NationStates Jolt Archive

post your comments and observations here

I don't think I would call this a "debate"...

It's more like a bunch of 2 minute stump speech excerpts.

I didn't watch it. From the previous comment it sounds like nothing new was said. Did the candidates even refute each other's points?

I didn't watch it. From the previous comment it sounds like nothing new was said. Did the candidates even refute each other's points?

I'm watching it now, live. They try to begin refuting points, but then just revert to stump speeches. Hopefully, it'll get better.

Kerry and bush are funny:

Bush says, "We(presidents) have to be right 100% of time".
Me: Yet think about it. He has been wrong with liberators greeting us. Wrong with abu Grarib. And more. So Bush should wonder about his Presidency...

Its going pretty good. Not best debate but eh...

It's about 40 minutes in. So far, it's nothing new, they're being genteel, and it still looks to me that they're 70-80% the same.

Kerry keeps agreeing that he has flip-flopped on the issues. He's nodded his head when Bush has said that's what he's done. We also did go to U.N. first but they wouldn't help. I saw videos on TV of Kuwaiti prisoners that were being killed by Saddam's police. Bush has done a lot better.

"The american people decide what we do. I decide."
Comenting on how we defend ourselves. So now he is the American people?

"The american people decide what we do. I decide."
Comenting on how we defend ourselves. So now he is the American people?
He is the representive of the U.S. among the world. He has the powers to do that. Besides if we kept waiting for France and Germany to get a backbone, Saddam would have gotten away.

Here goes Kerry again with the Vietnam War.

He is the representive of the U.S. among the world. He has the powers to do that. Besides if we kept waiting for France and Germany to get a backbone, Saddam would have gotten away.

They have backbone, they're noble nations. However, they would never get involved... it's all about the Benjamins. Or in this case, BILLIONS of dollars.

Nothing but the usual rhetoric between Bush and Kohn.

They have backbone, they're noble nations. However, they would never get involved... it's all about the Benjamins. Or in this case, BILLIONS of dollars.
Its not about the money, its about the freedom. I thought liberals were all about freedom.

How much they're repeating themselves?

He is the representive of the U.S. among the world. He has the powers to do that. Besides if we kept waiting for France and Germany to get a backbone, Saddam would have gotten away.
IF he left Bush said he wouldn't have invaded...
So maybe we should have waited?

Its not about the money, its about the freedom. I thought liberals were all about freedom.

I don't follow you. What do you mean? France, Germany and Russia were all against the war in Iraq because they were making tons of cash...

I don't follow you. What do you mean? France, Germany and Russia were all against the war in Iraq because they were making tons of cash...

They were against the war primarily to please the Mohammadans as well.

They were against the war primarily to please the Mohammadans as well.

Perhaps the French were, but that's likely since they want to be the "counterbalance" to the US.

I don't follow you. What do you mean? France, Germany and Russia were all against the war in Iraq because they were making tons of cash...
Oh I'm sorry I thought....forgive me. I agree. They were being sold out by Saddam, the traitors.

Perhaps the French were, but that's likely since they want to be the "counterbalance" to the US.

They all were. Mohammadans have tremendous control over both Europe and Russia.

Oh I'm sorry I thought....forgive me. I agree. They were being sold out by Saddam, the traitors.
Not sold out, SOLD. Saddam's gov't owed the Germans 7 BILLION (US Dollars) alone. The French held chits for the same amount, perhaps more. The Russians? At least 2 Billion...

Not sold out, SOLD. Saddam's gov't owed the Germans 7 BILLION (US Dollars) alone. The French held chits for the same amount, perhaps more. The Russians? At least 2 Billion...
I know. They betrayed us by going for the money.

Kerry wants bi-lateral talks with North Korea, but UN intervention in Iraq!

"Bush invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. That would be like... like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor!" --John Kerry

Kerry wants bi-lateral talks with North Korea, but UN intervention in Iraq!
I know. It makes no sense!

"Bush invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. That would be like... like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor!" --John Kerry
That was just stupid of Kerry.

"Bush invaded Iraq in response to 9/11. That would be like... like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor!" --John Kerry

For the Zimmerman Telegram and if the President was Wilson. :)
http://www.europeanhistory.about.com/cs/americainww1/p/przimmermantele.htm

A better quote would have been invading... oh... Yemen.

They all were. Mohammadans have tremendous control over both Europe and Russia.
They do? I thought we were controlled by the Jews? :rolleyes:

That Bush's speech impediment is barely noticable tonight. He's doing a much better job than in the first Gore debate.

Kerry has his usual eloquence, but he is talking a lot with his hands... kind of strange.

That Bush's speech impediment is barely noticable tonight.
Realy? I hear lot's of eeh's, umms and long pauses when he's speaking.

The threasts? Whats a threast?

They do? I thought we were controlled by the Jews? :rolleyes:
The Jewnited States and Jewnited Kingdom are controlled by Jews.
Mohammadans control the remainder of the West, save few.

Realy? I hear lot's of eeh's, umms and long pauses when he's speaking.

Consider how he spoke in the 2000 debates.

The Jewnited States and Jewnited Kingdom are controlled by Jews.
Mohammadans control the remainder of the West, save few.
Aah. Right.

It's important to have good relationships with people so when you disagree you can disagree effectivly? Bwahahaha.

Besides if we kept waiting for France and Germany to get a backbone, Saddam would have gotten away.

Where was he going to hide? If we didn't invade he would have no reason to run. And when he did hide, it was in a spider hole in some Iraqi's backyard.

He climbed the high mountain and when he looks down he sees the valley of peace? He sure has a funny idea about peace.

They're both still full of shit, but Kerry is still much better.

Kerry wants bi-lateral talks with North Korea, but UN intervention in Iraq!

Are you suggesting we invade N. Korea? With what? We are tied up in Iraq.

It makes perfect sense that we use UN intervention in Iraq since there is no one to talk to there except ourselves (which also rules out invasion, since we did that already :) ). Would talking to ourselves solve any problems there?

Talking is all we can do in N. Korea since the military is occupied. At least if the lines of communication keep open the odds are low that anyone will nuke anyone.

Are you suggesting we invade N. Korea? With what? We are tied up in Iraq.

It makes perfect sense that we use UN intervention in Iraq since there is no one to talk to there except ourselves. Would talking to ourselves solve any problems there?

Talking is all we can do in N. Korea since the military is occupied. At least if the lines of communication keep open the odds are low that anyone will nuke anyone.
Puh. The US dumped Afghanistan as soon as they found out Iraq had WMD's!!!
Why not do the same now?

Kerry did very well and I wasn't very displeased with Bush's performance. Bush did have a lower-grade visual performance. The most points go to Kerry.

The information and opinions presented are nothing new to us here on NS. The debates were mostly "stump speeches" as someone here pointed out. Hopefully, this is jsut a warm up and the second one will bear more interesting fruit.

Kerry wants bi-lateral talks with North Korea, but UN intervention in Iraq!

And Bush wanted multinational support in North Korea, but basically went it alone in Iraq.

Mexed Missages. Dont forget those!

I think Kerry did a much better job. He refuted accusations of indecisivness, outlined some specific actions he believes would work, and came off as a passionate speaker. Bush on the other hand repeated himself many times and tended to skirt the issues more frequently.

OMFG....I'm reading about the debate on another forum, and most of the people there think Bush won that debate hands down.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1628790

Idiots....they're......everywhere......

Kerry is a good debate because he´s a goddamn lawyer. Bush is not as verbally adept, but neither was Otto von Bismarck, who led Germany to become the single most powerful nation in Europe. He would speak in the Reichstag and would be at lost for words, stammering and muttering like Bush. Some Reichstag members would giggle and Bismarck would shake his fist and yell "I am not an orator. I am a statesman".

However, Hitler was a very good public speaker, like Kerry is (except Hitler´s speeches were more exciting and invigorating, whereas Kerry´s sounds like a dial tone), and rose to power to become one of, if not the most powerful man in Europe and conquered more of Europe than any other European leader. Thus, Kerry´s debating skills are a very important asset to him, and without them, he probably less successful in his campaigning.

I'm not watching the pundits, (Simpsons is on, and the debate already cost me one Simpsons....) but here's my guess-Since Bush kept repeating the same thing over and over again no matter what the question was, he'll be praised for 'staying on message.' Since Kerry gave detailed answers to questions and outlined differences(sp) and failures of Bush he'll be criticized for being vague.

No mention will be made of Bush fidgeting like someone was telling him he wasn't getting any cookies, but the odd smirk by Kerry will make front page news.

OMFG....I'm reading about the debate on another forum, and most of the people there think Bush won that debate hands down.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1628790

Idiots....they're......everywhere......

LOL

Drinking and politics don't mix. However, one always leads to the other. :D

I'm liking how Dubya is confusing Saddam and Osama all the time

LOL

Drinking and politics don't mix. However, one always leads to the other. :D


Yup yup! ;)

And what was that thing about decreasing funding for nuclear proliferation? What was that about? :confused: I didn't quite get that with all his stammering.

I'm not sure I liked this debate very much. It doesn't help Bush to "search" for his words like he did so often. It seemed Kerry appeared more confident to me, but that may just be because of Bush's continued trouble with the English language.

Other than that, it was nothing new really. Both candidates continued to repeat themselves, but what else can you really expect when both sides have already been debated to the core?

Kerry's stance, especially on international diplomacy, is much more acceptable for Europeans. Bush already proved that the UN or alliances mean nothing to him. Allies can be dropped and mocked whenever they are not suckling up to the US, falling into the dry dust and begging for a drop of milk of the teat of freedom and liberty of the USA.

My stance is firm and after this debate remains firm: Kerry must be the next US president. Firstly he has much better views (actually he has views) on all sorts of issues without resorting to beating the same old phrases that Bush continues to use, secondly, Kerry does not have the stained reputation in the world that Bush has. If there is supposed to be international support, especially from Germany and France and other European countries, then only Kerry is acceptable as partner for negotiations.

I posted this in the other thread, but I thought Kerry did a much better job as a speaker, and since debates are mostly about speaking ability and not really about actual points about policy, Kerry won the debate.

Of course, if Kerry supporters weren't so hung up on laughing at whether or not the president is a good speaker, they may have realized some of the points that Bush were bringing up were excellent points, although Kerry had some good ones too.

I think the concluding statements were the best, for both of them.

Kerry's stance, especially on international diplomacy, is much more acceptable for Europeans.
I find Kerry just as unacceptable as Bush. Both believe the world wants to be led by them.

Moderator: "We're going to talk about Putin and Russia now."
Bush: "I really think we needed to attack Iraq."

Moderator: "Do you think we'll be in danger if Kerry is elected?"
Bush: "I don't think that will happen so I am going to avoid the question and make myself look like an ass."

That pretty much sums it up. Bush's two points the whole time were "I believe we needed to attack Iraq" and "Kerry changes his mind!!!"

That was just stupid of Kerry.
Actually Kerry hit the nail on the head. Bush forgot about the war on terrorism, the moment he sent troops into Iraq and left only 15,000 troops in Afghanistan looking for Bush's PRIORITY terrorist Bin Laden.

I posted this in the other thread, but I thought Kerry did a much better job as a speaker, and since debates are mostly about speaking ability and not really about actual points about policy, Kerry won the debate.

