NationStates Jolt Archive

So who won?

Bush, Kerry, neither?

I'll tell you who lost. The American voter.

Kerry won, not by a landslide but he won.

I'll tell you who lost. The American voter.

How profound.

Kerry was clearer, more knowledgable, and answered the questions given more directly, whereas Bush hesitated, and rambled off course.

Kerry. No doubt about it.

Kerry was clearer, more knowledgable, and answered the questions given more directly, whereas Bush hesitated, and rambled off course.


The thing that really amazed me is that, while I would say that Bush is an idiot, Bush always wins his debates. He oversimplifies, and tones everything down, but that really, really works for Bush.

Somehow he couldn't do that this time. He seemed lost most of the time. I was dumbfounded. I honestly did assume better from Bush.

Kerry did, finally, show a bit more of his knowledge of foreign policy issues.

Ultimately, though, I think both of them just tried for 90 minutes to find ways to slip in stump speech excerpts.

The thing that really amazed me is that, while I would say that Bush is an idiot, Bush always wins his debates. He oversimplifies, and tones everything down, but that really, really works for Bush.

Somehow he couldn't do that this time. He seemed lost most of the time. I was dumbfounded. I honestly did assume better from Bush.

He looked tired and unfocused. Usually, his best tool is that "c'mon, ya like me" demeanor which wins people over despite his policies (not all people..I know, I know)...

How profound.

Thank you.

Considering it was live, did he make any other stupid blunders (Bush)?

Thank you.

My point, and I probably should've illustrated this, is how did the American voter lose? On overwhelming majority support unequivocally one or the other.

How is this election any different from any election in the last 20 years?

My point, and I probably should've illustrated this, is how did the American voter lose? On overwhelming majority support unequivocally one or the other.

How is this election any different from any election in the last 20 years?

Because it was a showcase for the terrible state of American politics, where those two men are the best we can produce in an election year. Say what you want about guys like Clinton or Reagan, but I was never afraid of how they would lead our country.

Considering it was live, did he make any other stupid blunders (Bush)?

I noticed a couple. Read here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7147811#post7147811) for a couple of the more interesting ones.

Because it was a showcase for the terrible state of American politics, where those two men are the best we can produce in an election year. Say what you want about guys like Clinton or Reagan, but I was never afraid of how they would lead our country.

I see your point. You're right that we can do better. I personally don't have great love for either one of them.

He looked tired and unfocused. Usually, his best tool is that "c'mon, ya like me" demeanor which wins people over despite his policies (not all people..I know, I know)...

Agree with you completely. He seemed completely unprepared for this, even though he knew that the debates would happen. I understand that he's the president of the US but this is one of the most important selling points; you put it your all into this. I was honestly amazed by how unfocused he was.

I see your point. You're right that we can do better. I personally don't have great love for either one of them.

Thank you. I mean, looking at them "debate" (and the use of that word for tonight's fiasco is questionable), were you filled with any degree of confidence about either of their ability to lead our country? I was certainly discouraged.

Well, even if you don't like either of them, if your gonna vote, isn't it a waste to vote for someone else, lets say Nader?

Kerry won by a landslide. I mean I heard all the talk about him being a Flip Flopper, but I didn't see that tonight. I saw Kerry was descisive, with every statement he look straight into the camrea and said EVERYTHING with a strong sure voice. Bush on the other hand sweated, he was stammering and pausing alot, and he avoided alot of the question.

Well, even if you don't like either of them, if your gonna vote, isn't it a waste to vote for someone else, lets say Nader?

This is how effective Kerry was this debate:

(I'm voting in Massachusetts) I was going to vote for Nader, but after this debate I'm actually thinking about voting for Kerry. Why? Because Kerry killed Bush on the war on Iraq. Kerry made Bush's Iraq policy seem so irrational that I honestly believe that disallowing Bush to win is more important than voting your conscience.

Well, even if you don't like either of them, if your gonna vote, isn't it a waste to vote for someone else, lets say Nader?

Well, I vote in Massachusetts, so I don't see my vote really swinging things very much. We're pretty solidly Kerry over here.

My point, and I probably should've illustrated this, is how did the American voter lose? On overwhelming majority support unequivocally one or the other.

How is this election any different from any election in the last 20 years?

No need. Some of the rest of us understood your point. :)

I thought that the debate was actually much better than the primary debates, and I agree that Kerry came off the better Presidential hopeful.

I think Kerry won by quite a margin. Putting all the details of the actual content of the debate aside, that angry look on G. Dub's face for most of the time didn't help him much.

Bush seemed shaken, moreso as the debate wore on. Kerry started out nervous but did wonderfully. He spoke in short, concise sentences, something that he hadn't grasped to this point. Bush seemed only to be able to repeat the same phrases over and over and didn't seem able to form cohesive points. Bush scored a few points but it seemed that Kerry was handling him by the end. Bush's pauses were awkward and he began his comments by saying "um" more than a few times.

There were two things that really stood out aside from their actual messages. The first was that CNN did cut out to show both candidates at the same time, something that was supposed to have been against the rules for this debate. During those cutouts, Kerry stood straight and smiled a lot. He wrote a few comments and watched Bush as he replied. Bush looked lost and upset and seemed to be staring off to the side. Several times CNN caught him reaching under the podium for his water glass. Bush's staff apparently didn't coach him very well on looking presidential during that time.

The second thing I noticed was a comment made by Bush. He was responding to Kerry and stated that we couldn't go back to the policies of "pre-September 10th." Those I were watching with caught it too and there was a stunned silence after he said it. With his campaign pushing so hard on the need for war after 9/11, how could he possibly get the date wrong? His whole presidency has centered around this event and he still didn't remember the date?

Kerry wins round 1, though I'm sure that's not the story Fox News will be presenting. I imagine Limbaugh will trumpet Bush's praises tomorrow.

I noticed the 9/10 too, and wondered if I had missed something the day before 9/11 that changed things more than the following day...

I don't like Rush, but I will tune in tomorrow to see what he says about the debate, and see how badly he puts together his sucking up to Bush.

Anyone notice on certain channels, I think I was watching Fox, where they were showing both presidents? Specifically, Bush was zoomed in upon, to make his head reach the same height as kerry's. It just seemed wierd to me they would deliberately try to downplay the size difference.

There were two things that really stood out aside from their actual messages. The first was that CNN did cut out to show both candidates at the same time, something that was supposed to have been against the rules for this debate.

So did Fox - although moreso when Bush was talking than when Kerry was. I don't think any of the networks actually signed off on those rules. Kerry did get a "Yeah, yeah, whatever" kind of look on his face a couple of times, but mostly kept his composure. They also tried to make them look the same height, so that half of Bush's podium was showing and only a sliver of Kerry's was - it looked pretty goofy.

Kerry wins round 1, though I'm sure that's not the story Fox News will be presenting. I imagine Limbaugh will trumpet Bush's praises tomorrow.

Actually, I had to watch Fox (yeah, yeah I know - but it's all I get without cable), and the expert they had on my local new station gave the win to Kerry. He stated that Kerry won on all three points (war on terror, war on Iraq, homeland security) but that Bush won on style (I didn't see it, but hey, whatever).

Who said Bush won by a landslide? Are you on drugs?

Bush's idea of "style" is to stare blankly at the camera, repeating "uh" and stammering.

Who said Bush won by a landslide? Are you on drugs?
It's a public poll. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8740)

It's a public poll. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8740)

Good point; I made the poll, I should have known better.

So did Fox - although moreso when Bush was talking than when Kerry was. I don't think any of the networks actually signed off on those rules. Kerry did get a "Yeah, yeah, whatever" kind of look on his face a couple of times, but mostly kept his composure. They also tried to make them look the same height, so that half of Bush's podium was showing and only a sliver of Kerry's was - it looked pretty goofy.



Actually, I had to watch Fox (yeah, yeah I know - but it's all I get without cable), and the expert they had on my local new station gave the win to Kerry. He stated that Kerry won on all three points (war on terror, war on Iraq, homeland security) but that Bush won on style (I didn't see it, but hey, whatever).


Haha yes, because looking confused and docile is soo stylish lol

Bush struggled on some issues, but managed to get Kerry in a bind on other issues in the process. Bush brought up a very good argument that i actually brought up last week at my College Republican/College Democrat debate (which us Republicans won) about Kerry's UN summit plan. His plan to bring in more allies, this plan is based on assumption, he assumes that he can bring in allies like France, which in fact he cant guarantee that he can, furthermore France issued a statement that no matter who wins they will not send troops to iraq thus eliminating a portion of his plan right there before it even starts. Furthermore, how can Kerry bring in allies and do better with the allied community when he calls the allies we have now "the bribed and coerced" and insults the prime minister of iraq. Those statements bother me, furthermore to add to it, how can he bring more allies to a cause that he speaks so negatively and pesimistically about. He's trying to convince allies to allocate resources that arent in great supply to them, to allocate troops and risk lives to a cause that he claims is failing, that its a lost cause, a "great diversion" a "great mistake", you wont convince anyone to do anything when you talk down a cause that you are trying to persuade them that it is a cause worth dying for. He is contradicting himself to that degree. Furthermore, his layout of the plan has no merit, no solodity, no ground base, its just basic moves and politics, there's no depth to this plan, there is nothing in his plan that will cause any major positive outcome that he is promising since he claims that it will go so well that by six months we can begin pulling troops out of iraq. This timeline is impossible, nothing that positively drastic can happen to allow such a withdraw in such a small time frame, his plan has no ground, its speculation, assumption, and poorly constructed from the way he layed it out in the debate.

kerry but just.

Bush struggled on some issues, but managed to get Kerry in a bind on other issues in the process. Bush brought up a very good argument that i actually brought up last week at my College Republican/College Democrat debate (which us Republicans won) about Kerry's UN summit plan. His plan to bring in more allies, this plan is based on assumption, he assumes that he can bring in allies like France, which in fact he cant guarantee that he can, furthermore France issued a statement that no matter who wins they will not send troops to iraq thus eliminating a portion of his plan right there before it even starts. Furthermore, how can Kerry bring in allies and do better with the allied community when he calls the allies we have now "the bribed and coerced" and insults the prime minister of iraq. Those statements bother me, furthermore to add to it, how can he bring more allies to a cause that he speaks so negatively and pesimistically about. He's trying to convince allies to allocate resources that arent in great supply to them, to allocate troops and risk lives to a cause that he claims is failing, that its a lost cause, a "great diversion" a "great mistake", you wont convince anyone to do anything when you talk down a cause that you are trying to persuade them that it is a cause worth dying for. He is contradicting himself to that degree. Furthermore, his layout of the plan has no merit, no solodity, no ground base, its just basic moves and politics, there's no depth to this plan, there is nothing in his plan that will cause any major positive outcome that he is promising since he claims that it will go so well that by six months we can begin pulling troops out of iraq. This timeline is impossible, nothing that positively drastic can happen to allow such a withdraw in such a small time frame, his plan has no ground, its speculation, assumption, and poorly constructed from the way he layed it out in the debate.

Yo, most of this has nothing to do with the debate. A lot of your argument relies "on your opinion," which might matter to you, but it doesn't make it right.

Some (most) of your arguments rely on circular logic. Also, how the hell does your little debate in camp correlate in any way to the real debate or real issues of the world? Oh yeah, it doesn't!

Bush struggled on some issues, but managed to get Kerry in a bind on other issues in the process. Bush brought up a very good argument that i actually brought up last week at my College Republican/College Democrat debate (which us Republicans won) about Kerry's UN summit plan. His plan to bring in more allies, this plan is based on assumption, he assumes that he can bring in allies like France, which in fact he cant guarantee that he can, furthermore France issued a statement that no matter who wins they will not send troops to iraq thus eliminating a portion of his plan right there before it even starts. Furthermore, how can Kerry bring in allies and do better with the allied community when he calls the allies we have now "the bribed and coerced" and insults the prime minister of iraq. Those statements bother me, furthermore to add to it, how can he bring more allies to a cause that he speaks so negatively and pesimistically about. He's trying to convince allies to allocate resources that arent in great supply to them, to allocate troops and risk lives to a cause that he claims is failing, that its a lost cause, a "great diversion" a "great mistake", you wont convince anyone to do anything when you talk down a cause that you are trying to persuade them that it is a cause worth dying for. He is contradicting himself to that degree. Furthermore, his layout of the plan has no merit, no solodity, no ground base, its just basic moves and politics, there's no depth to this plan, there is nothing in his plan that will cause any major positive outcome that he is promising since he claims that it will go so well that by six months we can begin pulling troops out of iraq. This timeline is impossible, nothing that positively drastic can happen to allow such a withdraw in such a small time frame, his plan has no ground, its speculation, assumption, and poorly constructed from the way he layed it out in the debate.

Oh give it up, everyone knows Bush did a terrible job at that debate. He would've lost to a child. You know it. Kerry's argument was far clearer and had such a greater amount of merit than any of George Bushes public announcements ever had. Kerry has confidence backed up with brains where as Bush sits there and manipulates peoples perception, one day its "Vote for me cause I'm gonna kick everyone's ass" and the next day he pulls a cutesy face and brings his wife out and acts all coy after a major dissapointment like Iraq and does the "Vote for me, I'm to nice to be evil!"

Without a doubt Kerry is a brighter, sharper, more intelligent president, brainless hicks shouldn't be in the government.

It's a public poll. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8740)

Yup. Gotta love the lurker/multie voter turnout on these things sometimes :)

Yo, most of this has nothing to do with the debate. A lot of your argument relies "on your opinion," which might matter to you, but it doesn't make it right.

Some (most) of your arguments rely on circular logic. Also, how the hell does your little debate in camp correlate in any way to the real debate or real issues of the world? Oh yeah, it doesn't!


As a matter of fact, all of the post you quoted DID have to do with the debate (with the exception of his mentioning his campus debate). The entirety of the quote was explaining President Bush's rebuke of kerry's position of the week. You can not expect to bring more allies in to help with something that you believe was "a mistake" and is the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place".

As for the poll....i dont know what debate y'all were watching but i would be willing to bet that the majority of the people posting on here (or the people that answered kerry by a landslide) already had a deepseeded and unfounded hatred of our President before the debate. I cite the fact that no one with the exception of the poster that you were criticizing has actually cited evidence FROM the content of the debate. Everyone else has claimed that so and so came off this way or that...never citing the positions.

way to go hickdumb, dont let the hippies get ya down

Wow! Was I watching a different debate from everyone else? All I saw were a couple of inadequate boobs which made the Democrats and Republicans look about as relevant as the Federalists and the Whigs. Putting either one of those goons in charge makes about as much sense as having the nation led by a calico cat.

