What was dishonest about it? I successfully refuted every one of your points and made a great factual and logical case for invading Iraq. You can't argue with my facts, because, well, they are facts!
This was just another case of a total Paulite smackdown because you Paulites refuse to do any fact-finding and refuse to employ logical reasoning. I think it is just as easy to win a debate against you cower-and-hide pacifistic fools as it is debating the loony left liberals.
What is dishonest is that you are a fan of straw man arguments. I'll start calling you out on those if you want. As for your claim that you have successfully refuted every one of my points, that is patently false. You have not only dropped an argument or two, but you have not successfully defended your position on any of the points. Here's one of your dropped arguments I'd really like to see answered:
Oh, I see that you are also part of the "blame America first" crowd. Liberating millions of people from a mass-murdering dictator is a bad thing because we are being, God forbid, intrusive. Puhleeeze.
Again, the Constitution does not authorize us to use our military to liberate millions of people from their dictator. Using your rules of engagement, we should invade North Korea, Cuba, a great deal of African nations, etc.