Actually, the expert from Emory University had Kerry winning on all of the points, but Bush won for style. Go figure.

Of course, if Kerry supporters weren't so hung up on laughing at whether or not the president is a good speaker, they may have realized some of the points that Bush were bringing up were excellent points, although Kerry had some good ones too.

You have to admit though, it was funny when Bush paused for over three seconds trying to remember the words "Senator Kerry."

I find Kerry just as unacceptable as Bush. Both believe the world wants to be led by them.


Yeah, Kerry is no knight in shining armor himself, but he is a lesser douche than Bush, no?

Yeah, Kerry is no knight in shining armor himself, but he is a lesser douche than Bush, no?
No. He's just as bad. He just doesn't stammer as much as Bush does.

OMFG....I'm reading about the debate on another forum, and most of the people there think Bush won that debate hands down.

I'd say Bush won it easily. He was on the offensive for most of it. Sure Kerry is a better speaker, but Bush knows how to hit his points. You still walk away with a clear picture of Bush's plan and a wishy washy feeling about Kerry. Kerry didn't distinguish his ideas from Bush's nearly enough. He had to be on the attack on these things, and it seemed like his biggest point was that we didn't give diplomacy and the UN enough time before Iraq. No matter where Kerry went, Bush hit him again and again with the same points, and in a 90 minute speech, that's what is gonna stick.

Actually, the expert from Emory University had Kerry winning on all of the points, but Bush won for style. Go figure.

You have to admit though, it was funny when Bush paused for over three seconds trying to remember the words "Senator Kerry."

I suspect that if you take an "expert" from somewhere else, they'd say the exact opposite. You can always find experts that say different things. The channel I watched it off of (A Canadian channel, it had a representative from the Dems and the Reps after speaking about the debate), and both of them thought their own candidates had better points AND style (although then again, they probably just don't wanna say anything bad about their own leader)

And yes, I know, it was funny when Bush kept pausing trying to remember words lol. I don't think it's something it'd make sense to choose a president over, but yeah it was funny (although slightly depressing too)

No. He's just as bad. He just doesn't stammer as much as Bush does.

Or answer every question with IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ!!!

It seemed to me as if they were repeating themselves a lot and talking past each other. Bush seemed to be a bit more repetitive than Kerry, and Kerry seemed at times to contradict himself. I was hoping for a bit of fireworks! Sigh.

Or answer every question with IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ!!!
At least thats one word he can remember.
I wonder if his oratoriol powers stem from his long, close, intimate relationship with the bottle.

I'd say Bush won it easily. He was on the offensive for most of it. Sure Kerry is a better speaker, but Bush knows how to hit his points. You still walk away with a clear picture of Bush's plan and a wishy washy feeling about Kerry. Kerry didn't distinguish his ideas from Bush's nearly enough. He had to be on the attack on these things, and it seemed like his biggest point was that we didn't give diplomacy and the UN enough time before Iraq. No matter where Kerry went, Bush hit him again and again with the same points, and in a 90 minute speech, that's what is gonna stick.


LOL, are you serious? Saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", and "Kerry is inconsistant" over and over again is making a good point? All Bush did was whine, sigh, make faces, stammer and give open ended answers. He did not answer any of those questions directly. Kerry was in fact the one on the offensive, he hammered out his views and plans and shoved Dubya's words back down his throat.

Kerry definatly laid the smackdown on Bush.

I'd say Bush won it easily. He was on the offensive for most of it. Sure Kerry is a better speaker, but Bush knows how to hit his points. You still walk away with a clear picture of Bush's plan and a wishy washy feeling about Kerry. Kerry didn't distinguish his ideas from Bush's nearly enough. He had to be on the attack on these things, and it seemed like his biggest point was that we didn't give diplomacy and the UN enough time before Iraq. No matter where Kerry went, Bush hit him again and again with the same points, and in a 90 minute speech, that's what is gonna stick.
Actually, as a Conservative I came away with the opposite reaction.

Bush continually repeated bad points, obviously coached points, and in many cases, irrelevant points. He did not expound on what his plans where, he did not explain in detail any changes he would make, basically he sounded like he was going to keep doing exactly what he was doing, and screw the consequences. Frankly, Bush came out looking absolutely terrible, his plans got absolutely overrun by Kerry's more detailed plans, and his points where in many cases obliterated by Kerry's retorts, whereas the President rarely actually retorted against Kerry's remarks, merely restating the same points consistently.

I walked away from that debate shaking my head and grimacing that this is what we Conservatives are fielding. The man could barely defend himself, and often he didn't, he just went off on a tangent. I hoped he would put forward a plan for Iraq, or a domestic plan, or something regarding nuclear materials, instead we got the same old "I'm right, we'll keep doing what we are doing, and hopefully it will all work out" rhetoric. I was extremely disappointed.

It seemed to me as if they were repeating themselves a lot and talking past each other. Bush seemed to be a bit more repetitive than Kerry, and Kerry seemed at times to contradict himself. I was hoping for a bit of fireworks! Sigh.
How did Kerry "seem" to contradict himself?

"My stance is firm and after this debate remains firm: Kerry must be the next US president. Firstly he has much better views (actually he has views) on all sorts of issues without resorting to beating the same old phrases that Bush continues to use, secondly, Kerry does not have the stained reputation in the world that Bush has. If there is supposed to be international support, especially from Germany and France and other European countries, then only Kerry is acceptable as partner for negotiations."

But on the other hand, and this I think Bush unfortunately completely brain farted on... Kerry's ideas will COST MORE MONEY... much more than simply retaxing the rich (you know, the ones responsible for all the jobs?). It's the same old Demo political line. "I'll give you more!! Much more!!" Excuse me, but exactly how big a bite out of my paycheck do you intend to take sir?

Another boner missed by Bush... Kerry goes on about mobilizing MORE TROOPS and training MORE special forces... come again? Isn't he also saying that our forces are "stretched to the max"? If so, then how does he propose filling the shoes of those forces... could it be... OMIGOD... a DRAFT?!? You know, the very thing the "urban legend" emails are whipping around the internet by the Dems are all about??

Can Kerry analyze and debate... yeah, very well thanks... Is there anything he said that makes me any more comfortable that he won't just lead us down the wrong path of broken promises and increased cost and drag on our economy? Nope...

So, the "undecided's" get to chose based on a personality contest... sheesh do we look dumb and gullible.

LOL, are you serious? Saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", and "Kerry is inconsistant" over and over again is making a good point? All Bush did was whine, sigh, make faces, stammer and give open ended answers. He did not answer any of those questions directly. Kerry was in fact the one on the offensive, he hammered out his views and plans and shoved Dubya's words back down his throat.

He had a few points, and he stuck with them. He was trying to portray Kerry as the wrong guy to lead our soldiers, so he hit that point again and again. Kerry wasn't making the hits back very well. He didn't distinguish his plan from the presidents course. And I think Bush nailed him on North Korea, because Kerry basically kept saying we need to go it alone with the talks, and Bush said we need to keep China, Russia, Japan and South Korea involved.

Can anyone name just one issue that Bush and Kohn will take different action on?

It seemed to me as if they were repeating themselves a lot and talking past each other. Bush seemed to be a bit more repetitive than Kerry, and Kerry seemed at times to contradict himself. I was hoping for a bit of fireworks! Sigh.

I thought he stepped all over his own feet on Iraq in the beginning. He eventually settled down and got his story straight, but not before he contradicted himself alot.

He had a few points, and he stuck with them. He was trying to portray Kerry as the wrong guy to lead our soldiers, so he hit that point again and again. Kerry wasn't making the hits back very well. He didn't distinguish his plan from the presidents course. And I think Bush nailed him on North Korea, because Kerry basically kept saying we need to go it alone with the talks, and Bush said we need to keep China, Russia, Japan and South Korea involved.

Except that's not what Kerry said at all - in fact he specifically said that we *do* need to keep everyone else involved. However, he also feels that bilateral talks are necessary. You are making the same silly mistake Bush did, thinking that it is one or the other.

Oh and:
http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/bush.html

Kind of a fun comic.

"My stance is firm and after this debate remains firm: Kerry must be the next US president. Firstly he has much better views (actually he has views) on all sorts of issues without resorting to beating the same old phrases that Bush continues to use, secondly, Kerry does not have the stained reputation in the world that Bush has. If there is supposed to be international support, especially from Germany and France and other European countries, then only Kerry is acceptable as partner for negotiations."

But on the other hand, and this I think Bush unfortunately completely brain farted on... Kerry's ideas will COST MORE MONEY... much more than simply retaxing the rich (you know, the ones responsible for all the jobs?). It's the same old Demo political line. "I'll give you more!! Much more!!" Excuse me, but exactly how big a bite out of my paycheck do you intend to take sir?

Another boner missed by Bush... Kerry goes on about mobilizing MORE TROOPS and training MORE special forces... come again? Isn't he also saying that our forces are "stretched to the max"? If so, then how does he propose filling the shoes of those forces... could it be... OMIGOD... a DRAFT?!? You know, the very thing the "urban legend" emails are whipping around the internet by the Dems are all about??

Can Kerry analyze and debate... yeah, very well thanks... Is there anything he said that makes me any more comfortable that he won't just lead us down the wrong path of broken promises and increased cost and drag on our economy? Nope...

So, the "undecided's" get to chose based on a personality contest... sheesh do we look dumb and gullible.
Well actually, what your talking about here is wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, Kerry has proposed to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, and give NEW tax cuts to the middle and lower class. This tactic actually produces a net gain in governmental income, and gives an influx of spending money into the nation's most important economic group, its middle class. (According to many economic experts of today, and even those from the last 20 years, "Trickle" economics are fundamentally flawed. When you are giving massive returns to people already fabulously wealthy, you are not giving them money they are going to spend. They don't have anything to spend it on, especially today when they are anywhere from 30-70 times richer proportionally then they were in Reagan's era)

Also, to explain the problem with the military is simple. We currently have a maximum army capacity, wherein we cannot create more active divisions than we have now. What Kerry wants to do is raise that bar, thereby allowing us to add 2 more active divisions, and extra special forces from both our reserve/garrison pools, from other forces around the world, and from volunteers. To talk of a draft is not only ridiculuous, its misguided, ignorant, and stupid.

I was more worried of Bush's promises than Kerry's. Kerry has said where he will get the funding from. Bush just merely took every criticism and said, we are planning on spending more. As a Conservative I found this extremely unsettling. Our own candidate...proposing to increase funds in every category talked about? What happened to balancing the budget. Until we repeal these ridiculuously misguided tax cuts for the wealthy, we cannot prosper. We cannot steal from our children. We must figure something out, and more of the same won't help us.

Can anyone name just one issue that Bush and Kohn will take different action on?
How about three distinct ones:

1. An exit plan from Iraq, which Bush doesn't have.

2. That Kerry will hunt down TERRORISTS and kill them and not leave them hiding in some cave whilst flying off to Iraq to get a harmless dictator.

3. Kerry will seek to include traditional allies in regards to future missions. I think Kerry made an excellent point of detailing that the US was suffering 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs for the war on Iraq.

Yeah, I know this is a short post:

Kerry won: Why? : Bush stalled, stopped, stumbled, repeated over and over again basics that we already knew. Kerry got out his stance on World Policies, on N. Korea and Iraq. He told the general public what he believed in and I believe he helped himself to some Undecided Voters.