Kerry won? Bush won? Who the hell cares? Winning that mess of a debate is like taking first place in an ugly contest -- not much to brag about at all.

God, but I miss the days of Reagan. Hell, I'm almost starting to miss the Clinton years.

As a matter of fact, all of the post you quoted DID have to do with the debate (with the exception of his mentioning his campus debate). The entirety of the quote was explaining President Bush's rebuke of kerry's position of the week. You can not expect to bring more allies in to help with something that you believe was "a mistake" and is the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place".

As for the poll....i dont know what debate y'all were watching but i would be willing to bet that the majority of the people posting on here (or the people that answered kerry by a landslide) already had a deepseeded and unfounded hatred of our President before the debate. I cite the fact that no one with the exception of the poster that you were criticizing has actually cited evidence FROM the content of the debate. Everyone else has claimed that so and so came off this way or that...never citing the positions.

way to go hickdumb, dont let the hippies get ya down

Actually I only posted after reading the transcript hun :)

As a matter of fact, all of the post you quoted DID have to do with the debate (with the exception of his mentioning his campus debate). The entirety of the quote was explaining President Bush's rebuke of kerry's position of the week. You can not expect to bring more allies in to help with something that you believe was "a mistake" and is the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place".

Of course, that's not Kerry's position at all. Kerry feels that we went into the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place." However, at this point, we must see it through. And since the purpose now is not starting a war, but rebuilding a strong and stable nation that does not feel it is being taken over.

As for the poll....i dont know what debate y'all were watching but i would be willing to bet that the majority of the people posting on here (or the people that answered kerry by a landslide) already had a deepseeded and unfounded hatred of our President before the debate.

Deepseated perhaps, but certainly not unfounded. Either way, he didn't debate well and came off sounding whiny.

I have to say that both of the candidates skirted issues. Being slightly conservative, I noticed when Kerry dodged questions. Likewise, the more liberal minded people of this thread saw Bush do the same.

You do not believe me when I say Kerry did the same? What about when Kerry was asked for specifics on what he thought should be done in Iraq? He mentioned that he had a plan. Not what it was. That does not answer the question.

Has anyone ever read Kerry's four-point plan? Very similar the plan of someone else...

yeah I am a Bush supporter.

yeah, Kerry won tonight.

This was the best I have ever seen Kerry discuss his plans on Iraq, terrorism, and national security. This was one of the worst times I have ever seen the President discuss his plans on Iraq, terrorism, and homeland security. Kerry made a hand full of mistakes and Bush never capitalized on them. I also think they were too nice to each other. I was waiting for one to call the other "BIATCH!" or something like that. Bush looked easily agitated, while every time Bush pointed out a negative of Kerry, Kerry just nodded his head and took notes.

It is a shame that even though Kerry won this debate, there are so few undescided voters out there that this performance will not have much impact on the election.

Word Up, A-town down.

Either way, he didn't debate well and came off sounding whiny.

And, as always, Kerry came off sounding like a mindless zombie. At least Bush had some emotion. Though I have to agree Bush seemed out of it tonight.

And, as always, Kerry came off sounding like a mindless zombie. At least Bush had some emotion. Though I have to agree Bush seemed out of it tonight.
And always Bush came off like a bumbling idiot with no education. At least Kerry made sence. Though I have to agree Bush seems permanently out of it without a transcript.

I won, by going to the movies instead of watching the retarded debate.

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. 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. 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.

I'll tell you who lost. The American voter.

So true.

Well, even if you don't like either of them, if your gonna vote, isn't it a waste to vote for someone else, lets say Nader?

Isn't it a waste to vote for someone you don't like?

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. 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. 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.

Does he have a shiney coat as well? Look if thats what you think could be a president, my coffee mug could be the president. And just because Kerry is against killing thousands of people doesn't make him bad...in fact....

Alot of people enjoy the idea of not going to war, War-President should be an insult to bad governing of a siatuation unless it is in reply, Iraq was in reply to nothing. If there was something a "Shock & Awe" style attack is crap.

I'll tell you who lost. The American voter.

The American voter lost a very decisive battle in the beginning in which political parties took form in the new American government.

But the last, and most likely the biggest and most decisive battle, was fought in the 80's. The two parties fought back and made the debates what they are today. Turning them into dual press conferences instead of actual debates, all because the organization that hosted the debates at the time wouldn't stand up to the parties.

So we lost two big battles. We won one battle when the Rebuplicans broke the third party line and rose up to become a major party. But we stayed in a two party system, so we actually tied that battle.

I don't think we'll ever win back the country and government ever again.

Erm, I'm done ranting now, sorry.

Oh and now that I look back on the debate, Kerry prolly won.

If you want to be a socialist pacifist, move to europe, i believe freedom for anybody especially people suffering from mass genocide like the iraqi's under Saddam Hussein is worth dying for. Our founding fathers of america did to, Roosevelt did, he's a war-time president, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagen, all famous and loved war-time presidents. I believe Bush belongs in that category, because he fought against the same enemy as all of those presidents. The enemy of tyranny and oppression.

I missed most of it (unfortunatly) but from what I've heard from the last of the debate, all of the commentary, the news articles, and people here, Kerry won. I definatly support the deomcrats.

If you want to be a socialist pacifist, move to europe, i believe freedom for anybody especially people suffering from mass genocide like the iraqi's under Saddam Hussein is worth dying for. Our founding fathers of america did to, Roosevelt did, he's a war-time president, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagen, all famous and loved war-time presidents. I believe Bush belongs in that category, because he fought against the same enemy as all of those presidents. The enemy of tyranny and oppression.

Ha, your country put him there in the first place. That was pretty stupid now wasn't it.

The attack was far to brutal if to only claim a hand full of men. The planning has been awful and Bush is to blame, hold him responsible for his actions, don't simply look for another reason to love him. If Kerry say did something stupid like blatantly oppose Gay couples I wouldn't like him anymore, as in I'd hold him responsible. Don't be blind to idiocy.

Everyone keeps talking about how Kerry could fix Iraq. Does anyone know what his plan is? Has he even revealed it?

For starters im pretty sure ive heard him say "send in more troops" at one point. We're woefully understaffed out there, a problem several respectable members of the military have pointed out in the past. We had the manpower to TAKE but not to HOLD.

Kerry won. Neither by a sliver nor a landslide in my opinion, but it was a definite win. He defined his stance well, and proved the lie to the "flip-flopper" argument by being very clear in defining what he believes. Bush, on the other hand, really brought out nothing new; he repeated the same one-line arguments over and over (even when it was not topical...did anyone else notice his tendancy to start talking about Iraq when the topic was N. Korea/Iran?), and was generally nervous the whole time. Hell, even the Repub's are admitting Kerry did better tonight. And before anyone starts, they both dodged questions and inserted sound bites for answers. They're politicians. It's what they do.

The theory that I've heard on Bush's poor performance runs that he is a great debator, so long as he can portray himself as "the outsider" pushing against the established power. He works well with a "common man" image, so that plays to him. However, he is a much weaker debator, and off balance, when he IS the established power. It makes sense to me, and it's supported by looking at his older debates.

I would still rather not have to vote for Kerry, since the Dems really don't embody my political beleifs (and he wasn't my favorite Dem contender, either), but frankly, Dubya scares me. I don't want that monkey to be capable of pushing The Button any longer.

Everyone keeps talking about how Kerry could fix Iraq. Does anyone know what his plan is? Has he even revealed it?


You would know exactly what his plan is, if you had paid attention to the debate tonight.

Regarding the television coverage on various networks:

As I understand it, Fox News had control of the cameras for this debate. They provided the feed for all of the other stations, from CBC to CNN and so forth.

At home, we swapped channels from CBC Newsworld to CNN to the CTV news station and saw exactly the same feed, so it didn't look like any of them were changing what Fox provided. They just cut to their own cameras when it was time to start dissecting the debate.

But that could explain the effort to make Bush and Kerry appear the same height, since Fox had the cameras.

Other networks have the opportunity to control the cameras at the next debates, just like different networks provide different moderators.

Regarding the television coverage on various networks:

As I understand it, Fox News had control of the cameras for this debate. They provided the feed for all of the other stations, from CBC to CNN and so forth.

At home, we swapped channels from CBC Newsworld to CNN to the CTV news station and saw exactly the same feed, so it didn't look like any of them were changing what Fox provided. They just cut to their own cameras when it was time to start dissecting the debate.

But that could explain the effort to make Bush and Kerry appear the same height, since Fox had the cameras.

Other networks have the opportunity to control the cameras at the next debates, just like different networks provide different moderators.
You gotta watch on C-SPAN, not cuts, just a split screen medium shot of both candidates all the way through.

Not that this adds to the discussion that I clearly don't know what was....

sorry, I'll catch up.

Isn't it a waste to vote for someone you don't like?

Thats what voting is for a lot of people now days. Its not voting for the guy you like the most, its voting against the guy you like the least. Picking the lesser of two evils so to speak.

Oh Kerry definatly won.

However, there's one thing people haven't addressed that really bugged me throughout the debates: What the hell is up with Bush's face? He kept making these weird little faces throughout the debate. At first it was funny. Then it was irritating. Then it all out pissed me off. Was he having uncontrolable spasms or something?

Bush did look like he stayed up all night hittin the bong, admittedly, but this doesn't vindicate the slippery "plans" of Kerry, either. Both could be accused of wandering off topic at times, but as for the "was the cost of human life worth it?" question, Bush had a resounding yes, and supported his position, while Kerry did the most egregious issue avoidance of the night, absolutely dodging the topic for his entire answer. I find this very telling of his mindset; you could almost see his thought processes in a little bubble "If I say yes, I'll piss these people off and have to defend myself this way; If I say no, I'll make my base of douchebag liberals happy, but insult the military and have to defend myself this way. Therefore, I'll talk about something else instead." Bush's thoughts, like them or not, were to simply answer the question with the way he felt; there was no consideration of approaching the issue through anything but the way he honestly felt. For all his slick politician rhetoric, Kerry as usual was just full of big promises with NO discussion on how to carry them out. Health care for all and billions on social programs afforded from raising taxes on 1% of the population? (which WILL hinder economic growth, these are the primary owners of capital, they may hoard wealth but never so much as when burdened with taxes(which are still proportionally MUCH higher despite the cut, democrats neglect to mention in their redundant class warfare slogans)) If you think the deficit's bad now, just wait for a classic tax-and-spend liberal like Kerry. He's concerned with giving political handjobs to countries who were selling arms to Saddam to involve them in a "mistake." That sounds good. His plan for Korea is a disaster waiting to happen. In truth, there's no real excuse for Bush's lack of focus, other than perhaps needing to be the president, when ALL Kerry has to worry about is practicing his populist demagoguery and elastic logic (atrocious senate attendance record, atrocious voting record when present by any but Karl Marx or perhaps Leon Trotsky's standards). Bush is far from perfect but at least the man holds an actual opinion beyond vague generalities designed to appeal to idealistic collegiate douchebags and crackheads who want a handout, with as shallow a grasp of the down to earth realities behind the issues as Kerry seems to have, or has balls enough to state. Right or wrong, it's a plan, and Kerry has nothing, NOTHING. Don't let him fool you with his baseless promises, no more countries are joining us in Iraq without taking full authority and all of the profit after we earned it through hardship (just being realistic, it's not the reason we're there, but now that it's over the country that fought for it deserves to reap the benefits and make the decisions, not the impotent UN or NATO). Europe has been dealing with terrorism far longer than us, and will keep doing so as long as they continue to follow their collective, newly adopted ultra-left wing stance (the opposition of which infuriates them after milennia of being the very imperialist warmongers they, in their sudden self-righteousness refer to us as) of accommodation and appeasement. Actually, it's not so new, the idealistic gimplord Neville Chamberlain tried it once and achieved "peace in our time", according to him at least. That went real well, didn't it? Terrorists FEED off "appeasement", look at Spain. They adopted a socialist government which will cower away from doing what it believes in simply to hide from radical Islam. The proof that their strategies work, and momentum gained alone from this attack will result in hundreds more deaths. Italy just paid a million dollars to get two of its women back, a million that will be used to buy new weapons and explosives that will murder Iraqis, Americans, and others. Even whimpering France, who'd done all it could to lick the collective shlong of terrorism, gets hostages taken for its school dress code. See what bowing down to the towelheads ultimately gets you? More confidence to them, more terror to us as their confidence leads to more attacks, and weakening of our position. The liberal left of America is playing right into their hands, much like in Vietnam. Perhaps this war against terror, like that against Communism, just isn't worth fighting? Is it time to start buying gas masks in droves and taping our windows again and hoping for the best? (not me, that's for damn sure, but I'm sure a lot of the same people supporting Kerry were coincidentally also the first to panic and stop taking flights, buy gas masks and the whole deal). Sitting on the defensive and spending hundreds of billions on security while "working on diplomacy" is NOT a solution, it's just a long-term waste of money. No democrat on this entire Earth has a detailed plan beyond that, despite the constant bitching and moaning ("more troops" and "better foreign relations" are not very profound plans). Anyway, I'm way off topic by this point. I gave another lil analysis of every reason not to vote for Kerry in the thread
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7122622#post7122622

Most people view this election as an opportunity to vote anyone but Bush into office. The reality is the exact inverse. Bush is far from perfect, but it is actually the policy of Kerry which would put us at the edge of disaster. Cheney had a good point I'd thought of before he mentioned it: If the terrorists were able to vote, who would they choose? I assure you, it ain't Bush. It's the side of supposed "reason", or, in this case, indecision and negotiation. I'd rather follow a supposed dumbass from Texas in one direction than a slickster in every direction, and ultimately no direction at all.

Kerry.

Kerry, said relatively little more except about his conviction on the matter in rebuttal, but it was very interesting to see an alleged waffler state very firmly and to the point, straight off the bat, that he "will hunt down and kill" terrorists who attack the United States.

Bush looked easily agitated, while every time Bush pointed out a negative of Kerry, Kerry just nodded his head and took notes.

