then why was it so widely criticisized and ultimately investigated?
"On Feb. 2, George W. Bush, under pressure, was obliged to announce that he would name an independent commission to investigate the intelligence material that formed the basis for the war on Iraq."
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1828.cfm
-- Report: Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong'
"The panel also determined the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html
-- The Downing Street Memo(s)
Details of meetings regarding British and US intelligence on Iraq as well as links to the forged Niger documents ("yellow-cake uranium)
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/related.html
-- Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again."
** I cited and quoted this article in an edit to your original question, but you made no mention of it in your three emails. Did you look at it?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index_np.html

Thank you again for replying in a polite manner with your three subsequent emails. I hope you see now that I am willing to debate calmly and reasonably. Perhaps, as a courtesy, you might consider apologizing for the very first email you sent that cussed me out for merely posting my opinion in your question. Or is it not in a 'conservative' gentleman's "guide to online ettiquete" to show that courtesy to a 'liberal' lady? :-)

Answer 2

The groundwork of technological know-how is to impeach and re-scan theories. It's less than Al Gore to argue till the tip of time with folks who do not suppose the technological know-how that has been in the market for many years.

Answer 3

can i debate you, please. but you have to be willing to respond to the facts i give you as well.


i just read the argument you had and i understand your point of view of 9/11, iraq, al qaeda, war on terror. and i just would love to have one dicussion with a 9/11 believer just to show one of them what i know about all of it. it just really aggravates me that so many "believers" do not bother looking up facts and you seem to be one that has looked up facts. i don't understand how you can still have the opinions you have. you say you know why we went into iraq. i would love to show you the real reason. among other interesting facts. my msn messenger is [e-mail]

i guess you changed your mind. damn. i can never get a believer to discuss facts.

here you are doing exactly what you were bitching about some other guy doing to you. run, forest, run.

Answer 4

I didn't read your debate but I've been getting mailer demon notices on all emails sent through this site for about two weeks now . .

Answer 5

The paleolibs on YA like to make up lies and get crazy. Very few of them can come up with facts to back up their statements. So don't count on getting into a real debate with any.

Answer 6

Maybe the libs on his way over to settle this the old fashioned way.

Answer 7

you are BRILLIANT, my fellow Yahoo Answers member. You realize as not many others do, that Liberals PANDER but mostly to those that agree with them. Liberals cannot stand anyone else being right, so your Liberal opponent will not answer anything that would make them look like the losers they truly are. Do not worry if they do not respond--it means you win by default.