So if anyone believes Bush one by repeating, stopping, stalling, erroring, and stumbling all around, I would have to disagree with you, if anything he was handed a major defeat.

Can anyone name just one issue that Bush and Kohn will take different action on?

If I could figure out what Kerry REALLY thought about an issue, I would compare them.

Kerry outwitted Bush by far. He did great on the topic everyone though he would do bad on. Go Dems!

LOL, are you serious? Saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", and "Kerry is inconsistant" over and over again is making a good point? All Bush did was whine, sigh, make faces, stammer and give open ended answers. He did not answer any of those questions directly. Kerry was in fact the one on the offensive, he hammered out his views and plans and shoved Dubya's words back down his throat.

Kerry definatly laid the smackdown on Bush.

Hmm. You sure you watched the same debate I did? It was Kerry who used the phrase "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," not Bush.

If I could figure out what Kerry REALLY thought about an issue, I would compare them.
Kerry gave many great points in regards to REAL issues.

If I could figure out what Kerry REALLY thought about an issue, I would compare them.

If you really watched the debate, you would know. Thats really all I can say, he was upfront and honest about World Policy and Defence. Can't wait for the next 2 debates.

Hmm. You sure you watched the same debate I did? It was Kerry who used the phrase "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," not Bush.

They seemed to use it equally, Bush to try and hurt Kerry and his leadership skills toward the Armed Forces and Public and Kerry to do the same to Bush.

Hmm. You sure you watched the same debate I did? It was Kerry who used the phrase "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," not Bush.

I don't recall Kerry saying that during the debate. He said it sometime before I believe and even admitted that the language may have been wrong (Oh my God, a candidate that can admit when he's wrong!!???). Bush, on the other hand, used it at least 5 times in reference to Kerry - even when the topic at hand was Russia.

Everyone saying Bush won it hands down or Kerry won it hands down need a stronger prescription for glasses.

The fact is that both candidates always changed the question, so they could say what they want to say. No one ever said yes and explained their answer. For those people who dont like Kerry well he either 1. stays with his positions and you dont like him of 2. he changes them and you call him a flip flopper! Those who dont like Bush 1. probably dont like him somewhat because of his stubborness and therefore dont like him sticking to points or 2. think he is stupid and his stammering funny (it was kind of). Now for my opinion.

In my view I believe Kerry did a good job of defining himself. He made several definate statements and also attacked the presidents positions a little. The president was trying to blur the issue. He always talked about Kerry changing positions. In the sense that it was mostly about Kerry, Bush won. I think however that some missunderstandings like "I voted for it, before I voted against it." have been cleared up making Kerry win. It was a very close debate. Just a point of personal interest, every person both candidates used as an example came from a battleground state. It shows how scripted the debates are becoming.

Hmm. You sure you watched the same debate I did? It was Kerry who used the phrase "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," not Bush.
Kerry used it once, and qualified it multiple times by stating that "we must still continue on, and finish the job, and turn this into as much of a success as possible." Bush took this, without the qualification, and just kept saying that is what Kerry had said over and over and over again. It was pretty annoying by the end. At the very least, we may all be thankful that Bush didn't make a massive mistake by calling Kerry a flip-flopper on the issue of body armor, as in this massively televised a debate, Kerry would have been able to instantly put to rest that absurd rumor, by explaining how he had approved the first proposal, which would take away a tax cut to the rich to pay for the proposal, only to see that get defeated by the Republicans in favor of a proposal that did not state where the funding would come from, in an omnibus bill that was otherwise unsteady in other aspects, including implementation, and distribution. Frankly, the wisest thing Bush did do is what he didn't say.

Hmm. You sure you watched the same debate I did? It was Kerry who used the phrase "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," not Bush.


Kerry used it once, and qualified it multiple times by stating that "we must still continue on, and finish the job, and turn this into as much of a success as possible." Bush took this, without the qualification, and just kept saying that is what Kerry had said over and over and over again. It was pretty annoying by the end. At the very least, we may all be thankful that Bush didn't make a massive mistake by calling Kerry a flip-flopper on the issue of body armor, as in this massively televised a debate, Kerry would have been able to instantly put to rest that absurd rumor, by explaining how he had approved the first proposal, which would take away a tax cut to the rich to pay for the proposal, only to see that get defeated by the Republicans in favor of a proposal that did not state where the funding would come from, in an omnibus bill that was otherwise unsteady in other aspects, including implementation, and distribution. Frankly, the wisest thing Bush did do is what he didn't say.

That pretty much summed up my response to Eutrusca.

Bah. Just elect Hugh Heffner as president. He's one of the few Americans that would be respected across the globe.

Bah. Just elect Hugh Heffner as president. He's one of the few Americans that would be respected across the globe.
I just wonder, what would his campaign promises be? Would the Bunnies be at his rallies? The possibilities are endless.

post your comments and observations here
*yawn*
It's a good thing I was at work. My bar customers were entertaining me by drinking everytime one of the candidates said "security," "war on terror," "stay-the-course," or "economy." I had to put a stop to it though. Can't promote irresponsible drinking and all.

Hmm. You sure you watched the same debate I did? It was Kerry who used the phrase "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," not Bush.
Exactly. The only times the pres. stalled was only because kerry said something so stupid and retarted, or he said something that only supported what bush was saying. and bush just couldn't say anything against it kuz it was so funny that kerry said it. I mean really. It was so funny cuz Bush just dominated.

I just wonder, what would his campaign promises be? Would the Bunnies be at his rallies? The possibilities are endless.

Can I just say, ick? I don't think I'd vote for Heff. I won't be voting for Bush either. *shrugs* I think we've seen how Bush handles things. We're BACK in debt. We're at war. We've lost over 1,000 of our fighting men and women. And Bush's plan is to "be steadfast" and "persist" (meaning keep doing the same thing). I think Kerry summed it up nicely when he said we could be resoloute AND wrong at the same time, and that reexamining the facts and revamping strategies and approaches is a good thing.

Oh, one question. Kerry said that we should get rid of our nukes cuz we are so concerned that everyone else needs to get rid of theirs. Well lets think. What would we do to get other countries to stop with nukes? Would we go up and ask em "please get rid of those nukes". They would reply. "what are you gunna do about it" then we would say."ummmm. use a smart bomb against ya" then they would say "oh really. well our nukes are way more powerfull" then we would just hafta shut up and let all those making nukes keep makin em or else we will get killed cuz we are not more powerfull.

How much they're repeating themselves?
I did and I muted the sound a couple of time before I threw something at the TV

Oh, one question. Kerry said that we should get rid of our nukes cuz we are so concerned that everyone else needs to get rid of theirs. Well lets think. What would we do to get other countries to stop with nukes? Would we go up and ask em "please get rid of those nukes". They would reply. "what are you gunna do about it" then we would say."ummmm. use a smart bomb against ya" then they would say "oh really. well our nukes are way more powerfull" then we would just hafta shut up and let all those making nukes keep makin em or else we will get killed cuz we are not more powerfull.

Actually, what Kerry said was that we shouldn't be making NEW nukes while we're fighting proliferation elsewhere. He makes a good point. I also think the money for those nukes could be spent much better on programs to fight terrorism and to strengthen our standing at home. How do nukes help us fight terrorism? We've already got enough nukes to destroy the Earth as we know it.

Actually, what Kerry said was that we shouldn't be making NEW nukes while we're fighting proliferation elsewhere. He makes a good point. I also think the money for those nukes could be spent much better on programs to fight terrorism and to strengthen our standing at home. How do nukes help us fight terrorism? We've already got enough nukes to destroy the Earth as we know it.
Yeah. I guess your right. true dat. and anyway I guess that nukes that go underground really wouldn't do all that much more good.

Oh, one question. Kerry said that we should get rid of our nukes cuz we are so concerned that everyone else needs to get rid of theirs. Well lets think. What would we do to get other countries to stop with nukes? Would we go up and ask em "please get rid of those nukes". They would reply. "what are you gunna do about it" then we would say."ummmm. use a smart bomb against ya" then they would say "oh really. well our nukes are way more powerfull" then we would just hafta shut up and let all those making nukes keep makin em or else we will get killed cuz we are not more powerfull.
Kerry didn't say that at all, making the rest of your post rather redundant.

Exactly. The only times the pres. stalled was only because kerry said something so stupid and retarted, or he said something that only supported what bush was saying. and bush just couldn't say anything against it kuz it was so funny that kerry said it. I mean really. It was so funny cuz Bush just dominated.

So Bush forgot Kerry's name because of something Kerry said? I doubt it.

Oh, one question. Kerry said that we should get rid of our nukes cuz we are so concerned that everyone else needs to get rid of theirs. Well lets think. What would we do to get other countries to stop with nukes? Would we go up and ask em "please get rid of those nukes". They would reply. "what are you gunna do about it" then we would say."ummmm. use a smart bomb against ya" then they would say "oh really. well our nukes are way more powerfull" then we would just hafta shut up and let all those making nukes keep makin em or else we will get killed cuz we are not more powerfull.

This is the problem with people - you don't actually listen. Kerry did not say we should get rid of all of our nuclear weapons. What he said was "non-proliferation," as in (for those of you with a 2nd grade education) "Don't make more nukes. He is perfectly right in saying that we cannot expect others to stop building nuclear weapons if we are stockpiling more and more of them ourselves.

That was a very good point, and one that Bush skillfully dodged.

So Bush forgot Kerry's name because of something Kerry said? I doubt it.
Well that one was funny. and he did forget his name. but I am talking about other the other times.

I don't even know what happened in the debate. can someone please telegram me telling me what happened in the debate. i will be really greatly.

Kerry and bush are funny:

Bush says, "We(presidents) have to be right 100% of time".
Me: Yet think about it. He has been wrong with liberators greeting us. Wrong with abu Grarib. And more. So Bush should wonder about his Presidency...
Its going pretty good. Not best debate but eh...
President Bush had nothing to do with Abu Ghrab, that was a bunch of morons, they do not reflect all of the military, just as the 5% of Islamic terrorists don't represent all Muslims in the world.

Would you rather have Saddam Hussein still in power, cutting of the hands of people, and putting people into human shredders? No war is ever easy. It took 8 to 10 years to sedate Germany after WW2 (and it really took until 1989, after the Berlin Wall fell before Germany was ever reunited post-WW2), we still have troops in Japan per Japan's Republic Constitution. Japan's biggest post WW2 military event was helping us with Iraq.

All being said, we should've taken out Saddam in the early 1990's but folks in the UN would've cried their little socialist and communist eyes out, they liked having Saddam there to take the heat off of themselves.

-Free Virginia

Well, Kerry was very good. And Bush was Bush. If the debates decided the election, Kerry would have won 10 minutes in.

Even FOX news was giving Kerry the best review on this "debate".

You do know that it was all scripted right?

Can I just say, ick? I don't think I'd vote for Heff. I won't be voting for Bush either. *shrugs* I think we've seen how Bush handles things. We're BACK in debt. We're at war. We've lost over 1,000 of our fighting men and women. And Bush's plan is to "be steadfast" and "persist" (meaning keep doing the same thing). I think Kerry summed it up nicely when he said we could be resoloute AND wrong at the same time, and that reexamining the facts and revamping strategies and approaches is a good thing.