However, there's one thing people haven't addressed that really bugged me throughout the debates: What the hell is up with Bush's face? He kept making these weird little faces throughout the debate. At first it was funny. Then it was irritating. Then it all out pissed me off. Was he having uncontrolable spasms or something?
See link...
http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html

Our founding fathers of america did to, Roosevelt did, he's a war-time president, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagen(sic), all famous and loved war-time presidents.

i'm sorry, i might be wrong about this, but i'm fairly sure that Washington didn't become president until after the revolutionary war was done, and Reagan, what war did he get us into? and where's Madison? you too good to give Madison his props?

so i'm a Nader voter, and i'm still not voting for Kerry because he's a corporate shill, but he beat Bush over the head and made him eat his own vomit. why do i say that? several reasons:

1) Bush looked dumb. i mean, he always looks dumb, but he looked really dumb. when i teach my students public speaking one of hte first things i tell them is don't lean on the podium. the leaning on one elbow, not very appealing. but more than that, the biggest hits to Bush were his multiple 'uh's and blank stares into the cameras. the dead air, yeah, i was laughing. as McGruder told Brown, it's the elephant in the room: no one on TV well say it but we all saw it: Bush demonstrated the intelligence of a lobotomized chimp; i mean, who uses 'folks' to describe terrorists?

2) one trick pony. i guess 'staying on message' means repeating yourself, using the same words, over and over again, even when your 'message' doesn't really apply to the question. Kerry answered the questions, Bush repeated himself. no way around that. i mean, Bush's handlers took the time to teach him the word 'denigrate,' but apparently didn't teach him any synonyms.

3) smirk. it's been said, so i won't repeat too much of it, but you can't underestimate the fact that Kerry smiled and wrote notes while Bush was speaking, while Bush put on no end of stupid little faces. i've had seventh graders show more poise.

4) rebuttal. i just thought Kerry did a better job of responding to Bush's accusations, while Bush just repeated his old messages, which goes back to number 2, but more than that, you don't win arguments but repeating yourself over and over again. or maybe you do in America, but i'd hope the fact that Kerry had something new to say stuck.

5) no humility. this might just be me, but a C student telling me that 'he knows how those people think' and acting as if his word is the be all to end all of policy just rubs me the wrong way. Bush played right into the arrogant label, and now that's totally his fault.

to Bush's credit, he probably did get Kerry to look like the French surrender monkey he wanted Kerry to look like (i mean, what kind of pussy wants 'allies' or 'international support'? fucking wimp), but i imagine as Iraq gets worse he'll have a harder time justifying his 'i'm in charge, bitch' attitude. the American people, though, think they're superior than the rest of the world, though, so the real issue will be whether the realization that America isn't the world's giant cock arrives in the next 30 days.

but yes, it is the American voter that loses. vote for Nader! the fact is that America has become a fascist state in the most basic sense of the word. read this (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=1904) and reply away, or if you're too lazy to log in, get it here (http://www.thegrimproject.net/Articles/all_things_old_are_new_again.htm). down with the single party state!

What a fake debate, one for cowards.
They even could not ask each other direct questions. In Europe, this would not be possible. What a soapy weak debate, no fire in it.

Kerry won but I don't think that this kind of non debates will influence the viewer.

Kerry won by a landslide. I mean I heard all the talk about him being a Flip Flopper, but I didn't see that tonight. I saw Kerry was descisive, with every statement he look straight into the camrea and said EVERYTHING with a strong sure voice. Bush on the other hand sweated, he was stammering and pausing alot, and he avoided alot of the question.

In a real debate, the moderator then had has to say "Hey, you don't answer the question" or "you turn around".

Kerry won on style....Bush on Substance.

Global test? What the hell does that mean? It means that Karry will turn to the UN before taking any action. A big mistake.

For the record, I don't think the debates will change anyones mind as to who they will vote for, but they might sway an undecided voter or two.

Kerry won on style....Bush on Substance.
Damn you, Biff. You owe me a new keyboard. I snorted coffee all over it when I read your comment. Great joke!

Damn you, Biff. You owe me a new keyboard. I snorted coffee all over it when I read your comment. Great joke!

Joke? What joke? Kerry kept saying he has a plan, but he never says what that plan is. Kind of like a "lock box" I guess. You don't know whats in it until you buy it.

Sorry about the keyboard.....;)

Joke? What joke? Kerry kept saying he has a plan, but he never says what that plan is. Kind of like a "lock box" I guess. You don't know whats in it until you buy it.

Sorry about the keyboard.....;)
After the last four years, a plan that consists of asking a Magic 8 ball what to do would be better than the current system in place.

Kerry.

See link...
http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html

I'm still waiting for someone to make a www.kerryorhound.com.

After the last four years, a plan that consists of asking a Magic 8 ball what to do would be better than the current system in place.

One thing I did find interesting.... Kerry said that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and wrong. Then when asked if American troops were dying for a mistake, he said no. Well, which is it?

Another was when Kerry played up the lack of armored humvees in Iraq. He voted against the funding that would have provided the armor. What is that all about?

As a veteran, I can tell you that any commander that says on the one hand that what he sends me out to do is a mistake, then says it isn't is not going to inspire confidence. Now, do I think Kerry would carelessly send troops into harms way? No I don't, but I do think he plays loose with Americas sovereignty. That is a far more dangerous thing to do. Kerry thinks he can get other countries to join us in Iraq. Face it, it ain't going to happen.

If you want to be a socialist pacifist, move to europe

Ah ... the old "America, love it or leave it" bullshit. Hate to tell you this, pal, but in America, it's "love it or change it."

i believe freedom for anybody

Except those of us who want progressive change ... we should just move to Europe.

Our founding fathers of america did to, Roosevelt did, he's a war-time president, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagen, all famous and loved war-time presidents.

Reagan? What ..... Granada?

I believe Bush belongs in that category, because he fought against the same enemy as all of those presidents.

Now I'm just confused ....

The enemy of tyranny and oppression.

One does not fight tyranny and oppression by becoming an oppressive tyrant.

Incidently, my favorite part of the debate:

Bush muscles in, Jim (the moderator) says, "Ok ... we can just change the rules ... sure ... why not". Also that lovely moment where Bush glared at Jim and said, "Let me finish" with a tone of "I own you, bitch". Jim should've slapped the taste out of his mouth.

I loved every instance of Bush breaking his own agreed to rules.

How is this election any different from any election in the last 20 years?

Lots of reasons. I'll give you the easiest.

20 years ago the election was a landslide. Mondale only won one state.

Kerry thinks he can get other countries to join us in Iraq. Face it, it ain't going to happen.
That is true, as far as troops are concerned. But it is logical. If the mission is determining the coalition and not the coalition the mission it is clear that only the "coalition of the willing" is willing to participate on the ground and not other allies.
That is the logical consequence of the decision to go for a "coalition of the willing". And the "unwilling" won´t flip-flop. Why should they after all?

Bush got his ass handed to him.
He couldn't come up with anything besides "Kerry changed his mind!" And I think Kerry was very clear that he did not "flip-flop."
My favorite part was when Bush quickly chimed in "You forgot Poland!"

This debate was the greatest thing that could have happened to Kerry.

The worst thing anybody could say about Kerry was that he never took a stand on anything and that he didn't have a plan for anything. A lot of people have said this over and over again without actually hearing him make a speech, relying only on soundbytes to come to a conclusion.

Well the whole nation listened to him this time, and I think he took quite a strong position on his views and even laid out a few plans (even if they were not in depth).

If this debate turns the race towards issues and policy and away from rhetoric and military service I think Bush will lose the electoral college, not just the popular vote.

I would like to thank George W. Bush, I had also forgotten about Poland, how could I forget them?!

One thing I did find interesting.... Kerry said that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and wrong. Then when asked if American troops were dying for a mistake, he said no. Well, which is it?

I admit that the nuances of subtleties are sometimes lost in political stump speeches, however, Kerry said that GOING to war in Iraq at the time we went was a huge mistake. Bottom line, our boys are there. They're doing their best to accomplish things without the right tools or strategies (and before you spout, "Oh, but Kerry voted against... blah blah" do me a favor and READ both drafts of that bill he voted for, then against. There are differences that caused Kerry to vote against the second draft but not the first. That's not a waffle, that's doing your homework. I know, I'm EATING waffles at the moment.). He, as a veteran of one of the most disastrous wars in modern US history, ought to know that the death of soldiers is nuanced and delicate. He will say the war (as Bush did it) was a mistake, but he will not let that reflect on the warriors. Period.

Another was when Kerry played up the lack of armored humvees in Iraq. He voted against the funding that would have provided the armor. What is that all about?

Read the bill... BOTH versions of the bill.

As a veteran, I can tell you that any commander that says on the one hand that what he sends me out to do is a mistake, then says it isn't is not going to inspire confidence. Now, do I think Kerry would carelessly send troops into harms way? No I don't, but I do think he plays loose with Americas sovereignty. That is a far more dangerous thing to do. Kerry thinks he can get other countries to join us in Iraq. Face it, it ain't going to happen.

So, what? "We broke the vase, ma'am. But screw you." How about admitting it? "Yes, we broke it... I didn't break it personally, but I took over for the guy who broke it, and I'd like to help fix it." Bush has lost the respect of many of our oldest and dearest allies. He's not capable of getting them back behind things. If they see the face change and hear a different message (not, "we're gonna be resolute and y'all can just deal with it") and meet with a different plan, they will consider helping again. They're not stupid. They know Kerry isn't Bush. What's more, Kerry's been dealing in policies for 20 years. He's got experience with political and world change issues.

None of them had really wonderful, powerful messages for the American people so I would have to say it was a tie or close to it. By the way, anyone who is a Kerry supporter will vote that Kerry won by a landslide, and anyone who is a Bush supporter will vote that he won by a landslide. Strong opinions won't change because of one debate, some people just know who they want to win.

So, what? "We broke the vase, ma'am. But screw you." How about admitting it? "Yes, we broke it... I didn't break it personally, but I took over for the guy who broke it, and I'd like to help fix it." Bush has lost the respect of many of our oldest and dearest allies. He's not capable of getting them back behind things. If they see the face change and hear a different message (not, "we're gonna be resolute and y'all can just deal with it") and meet with a different plan, they will consider helping again. They're not stupid. They know Kerry isn't Bush. What's more, Kerry's been dealing in policies for 20 years. He's got experience with political and world change issues.

The "allies" that Kerry is courting, France and Germany have already said that it does not matter who is our President, they are not going to help us. So the wind was taken out of Kerry's sails before he even set them. Kerry makes a lot of claims but he cannot deliver. He would play fast and loose with our sovereignty and that will cause a disaster. His "global test" is very dangerous because the UN he salivates over is so anti-American that the US would fail every "global test" before it is even given.

None of them had really wonderful, powerful messages for the American people so I would have to say it was a tie or close to it. By the way, anyone who is a Kerry supporter will vote that Kerry won by a landslide, and anyone who is a Bush supporter will vote that he won by a landslide. Strong opinions won't change because of one debate, some people just know who they want to win.

I voted a tie....neither really won clearly.

what morons voted bush by a landslide, too many for a joke

If this debate turns the race towards issues and policy and away from rhetoric and military service I think Bush will lose the electoral college, not just the popular vote.

I hope, in the bottom of my soul, that you're right. I hope the debates make the difference. Kerry's not the best guy, but he's our only option. We've got Bush and NOT Bush at the moment. I'm voting NOT Bush. Why? I'm not interested in continuing down this path as a nation. What's he going to do when he doesn't have to worry about re-election? No accountability there. We need someone else's butt in the seat and the debates might just do the trick.

Regarding Poland, no, Kerry didn't mention them by name. Kerry did, however, state the top contributors to ground forces BY NAME and state that "everyone else" had fewer troops than ____ (he gave a number, I don't remember it).

For those of you voting Nader, while I understand and empathize with the point he's trying to make (hell, I even agree with him), now is not the time. He was a spoiler in the last election, and he's likely to be a spoiler in this one, too. He's not pulling votes from Bush, he's pulling them from Kerry. A vote for Nader IS a vote for Bush. Do you want to vote for Bush? If not, suck it up and vote against him... for real. Vote Nader when Kerry's up for re-election.

The "allies" that Kerry is courting, France and Germany have already said that it does not matter who is our President, they are not going to help us. So the wind was taken out of Kerry's sails before he even set them. Kerry makes a lot of claims but he cannot deliver. He would play fast and loose with our sovereignty and that will cause a disaster. His "global test" is very dangerous because the UN he salivates over is so anti-American that the US would fail every "global test" before it is even given.

First, France and Germany aren't his only options. Second, they said they wouldn't contribute troops. They said nothing about funding. Third, we don't know about his ability to deliver until we give him a chance. We can say that Bush didn't deliver, hasn't delivered, and CANNOT deliver.

The UN is anti-US (Note, I didn't say, "anti American"... we're not the only people in America... there's a difference between a continent and a country) because we're acting like pompous asses right now (Bush is, anyway). They don't hate us, they hate our policies. If the policies change, they'll consider helping. Kerry plans to admit we screwed up (something this administration WILL NOT do... he also pointed out that we can be resolute and STILL wrong). He then plans to approach things differently. He's qualified to come up with military strategies to take back Iraq. Bush was mysteriously missing when he was supposed to serve. He's never been in combat. He's never been in command before this. He's not doing well. Kerry will do better.

[Nueva America #1]
So who won?

Bush, Kerry, neither?

Kerry trounced George..!

But won WHAT..!?

My views here.... http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361864

is it just me or has anyoen else NEVER seen any of the people that said bush won post

is it just me or has anyoen else NEVER seen any of the people that said bush won post

Hmmm... *checks the list*

Doesn't look like it... and some of the folks who will vote for Bush are still posting that he looked like a maroon... eerie, isn't it?

Bush did look like he stayed up all night hittin the bong, admittedly, but this doesn't vindicate the slippery "plans" of Kerry, either. Both could be accused of wandering off topic at times, but as for the "was the cost of human life worth it?" question, Bush had a resounding yes, and supported his position, while Kerry did the most egregious issue avoidance of the night, absolutely dodging the topic for his entire answer.

Actually, Kerry at least was remotely related to the topic on that one. How about this one:

Mod - "Mr. President, do you think we would be in more danger if Senator Kerry were elected?"

Bush - [whine] "That's not going to happen because I am the best. People don't agree with me but I am right and I am the best. And we really needed to attack Iraq because I make the decisions."

Yeah, that wasn't avoiding the question at all.

