Originally Posted by mob17
How can you not once offer any relevant collection of facts to bolster your assertions? Why do you consistently offer nothing but empty claims and fallacies -- the one above is called "red herring" -- to refute me? So far, the only things I've seen you write are your own declarations of of your opinions.
Regarding the fact that the US supplied the chemical weapons to Iraq bolsters the claim that Iraq had such things. That fact alone suggests the likelihood that each of following premises is true:
- The US knew the minimum quantity of chemical weapons and/or chemical substances that Iraq had.
- The US knew whether Iraq had the capacity to produce more on its own.
- The US knew whether or not the quantity Saddam used was less than the quantity he obtained from the US
- Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the US knew that at a minimum Saddam still had some of the chems left over even after using some of them.
If that conclusion is accurate, it is enough to support a claim that he had chemical WMD.
It's not my government that I'm defending. In response to your hyperbole, I offer facts, thoughts and ideas -- via inductive or deductive reasoning -- to support the claims I have made; it' is my own assertions I defend. Unlike you, I don't just toss out inflammatory remarks that I don't also support. Moreover, unlike you, I don't use logical fallacies to try to refute the claims of others.