1. We're back in debt because of the 9-11 attacks. If you have some way to turn back time and keep 9-11 from happening, please show it to us.
2. Kerry is a better speaker, but he isn't consistent. Kerry said that he would still vote for the Iraq War even tho we didn't find WMDs (which was only one of the motives for the Iraq War)
3. Our enemies attacked us on 9-11 because we were seen as weak, not because they "disliked us" our enemies always will dislike us, there's nothing to stop that.
4. Should we have pulled out of Germany and the Pacific Campaign since we had lost hundreds of thousands of brave men during WW2? We surpassed that magical liberal "milestone" of 1000 deaths in just a few days after D-Day. Should we have pulled out then? And let Nazi Germany run rampant all over France, England, and the rest of Europe?

Take your pick, a candidate that our enemies sincerely fear (President Bush) look at the country of Libya, who gave up their weapons plans because Kadaffi saw Saddam in jail.

Or you can pick a vaselating "whatever the polls say" candidate like John Kerry. The French, and Germans will like us again (whoopee!) but they sure won't defend us if we need help.

Choose wisely.
Free-Virginia

1. We're back in debt because of the 9-11 attacks. If you have some way to turn back time and keep 9-11 from happening, please show it to us.

If the war in Iraq and Bush's increased spending in all areas despite a huge tax cut that benefited none of those who most needed it were caused directly by 9-11, please demonstrate it.

2. Kerry is a better speaker, but he isn't consistent. Kerry said that he would still vote for the Iraq War even tho we didn't find WMDs (which was only one of the motives for the Iraq War)

Kerry said that he would still have voted to give the president the power to use force. The senate never voted directly on the war, since they gave the president the power to go and he decided.

3. Our enemies attacked us on 9-11 because we were seen as weak, not because they "disliked us" our enemies always will dislike us, there's nothing to stop that.

If they had truly seen us as weak, they would've attacked our military.

4. Should we have pulled out of Germany and the Pacific Campaign since we had lost hundreds of thousands of brave men during WW2? We surpassed that magical liberal "milestone" of 1000 deaths in just a few days after D-Day. Should we have pulled out then? And let Nazi Germany run rampant all over France, England, and the rest of Europe?

Irrelevant. Germany was attacking other countries and had also declared war against us. Besides, neither candidate is suggesting we pull out at this point, only that we probably shouldn't have gone in the first place.

Take your pick, a candidate that our enemies sincerely fear (President Bush) look at the country of Libya, who gave up their weapons plans because Kadaffi saw Saddam in jail.

Of course, Bush is swelling the ranks of the terrorists, so I guess they don't all fear him. He is also busily going about breaking down everything this country stands for in the name of "freedom" which is not freedom at all if you give up your rights to get it.

Or you can pick a vaselating "whatever the polls say" candidate like John Kerry. The French, and Germans will like us again (whoopee!) but they sure won't defend us if we need help.

Funny, I've only been watching since he was pretty sure to get the nomination, but I haven't seen any vaselating that wasn't made up by the Republican side of things.

Choose wisely.
Free-Virginia

Done.

Actually, what Kerry said was that we shouldn't be making NEW nukes while we're fighting proliferation elsewhere. He makes a good point. I also think the money for those nukes could be spent much better on programs to fight terrorism and to strengthen our standing at home. How do nukes help us fight terrorism? We've already got enough nukes to destroy the Earth as we know it.

We have enough standard nukes, we need to make better nukes, ones that go deeper (like those used in Afganistan to dig into the earth before exploding), or more MOAB bombs.

Nukes help us fight people in the mountainous regions of Afganistan. They are a preventive measure just as many cops carry guns. Cops don't have to fire their guns everyday on duty, but if they need them, they're there.

:rolleyes: He is the representive of the U.S. among the world. He has the powers to do that. Besides if we kept waiting for France and Germany to get a backbone, Saddam would have gotten away. :rolleyes:

yeah, I'm sure he would have fled the country...oh wait, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TOLD TO DO BY BUSH BEFORE THE WAR STARTED.

geniuses, frickin' geniuses. :headbang:

We have enough standard nukes, we need to make better nukes, ones that go deeper (like those used in Afganistan to dig into the earth before exploding), or more MOAB bombs.

Nukes help us fight people in the mountainous regions of Afganistan. They are a preventive measure just as many cops carry guns. Cops don't have to fire their guns everyday on duty, but if they need them, they're there.

So we need *more* nukes to protect ourselves. Of course, as long as we're building more nukes, the other countries have the exact same argument, and it is just as valid. Congratulations, you have just validated every nuclear weapons program out there.

We have enough standard nukes, we need to make better nukes, ones that go deeper (like those used in Afganistan to dig into the earth before exploding), or more MOAB bombs.

Nukes help us fight people in the mountainous regions of Afganistan. They are a preventive measure just as many cops carry guns. Cops don't have to fire their guns everyday on duty, but if they need them, they're there.

Nukes don't scare these people. They know we won't use them in this matter.

So we need *more* nukes to protect ourselves. Of course, as long as we're building more nukes, the other countries have the exact same argument, and it is just as valid. Congratulations, you have just validated every nuclear weapons program out there.

http://www.bushflash.com/nuke.html
that pretty much sums it all up right there.

We have enough standard nukes, we need to make better nukes, ones that go deeper (like those used in Afganistan to dig into the earth before exploding), or more MOAB bombs.

Nukes help us fight people in the mountainous regions of Afganistan. They are a preventive measure just as many cops carry guns. Cops don't have to fire their guns everyday on duty, but if they need them, they're there.

What a complete and utter, blind, fool. Have you been hit with a rock in the head before?

We have enough standard nukes, we need to make better nukes, ones that go deeper (like those used in Afganistan to dig into the earth before exploding), or more MOAB bombs.

Nukes help us fight people in the mountainous regions of Afganistan. They are a preventive measure just as many cops carry guns. Cops don't have to fire their guns everyday on duty, but if they need them, they're there.

Ever see that movie "Sum of All Fears"? suppose we start dropping these things and one doesn't go off? Warheads, after all, are designed to not detonate in fires, or after being dropped from high distances, etc. sounds like an instant dirty bomb to me. makes me feel really safe, let me tell ya.

One thing is clear from these debates (IMHO, of course) -- both of these sacks of crap need to pack their bags, set up some Swiss bank accounts, and get the hell out of my country. What we've done to deserve either Bush or Kerry is beyond me.

I'd wager only a few people passionately support either one of these dolts. This election will be an exercise in the time-honored tradition of voting for the candidate one hates the least. What a shameful, ugly mess this whole election has become.

One thing is clear from these debates (IMHO, of course) -- both of these sacks of crap need to pack their bags, set up some Swiss bank accounts, and get the hell out of my country. What we've done to deserve either Bush or Kerry is beyond me.

I'd wager only a few people passionately support either one of these dolts. This election will be an exercise in the time-honored tradition of voting for the candidate one hates the least. What a shameful, ugly mess this whole election has become.


You're actually suggesting that this differs from the past few elections?!? bold statement!

One thing is clear from these debates (IMHO, of course) -- both of these sacks of crap need to pack their bags, set up some Swiss bank accounts, and get the hell out of my country. What we've done to deserve either Bush or Kerry is beyond me.

I'd wager only a few people passionately support either one of these dolts. This election will be an exercise in the time-honored tradition of voting for the candidate one hates the least. What a shameful, ugly mess this whole election has become.

Just a curiousity question......Who should be president.....

You're actually suggesting that this differs from the past few elections?!? bold statement!

Well, the candidates are worse this time around, at least. Although, the Bush/Dukakis campaign was pretty rotten, as well.

Just a curiousity question......Who should be president.....

If my party gave a damn about its ideals anymore, we'd be talking about a debate between John McCain and whoever the Democrats dug up to run against him at this point. That horse ran in 2000, however.

The 'Presidential' Debate didn't have Ralph Nader, so it clearly sucked. :rolleyes:

VOTE NADER!!!

Speaking as someone who actually did vote for Nader last time around,
go ahead...waste your vote.

After all...what harm could it do?

Oh thats right.....it could put Bush back into office, so he can invade another country, and maybe start a nuclear war!!

Good idea.

The 'Presidential' Debate didn't have Ralph Nader, so it clearly sucked. :rolleyes:

VOTE NADER!!!

Lordy...what a waste of a vote...(even if your joking) why would people bother voting for someone you know won't win, sure if your a country were you have to leave the TV for a moment to vote and both candidates are bad but why even bother standing up to do nothing?

Lordy...what a waste of a vote...(even if your joking) why would people bother voting for someone you know won't win, sure if your a country were you have to leave the TV for a moment to vote and both candidates are bad but why even bother standing up to do nothing?
It's a statement of protest against our cruddy two-party electoral-college system.

It's a statement of protest against our cruddy two-party electoral-college system.


Thats how I felt the last election when I voted for Nader.

Bush became president.

http://www.shipbrook.com/karen/blog/images/kang.gif

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

[murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Its not about the money, its about the freedom. I thought liberals were all about freedom.

Whatever gave you that idea? :)
As far as I can see, they are all about freedom when it suits them, but all about opression when individual freedom would lessen their power as a group.

No, mainly we are opposed to anyone who uses "Freedom" as an exscuse to invade oil-rich countries, and then oppress them just as badly as the last guy.

It's a statement of protest against our cruddy two-party electoral-college system.

Isn't there a better way to do that though, and doesn't voting for Nadder screw up Kerry's chances like it did to Al Gore?

Are you suggesting we invade N. Korea? With what? We are tied up in Iraq.

It makes perfect sense that we use UN intervention in Iraq since there is no one to talk to there except ourselves (which also rules out invasion, since we did that already :) ). Would talking to ourselves solve any problems there?

Talking is all we can do in N. Korea since the military is occupied. At least if the lines of communication keep open the odds are low that anyone will nuke anyone.

I'm suggesting that Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He is saying that Bush was wrong in not working more with other nations about Iraq, but then wants to cut out the other nations (Russia, China, S. Korean and Japan) in talks with North Korea!

I agree.

Everyone saying Bush won it hands down or Kerry won it hands down need a stronger prescription for glasses.

The fact is that both candidates always changed the question, so they could say what they want to say. No one ever said yes and explained their answer. For those people who dont like Kerry well he either 1. stays with his positions and you dont like him of 2. he changes them and you call him a flip flopper! Those who dont like Bush 1. probably dont like him somewhat because of his stubborness and therefore dont like him sticking to points or 2. think he is stupid and his stammering funny (it was kind of). Now for my opinion.

In my view I believe Kerry did a good job of defining himself. He made several definate statements and also attacked the presidents positions a little. The president was trying to blur the issue. He always talked about Kerry changing positions. In the sense that it was mostly about Kerry, Bush won. I think however that some missunderstandings like "I voted for it, before I voted against it." have been cleared up making Kerry win. It was a very close debate. Just a point of personal interest, every person both candidates used as an example came from a battleground state. It shows how scripted the debates are becoming.

I couldn't have said it better myself!!

undefinedRemember Kerry is down in the polls to Bush . He needed to hammer away and expose Bush as an incompetent . He was not able to do that. Bush needed to make Kerry look like a flipflop to knock him out of the election. He couldn't do it effectivly enough. Bottom line is this morning Kerry is still behind Bush with time running out. Debates dont really sway voters and if Kerry wants style points , ill give it to him but what he is missing is substance wich is why he is going to lose this election.