Bush's thoughts, like them or not, were to simply answer the question with the way he felt; there was no consideration of approaching the issue through anything but the way he honestly felt.

Mod - "Mr. President, how do you feel about the current situation with Putin in Russia?"

Bush - "Well, I disagree with it and I told him that. Besides, we needed to attack Iraq."

For all his slick politician rhetoric, Kerry as usual was just full of big promises with NO discussion on how to carry them out. Health care for all and billions on social programs afforded from raising taxes on 1% of the population? (which WILL hinder economic growth, these are the primary owners of capital, they may hoard wealth but never so much as when burdened with taxes(which are still proportionally MUCH higher despite the cut, democrats neglect to mention in their redundant class warfare slogans))

Um, this was not the domestic issues debate, last I checked - so of course he didn't mention those things.

If you think the deficit's bad now, just wait for a classic tax-and-spend liberal like Kerry.

Yeah, since it was the Democrats that gave us a surplus during Clinton's term. Besides, I'd rather have someone who will tax and spend than not tax and spend even more.

Cheney had a good point I'd thought of before he mentioned it: If the terrorists were able to vote, who would they choose?

Probably the president currently helping recruit for them.

I take it back...

Look here:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361741&page=10&pp=15

~edited...misread quote, so sorry~

On, how Kerry's going to pay, I covered this in a previous post:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7118755&postcount=128

Raising taxes for the higher-income earners increases the government's take by more than you'd think. For ease, I'm going to post my math here:

three incomes at 30% taxes, just for argument's sake:

A single parent making $18000 only clears $12600
Government earns $5400
You, with an income of $36000 clear $25200
government earns $10800
That lawyer making $85000 clears $59500
government earns $25500

Now let's bend the number just a little bit (let's say five percent).

Earns------Tax------Clears
$18000 --- 25% --- $13500 --- still not living-wage, but better...
$36000 --- 30% --- $25200 --- that one'll stay the same
$85000 --- 35% --- $55250 --- okay, that's a pretty big cut, but this lawyer is still making enough for a house payment and a savings to send his/her kids to college.

Total government income just earned $45050, the single parent can pay rent AND bills with less government aid, the HR manager had no change in his/her taxes (which is fine because that's the middle earning bracket), and the lawyer is still living VERY comfortably. We've also raised an additional $3350 to help pad the funds for government aid and maybe even ballance the budget on just these three people of varying incomes.

Bush will be re-elected. and if not he can always come and run my country so I can tke a vacation

Kerry won.

Bush had his ass handed to him. My six year old could of come up with better responses then Bush did. Bush is nothing but a walking bumper sticker.

First, France and Germany aren't his only options. Second, they said they wouldn't contribute troops. They said nothing about funding. Third, we don't know about his ability to deliver until we give him a chance. We can say that Bush didn't deliver, hasn't delivered, and CANNOT deliver.

The UN is anti-US (Note, I didn't say, "anti American"... we're not the only people in America... there's a difference between a continent and a country) because we're acting like pompous asses right now (Bush is, anyway). They don't hate us, they hate our policies. If the policies change, they'll consider helping. Kerry plans to admit we screwed up (something this administration WILL NOT do... he also pointed out that we can be resolute and STILL wrong). He then plans to approach things differently. He's qualified to come up with military strategies to take back Iraq. Bush was mysteriously missing when he was supposed to serve. He's never been in combat. He's never been in command before this. He's not doing well. Kerry will do better.


Who are his other options? Russia has also said they will not help. Kerry cannot get anyone else to help and those who think he can are deluding themselves. It won't happen. Kerry is no more militarily qualified than Bush is.

Who are his other options? Russia has also said they will not help. Kerry cannot get anyone else to help and those who think he can are deluding themselves. It won't happen. Kerry is no more militarily qualified than Bush is.

First, Kerry has been in a war. Bush has not. He's seen how hard it is by watching our boys on TV? I don't think so. Second, Kerry has different approaches and different ideas. We can't say whether France, Germany, Russia, et. al. will respond to those until we elect him and give him a shot at it. Giving it a try is a helluvalot better than letting Bush continue to alienate our previous allies. Let's do ourselves a favor and try a DIFFERENT tactic for the next four years and see where it gets us.

It may not be better in Iraq, but it sure as hell won't be worse, and it's bound to get TONS better at home. That's what I'm voting for. Not more of the same. He's failed. Let someone else have a shot at it. RELIEF PITCHER anyone?

First, Kerry has been in a war. Bush has not. He's seen how hard it is by watching our boys on TV? I don't think so. Second, Kerry has different approaches and different ideas. We can't say whether France, Germany, Russia, et. al. will respond to those until we elect him and give him a shot at it. Giving it a try is a helluvalot better than letting Bush continue to alienate our previous allies. Let's do ourselves a favor and try a DIFFERENT tactic for the next four years and see where it gets us.

It may not be better in Iraq, but it sure as hell won't be worse, and it's bound to get TONS better at home. That's what I'm voting for. Not more of the same. He's failed. Let someone else have a shot at it. RELIEF PITCHER anyone?

Suit yourself. I don't see where Kerry can possibly get any of our "allies" to join the fight. The Europeans are not militarily predisposed to jump into any conflict. Even those in their own back yard. Remember Bosnia? The US had to all but force the UN and our European "allies" to go in there and stop the killing. Neither body did anything until the US went in first. Nothing will get our "allies" to come into Iraq and help us. As for them helping to pay for the operation? Good luck.

Suit yourself. I don't see where Kerry can possibly get any of our "allies" to join the fight. The Europeans are not militarily predisposed to jump into any conflict. Even those in their own back yard. Remember Bosnia? The US had to all but force the UN and our European "allies" to go in there and stop the killing. Neither body did anything until the US went in first. Nothing will get our "allies" to come into Iraq and help us. As for them helping to pay for the operation? Good luck.



The US decided to go into Iraq without much UN support. Simply put, the UN doesn't want to help and I don't blame them. Stupid war with NO purpose besides getting Iraqi oil.

Suit yourself. I don't see where Kerry can possibly get any of our "allies" to join the fight. The Europeans are not militarily predisposed to jump into any conflict. Even those in their own back yard. Remember Bosnia? The US had to all but force the UN and our European "allies" to go in there and stop the killing. Neither body did anything until the US went in first. Nothing will get our "allies" to come into Iraq and help us. As for them helping to pay for the operation? Good luck.

Well, we know for a FACT that Bush can't get 'em. We don't know for a FACT that Kerry can't make a difference. I'd rather bet on the "luck" than put my money on the same tactic that's been failing for the past four years. The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Sound familiar to anyone?

Well, we know for a FACT that Bush can't get 'em. We don't know for a FACT that Kerry can't make a difference. I'd rather bet on the "luck" than put my money on the same tactic that's been failing for the past four years. The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Sound familiar to anyone?

I don't think we really NEED any of our "allies" to help us. We can do this alone. Our "allies" are never eager to help us anyway. We always have to drag them into helping us. No, we don't know that Kerry can get them to help, but what we DO know is that many of them have already stated that they will NOT help no matter who is asking them. I feel that Kerry will be very weak on defense, he has a record of this and I don't see him changing anytime soon.

I don't think we really NEED any of our "allies" to help us. We can do this alone. Our "allies" are never eager to help us anyway. We always have to drag them into helping us. No, we don't know that Kerry can get them to help, but what we DO know is that many of them have already stated that they will NOT help no matter who is asking them. I feel that Kerry will be very weak on defense, he has a record of this and I don't see him changing anytime soon.

$200 billion dollars in debt, over 1,000 dead soldiers, and the scorn of the majority of the world... maybe you're right, we don't need help. We should just continue just exactly the same as we have been.

Have you ever worked in sales? I've seen people say "I absolutely don't need this option on my car. No." and then walk out with that option. Whether they say they won't help regardless of personnel is moot. The pitch has been all wrong. Rewrite the sales pitch, see if it gets you anywhere. It just might. Regarding Kerry's "weak on defense" record, I seem to remember him bothering to serve in a war while Bush went joyriding when he was supposed to get his physical exam. I don't remember Bush actually being in the sludge in any of our military actions. Maybe he's quick to war because he has no idea what's involved. Ya think?

$200 billion dollars in debt, over 1,000 dead soldiers, and the scorn of the majority of the world... maybe you're right, we don't need help. We should just continue just exactly the same as we have been.

Have you ever worked in sales? I've seen people say "I absolutely don't need this option on my car. No." and then walk out with that option. Whether they say they won't help regardless of personnel is moot. The pitch has been all wrong. Rewrite the sales pitch, see if it gets you anywhere. It just might. Regarding Kerry's "weak on defense" record, I seem to remember him bothering to serve in a war while Bush went joyriding when he was supposed to get his physical exam. I don't remember Bush actually being in the sludge in any of our military actions. Maybe he's quick to war because he has no idea what's involved. Ya think?

Actually the 200 billion number is quite higher than the actual number. I read that somewhere recently, but you can keep quoting it if you like.

You can also keep bringing up Vietnam as well, as if 4 months of that makes ANYONE qualified to be President. I served for 20 years, does that make me that much more qualified than Kerry?

From what I have seen, Kerry will turn to the UN before taking any military action anywhere. So, if we are hit 9-11 style again and then find evidence that Iran absolutely had a hand in it. If Kerry then turns to the UN and they say no, you cannot attack Iran, what should we do? He has set himself up as a puppet of the UN already. Even IF I supported Kerry before...this would make me turn around faster than anything. That those "Americans" who cannot get past their mantra over all this to see it for what it is is bad enough. For those "Non-Americans" it is understandable, they want to see the US in a weaker state anyway.

So who won?

Bush, Kerry, neither?

Kerry definetely, Bush studdered, panicked, tripped over words, and overall was a broken record, I was pleasantly surprised by, Kerry, and he won a lot of undecided voters last night.

Actually the 200 billion number is quite higher than the actual number. I read that somewhere recently, but you can keep quoting it if you like.

You can also keep bringing up Vietnam as well, as if 4 months of that makes ANYONE qualified to be President. I served for 20 years, does that make me that much more qualified than Kerry?

From what I have seen, Kerry will turn to the UN before taking any military action anywhere. So, if we are hit 9-11 style again and then find evidence that Iran absolutely had a hand in it. If Kerry then turns to the UN and they say no, you cannot attack Iran, what should we do? He has set himself up as a puppet of the UN already. Even IF I supported Kerry before...this would make me turn around faster than anything. That those "Americans" who cannot get past their mantra over all this to see it for what it is is bad enough. For those "Non-Americans" it is understandable, they want to see the US in a weaker state anyway.

Difference he would at leaat yave a reasonable reason to attack another nation.
Bush didn't have a good reason. UN doubted that WMD thing and guess what? They were right.
UN is just feeling smug because Bush has yet to apologize. Bush is not going to either.
Who cares if he was wrong, it wasn't his fault, the buck never stops with him?

Kerry can aplogize for Bush, since Bush won't. After that UN will warm up a bit, it will take time but they will be more reasonable.

And yes your 20 years is better than Kerry's 4 but you aren't running so you don't matter here. Plus I don't like your ideoloigy so I wouldn't vote got you.

From what I have seen, Kerry will turn to the UN before taking any military action anywhere. So, if we are hit 9-11 style again and then find evidence that Iran absolutely had a hand in it. If Kerry then turns to the UN and they say no, you cannot attack Iran, what should we do? He has set himself up as a puppet of the UN already.

Your support for that accusation? You own opinion?
Turning to the Un before any military action is what Bush did. So ha, you are against bush too.
After getting in Afgan he attacked. He failed to get it in Iraq because they doubted his credibility. (They were right ) He attacked anyway.

Back to Kerry, if you have no problem with Bush doing it then you can't be against it for Kerry or that is a double standard. If Iran does do a 9/11 style attack and UN says no, then there are other actions besides attacks.
He can ask for them all to make sanctions against Iran. Crippling their economical infrastructure.
However, if Kerry feels it is dire we show our strength and we have proof that it is Iran.(proof is important): Then we can attack because we have proof. Bushes proof broke after we invaded because it was on circumstancial evidence.
Solid proof is better.

Actually the 200 billion number is quite higher than the actual number. I read that somewhere recently, but you can keep quoting it if you like.

You can also keep bringing up Vietnam as well, as if 4 months of that makes ANYONE qualified to be President. I served for 20 years, does that make me that much more qualified than Kerry?

From what I have seen, Kerry will turn to the UN before taking any military action anywhere. So, if we are hit 9-11 style again and then find evidence that Iran absolutely had a hand in it. If Kerry then turns to the UN and they say no, you cannot attack Iran, what should we do? He has set himself up as a puppet of the UN already. Even IF I supported Kerry before...this would make me turn around faster than anything. That those "Americans" who cannot get past their mantra over all this to see it for what it is is bad enough. For those "Non-Americans" it is understandable, they want to see the US in a weaker state anyway.

Were you ever in a war in those 20 years, or did you sit around eating chips the whole time?

Kerry saw real action. Dubya did not even see enough shore duty to qualify for an honestly earned honorable discharge.


Dumbya wrecked the economy in order to enrich his pals.

If you want a future, wise up.

Were you ever in a war in those 20 years, or did you sit around eating chips the whole time?

Libya - 1986

Panama

Grenada

Desert Shield/Storm

Operations Northern AND Southern Watch.

Lots of places and bad stuff seen. I guess by the measure of some i would be more qualified than both Bush and Kerry. :rolleyes:

Kerry saw real action. Dubya did not even see enough shore duty to qualify for an honestly earned honorable discharge.


Dumbya wrecked the economy in order to enrich his pals.

If you want a future, wise up.

Oh this is rich......

Another misinformed person who in all likelyhood cannot even vote.

Your support for that accusation? You own opinion?
Turning to the Un before any military action is what Bush did. So ha, you are against bush too. After getting in Afgan he attacked. He failed to get it in Iraq because they doubted his credibility. (They were right ) He attacked anyway.

Back to Kerry, if you have no problem with Bush doing it then you can't be against it for Kerry or that is a double standard. If Iran does do a 9/11 style attack and UN says no, then there are other actions besides attacks.
He can ask for them all to make sanctions against Iran. Crippling their economical infrastructure.
However, if Kerry feels it is dire we show our strength and we have proof that it is Iran.(proof is important): Then we can attack because we have proof. Bushes proof broke after we invaded because it was on circumstancial evidence. Solid proof is better.