I'm suggesting that Kerry is playing both sides of the fence. He is saying that Bush was wrong in not working more with other nations about Iraq, but then wants to cut out the other nations (Russia, China, S. Korean and Japan) in talks with North Korea!

I agree.

Because it is impossible to have Bilateral and multilateral talks at the same time? You can't negotiate one on one with a country as well as in a group? That makes no sense whatsoever.


Oh - and did you notice that he kinda forgot to mention that North Korea has announced that it is pulling out of the next round of multi-lateral talks? So, how are they working if North Korea won't come to the table?

Oh right - it's Bush. It doesn't matter if it isn't working, it only matters if you stay the course because inflexibility is a trait of an effective leader.....

:rolleyes:

The momentum of the debate seemed to shift to me. Bush started off stronger, but Kerry surpassed him in the middle. Towards the end I think Bush regained ground. His direct disagreements with Kerry's stand on North Korea made him appear stronger.
Kinda interested me that North Korea was such a heated topic.

Because it is impossible to have Bilateral and multilateral talks at the same time? You can't negotiate one on one with a country as well as in a group? That makes no sense whatsoever.


Oh - and did you notice that he kinda forgot to mention that North Korea has announced that it is pulling out of the next round of multi-lateral talks? So, how are they working if North Korea won't come to the table?

Oh right - it's Bush. It doesn't matter if it isn't working, it only matters if you stay the course because inflexibility is a trait of an effective leader.....

:rolleyes:

If Kerry thinks he can "negotiate" with North Korea, he is sadly mistaken. North Korea does not want to "negotiate." They respond to only one thing and that is force. By taking China and other nations out of the talks, you have thus placed the entire burden on the US. Clinton was easily blackmailed by them when he gave them oil to power their electrical plants. It was only supposed to be used for that purpose. However, the North Korean air force began flying again shortly after the oil had been delivered. They had not had the fuel to do so for a few years previously. How do i know this? because I was stationed in South Korea in 1994-1995 and watched from the base command post as the North Korean aircraft approached the DMZ.

The North Korean leadership will tear Kerry's negotiating team apart just like they did Clinton's. China can put "real" pressure on the North Koreans because China needs them to cooperate more than we do.

My favorite line from GW: "The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice."

Justice? The guy responsible was retired without penalty as a hero of the country, and Pakistan is still going so far as to deny the IAEA access to him in order to help determine how much shit he sold and where! (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041001-054443-3141r.htm)



This is justice?


This is our big ally in the fight against terrorism? Our way of dealing with what both agreed was the most pressing security concern - the proliferation of WMD and especially nukes? Billions in US taxpayer money to provide military hardware to Pakistan as an "ally", but an ally it seems who won't help with dealing with the most despicable treachery yet uncovered.

Wonder which one of their generals will be selling off the new hardware that you are paying for with your own tax dollars, to whom they will be sold, and worst yet - whether any more American soldiers will wind up dying trying to remove these items from whever winds up having them.....



GW has a very interesting definition of the word "justice"....

If Kerry thinks he can "negotiate" with North Korea, he is sadly mistaken. North Korea does not want to "negotiate." They respond to only one thing and that is force. By taking China and other nations out of the talks, you have thus placed the entire burden on the US. Clinton was easily blackmailed by them when he gave them oil to power their electrical plants. It was only supposed to be used for that purpose. However, the North Korean air force began flying again shortly after the oil had been delivered. They had not had the fuel to do so for a few years previously. How do i know this? because I was stationed in South Korea in 1994-1995 and watched from the base command post as the North Korean aircraft approached the DMZ.

The North Korean leadership will tear Kerry's negotiating team apart just like they did Clinton's. China can put "real" pressure on the North Koreans because China needs them to cooperate more than we do.


Once again - why does bilateral talks mean that China will leave the table?

Because Georgie says so?

Because you think that China will suddenly decide that they have no stake in a new nuke-equiped power on it's doorstep? Or that Japan will also come to that decision? Or do you think that NK feels that a threat from the US is not valid but one from China is?

No, you don't. As you point out "China needs them to cooperate more than we do".

Ergo, it seems that you do not beleive that China will remove itself from the process if the US takes on a more active role because they understand their stake in it.

So, once again, why is a single multilateral-approach better than multiple approaces to bring pressure on NK faster? And why do bilateral talks automatically mean the suspension of multilateral talks?

Kerry's dumb ass kept changings stroies that he said this not that. he flat out lies about almost everything. GO TO HELL KERRY, elect Bush for a better country. Kerry will only make it fall apart with his "plans" :sniper:

Kerry's dumb ass kept changings stroies that he said this not that. he flat out lies about almost everything. GO TO HELL KERRY, elect Bush for a better country. Kerry will only make it fall apart with his "plans" :sniper:
AHH! Plans! How terrible!
I think Kerry was very clear. He voted for the war, but then Bush executed/is executing the mission poorly. Therefore, he is now against it. That's a lot more logical then, "so what? I'm screwed up, but I'm not about to fix it."

It's a statement of protest against our cruddy two-party electoral-college system.


It's a system we ... yes we created, you know.

There are rules. One of the rules is that a candidate or his/her party must have received a certain percentage of votes in the prior election in order to participate in the debates.

Nader wasn't bullied out of the debates, he just doesn't have the support required to be allowed participation. Faking names on ballot petitions doesn't help his cause much either.

If he'd just follow the damn rules that we put together, then he'd be just fine.

Once again - why does bilateral talks mean that China will leave the table?

Because Georgie says so?

Because you think that China will suddenly decide that they have no stake in a new nuke-equiped power on it's doorstep? Or that Japan will also come to that decision? Or do you think that NK feels that a threat from the US is not valid but one from China is?

No, you don't. As you point out "China needs them to cooperate more than we do".

Ergo, it seems that you do not beleive that China will remove itself from the process if the US takes on a more active role because they understand their stake in it.

So, once again, why is a single multilateral-approach better than multiple approaces to bring pressure on NK faster? And why do bilateral talks automatically mean the suspension of multilateral talks?


Well, Kerry wants one on one talks with NK without China, SK, or Japan to be involved. Kerry obviously does not understand NK at all. They want a non-aggression pact with the US. Once they have that, they can attack SK at will for the food they have. NK is starving. In 1999 the NK government convinced the people that it was healthier to eat one meal a day than three. Food supplies in NK go to the military. Civilians are literally starving to death so that the military that props up the "cult of personality" can be fed. Fuel supplies are non-existent. When Clinton tried do deal with NK one on one, he went in, hat in hand, and gave NK everything they wanted. They immediately violated the agreement. They have NOTHING to lose anymore.

We are going to fight them eventually, that IS going to happen. So we should either get China to get their stepchild in line, or we sit back and wait for them to get hungry enough to either come around, or attack SK for food.

Kerry would turn to the UN and make the US subservient to it and or Europe, THAT would be a huge mistake and would likely result in a military revolt against him if he attempted to put US troops in UN uniforms or under UN control.

As for Pakistan, we should have added them to the list of terrorist states many years ago so no argument there from me.

It's a system we ... yes we created, you know.

There are rules. One of the rules is that a candidate or his/her party must have received a certain percentage of votes in the prior election in order to participate in the debates.

Nader wasn't bullied out of the debates, he just doesn't have the support required to be allowed participation. Faking names on ballot petitions doesn't help his cause much either.

If he'd just follow the damn rules that we put together, then he'd be just fine.

You might have a point if it wasn't for Perot being allowed to participate. How many votes had he gotten? none that I am aware of. The two parties have hijacked our country and I would like to see both of them smashed.

Hey man, with the stunning example we've set, NK could bomb the sh#t out of whomever they wish, SK included.

Thanks, King George. You're the best presidential appointee we've ever had. :fluffle:

He is the representive of the U.S. among the world. He has the powers to do that. Besides if we kept waiting for France and Germany to get a backbone, Saddam would have gotten away.

Question: Before the invasion, where was Saddam running to? Last I checked, up until the bombs started dropping, we new almost where he was before he did.

Well, I think it was more or less the same we've already heard. Just a little more indepth. It didn't do anything for me. I still stand where I already did. In the middle to the right a bit.

I'd say Bush won it easily. He was on the offensive for most of it. Sure Kerry is a better speaker, but Bush knows how to hit his points. You still walk away with a clear picture of Bush's plan and a wishy washy feeling about Kerry. Kerry didn't distinguish his ideas from Bush's nearly enough. He had to be on the attack on these things, and it seemed like his biggest point was that we didn't give diplomacy and the UN enough time before Iraq. No matter where Kerry went, Bush hit him again and again with the same points, and in a 90 minute speech, that's what is gonna stick.

When you keep repeating the same points (poorly) regardless of the subject, while your oponent remains on topic and nails you with your own fallacies, that is called being on the defensive in a debate. Two soudbites: "Mixed messages" and "It's hard work" do not constitute an offensive. Especially when they are said out of context with the current subject.

But on the other hand, and this I think Bush unfortunately completely brain farted on... Kerry's ideas will COST MORE MONEY... much more than simply retaxing the rich (you know, the ones responsible for all the jobs?). It's the same old Demo political line. "I'll give you more!! Much more!!" Excuse me, but exactly how big a bite out of my paycheck do you intend to take sir?

Bush took the largest surplus in history and turned it into the largest deficit. Your party no longer has the moral high ground when discussing fiscal responsibility.

Another boner missed by Bush... Kerry goes on about mobilizing MORE TROOPS and training MORE special forces... come again? Isn't he also saying that our forces are "stretched to the max"? If so, then how does he propose filling the shoes of those forces... could it be... OMIGOD... a DRAFT?!? You know, the very thing the "urban legend" emails are whipping around the internet by the Dems are all about??

He said recruiting more troops and more special forces. Adding two divisions to the army, and doubling the number of special forces unit. He isn't talking about "stretching what we have" he is talking about providing more incentives for more volunteers to join up.

Also, the draft isn't going to happen no matter who gets elected (though I personally wouldn't mind). Both sides keep talking about it like it's some secret agenda from the other. It's a dead issue because it would be political suicide for the person that pushed it through and their party.

So, the "undecided's" get to chose based on a personality contest... sheesh do we look dumb and gullible.

It has been this way since TV became popular, unfortunately. Where have you been? I won't answer your question, because my momma said not to say anything that was mean.

They are both skilled debators and they got their talking points out. if i was to score it it was a draw. what suprised me is kerry coming up with a decent potion in irac. which since i have been focusing is yet a new position. i think bush should have called him out on it. bush had the power to end kerry's run last night but he didnt seem on top of his game. And his plan was a new ground strategy. which means completely changing everything on the ground. you cant take people who are in combat and just change everything they have been used to doing. you think they are in harms way now? do you know how much its going to put them in harms way to move around? On some issues i agree with kerry but he cant convince me in any way that he can handle this war. I personally think that his veitnam service and his displeasure with it clouds his judgement. but i do also wish bush would step it down alittle and take a little criticism.

Well, I think it was more or less the same we've already heard. Just a little more indepth. It didn't do anything for me. I still stand where I already did. In the middle to the right a bit.



Yeah were are pretty much in the same boat.(not a swift boat). I am trying to give kerry a fair shake at this but its hard for me to get behind him when he speaks down at our troops and our alies. and it made me lean alittle further to the right when he couldnt name our allies. it seems to me that he is more focussed on france and germany when he should be appeasing the allies we all ready have. bush is fucking up. but its hard for me to sya kerry wont fuck it up worse.

Would you rather have Saddam Hussein still in power, cutting of the hands of people, and putting people into human shredders? No war is ever easy. It took 8 to 10 years to sedate Germany after WW2 (and it really took until 1989, after the Berlin Wall fell before Germany was ever reunited post-WW2), we still have troops in Japan per Japan's Republic Constitution. Japan's biggest post WW2 military event was helping us with Iraq.

I am going to go out on a limb here. Yes, I would rather have Saddam Hussein still in power, still cutting off peoples hands, still torturing innocent people, and still gassing his enemies.

I'll tell you why, and this is something the conservatives have forgotten. We are not the world's policemen. It is not our responsibility to 'fix' every wrong in the world. It is not our duty to step in and force others to see things our way. If the people of Iraq feal that their leader is mistreating them, it is their own damn responsibility to stand up and do something about it.

I keep hearing this analogy about seeing a neighbour taking his wife outside and beating her, and how we are supposed to be noble and do something about it. The analogy further goes something like, we call the police and they refuse to help, so we should just take the law into our own hands and stop it. But, the fact is, until she is willing to stand up for herself and press charges/leave the guy/etc she is just going to be in the same mess again in a week with the same guy or with someone else.

A people have to want to be free enough to fight and die for it themselves before they deserve that freedom. If they are too scared, and desire safety at the cost of freedom, they will be able to keep neither.

Is that harsh. Yes. But quit trying to pull that bleeding heart crap as an excuse for the sordid war you wanted to fight.

You might have a point if it wasn't for Perot being allowed to participate. How many votes had he gotten? none that I am aware of. The two parties have hijacked our country and I would like to see both of them smashed.

The criteria for participation in a debate are as follows:

1. Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility

The CPD's first criterion requires satisfaction of the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The requirements are satisfied if the candidate:

a. is at least 35 years of age;

b. is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and a resident of the United States for fourteen years; and

c. is otherwise eligible under the Constitution.

2. Evidence of Ballot Access

The CPD's second criterion requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2004 general election. Under the Constitution, the candidate who receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College, at least 270 votes, is elected President regardless of the popular vote.

3. Indicators of Electoral Support

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.

Perot met those requirements ... Nader does not.

1. We're back in debt because of the 9-11 attacks. If you have some way to turn back time and keep 9-11 from happening, please show it to us.

We're back in debt because of poorly planned fiscal policy and poorly timed tax cuts that should have been repealled the second that spending needs increased after 9/11. If the tax cut's had been repealled and the president used his line item powers to cut some of the pork from the budget, a deficit would be non-existent with or without 9/11.

2. Kerry is a better speaker, but he isn't consistent. Kerry said that he would still vote for the Iraq War even tho we didn't find WMDs (which was only one of the motives for the Iraq War)

Kerry, never said, and never actually did vote 'for a war in Iraq'. He voted to give the president the necessary authority to declare war if it was ultimately necessary. He said that he would still vote to give the president that power, not that he ever did or ever will support a war against a state that posed no threat. Maybe you should learn to listen a little better to something besides spoon-fed rhetoric.

3. Our enemies attacked us on 9-11 because we were seen as weak, not because they "disliked us" our enemies always will dislike us, there's nothing to stop that.

The excuses and reasoning of our 'enemies' is manifold. I agree that there will always be people who dislike us. Noone is saying that we should placate them. Kerry is suggesting that, oddly enough, we work to make sure our allies stand with us, and not against us when dealing with terrorists.

4. Should we have pulled out of Germany and the Pacific Campaign since we had lost hundreds of thousands of brave men during WW2? We surpassed that magical liberal "milestone" of 1000 deaths in just a few days after D-Day. Should we have pulled out then? And let Nazi Germany run rampant all over France, England, and the rest of Europe?

Nazi Germany took over most of Europe and was in open assualt/declared war with several of our Allies. Japan also was in open assault of our allies and in addition had attacked one of our military bases. I defy you to come up with some convaluted scenario of simulacrum in Iraq.

Take your pick, a candidate that our enemies sincerely fear (President Bush) look at the country of Libya, who gave up their weapons plans because Kadaffi saw Saddam in jail.

Or you can pick a vaselating "whatever the polls say" candidate like John Kerry. The French, and Germans will like us again (whoopee!) but they sure won't defend us if we need help.

A candidate who weakens and disowns our allies, underfunds our homefront, plays politics with the lives of our soldiers, and provides aid and comfort to our enemy. Bush.

One who is willing to speak with and strengthen our allies, strengthen the homefront, uses soldiers as a truly last resort, and wishes to deny our enemy the excuses he so craves. Kerry.

Choose wisely.
Free-Virginia

I think I have.

If my party gave a damn about its ideals anymore, we'd be talking about a debate between John McCain and whoever the Democrats dug up to run against him at this point. That horse ran in 2000, however.

Amen. Mcain/Powell '08. For now though, I gotta get this yahoo and his cronies off the trigger at any price, and four years of Kerry is looking more and more like a vacation than a sentence by the day.

i think this debate did what was needed
both candidates came off as reasonably well informed and presidential

and anyone watching the debate should now have a pretty good idea of who's approach to foreign policy they prefer. if you cant tell after last night. DONT VOTE. you are just too stupid to take this responsibility

Well, Kerry wants one on one talks with NK without China, SK, or Japan to be involved. Kerry obviously does not understand NK at all. They want a non-aggression pact with the US. Once they have that, they can attack SK at will for the food they have.

Kerry never said that china couldn't be involved. He never said that he would stop Multilatteral talks, or should the need come to it multilatteral police action. He said that Billateral talks were necessary. That's it. You are aware that both can be had simultaneously, right?

You also do understand that a non-aggression treaty works both ways, right? With the 30,000 some odd Americans stationed just this side of the DMZ it would be quite hard for him to do anything to SK without agressing against the US, at which point retalliation would be allowed.

We are going to fight them eventually, that IS going to happen. So we should either get China to get their stepchild in line, or we sit back and wait for them to get hungry enough to either come around, or attack SK for food.

Kerry would turn to the UN and make the US subservient to it and or Europe, THAT would be a huge mistake and would likely result in a military revolt against him if he attempted to put US troops in UN uniforms or under UN control.


If this fight is inevitable, wouldn't it be a good Idea to get international support into Iraq ASAP so we could pull/reorient/refresh our troops before someone sends a million people into battle?

Oh, wait, that actually makes sense. I forgot, you just want more rhetoric.

As for Pakistan, we should have added them to the list of terrorist states many years ago so no argument there from me.

Since the nearly every large scale attack in the last decade has been planned, funded, run, or acted out by a Saudi, I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

Kerry never said that china couldn't be involved. He never said that he would stop Multilatteral talks, or should the need come to it multilatteral police action. He said that Billateral talks were necessary. That's it. You are aware that both can be had simultaneously, right?

You also do understand that a non-aggression treaty works both ways, right? With the 30,000 some odd Americans stationed just this side of the DMZ it would be quite hard for him to do anything to SK without agressing against the US, at which point retalliation would be allowed.

If this fight is inevitable, wouldn't it be a good Idea to get international support into Iraq ASAP so we could pull/reorient/refresh our troops before someone sends a million people into battle?

Oh, wait, that actually makes sense. I forgot, you just want more rhetoric.

Since the nearly every large scale attack in the last decade has been planned, funded, run, or acted out by a Saudi, I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

Erm, if you're having nation to nation talks, the multi-nation talks become redundant and stop... they *can't* be had simultaneously.
Say you have to settle a problem. You talk to Bill, whom you have the problem with. It gets you nowhere. So you start talking to Bill with Steve, Tony and Phil in attendance. **How** can you have a talk with Bill alone and with the group? It makes no sense! Either you'll settle something, then open it up to all *again*, or you'll all agree to something, and Bill will reneg or be a pain in private.

Yep. That's been the idea since 1953. :)

I hope it isn't.
You'll never get more nations into Iraq, unless somehow you guarentee the loans the French, Germans and Russians made to Saddam's regime.

The House of Saud is in deep, deep trouble.

Erm, if you're having nation to nation talks, the multi-nation talks become redundant and stop... they *can't* be had simultaneously.
Say you have to settle a problem. You talk to Bill, whom you have the problem with. It gets you nowhere. So you start talking to Bill with Steve, Tony and Phil in attendance. **How** can you have a talk with Bill alone and with the group? It makes no sense! Either you'll settle something, then open it up to all *again*, or you'll all agree to something, and Bill will reneg or be a pain in private.

Yep. That's been the idea since 1953. :)

I hope it isn't.
You'll never get more nations into Iraq, unless somehow you guarentee the loans the French, Germans and Russians made to Saddam's regime.

The House of Saud is in deep, deep trouble.

Here's the thing... you can have one on one AND committee talks. Case in point, I have trouble with Bill. He's not cooperative. Steve, Tony, and Phil start talking to Bill as well. Okay, so Bill is still not cooperating. I got back, on my own, and say, "Bill, what gives?" Bill says something, we start a dialogue, I give him a chance to work on this thing with me. He renigs, or doesn't listen. I get Steve, Tony, and Phil on the phone and say, "I tried talking to him again and he's still not cooperative." We all go back and keep working on him. Repeat as necessary. The thing is, there CAN be both. Swapping back and forth can make it clearer to Bill that nobody's backing down. So long as I tell Steve, Tony, and Phil that I'm going to try one on one again (for awhile) and keep swapping back and forth, we're all set.

Because it is impossible to have Bilateral and multilateral talks at the same time? You can't negotiate one on one with a country as well as in a group? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh - and did you notice that he kinda forgot to mention that North Korea has announced that it is pulling out of the next round of multi-lateral talks? So, how are they working if North Korea won't come to the table?

Oh right - it's Bush. It doesn't matter if it isn't working, it only matters if you stay the course because inflexibility is a trait of an effective leader.....

:rolleyes:

Ever try to order pizza with one guy, and a group of guys at the same time?
Bob: I want peppers.
You: I want garlic.
Bob & You: Okay, we'll compromise. Or not.

Repeat with 6 nations. At the same time. Bob and you will both try to "win allies". As will each of the other 4.

Simply, you can't do both at the same time. If you can, please provide me with *ONE* example of when this was ever tried and worked.

Exactly. NK is going to be difficult. Them constantly breaking their promises in the past to the Clinton and Bush (41) administrations doesn't help, either.

Not at all. It's just a contradiction in Kerry's POV -- do we go for International mediation, or don't we?

BTW- I have still not decided whom to vote for, and I probably won't until after the 3rd debate.

Here's the thing... you can have one on one AND committee talks. Case in point, I have trouble with Bill. He's not cooperative. Steve, Tony, and Phil start talking to Bill as well. Okay, so Bill is still not cooperating. I got back, on my own, and say, "Bill, what gives?" Bill says something, we start a dialogue, I give him a chance to work on this thing with me. He renigs, or doesn't listen. I get Steve, Tony, and Phil on the phone and say, "I tried talking to him again and he's still not cooperative." We all go back and keep working on him. Repeat as necessary. The thing is, there CAN be both. Swapping back and forth can make it clearer to Bill that nobody's backing down. So long as I tell Steve, Tony, and Phil that I'm going to try one on one again (for awhile) and keep swapping back and forth, we're all set.