My proof? Well, in Kerry's OWN words from last night. "I will take no action unless it passes the global test." The GLOBAL TEST? He is saying that he will not take any action without the consent of the UN....THATS what he said and THAT will negate the sovereignty of the US.

Now some of you might not understand the ramifications of that, but I do. IF he is elected and is able to carry out what he proposes (HIGHLY doubful he will get it through Congress) then the US will become a FAR weaker country and will be a puppet of the UN. You know the UN, that bastion of self righteousness that elects Sudan to the human rights commission. :rolleyes:

As for sanctions....they do not work. They did not work in Iraq after 12 years now did they? Of course with "allies" like France and Germany violating them on a daily basis how could they?

Frankly, I think that Kerry should be presidentt, but they both did a pretty much equal job of arguing in the debate. Eh, what does it matter to me anyway....

~ Monk ~

Also, you all realize that the debate is a big act, don't you? What they say here is just to get publicity and insult the other people. It makes no difference what they say. They can end up just taking a totally different path during their presidency. The chances that either of them would do exactly what they say in the debate is minimal.

~ Monk ~

Actually the 200 billion number is quite higher than the actual number. I read that somewhere recently, but you can keep quoting it if you like.

It's higher than what we've SPENT, but not higher than the proposals (if Bush gets re-elected). Let's look at our national debt, besides what we're budgeting to spend on the war. It's OVER $200 billion, fyi. Also, the Bush administration doesn't include the nation-building and construction costs in cost of war estimates. Keep digging, though.

You can also keep bringing up Vietnam as well, as if 4 months of that makes ANYONE qualified to be President. I served for 20 years, does that make me that much more qualified than Kerry?

Actually, I think regarding the understanding of combat and its real situations, sure. Unfortunately, I feel you'll fall very short on domestic policy (not knowing the first thing about it from a governmental standpoint, that is... he's been a Senator for 20 years now). So I'll still vote for him over you. I do think you're probably a little more qualified than he is to formulate a concise plan of attack over in Iraq. I also think he's more qualified to form a plan of attack than Bush is (having not the foggiest idea of what it's really like to be IN combat). Oh, and regardless of the amount of time he spent there, he was still in active duty. He was wounded. He did serve his time. Bush was a no show.

From what I have seen, Kerry will turn to the UN before taking any military action anywhere. So, if we are hit 9-11 style again and then find evidence that Iran absolutely had a hand in it. If Kerry then turns to the UN and they say no, you cannot attack Iran, what should we do? He has set himself up as a puppet of the UN already. Even IF I supported Kerry before...this would make me turn around faster than anything. That those "Americans" who cannot get past their mantra over all this to see it for what it is is bad enough. For those "Non-Americans" it is understandable, they want to see the US in a weaker state anyway.

Maybe he'll turn to the UN before war because he doesn't want to get people killed before he has all the facts. Oh, and we're not the only people on the continent. I seem to remember Canada (and a long list of others) sharing the continent of "America" with us. So, quotating "Americans" is a little silly, when you really think about it. Having friends who are willing to support you if you're in trouble is NOT a weakness.

My proof? Well, in Kerry's OWN words from last night. "I will take no action unless it passes the global test." The GLOBAL TEST? He is saying that he will not take any action without the consent of the UN....THATS what he said and THAT will negate the sovereignty of the US.

Now some of you might not understand the ramifications of that, but I do. IF he is elected and is able to carry out what he proposes (HIGHLY doubful he will get it through Congress) then the US will become a FAR weaker country and will be a puppet of the UN. You know the UN, that bastion of self righteousness that elects Sudan to the human rights commission. :rolleyes:

As for sanctions....they do not work. They did not work in Iraq after 12 years now did they? Of course with "allies" like France and Germany violating them on a daily basis how could they?

Find me proof that Global Test is only with UN authorization. If not then it is opinion. And it isn't Kerry's policy.

"I will take no action unless it passes the global test."

Kerry said that, yes.

He is saying that he will not take any action without the consent of the UN

Kerry did not say that.

Also, you all realize that the debate is a big act, don't you? What they say here is just to get publicity and insult the other people. It makes no difference what they say. They can end up just taking a totally different path during their presidency. The chances that either of them would do exactly what they say in the debate is minimal.

Perhaps, but the real point of a debate (for those idealists out there) is to distinguish your platform so that voters get a better idea of what you stand for and against. It's premise is to help people make informed decisions about the presidential candidates.

According to FatCheck.org, The cost is around 120 Billion. Sorry for all those that think it was 200 Billion.

As for the debate, I had to read the transcript and from what I've seen, both did a pretty decent job. Yes Bush did stutter and Kerry did make mistakes.

In general, I think Kerry did win the debate and this is from a Bush supporter however, Kerry did not win it in a landslide.

Do I think that this debate hurt Bush? To a point! Did it Hurt Kerry? To a point! Did it Help Bush? Somewhat. Did it help Kerry? Yes! Will Kerry win the election? Maybe but I don't think he will.

According to FatCheck.org, The cost is around 120 Billion. Sorry for all those that think it was 200 Billion.

As for the debate, I had to read the transcript and from what I've seen, both did a pretty decent job. Yes Bush did stutter and Kerry did make mistakes.

In general, I think Kerry did win the debate and this is from a Bush supporter however, Kerry did not win it in a landslide.

Do I think that this debate hurt Bush? To a point! Did it Hurt Kerry? To a point! Did it Help Bush? Somewhat. Did it help Kerry? Yes! Will Kerry win the election? Maybe but I don't think he will.

You seem honest, so I'll trust your words. At least not much bias is shown.

Find me proof that Global Test is only with UN authorization. If not then it is opinion. And it isn't Kerry's policy.

Show me some proof that it doesn't mean what I said? Who knows what it really means? Like Al Gore and his "lock box" it could mean anything. However, I think we both know that he was referring to the UN.

You seem honest, so I'll trust your words. At least not much bias is shown.

I try and not too especially on something like this.

Maybe he'll turn to the UN before war because he doesn't want to get people killed before he has all the facts. Oh, and we're not the only people on the continent. I seem to remember Canada (and a long list of others) sharing the continent of "America" with us. So, quotating "Americans" is a little silly, when you really think about it. Having friends who are willing to support you if you're in trouble is NOT a weakness.

Citizens of the United Staes of America are often referred to as "Americans." Maybe I am wrong on this, but I don't think I am.

It has been a LONG time since any of our "friends" have helped us when we were in trouble. Maybe you forget that we had to drag them into Bosnia to stop the killing there. The UN sent in Dutch peacekeepers, but they actually helped the Serbs in their ethnic cleansing efforts.

Show me some proof that it doesn't mean what I said? Who knows what it really means? Like Al Gore and his "lock box" it could mean anything. However, I think we both know that he was referring to the UN.
Actually that is where we differ. I don't think he means the UN, you do.
I never paid attention to Al Gore. What was this Lock box?

Actually that is where we differ. I don't think he means the UN, you do. I never paid attention to Al Gore. What was this Lock box?

Al Gore said he would take Social Security and put it into a "lock box" so it would not be touched. He used that term hundreds of times though and it became unclear what he really meant. Now "Global Test" will be the new mantra.

Since the UN is the only "global" body it is obvious that is what Kerry meant. However, you are free to disagree if you like. What happened to Kerry's "tan" anyway?

Okay, this is interesting. Presidential candidates have always been very rich, but never until this race has any candidate let the American people know that it is the president who is one of the first to get the tax cuts. This is a good tactic Kerry is using I think.

Show me some proof that it doesn't mean what I said? Who knows what it really means? Like Al Gore and his "lock box" it could mean anything. However, I think we both know that he was referring to the UN.

Couldn't global test include "fact" not "fiction"? I mean I'm so sick of the same sorry old argument.. "Well umm duh, the rest of the world thought he had WMD too" Yeah, maybe they did, but you know what, they are not the ones who invaded Iraq, it was G.W. He is accountable. We find out more and more every day about how he was warned.. caution be damned. I, of course could go on and on, but I believe it's been beaten to death. If people by now still believe the bullshit that spews from this man's mouth (Bush) then no one is going to change their mind.

Biff, that extra little rant wasn't directed at you.. it's just so frustrating that so many people don't get it when it's become so obvious, I would offer people blind-folds, but too many have already brought their own.

According to FatCheck.org, The cost is around 120 Billion. Sorry for all those that think it was 200 Billion.

Please refer to my previous post...

$200 billion is in the budget (not including nation-building exercises). OVER $200 billion is the national debt (and we weren't in debt when Bush took office). The reference is why we needed someone else to give it a shot. I read the articles regarding the "overestimation" of costs... it's really just a matter of how you look at it. $200 billion is budgeted. When I write a budget, my budgeted money is considered spent... logistics. Also, I was refering to the DEBT not the cost of war.

Couldn't global test include "fact" not "fiction"? I mean I'm so sick of the same sorry old argument.. "Well umm duh, the rest of the world thought he had WMD too" Yeah, maybe they did, but you know what, they are not the ones who invaded Iraq, it was G.W. He is accountable. We find out more and more every day about how he was warned.. caution be damned. I, of course could go on and on, but I believe it's been beaten to death. If people by now still believe the bullshit that spews from this man's mouth (Bush) then no one is going to change their mind.

Biff, that extra little rant wasn't directed at you.. it's just so frustrating that so many people don't get it when it's become so obvious, I would offer people blind-folds, but too many have already brought their own.

Well, one thing that WAS interesting for me last night was Kerry's insistance that another UN resolution might have made Saddam act right. How many resolutions against Saddam were already out there? 18 right? So number 19 would have been the ticket? Is it any wonder why most Americans are weary of the UN?

I strongly believe that Kerry would turn to the UN before taking ANY action in defense of the US. That is startling as the sovereignty of the US would be at stake. Another thing I found funny is that Kerry accused Bush of not building a coalition to go into Iraq yet he complains about Bush's efforts to build a coalition regarding North Korea?!? WTF is THAT all about? Going solo into Iraq is wrong, but not regarding North Korea? The guy baffles me no end....

Well, one thing that WAS interesting for me last night was Kerry's insistance that another UN resolution might have made Saddam act right. How many resolutions against Saddam were already out there? 18 right? So number 19 would have been the ticket? Is it any wonder why most Americans are weary of the UN?

I think it was 17, but that's not the point. The point was, "Disarm or leave" (If we can agree on my paraphrasing). If he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, WHAT WAS HE GOING TO DISARM? If we stuck with the weapons inspections, we would have found that out.

I strongly believe that Kerry would turn to the UN before taking ANY action in defense of the US. That is startling as the sovereignty of the US would be at stake. Another thing I found funny is that Kerry accused Bush of not building a coalition to go into Iraq yet he complains about Bush's efforts to build a coalition regarding North Korea?!? WTF is THAT all about? Going solo into Iraq is wrong, but not regarding North Korea? The guy baffles me no end....

Laughable, really. We've already touched on the multilateral vs. bilateral talks in another thread... here's the link.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361741&page=11&pp=15

But then, you already knew that because you were there in the discussion.

I believe the point was made that BOTH bilateral and multilateral talks are necessary. Point explained in depth in:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7151273&postcount=155

Please refer to my previous post...

$200 billion is in the budget (not including nation-building exercises). OVER $200 billion is the national debt (and we weren't in debt when Bush took office). The reference is why we needed someone else to give it a shot. I read the articles regarding the "overestimation" of costs... it's really just a matter of how you look at it. $200 billion is budgeted. When I write a budget, my budgeted money is considered spent... logistics. Also, I was refering to the DEBT not the cost of war.

In that case, I did not know you were talking about the debt! 200 Billion is what Kerry said regarding the war. My mistsake.

I think it was 17, but that's not the point. The point was, "Disarm or leave" (If we can agree on my paraphrasing). If he didn't have weapons of mass destruction, WHAT WAS HE GOING TO DISARM? If we stuck with the weapons inspections, we would have found that out.

You do seem to enjoy answering my posts to others...but I will play along.

How could the inspectors do their job when they were playing a shell game. Inspectors go in the front gate as the trucks are running out the back gate. 12 years of inspectors and their inspections were enough. The entire UN system was a joke. They told the Iraqi's where and when they would be inspecting.

Scott Ritter comes out and says there were no weapons or programs. Then his credibility was shot when it was learned that he was being paid by the Iraqi's. There is MUCH more to this than we know right now, but somewhere I am sure there is an answer, and time will tell.

"first, first listen...of course I know Osama bin Laden. I know that" <-- I like Bush's tone on that line.

I find several things interesting about this debate, not just the one that occoured last night, btu the one in this thread.

As a quick opening note, in responce to the accusation made both my forum posters and the US president last night, "would another round of resolutions have made him disarm?" I ask you... where are the weapons? We invaded. We took over. And we didn't find a single one. From what I can tell, that means the diplomatic process, the sanctions, the resolutions DID work. And yet, the USA ivaded Iraq anyway.

Second note, this issue of a "global test". Now, I will agree, Kerry is rather vague on this. However, that's because this is not simply "does the UN vote we should go ahead", or "we have UN authorization". It's a test of how the global population is going to respond to the action. (Yes, remember folks, there ARE people out there besides America, Britian, God forbid we forget Poland, and the terrorists.) Let me give an example of an action that rather BADLY failed the "Global Test". Roughly 65 years ago, one nation invaded another, in order to preserve it's own strength and preserve it's ideals.

The day was September 1, 1939, and Germany had just invaded Poland. The world community was so outraged by this actrion, Germany failed the global test so badly, that most of the other major powers of the time declared open war on Germany.

Now, I ask you, is the global test important?

America FAILED the global test with Iraq, esppecially with people in the Arab world. It has become the greatest event to increase the power of terrorists and terrorist recruitment rates since 9/11 itself, possibly even more potent then that. We made more more people hate us, then ever before.

People that now hate us enough to want to hurt us.

People that hate us enough to be willing to die to hurt us.

You cannot win a war on terror, you can't even make PROGRESS on a war on terror, if your actions only give more power and weight to the arguments and cries of those you're trying to fight.

There is only one way to win the war on terror, make the people stop hating you so much. There are two ways to do this. Kill everyone that hates you (and everyone that hates you because of that... and everyone that hates you because of that... there's a word for that, currently applied to a certain region in Africa), or temper your policies, your tactics, your decisions so that the terrorists have less to be angry about. Less to be furious about. Less to hate us about.

We've seen which method Bush has and intends to continue to use. From his speeches and this debate, I believe Kerry intends to use the other.

The thing I hate the most about Bush is the fact that he is making me vote for John Kerry.

In that case, I did not know you were talking about the debt! 200 Billion is what Kerry said regarding the war. My mistsake.

Fair enough... it was an honest mistake. I could have been more clear at the onset.

The thing I hate the most about Bush is the fact that he is making me vote for John Kerry.

No one can make anyone vote for another candidate so how is Bush "making" you vote for John Kerry?

Fair enough... it was an honest mistake. I could have been more clear at the onset.

Agreed!

And, as always, Kerry came off sounding like a mindless zombie. At least Bush had some emotion. Though I have to agree Bush seemed out of it tonight.
A petulant child has emotion, but that doesn't make people want to do things for them other than yelling at them to shut up.

Kerry won it, by a landslide.

But his smile will haunt my dreams forever. :eek:

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. 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. 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.
you seem to be forgetting on how THIS war is our generations Veitnam... Nixon got us out of Veitnam even though we weren't supposed to be in there anyway; we pulled out then and we should do so now.

You do seem to enjoy answering my posts to others...but I will play along.

Ah, so you prefer bilateral discussions on a multilateral board... perhaps private emails are more your speed. Fair enough. I think engage in both bilateral and multilateral discussions here, if that's okay...

How could the inspectors do their job when they were playing a shell game. Inspectors go in the front gate as the trucks are running out the back gate. 12 years of inspectors and their inspections were enough. The entire UN system was a joke. They told the Iraqi's where and when they would be inspecting.

Scott Ritter comes out and says there were no weapons or programs. Then his credibility was shot when it was learned that he was being paid by the Iraqi's. There is MUCH more to this than we know right now, but somewhere I am sure there is an answer, and time will tell.

So... you assert that Iraq had the weapons but was really good at hiding them, then? *nods* Okay, fair enough... so where are they? We've got a pretty decent view from where we are now. Where'd they go?

Neither of them won. They're both nothing but a couple of losers whose capacity to lie is surpassed only by their willingness and eagerness to do so.

I think they were both blubbering idiots.

If you want to be a socialist pacifist, move to europe, i believe freedom for anybody especially people suffering from mass genocide like the iraqi's under Saddam Hussein is worth dying for. Our founding fathers of america did to, Roosevelt did, he's a war-time president, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagen, all famous and loved war-time presidents. I believe Bush belongs in that category, because he fought against the same enemy as all of those presidents. The enemy of tyranny and oppression.
Washington, Reagan a war time president? If he was, so was Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Mckinley, Polk as well any other President that had the military do anything. So basically all 42 of them. Including Pierce, Cleveland and Fillmore.

Just curious...whose freedom are you talking about....everyone else's but ours? This administartion has done everything to give freedom to businesses and take away our own personal freedom. the "Patriot Act" which can basically allow the to search for anything about you including what is in your stool to be used against you with out a warrant. Free to persecute religious beliefs if you are not of the faith of the President and why aren't we invading russia..they are taking away freedoms/killing thousands and are being dictator like...plus they do have WMDs...why don't we invade there....hmm a double standard

Everyone keeps talking about how Kerry could fix Iraq. Does anyone know what his plan is? Has he even revealed it?
Didn't Bush say " Mission : Accomplished" that was his plan wasn't it...hmm good plan.

Didn't Bush say " Mission : Accomplished" that was his plan wasn't it...hmm good plan.

Actually the mission was accomplished. That would be phase 1, ousting saddam. That mission was accomplished and that is what he ment by Misison Accomplished.

Bush did look like he stayed up all night hittin the bong, admittedly, but this doesn't vindicate the slippery "plans" of Kerry, either. Both could be accused of wandering off topic at times, but as for the "was the cost of human life worth it?" question, Bush had a resounding yes, and supported his position, while Kerry did the most egregious issue avoidance of the night, absolutely dodging the topic for his entire answer. I find this very telling of his mindset; you could almost see his thought processes in a little bubble "If I say yes, I'll piss these people off and have to defend myself this way; If I say no, I'll make my base of douchebag liberals happy, but insult the military and have to defend myself this way. Therefore, I'll talk about something else instead." Bush's thoughts, like them or not, were to simply answer the question with the way he felt; there was no consideration of approaching the issue through anything but the way he honestly felt. For all his slick politician rhetoric, Kerry as usual was just full of big promises with NO discussion on how to carry them out. Health care for all and billions on social programs afforded from raising taxes on 1% of the population? (which WILL hinder economic growth, these are the primary owners of capital, they may hoard wealth but never so much as when burdened with taxes(which are still proportionally MUCH higher despite the cut, democrats neglect to mention in their redundant class warfare slogans)) If you think the deficit's bad now, just wait for a classic tax-and-spend liberal like Kerry. He's concerned with giving political handjobs to countries who were selling arms to Saddam to involve them in a "mistake." That sounds good. His plan for Korea is a disaster waiting to happen. In truth, there's no real excuse for Bush's lack of focus, other than perhaps needing to be the president, when ALL Kerry has to worry about is practicing his populist demagoguery and elastic logic (atrocious senate attendance record, atrocious voting record when present by any but Karl Marx or perhaps Leon Trotsky's standards). Bush is far from perfect but at least the man holds an actual opinion beyond vague generalities designed to appeal to idealistic collegiate douchebags and crackheads who want a handout, with as shallow a grasp of the down to earth realities behind the issues as Kerry seems to have, or has balls enough to state. Right or wrong, it's a plan, and Kerry has nothing, NOTHING. Don't let him fool you with his baseless promises, no more countries are joining us in Iraq without taking full authority and all of the profit after we earned it through hardship (just being realistic, it's not the reason we're there, but now that it's over the country that fought for it deserves to reap the benefits and make the decisions, not the impotent UN or NATO). Europe has been dealing with terrorism far longer than us, and will keep doing so as long as they continue to follow their collective, newly adopted ultra-left wing stance (the opposition of which infuriates them after milennia of being the very imperialist warmongers they, in their sudden self-righteousness refer to us as) of accommodation and appeasement. Actually, it's not so new, the idealistic gimplord Neville Chamberlain tried it once and achieved "peace in our time", according to him at least. That went real well, didn't it? Terrorists FEED off "appeasement", look at Spain. They adopted a socialist government which will cower away from doing what it believes in simply to hide from radical Islam. The proof that their strategies work, and momentum gained alone from this attack will result in hundreds more deaths. Italy just paid a million dollars to get two of its women back, a million that will be used to buy new weapons and explosives that will murder Iraqis, Americans, and others. Even whimpering France, who'd done all it could to lick the collective shlong of terrorism, gets hostages taken for its school dress code. See what bowing down to the towelheads ultimately gets you? More confidence to them, more terror to us as their confidence leads to more attacks, and weakening of our position. The liberal left of America is playing right into their hands, much like in Vietnam. Perhaps this war against terror, like that against Communism, just isn't worth fighting? Is it time to start buying gas masks in droves and taping our windows again and hoping for the best? (not me, that's for damn sure, but I'm sure a lot of the same people supporting Kerry were coincidentally also the first to panic and stop taking flights, buy gas masks and the whole deal). Sitting on the defensive and spending hundreds of billions on security while "working on diplomacy" is NOT a solution, it's just a long-term waste of money. No democrat on this entire Earth has a detailed plan beyond that, despite the constant bitching and moaning ("more troops" and "better foreign relations" are not very profound plans). Anyway, I'm way off topic by this point. I gave another lil analysis of every reason not to vote for Kerry in the thread
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7122622#post7122622

Most people view this election as an opportunity to vote anyone but Bush into office. The reality is the exact inverse. Bush is far from perfect, but it is actually the policy of Kerry which would put us at the edge of disaster. Cheney had a good point I'd thought of before he mentioned it: If the terrorists were able to vote, who would they choose? I assure you, it ain't Bush. It's the side of supposed "reason", or, in this case, indecision and negotiation. I'd rather follow a supposed dumbass from Texas in one direction than a slickster in every direction, and ultimately no direction at all.
Hitler had a vision..to turn a third world nation into a super power. He did it and almost world domination...And he "won" the elections too..hmm I'd vote for him. Thanks for bringing up old memories.

Actually the mission was accomplished. That would be phase 1, ousting saddam. That mission was accomplished and that is what he ment by Misison Accomplished.
Saddam hadn't been captured when that statement was made and how do you know what Bush meant by stating "Mission Accomplished"?

Actually, I think Kerry nailed Bush heavily on the subject of Iraq, stating the reason the George H. Bush didn't go further into Iraq during the Gulf War was due to the fact that the US had no "exit" plan and it looks like George Jr. still has no exit plan.

Saddam hadn't been captured when that statement was made and how do you know what Bush meant by stating "Mission Accomplished"?

That is exactly what he ment. How do I know? Because he made it after Iraq was taken over. He made it after Baghdad fell! He made it after Tikrit fell! That is what he ment about Mission Accomplished, Saddam has been ousted. Even on the Carrier he said there are still tough times ahead but that the first part of that was ousting saddam.

Hence, Mission Accomplished.

Actually, I think Kerry nailed Bush heavily on the subject of Iraq, stating the reason the George H. Bush didn't go further into Iraq during the Gulf War was due to the fact that the US had no "exit" plan and it looks like George Jr. still has no exit plan.

As I've said in a previous Post, Kerry did win the 1st debate but not by a landslide as most of the liberals on here try to make it out to be. Read what I posted regarding the debate.

That is exactly what he ment. How do I know? Because he made it after Iraq was taken over. He made it after Baghdad fell! He made it after Tikrit fell! That is what he ment about Mission Accomplished, Saddam has been ousted. Even on the Carrier he said there are still tough times ahead but that the first part of that was ousting saddam.

Hence, Mission Accomplished.
Iraq HASN'T been taken over, hence the Mission has NOT been accomplished and it looks a long way from being accomplished.

Meanwhile, where is the guy that Bush promised to deliver, you know, the guy that ACTUALLY was responsible for attacking America....what is his name? Oh now I remember, guy by the name of Osama Bin Laden.

Mission Accomplished? NOT!! :eek:

As I've said in a previous Post, Kerry did win the 1st debate but not by a landslide as most of the liberals on here try to make it out to be. Read what I posted regarding the debate.
Ahhh but this was supposed to be Bush's shining moment? The "War President", was looking very unPresidential, even though we know that it is "hard work".

Iraq HASN'T been taken over, hence the Mission has NOT been accomplished and it looks a long way from being accomplished.

It was taken over and it was accomplished. I don't know what news footage your seeing but Baghdad fell in a matter of weeks. Tikrit followed soon after. Saddam's Statue is gone from the square. So yes, it wass taken over.

Meanwhile, where is the guy that Bush promised to deliver, you know, the guy that ACTUALLY was responsible for attacking America....what is his name? Oh now I remember, guy by the name of Osama Bin Laden.

Osama is on the run. We have forces looking for him. He knows the terrain better than we do so he can easily slip away no matter what type of tech is used. Besides, no one has heard from him at all in months. Also, a new tape came out and analysts are saying that it is an SOS from his Second in command. They see the hand writing on the wall and are now desperate.

Mission Accomplished? NOT!! :eek:

Mission Accomplished? YES IT IS :eek:

I would like to ask if there are any Bush supporters on this thread that can give a rebuttal to my points I made previously. I noticed the thread seemed to jump over me a bitm, and I really wanted to see what arguments against my points, what flaws in my reasoning, might be pointed out. I liek to feel I weigh and judge every side to each issue, but I just can't see a flaw in those views. Little help?

(porting link for reference and simplicity) http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7152460&postcount=132

Sure, Anthropomorphs, and I'll even try to keep it friendly.

Your first notable quote: "From what I can tell, that means the diplomatic process, the sanctions, the resolutions DID work"

Like most of your points, not really factual, so more of a matter of opinion. He had sanctions against him when he gassed the Kurds. He continued to defy the UN and kick out inspectors for a reason, and it wasn't spying. To me, threat of force and the knowledge that for once, someone actually meant what they were saying to him likely caused him to either stash whatever weapons he had and convert the factories into legitimate looking enterprises, or sell them and destroy the factories. Assuming he flat out didn't have them is just idealism and wishful thinking. He realized it would make us an international pariah to go in and not find WMD's, and that this would be his only chance of ever regaining power. He was verging towards madness in his later years as ruler, but was still a calculating man. He was well aware of the surging popularity and "power" of international douchebaggery and how it goes easy on men like him; the WMD's were gone for no other reason, I assure you.


Your next point: "Let me give an example of an action that rather BADLY failed the "Global Test". Roughly 65 years ago, one nation invaded another, in order to preserve it's own strength and preserve it's ideals."

First off, whether the US should have to get UN approval is a matter of debate, one which I certainly feel should be answered with a strong negative. As for Germany, they "invaded" (without resistance) the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and annexed Austria before Poland. This of course brought Munich, which was sort of akin to the Annan-Kerry-Shroeder-Chirac way of dealing with things, and Chamberlain certainly did acquire "peace in our time", at least for a couple weeks. The guy (Riven Dell I think) who attacked my post and mentioned something about "Yea, you reminded me of Hitler, who turned a third world country into blah blah...." only needlessly proves his absolute ignorance of Germanic history. Germany under the Weimar government was certainly struggling but far from a third world country, and had been so since Otto von Bismarck, if not the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire by Charlemagne. The comparisons between Bush and Hitler are certainly whimsical and amusing, but of course devoid of truth. The Patriot Act extends the Rico Act to Terrorism, that's about it. Nobody who complains about its supposed restriction of freedoms has ever had their freedom in any restricted by it, ironically enough. It's all part of the "You're a Fascist Nazi! Oh yea, you're a Commie!" form of adult cowboys-and-indians games we like to play, though I have to doubt the sincerity, or at least maturity and intelligence of any silly enough to make the comparison. Our government in no way even resembles autocracy, but this is axiomatic to any with a cranial capacity above austrolopithicene standards and not really worth explaining in detail. Anyway, wandering off topic as usual.