You'll note from your example that these talks are not going on at the same time. You're also assuming that Steve, Tony & Phil are all on your side absolutely.

You'll note from your example that these talks are not going on at the same time. You're also assuming that Steve, Tony & Phil are all on your side absolutely.

Well, if they're not on my side completely, maybe they aren't the best ones to argue for my point in the first place.

Second, I don't remember anyone saying they were supposed to go on at the exact same moment... I remember Kerry saying we need to reopen the bilateral dialogue with Korea.

Erm, if you're having nation to nation talks, the multi-nation talks become redundant and stop... they *can't* be had simultaneously.
Say you have to settle a problem. You talk to Bill, whom you have the problem with. It gets you nowhere. So you start talking to Bill with Steve, Tony and Phil in attendance. **How** can you have a talk with Bill alone and with the group? It makes no sense! Either you'll settle something, then open it up to all *again*, or you'll all agree to something, and Bill will reneg or be a pain in private.

Your analogy is flawed. Throughout history there have been cases of countries having both billateral and multilatteral talks and treaties with each other. There have also been plenty of times when I had a friend with a problem that I both talked to him alone and with friends, etc to get said problem resolved.

You'll note from your example that these talks are not going on at the same time. You're also assuming that Steve, Tony & Phil are all on your side absolutely.


Yes, they ARE going on at the same time. Literally at the same exact minute, no, but in the same period of time, such as say a month. And no, those countries are not "on your side absolutely," but wouldn't they want North Korea to have nukes even less than we do, given that their countries are actually in range of North Korea's missiles?

What I do not understand is why the Bush Administration maintains that it is absolutely vital that we maintain multilateral talks in North Korea, that going unilateral even if we kept up the multilateral talks at the same time would totally screw the pooch, when the same Administration decided to go after Iraq, which was a far lesser threat than North Korea is now, in about the most unilateral way possible.

In a one-on-one meeting the United States can more effectively offer incentives to North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons because everyone else is not there to object to said incentives or say why they won't work or offer a different plan entirely. Getting the closed-door offer on one hand and the "everyone in the region hates your guts" offer on the other would improve the chances of said offer to be taken, right?

And while we talk about nuclear proliferation, let us remember Iran, which is obviously working as fast as possible towards nuclear arms with no objection by the Administration despite being part of the "axis of evil."

Not at all. It's just a contradiction in Kerry's POV -- do we go for International mediation, or don't we?

BTW- I have still not decided whom to vote for, and I probably won't until after the 3rd debate.

I'll ignore the continuation of your flawed analogy. As to Kerry's point of view, I think it was quite clear. Be strong, say in no uncertain terms what you will and won't stand for, and when push comes to shove get your allies to see that it is as necessary for them as it is for you (and make sure it actually is necessary first) so that they will share in both the cost and rewards involved in fixing the problem.

Kerry's stance, especially on international diplomacy, is much more acceptable for Europeans.
We, as Americans, care nothing about what is "acceptable for Europeans." The Europeans have, at the forefront of their concerns, the concern for the well-being of Europe. This is great, and I applaud this, but America must have, at the forefront of its concerns, the concern for the well-being of America.

Allies can be dropped and mocked whenever they are not suckling up to the US, falling into the dry dust and begging for a drop of milk of the teat of freedom and liberty of the USA.
That is correct! We will no longer be a "teat" for the world to suck on!

Firstly he has much better views (actually he has views)
You are very correct, on this point, I must admit!
Kerry has many views to choose from! Therefore he satisfies both sides, as long as each side is absentminded enough to practice enough doublethink to give Big Brother an orgasm!

One other thing I would like to speak about here, if I may:
Many have stated that Baathist Iraq was not a threat and that the Bush administration claimed Saddam had ties with Al-Quaeda. Iraq was a threat, however the claim that was (quite legitimately) made was that Saddam had ties with some terrorist organizations. For proof, we need only to look at UN Security Council Resolution 687 (of 1991) wherein it states that the UN deplores "threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict[the gulf war] to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq."
Now, I don't know about you, but if someone threatens "I have a gun and I am going to shoot you." I would act as if his threat were true, even if there seemed to be contrary evidence. Here, Saddam is implying that he has ties with terrorists, and is willing to use them.

(You can view the security council resolution at the following url:http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement)

We, as Americans, care nothing about what is "acceptable for Europeans." The Europeans have, at the forefront of their concerns, the concern for the well-being of Europe. This is great, and I applaud this, but America must have, at the forefront of its concerns, the concern for the well-being of America.

What a great point AGAINST yourself...

Ally=friend, right?

friend=considers your feeling, right?

we="care nothing about what is 'acceptable for Europeans'"

we=not friend.

not friend=no wonder our allies have turned their backs. We spit on them before they spit on us.

I didn't watch the debates. I would have rather watched paint dry.

What a great point AGAINST yourself...

Ally=friend, right?

friend=considers your feeling, right?

we="care nothing about what is 'acceptable for Europeans'"

we=not friend.

not friend=no wonder our allies have turned their backs. We spit on them before they spit on us.
It takes a strange "ally" to consider you a teat from which they can suck. (That process would get quite a bit of spit on us, anyway.

It takes a strange "ally" to consider you a teat from which they can suck. (That process would get quite a bit of spit on us, anyway.

This is such an egocentric world view, it's embarrassing. Do we want to be a world power or not? If not, we need to stop playing cop to the world. If so, we need to stop complaining if other countries with fewer of a particular resource (a resource we have an abundance of, for example, military power) want our help with something.

Kerry never said that china couldn't be involved. He never said that he would stop Multilatteral talks, or should the need come to it multilatteral police action. He said that Billateral talks were necessary. That's it. You are aware that both can be had simultaneously, right?

You also do understand that a non-aggression treaty works both ways, right? With the 30,000 some odd Americans stationed just this side of the DMZ it would be quite hard for him to do anything to SK without agressing against the US, at which point retalliation would be allowed.



If this fight is inevitable, wouldn't it be a good Idea to get international support into Iraq ASAP so we could pull/reorient/refresh our troops before someone sends a million people into battle?

Oh, wait, that actually makes sense. I forgot, you just want more rhetoric.



Since the nearly every large scale attack in the last decade has been planned, funded, run, or acted out by a Saudi, I think you are looking in the wrong direction.
Actually, almost every large scale attack in the last decade has been planned by either an Egyptian or a Saudi, but mostly Egyptians, run by Egyptians, Saudi's, and the occasional Jordanite, acted out by mostly Egyptians, with Saudis dominating only 9/11, and funded largely by Egyptians, Saudis, Moroccans, Algerians, among others, you can in fact point that the Egyptians are as bad or worse. In fact, many experts now call Egypt the "producer" of terrorists, whereas Saudia Arabia merely is the "coordinator".

I thought it was absolutely shameful the way John Kerry acted in the debate's last night. I mean, all that writing while his opponent was talking was nothing more than grinding in the fact that he's literate and Bush isn't.

All kidding aside, however, Kerry won a massive victory on several fronts. First of all, he went a long way towards beating back the charge that he's a "flip-flopper". If you'll note some of the other threads, you'll see that despite the best efforts of the more conservative members on Nationstates, the very best they can do to pin down a lie or change in position is to say that at one point he said the administration lied, and then say that he disagreed with the proposition that he had said the President had lied: at best a technicality, at worse a beyond-Clintonian case of splitting hairs.

Second, he went a long way towards outlining many of his ideas. What does he plan to do about: Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc. To the extent that anything can be presented concisely in 2 minutes, Kerry did.

Third and finally, he hammered Bush repeatedly first on his mistakes, and secondly on his refusal to own up to them. Bush himself didn't help with his constant petulance, recitation of the same things over and over (1. Vote for me or the Terrorists win. 2. Kerry's a flip-flopper.), intersperced with his constant stammering and deer-in-the-headlight pauses.


Im not talking about my debate, im talking about a argument that Bush brought up, talking about Kerry's plan, now i merely elaborated on it, furthermore i see my logic as fairly justifiable, i mean, if you can prove my argument false, by clearly explaining how Kerry's plan isnt based on his own assumptions, speculations, and ultimately poor planning, a layout that has solid ground a merit, then i dont see how im wrong. A good example is, he talked about securing the borders, ok, cool, would love it, but not once did he mention how he was gonna do it, what plan does he have of securing the borders? There's more strategy involved then that, you dont just say, oh i'll send troops and completely cover the border inch for inch. As of now, we do not have the manpower to control the borders as Kerry proclaims, in order to do it in his plan, he would have to ship more US troops to iraq, but then again he says that in six months he plans to sending our troops home.


1) He did not say he would bring the troops home in six months, Hickdumb. Rule #1 in debate is that you do not misquote your opponent, especially uncharitably. He said that he would A) increase the size of the military to relieve the overall strain on the troops right now, and B) stop mishandling the nation. Provided that those two conditions were met, and the Iraqi situation improves, he would be able to begin the withdrawal in six month's time.

2) If we increase the size of the military by 2 divisions, we ought to have the manpower (assuming one of those divisions goes over as reinforcement, that means about 20,000 additional men IIRC. That's a huge boost to the 130,000 already deployed).

3) Covering the border inch-for-inch is probably not necessary. If it is true as you mention that the "Iraqi border is hundreds of miles of nothing but dessert, there's no wall, no defensive structures or checkpoints. . .", then it also stands to reason that there are no gas stations for heavy vehicles, and no means of logistical support for light infantry. As such, we can probably figure that the terrorists will be more likely to cross in certain places (such as, say, places where they don't face the risk of being out in the desert without food or water for a week, assuming they don't lose their way), than in others. These, doncha know, are probably the places where we would be best served by putting troops.


The Iraqi border is hundreds of miles of nothing but dessert, there's no wall, no defensive structures or checkpoints, terrorists can get in from anywhere, Kerry talks about securing the borders like its nothing when in fact its this wars worst nightmare. I agree that Bush does not have the best tactics, Everybody has hard times, Clinton had em four wars in a row, i'll let you liberals have Kosovo since its borderline on the brink of chaos, Roosevelt lost over a million US servicemen in WWII, 25,000 dead in Vietnam, by all accounts, we have a low casualty count in the iraqi war. Things have gone wrong, Bush has made mistakes, but i disagree with major mistakes as Kerry has proclaimed. Mistakes yes, but none big enough to cost us a war, probably mistakes that will cost us time, but will not cost us the war.

1) Kosovo is actually in pretty good shape, especially when compared to what it was in 1998.

2) IIRC, the number of troops we lost in WWII did not exceed 300,000 men. You are overstating the losses by about 400%.

3) In Vietnam we lost 58,000 men.

4) From the above, I infer that you don't have the best background in military history or strategy, so I forgive you for making the assertion you did. But the fact remains, Bush has made several, absolutely critical mistakes in Gulf War II. For a brief, albeit incomplete rundown, I present the following.