"America FAILED the global test with Iraq, esppecially with people in the Arab world. It has become the greatest event to increase the power of terrorists and terrorist recruitment rates since 9/11 itself"

They're increasing themselves right into our gunsights, quite true. We set a trap and they fall for it day by day. This "creating more terrorists" theory is bunk, they had already declared war on us, if people are now willing to follow Zawahari and his chimps into the grave, they were pretty damn close before. There's one measuring stick, and it's attacks on American soil since 9/11. That's all that matters in the end. I hope every person aspiring to be a terrorist wakes up tomorrow, grabs an AK, and rushes head first into an M1A2. The more resources, manpower, and attention they exhaust on our military, the less they have left over to use on American civilians. If the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can do something about it or shut the hell up about that which is not their affair, being as indebted to us as they are. Did we protest in mass over the Falkland Islands? Hell, over the Franco-Prussian war or any of the ACTUAL imperialism in Europe before or since? Hell no, it's their business. (Not to mention the whole "saved their ass, twice" thing which may be overstated but is also far underappreciated).


"You cannot win a war on terror, you can't even make PROGRESS on a war on terror, if your actions only give more power and weight to the arguments and cries of those you're trying to fight. "

Well, until the first person on the other side of the coin comes up with an actual strategy besides our current "kill as many towelheads as possible" instead of just complaining about what we ARE doing, we'll follow this course, as the only other option is appeasement, and no one with half a brain or non-European blood would advocate such cowardice.


"There is only one way to win the war on terror, make the people stop hating you so much. Kill everyone that hates you or temper your policies, your tactics, your decisions so that the terrorists have less to be angry about. Less to be furious about. Less to hate us about.


I find this to be a despicable, cowardly attitude. You are in essence suggesting we do as they demand. We do what we can do to win over the countries who we've monkey-spanked with all the construction and humanitarian stuff. We give them freedom in the long term. If they still hate us for liberating them from Saddam, screw em (and this is largely not the case, the fedayeen insurgency is mostly long over, it's nearly all foreign hostiles now). If they still aren't afraid to die, we won't be afraid to kill em.
Iraq WILL be a democracy, it will not become a radical Islamic Theocracy like the Taliban, or another dictatorship. It will be a sensible country where people can be happy for the first time in a helluva long time. If people want to die opposing that cause, let them. If you noticed, we were doing very little to inflame Arabs before 9/11, where did that get us? The Israel support is overblown, we have the right to take that stance without people getting blown the F up, and regardless we are now openly critical of Israel at times and advocating negotiation of a Palestinian state, as before. Didn't solve much, did it? You can't please a culture of hatred. These men don't respect resolutions or debate, they respect power and resolve, because terrorism cannot defeat these principles if held to. A large reason the ragheads pulled off 9/11 was not only their want for being able to decide where American troops are stationed, but their hatred of our infidelic "woman-empowering, pornographic, materialistic" culture. If you want to create a country where your government considers the agenda of Abu Nidal as the primary force behind its decision making, go for it. We sure as shite don't, so don't advocate that surrender monkey nonsense, it's a waste of time :P

Anyway, it was hard to discern too many points you were trying to make, and I didn't exactly do my best to be professional and objective about it, but there you have it :P

I find several things interesting about this debate, not just the one that occoured last night, btu the one in this thread.

As a quick opening note, in responce to the accusation made both my forum posters and the US president last night, "would another round of resolutions have made him disarm?" I ask you... where are the weapons? We invaded. We took over. And we didn't find a single one. From what I can tell, that means the diplomatic process, the sanctions, the resolutions DID work. And yet, the USA ivaded Iraq anyway.

Second note, this issue of a "global test". Now, I will agree, Kerry is rather vague on this. However, that's because this is not simply "does the UN vote we should go ahead", or "we have UN authorization". It's a test of how the global population is going to respond to the action. (Yes, remember folks, there ARE people out there besides America, Britian, God forbid we forget Poland, and the terrorists.) Let me give an example of an action that rather BADLY failed the "Global Test". Roughly 65 years ago, one nation invaded another, in order to preserve it's own strength and preserve it's ideals.

The day was September 1, 1939, and Germany had just invaded Poland. The world community was so outraged by this actrion, Germany failed the global test so badly, that most of the other major powers of the time declared open war on Germany.

Now, I ask you, is the global test important?

America FAILED the global test with Iraq, esppecially with people in the Arab world. It has become the greatest event to increase the power of terrorists and terrorist recruitment rates since 9/11 itself, possibly even more potent then that. We made more more people hate us, then ever before.

People that now hate us enough to want to hurt us.

People that hate us enough to be willing to die to hurt us.

You cannot win a war on terror, you can't even make PROGRESS on a war on terror, if your actions only give more power and weight to the arguments and cries of those you're trying to fight.

There is only one way to win the war on terror, make the people stop hating you so much. There are two ways to do this. Kill everyone that hates you (and everyone that hates you because of that... and everyone that hates you because of that... there's a word for that, currently applied to a certain region in Africa), or temper your policies, your tactics, your decisions so that the terrorists have less to be angry about. Less to be furious about. Less to hate us about.

We've seen which method Bush has and intends to continue to use. From his speeches and this debate, I believe Kerry intends to use the other.
Although there are many Americans on these boards who will disagree, Bush and company did fail the "global test". After 9/11, Bush had the support of most countries in the world when he announced that the US would "hunt down" these terrorists, in general and specifically Bin Laden and Al Queda.

Where did Bush go wrong? As soon as Bush decided to mobilize US troops for an invasion of Iraq, the support started to fall away. Around the world, millions of people marched for peace, and denounced any attempt to invade Iraq. The UN Security Council would not back any US led invasion of Iraq, especially since UN inspectors were back in Iraq, looking for those same WMD that Bush stated that Iraq was in possession of.

Bush no longer seems to care where Bin Laden is, Iraq is in a total shambles, and the rest they say is history.

Bin Laden is and has been in Pakistan for quite some time. Our troops are not allowed there. Your suggestion is? We've worked with Musharraf to bring his ass down, that's all we can do besides sneaking in covert ops here and there.

Kerry's point about us letting him slip away is bogus and he knows it. Intelligence later revealed he was gone weeks before what we think of as the Tora Bora campaign even began.

As for the one guy earlier who thought Bush made a poor ground commander or something of the sort, Tommy Franks ran CENTCOM. The "commander-in-chief" title is ceremonial. You should know this, mang :P As for the ground campaign itself, it went immeasurably well. It's the human shield, bomb by the road, shoot you in the back style of warfare we have trouble fighting. If we fight back with even 1/100000th of the carelessness for human (Arab, at that) life that our enemies did, every country and Muslim in the world would be up in arms.

It was taken over and it was accomplished. I don't know what news footage your seeing but Baghdad fell in a matter of weeks. Tikrit followed soon after. Saddam's Statue is gone from the square. So yes, it wass taken over.
Perhaps you need to read the news. Although there are many coalition troops in Iraq, the country is not under control. Members of the Provisional Council were executed and there have been many attempts to assassinate Allawi. The election process is in jeopardy, death tolls are rising, and the infastructure is under constant attack.
Osama is on the run. We have forces looking for him. He knows the terrain better than we do so he can easily slip away no matter what type of tech is used. Besides, no one has heard from him at all in months.
Ahhhh the same old line Bush himself has used. The fact remains that America's Number One Priority was Bin Laden. It is hard to find that guy if you send most of your troops to take out Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with the attack on America. Why can't you staunch Bush supporters see the error in that?

Also, a new tape came out and analysts are saying that it is an SOS from his Second in command. They see the hand writing on the wall and are now desperate.
Do you have a link to this story?
Mission Accomplished? YES IT IS :eek:
Terrorist attacks around the world have increased, how is this parlayed into an accomplished mission? Even in the US, there have been rumblings of imminent attacks or do you choose to ignore those, just as Bush did in 2001?

xcuse me, but Bush got mega-owned by my man John. He got more owned than a skinhead in downtown detroit. more owned than woody allen if he had gone to oz.more owned than an xbox owner in japan.

Kerry lost by a land slide, only because of the closing statements. He rambled on about his plan, what freaking plan do you have buddy?
The President closed and sealed the show with his. Point blank, you never fight the enemy at his choosing, and we have chose to fight the enemy at our choosing.

Bin Laden is and has been in Pakistan for quite some time. Our troops are not allowed there. Your suggestion is? We've worked with Musharraf to bring his ass down, that's all we can do besides sneaking in covert ops here and there.

Kerry's point about us letting him slip away is bogus and he knows it. Intelligence later revealed he was gone weeks before what we think of as the Tora Bora campaign even began.

As for the one guy earlier who thought Bush made a poor ground commander or something of the sort, Tommy Franks ran CENTCOM. The "commander-in-chief" title is ceremonial. You should know this, mang :P As for the ground campaign itself, it went immeasurably well. It's the human shield, bomb by the road, shoot you in the back style of warfare we have trouble fighting. If we fight back with even 1/100000th of the carelessness for human (Arab, at that) life that our enemies did, every country and Muslim in the world would be up in arms.
This all adds up to failures in judgement, actions and deeds?

Failure to get Bin Laden through poor troop disbursement and/or relying on ex Taliban warriors.

Failure to stay the course in Afghanistan to totally secure that country.

Failure to realize that the US would need far more troops to attack Iraq than was assembled.

Failure to realize that the capture of Baghdad was really just the beginning of hostilities.

Failure to communicate honestly with the public.

Failure to wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work in Iraq.

Failure to realize that the Iraqi people were not looking for the type of "freedoms" that America was offering, and that these people would not see America as their saviours.

Failure to level with Congress that the info from the CIA and the FBI was not of high calibre.

Failure by the Bush adminstration to acknowledge their own failures, and to lay the blame on poor intelligence.

Failure to realize the sheer determination of the Iraqi people, and that these people were willing to give up their lives to protect their country.

I could go on but I think you get the message?

Well, time for some disproving:

Dempublicents wrote:

"Actually, Kerry at least was remotely related to the topic on that one"

This was concerning my response about how Kerry absolutely dodged the "was it worth it" question.



Here's the exact transcript:

Lehrer: "Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?" (Including non-combat casualties in the question of course).

Bush: "I think it's worth it, because.....(supporting statements)"

Kerry: " I understand what the president is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before. and that's one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job done, because I am determined for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line."

No need to elucidate; you are quite wrong on that one, bud :P Kerry's insistence on not confusing the war with the warriors is funny considering his statements to the Senate concerning war crimes committed by the USAR, or the Hoard of Ghenghis Khan as it's referred to in Kerry's circles..


"Um, this was not the domestic issues debate, last I checked - so of course he didn't mention those things."

This was in response to my mention of Kerry's ideas for health care. First off, I'll mention health care whenever the hell I want without your sarcasm if you please . Regardless, you are once again wrong, he did mention his health care plan when stating that we could've spent the Iraq money elsewhere (although he agrees on the end, not the means of conducting the war, contradicting himself for the millionth time).


"Yeah, since it was the Democrats that gave us a surplus during Clinton's term. Besides, I'd rather have someone who will tax and spend than not tax and spend even more"

We had a burgeoning economy DESPITE the restrictive economic influence of Democrats in power, not because of it, I assure you. Republicans ALWAYS favor laissez-faire. Regardless, the surplus was fake and designed to fool fools, if you will. It was largely achieved by hacking the military budget, of which the minimum restoration alone put us in the deficit we were truly in all along. Do you remember the government shutting down for a few days several years ago due to lack of money under Clinton's term, post office and the whole shebang? Doesn't sound like a surplus, does it? Bush's "evil" deficit has largely come from increased spending on homeland security, military, and subsidizing airlines hurt by 9/11 and other companies, namely those hurt by corporate scandals of other firms. The recession often attributed to Bush was actually inherited at the tail end of Clinton's term, putting Bush in the most dire of economic straits. 9/11, Enron, WorldCom and all that sh!t didn't help too much, either; taking all this into consideration, our economy is doing remarkably well. Bipartisan economists note their surprise in the disparity between how the economy is doing and how well people THINK it is doing. Liberal propagandists' cases are of course hurt by the truth so they spew lies of negativity, and the ever-gullible population swallows it up because a few people making circus junk lost their jobs. For Bush to have not done put funding in any of these areas for the sake of a false surplus would be irresponsible and Clintonian. Let's not be coy and pretend liberals are sensible with money and Conservatives are spendthrifts. Please.



In response to who the terrorists would elect if given the choice:

"Probably the president currently helping recruit for them"

I don't know about that; Al Qaeda is reeling whether you want to believe it or not. I would answer the question with; the candidate who favors using kid gloves with them, rather than the one who is KILLING them.


Go ahead and try to dissect my logic, but you'll have to do a lot better than that, sonny boy :P



As for Canuckheaven: First off, judgment is the preferred spelling, they did add "judgement" as a technical acceptance to the dictionaries for illiterates, however. It's also spelled dispersement. Just for future reference, and nitpicking aside:

"Failure to get Bin Laden through poor troop disbursement and/or relying on ex Taliban warriors."

The Northern Alliance and its subsidiaries were the opposition to the Taliban, foolio, not ex-Taliban warriors.


"Failure to stay the course in Afghanistan to totally secure that country."

Funny, last I remembered we were still there. We can't just sit hundreds of thousands of troops in a country for eternity, at some point they have to start assuming some command themselves.



Failure to realize that the capture of Baghdad was really just the beginning of hostilities.

We realized it to be the end of strategic, army vs. army, Saddam-controlled opposition, and nothing more. "Mission Accomplished" was quite true, considering that the Mission claimed as Accomplished was NOT the establishment of an autonomous democratic Iraqi government but the end of Saddam's sovereignty. Simple message misconstrued by simple people.


"Failure to wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work in Iraq."

I know, and I had a feeling that resolutions 18-35 were going to have QUITE the effect on Saddam, as well. I know each resolution kept him up late at night trembling in fear........Then again, inspectors who find only that which they are meant to find are generally not the best at sniffing out the truth on their own, either. Especially dildos like Hans Blix.


"Failure to realize that the Iraqi people were not looking for the type of "freedoms" that America was offering, and that these people would not see America as their saviours."

This is a matter of interpretation, and, in your case, largely inaccurate interpretation. Iraqi loyalists make up about .0000001% of those fighting us right now. A larger number of Iraqis than some would have you believe are relatively gracious for our having saved their lives, defying all logic. They don't want us there, that's for sure, but they don't want us pulling out and leaving them in the grips of extremists, either. Thus, caught in the same quandary as us.

"Failure to level with Congress that the info from the CIA and the FBI was not of high calibre."