A) Inadequate numbers of troops. The first rule of any occupation is that you provide enough troops for the mere presence of troops anywhere to cow any resistance. This is an operational principle that goes back at least to Machiavelli in terms of purely theoretical doctrine. In practice, it goes back to the Romans. However, when we went to war in Iraq, we decided to do it on the cheap (this I assume was to prevent any questioning of whether we might want to roll back some of Bush's precious tax cuts). As such, we provided enough firepower to provide for the first phase of operations (namely, the part we excel at anyway: blowing the shit out of the opponent in a frontal engagement), but not enough for the occupation, where sheer weight of numbers counts more than the ability to put a Tomahawk through any given window in a building.

B) Disbanded the Iraqi militia. This was a mistake on several levels. For one, it put huge numbers of comparitively well-trained young men in the unemployment line, which over time gave various groups like Al Queda or any one of the Shia or Sunni clerics a well-spring of manpower to draw from. Two, it eliminated a ready group of soldiers that might have bolstered our numbers and eased Problem A) I mentione above.

C) Inadequate post-war planning. By inadequate, I mean non-exisent. If you actually look at the news reports leading up to the war, you will see that whenever an administration official is asked about postwar Iraq, you'll see them talk about us being liberators. If the reporter has the temerity to ask for specifics, the standard response was that there was very little if anything on the table. The rationale for this was that we couldn't know what the post-war Iraq would look like. By this reasoning, no one should ever plan for anything. This is a bad idea when you're talking about voucher reform. It is catastrophic when you are talking about rebuilding a damned nation.

D) Failure to gain friends and influence people. The most important man in Iraq today, and the second-most behind Saddam pre-war, as the Ayatollah Sistani. Why? Well, because he's the undisputed leader of the Shiite Muslims in Iraq, who comprise about 60% of the nation's population. Think of him in kind of the same way you would look at the Pope in, say, Italy: not a national leader, but a person of immense influence. Ayatollah Sistani pre-war looked forward to working with us. What did we do? We repeatedly snubbed him. As a result, we have at best ambivelent support from the Shiites, and active resistance from some others.

Does this look like an emerging pattern here? It seems that our problems today were brought on by incompetence on a massive scale in the past. Probably one of the best arguments you can make for Kerry being the commander in chief is that you can't get any more incompetent than the person already in.

I look at Kerry's past history and i dont see him as a strong war president, everything he does is anti-war, he was a anti-war activist in Vietnam, his senate record shows anti-war sentiment, voting against every major weapon system we use today, he trash talks iraq constantly, he does not seem suitable to be a war-time president whereas Bush, though not the brightest guy in the world, not the greatest tactician, but has a strong resolve, a strong will, a good heart, and a sense of duty and loyalty that i do not see in John Kerry. I think Bush has the personality, the conviction, and the loyalty to his people to bring us to victory, mistakes will happen but i still see us winning the day because of Bush's positive attitude and strong resolve, our troops see that to.

1) Kerry voted against the same weapon's programs that one Dick Cheney voted against. The reason why they voted against them is because they were pork-barrel projects designed more to fill the coffers of Boeing than help our military. For the same price of a B-2 bomber (one of the things that Kerry deigned in his ignorance not to vote to build any more of), we could have given. . .tum te tum, doing the arithmetic. . .4,000,000 men state-of-the-art body armor (2 billion, the price of a B-2, divided by 500, the price of standard body armor plates).

2) Perhaps the reason why Kerry is usually anti-war (and I fail to see how this is a bad thing, mind you) is because he actuall fought in war, and knows that it is not a decision to take lightly.

3) So a good heart is enough to outweigh strategic and tactical ignorance in the matters of making war on another state? Forgive me for saying so, but God help us all if you're made a general, Hickdumb.

Finally,
pacifist socialist

Do you even realize that that's a contradiction in terms? A socialist is a person who believes in the violent overthrow of the government and forcible redistribution of wealth, according to Marx's Communist Manifesto, as well as just about every other socialist reading (except for the Democratic Socialists, but they weren't of the breed you were talking about). You might want to try actually reading about the material before you start making ad hominem attacks.

Xenophobialand, all very good points, I enjoyed reading your post. But

A socialist is a person who believes in the violent overthrow of the government and forcible redistribution of wealth, according to Marx's Communist Manifesto, as well as just about every other socialist reading (except for the Democratic Socialists, but they weren't of the breed you were talking about). You might want to try actually reading about the material before you start making ad hominem attacks.
Socialist isn't the same thing as a communist - communism is a political stance that advocates violent overthrow, socialism is merely a philosophy that advocates giving the means of production to the workers and equal distribution of wealth.

Socialist isn't the same thing as a communist - communism is a political stance that advocates violent overthrow, socialism is merely a philosophy that advocates giving the means of production to the workers and equal distribution of wealth.

Nonono! That's not right at all!

You have revolutionary socialists and you have democratic socialists. Democratic Socialists believe in peacefully rising to power through elections. Revolutionary Socialists believe the only way to defeat Capitalism is to rise up and revolt against the bourgeoisie. This belief is pretty much extinct in the developed world.
Communism is similar to anarchy. Equal distribution of wealth, removal of classes. Government is no longer needed.
Marxism advocates the revolt of the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie, and establishment of the socialist Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which must be maintained to consolidate the power of the people, and to begin deconstruction of the capitalist class system. Socialism in the Marxist view is just the transitional period to true communism.

The USSR was not communist, China is not communist and North Korea is not communist. They were/are authoritarian socialist states. China is steadily becoming authoritarian state-capitalist.

And back on topic, here's an article with some good statistics on the US Public's reaction to the debates.

Polls show that 10-20% more people feel Kerry 'won' the debate.

Well, Kerry wants one on one talks with NK without China, SK, or Japan to be involved. Kerry obviously does not understand NK at all. They want a non-aggression pact with the US. Once they have that, they can attack SK at will for the food they have. NK is starving. In 1999 the NK government convinced the people that it was healthier to eat one meal a day than three. Food supplies in NK go to the military. Civilians are literally starving to death so that the military that props up the "cult of personality" can be fed. Fuel supplies are non-existent. When Clinton tried do deal with NK one on one, he went in, hat in hand, and gave NK everything they wanted. They immediately violated the agreement. They have NOTHING to lose anymore.

We are going to fight them eventually, that IS going to happen. So we should either get China to get their stepchild in line, or we sit back and wait for them to get hungry enough to either come around, or attack SK for food.

Kerry would turn to the UN and make the US subservient to it and or Europe, THAT would be a huge mistake and would likely result in a military revolt against him if he attempted to put US troops in UN uniforms or under UN control.

As for Pakistan, we should have added them to the list of terrorist states many years ago so no argument there from me.


Clearly you weren't listening to the debate Bif. Kerry was very clear that he wanted BOTH bilateral and multilateral talks involving North Korea.

From the transcript: (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/3775896/detail.html)

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.


Incidentally, when Bush claimed that bilateral talks would scuttle the multilateral ones, it was rather conventient of him to forget to mention that both China and Japan have ASKED him to also open up bilateral talks but that he has refused so far. China and Japan both feel that the current setup is not putting enough pressure on North Korea largely because the US does not seem to be fully engaged.

I mean - it's nice of him to claim that these multilateral talks are working. Why, they are even stating their confidence that Korea will join them! (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041001/wl_asia_afp/us_china_nkorea_nuclear_041001014021)

The United States and China said they were confident North Korea (news - web sites) would return to six-party talks aimed at ending the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula after the Stalinist state missed a deadline for the fourth round of the talks.

Oh yeah.... clearly THIS strategy is moving things along.... :rolleyes:

Kerry reminds me of Basil Fawlty and Bush could be Manuel. Que?

But Kerry did win this debate, he clearly looked strong. It's unfortunate that there are so many rules.

I do think Kerry showed he was ready to make tough decisions and Bush looks tired, weathered and the fist pounding on his 'pulpt' did little to impress.

Well, if they're not on my side completely, maybe they aren't the best ones to argue for my point in the first place.

Second, I don't remember anyone saying they were supposed to go on at the exact same moment... I remember Kerry saying we need to reopen the bilateral dialogue with Korea.

Well... that's the whole point, isnt it? So now just replace "North Korea" with "Iraq". So. Needless to say, it's a contradiction on Kerry's part.
Either Bush was wrong to invade Iraq without a large international coalition, and he's right in dealing with North Korea, or he's right on Iraq but wrong on NK...

But *WHY*? Because Bush didn't? They BROKE the agreement they had with made with the Clinton administration. Why should now be any different? Further, the South Koreans, Japanese, China and Russia are all big players. Do you want to alienate them?

Your analogy is flawed. Throughout history there have been cases of countries having both billateral and multilatteral talks and treaties with each other. There have also been plenty of times when I had a friend with a problem that I both talked to him alone and with friends, etc to get said problem resolved.

Just name one, and I will concede. But I already know that you cannot.

I'll ignore the continuation of your flawed analogy. As to Kerry's point of view, I think it was quite clear. Be strong, say in no uncertain terms what you will and won't stand for, and when push comes to shove get your allies to see that it is as necessary for them as it is for you (and make sure it actually is necessary first) so that they will share in both the cost and rewards involved in fixing the problem.

*Yawn* Rah rah rah...

If my analogy is flawed, PROVE it. Otherwise, you're just blown' smoke.

Yes, they ARE going on at the same time. Literally at the same exact minute, no, but in the same period of time, such as say a month. And no, those countries are not "on your side absolutely," but wouldn't they want North Korea to have nukes even less than we do, given that their countries are actually in range of North Korea's missiles?

What I do not understand is why the Bush Administration maintains that it is absolutely vital that we maintain multilateral talks in North Korea, that going unilateral even if we kept up the multilateral talks at the same time would totally screw the pooch, when the same Administration decided to go after Iraq, which was a far lesser threat than North Korea is now, in about the most unilateral way possible.

In a one-on-one meeting the United States can more effectively offer incentives to North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons because everyone else is not there to object to said incentives or say why they won't work or offer a different plan entirely. Getting the closed-door offer on one hand and the "everyone in the region hates your guts" offer on the other would improve the chances of said offer to be taken, right?

And while we talk about nuclear proliferation, let us remember Iran, which is obviously working as fast as possible towards nuclear arms with no objection by the Administration despite being part of the "axis of evil."

The point I'm making is that it's couterproductive to have 2 sets of talks.
Another example: Suppose in 1917 the Germans INSISTED that the Western Allies also take part in the seperate peace of Russia-Germany. It *can't* work, because of other interests!
Likewise, think about the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Think that NY-VA talks would work while you have all-colonies talks? How could that work?
If one of you would name *one time* this has ever happened, I'll concede if it is viable.

*What incentives can you give a man that starves his own people to deal to field a million man army? * Further, how can you deal with him in good faith when he BROKE THE ORIGINAL TREATY to give up nukes he made with the Clinton Administration? Sorry, NK will take whatever we offer and still build.
Repeat: There has NEVER been any occassion in HISTORY where youve had 2 party and multi-party talks at the same time.

The War in Iran is scheduled for 2006, right after they nuke Tel-Aviv. Don't tell the Illuminati. :)
Seriously, the Administration IS worried about Iran. But they've been sanctioned for about 20 years (to you remember the 444 days?)... not alot we can do that's not military. Personally, I REALLY am hoping for a counter-revolution.