Obviously, one can't view the past and put themselves in it using retrospect. The point may be correct, but the logic is circuitous. In other words, nobody knew it was wrong at the time, did they? FBI has nothing to do with WMD intelligence on Iraq btw, domestic agency.


"Failure by the Bush adminstration to acknowledge their own failures, and to lay the blame on poor intelligence."

Totally agree, the blame for Iraq lays largely in the hands of Clinton-appointed George Tenet and his agency. They have far more power and sway in these matters than any would realize, and they screwed up royally. But, being the shadowy bastards they are, they deflect criticism and reform quite well, continuing to work behind the scenes as they always have. How they trusted and even loved the insipid Ahmed Chalabi and his nephew is way beyond me. Cunnilingus Rice is certainly a nice lady and all that, certainly progressive to have a black woman NSA, but the problem being as such is that she can be quite incompetent at times as well. Not the position I would have filled with the civil/women's rights parade.

As for Canuckheaven: First off, judgment is the preferred spelling, they did add "judgement" as a technical acceptance to the dictionaries for illiterates, however. It's also spelled dispersement. Just for future reference, and nitpicking aside:
Since I am "illiterate", as you suggest, I suggest that you see this movie....it is all about judging people:

http://www.jiminycritic.com/review.asp?ReviewID=81

I also enjoyed your suggestion that my take on Bush's meaning of "Mission Accomplished", as being a "Simple message misconstrued by simple people."

The rest of your post tends to rapidly progress to the "spin" cycle and clearly do not refute the mistakes made by the Bush administration, so I see no need to respond, except to this one comment that you made:

"Cunnilingus Rice is certainly a nice lady and all that, certainly progressive to have a black woman NSA, but the problem being as such is that she can be quite incompetent at times as well. Not the position I would have filled with the civil/women's rights parade.

Interesting comment by a Republican with a penchant for accuracy in spelling but obviously not in decorum?

Kerry lost by a land slide, only because of the closing statements. He rambled on about his plan, what freaking plan do you have buddy?
The President closed and sealed the show with his. Point blank, you never fight the enemy at his choosing, and we have chose to fight the enemy at our choosing.


What debates were YOU watching?

Look at the poll results above you...

Kerry 141 votes.

Kerry directly took a stance on all issues presented to him, and dispelled most of the "flip-flopper" nonsense that the Bush team accuse him of.
Bush on the other hand, used the same tired old lines that have been his campaign speeches all night long.

If you actually think Bush won that debate, you should look into how debates are presented.

It was no contest.

Kerry is a senator, he debates other Senators for a living.
Bush has only debated in presidential elections.

I'll take that sad attempt at a comeback as admission of defeat, Canadian boy :P As for the lack of decorum, that's me, always will be. On a personal note, noticed you joined in Feb. 2004 with 2450 or so posts since then. That's roughly 350 posts a month? Good lord, I can't imagine :P Yeah, I judge people, especially those who try to undermine my words and fail miserably. Everyone who has ever lived has judged every person they've ever met in their life one way or another within the first nanosecond of meeting, so a bit of a moot point there with the MTV rhetoric.

Btw, since I know you love the grammar lessons, in the statement

"The rest of your post tends to rapidly progress to the "spin" cycle and clearly do not refute "

do------>does, the word post is actually singular. I know, it sounds nuts.

And BackwoodsSquatches, your conclusions about the entirety of the US voting populace mindset just might be slightly influenced by the 95% bias toward liberal douchebaggery among Nationstates players, no? Consider that the president was clearly exhausted (from spending the entire day since early morning consoling Hurricane victims while Kerry got a manicure, probably Botox injection No. 12309, and rehearsed his pre-fabricated demagoguery the entire day). The president has more than presidential debate experience on a side note, he handed Ann Richards her own ass in the Texas gubernatorial debate. Mondale "won" the first debate in 80, same with Dukakis in 88, GHB in 92. First debate means as much as a big pool of regurgitated horse semen. All right, now I've crossed the line into outright villainy, I'll shut up :P

I'll take that sad attempt at a comeback as admission of defeat, Canadian boy :P As for the lack of decorum, that's me, always will be. On a personal note, noticed you joined in Feb. 2004 with 2450 or so posts since then. That's roughly 350 posts a month? Good lord, I can't imagine :P Yeah, I judge people, especially those who try to undermine my words and fail miserably. Everyone who has ever lived has judged every person they've ever met in their life one way or another within the first nanosecond of meeting, so a bit of a moot point there with the MTV rhetoric.

Btw, since I know you love the grammar lessons, the word "post" is singular, thus: "post does", not "post do" :P
Welcome to Nation States. Ten posts in and your style is to make personal attacks in an effort to make your opponent appear somewhat less capable than yourself, and your argument that much more brilliant?

I am sure that your debating skills will improve after you cut down on the rhetoric and personal attacks.

As far as my reply being an "admission of defeat", nothing could be further from the truth. However, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe and free to seek solace in any manner you so choose.

.

And BackwoodsSquatches, your conclusions about the entirety of the US voting populace mindset just might be slightly influenced by the 95% bias toward liberal douchebaggery among Nationstates players, no?

Seeing as how you just joined I dont believe you would know wich way most people tend to lean politically on this forum.
Furthermore, since you use terms like "Liberal Douchebaggery", I dont expect much of anything in the way of witty banter, or intelligent debate coming from you in the future.


Consider that the president was clearly exhausted (from spending the entire day since early morning consoling Hurricane victims while Kerry got a manicure, probably Botox injection No. 12309, and rehearsed his pre-fabricated demagoguery the entire day). The president has more than presidential debate experience on a side note, he handed Ann Richards her own ass in the Texas gubernatorial debate. Mondale "won" the first debate in 80, same with Dukakis in 88, GHB in 92. First debate means as much as a big pool of regurgitated horse semen. All right, now I've crossed the line into outright villainy, I'll shut up :P

Personally, I dont care if Bush was helping Christ to wipe his own ass.

He lost the debate.

In fact..he got crushed.

It's a joke Backwoods, I view your avoidance of anything pertinent, incorrect assessment of my time here (Look at the date, not the posts, chimp. Yes, it's possible to play the game AND have a life with a number of posts under the 5,000 mark), and denial of the general bias of Nationstates players very telling as well. You can debate my jokes or you can debate the topics I actually covered earlier, you lose either way. And Canuckheaven, pack your bags dude, we both know this is a race you can't keep up in. Save us both the time :P.

Please refer to my previous post...

$200 billion is in the budget (not including nation-building exercises). OVER $200 billion is the national debt (and we weren't in debt when Bush took office).

We were not in debt when Bush took office. Wow! That Clinton fellow must have done wonders when he was in office. And all along I thought the amount was something like this: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Bush's idea of "style" is to stare blankly at the camera, repeating "uh" and stammering.
Ya never know, he stated publicly that his utter mangling of the english language was a "strategy", something along the lines of his "opponents" "misunderestimating" him.
Guess we'll see, although i think it's turning into the soap opera of WTF happened to that cocksure chimp?

yeah I am a Bush supporter.

yeah, Kerry won tonight.

This was the best I have ever seen Kerry discuss his plans on Iraq, terrorism, and national security. This was one of the worst times I have ever seen the President discuss his plans on Iraq, terrorism, and homeland security. Kerry made a hand full of mistakes and Bush never capitalized on them. I also think they were too nice to each other. I was waiting for one to call the other "BIATCH!" or something like that. Bush looked easily agitated, while every time Bush pointed out a negative of Kerry, Kerry just nodded his head and took notes.

It is a shame that even though Kerry won this debate, there are so few undescided voters out there that this performance will not have much impact on the election.

Word Up, A-town down.
I agree with most/all of this. Good post.

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. 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. 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.
He already laid out a better understanding of the situation than Bush in that very debate and was talking about what he wanted to do. Of course he isn't going to say that the usual partisan gridlock isn't going to make it a smooth ride nor did he have to say it. If you were/are a typical repub (these days) you would have gotten on about Kerry's blabbing if he had bothered to elaborate any more than he had. And as for Bush, that's an unusual conceit on your part to assume you know anything about what's really in Bush's heart. Publicly he has conviction, minus this debate apparently the wherewithal, but only in the sense that he doesn't let the facts or the consequences interrupt it.

Ya never know, he stated publicly that his utter mangling of the english language was a "strategy", something along the lines of his "opponents" "misunderestimating" him.
Guess we'll see, although i think it's turning into the soap opera of WTF happened to that cocksure chimp?

Don't you mean it was an act of strategery?

If you want to be a socialist pacifist, move to europe, i believe freedom for anybody especially people suffering from mass genocide like the iraqi's under Saddam Hussein is worth dying for. Our founding fathers of america did to, Roosevelt did, he's a war-time president, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagen, all famous and loved war-time presidents. I believe Bush belongs in that category, because he fought against the same enemy as all of those presidents. The enemy of tyranny and oppression.
Yeah, and Bush has actually publicly stated that dictatorships aren't so bad AS LONG AS HE'S THE DICTATOR. The context is in terms of why he'll make a decision when he thinks other people are disagreeing too much with the facts and considerations of a situation.

Don't you mean it was an act of strategery?
Argh! Ya got me! My bad .... ;)

Kerry won. Neither by a sliver nor a landslide in my opinion, but it was a definite win. He defined his stance well, and proved the lie to the "flip-flopper" argument by being very clear in defining what he believes. Bush, on the other hand, really brought out nothing new; he repeated the same one-line arguments over and over (even when it was not topical...did anyone else notice his tendancy to start talking about Iraq when the topic was N. Korea/Iran?), and was generally nervous the whole time. Hell, even the Repub's are admitting Kerry did better tonight. And before anyone starts, they both dodged questions and inserted sound bites for answers. They're politicians. It's what they do.

The theory that I've heard on Bush's poor performance runs that he is a great debator, so long as he can portray himself as "the outsider" pushing against the established power. He works well with a "common man" image, so that plays to him. However, he is a much weaker debator, and off balance, when he IS the established power. It makes sense to me, and it's supported by looking at his older debates.

I would still rather not have to vote for Kerry, since the Dems really don't embody my political beleifs (and he wasn't my favorite Dem contender, either), but frankly, Dubya scares me. I don't want that monkey to be capable of pushing The Button any longer.
Yes sir, i took note of that Iraq switch thing myself, and i agree STRONGLY with your last statement. Good post.

Oh Kerry definatly won.

However, there's one thing people haven't addressed that really bugged me throughout the debates: What the hell is up with Bush's face? He kept making these weird little faces throughout the debate. At first it was funny. Then it was irritating. Then it all out pissed me off. Was he having uncontrolable spasms or something?
I heard somewhere he had Portnoy's Complaint, or Montezuma's Revenge, or a combination of that (those) and some disproportionate starching. I think the excess water drinking he did backs up that rumour.
Many of those faces he can't control, hence the nickname Smirky McWarhardon. And the occasional chuckle you probably noted on serious issues.
Or maybe it's another lump of dung that hasn't hit us from the fan yet and his face is closest to it.

One thing I did find interesting.... Kerry said that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and wrong. Then when asked if American troops were dying for a mistake, he said no. Well, which is it?

Another was when Kerry played up the lack of armored humvees in Iraq. He voted against the funding that would have provided the armor. What is that all about?

As a veteran, I can tell you that any commander that says on the one hand that what he sends me out to do is a mistake, then says it isn't is not going to inspire confidence. Now, do I think Kerry would carelessly send troops into harms way? No I don't, but I do think he plays loose with Americas sovereignty. That is a far more dangerous thing to do. Kerry thinks he can get other countries to join us in Iraq. Face it, it ain't going to happen.
He qualified himself on the "mistake" quote, don't just sound bite it like some of those rightwing media cowards.
As far as that bill goes, it's easy to find, Biff ....

Ah ... the old "America, love it or leave it" bullshit. Hate to tell you this, pal, but in America, it's "love it or change it."



Except those of us who want progressive change ... we should just move to Europe.



Reagan? What ..... Granada?



Now I'm just confused ....



One does not fight tyranny and oppression by becoming an oppressive tyrant.

Incidently, my favorite part of the debate:

Bush muscles in, Jim (the moderator) says, "Ok ... we can just change the rules ... sure ... why not". Also that lovely moment where Bush glared at Jim and said, "Let me finish" with a tone of "I own you, bitch". Jim should've slapped the taste out of his mouth.

I loved every instance of Bush breaking his own agreed to rules.
Hear, hear!
I couldn't get near this eloquent with the point. Good post.

Actually the 200 billion number is quite higher than the actual number. I read that somewhere recently, but you can keep quoting it if you like.

You can also keep bringing up Vietnam as well, as if 4 months of that makes ANYONE qualified to be President. I served for 20 years, does that make me that much more qualified than Kerry?


I've read it a few places too and the easiest way to do some determination is to SIMPLY REVIEW THE PROPOSALS OF FINANCIAL REQUESTS TO CONGRESS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, and the nature of the bill tends to be SELF EXPLANATORY, at least in large part. On that note, have you read up on the personal armor bill yet?
And as far as Vietnam goes, do your homework and quit mouthing the republican crap. Kerry had a full other tour before the second one, which is the four-monther those dipsh*ts keep touting as his only service.

It's a joke Backwoods, I view your avoidance of anything pertinent, incorrect assessment of my time here (Look at the date, not the posts, chimp. Yes, it's possible to play the game AND have a life with a number of posts under the 5,000 mark), and denial of the general bias of Nationstates players very telling as well. You can debate my jokes or you can debate the topics I actually covered earlier, you lose either way. And Canuckheaven, pack your bags dude, we both know this is a race you can't keep up in. Save us both the time :P.

First of all little man, you really ought to stop hiding behind a bloated ego and a over active desire for intelligence.
You can scream all day long about the debate, wich by the way your last several posts have had nothing to with, or, you can actually contribute to a positive coversation, either way....you lose.

It seems that everyone agrees that Kerry won the first debate, for whatever good it may bring him.
Good for him.
Most news agencies agree, as do most political analysts that arent in Rupert Murdochs pocket.
Or are you going to pretend there truly is a liberal bias in the media?

Most importantly, if you spent more time listening to what you hear, or think about what you watch on TV, and less time trying to insult other posters with
varying viewpoints, you might actually learn something.
As for that possibility....

I wont hold my breath.

Bin Laden is and has been in Pakistan for quite some time. Our troops are not allowed there. Your suggestion is? We've worked with Musharraf to bring his ass down, that's all we can do besides sneaking in covert ops here and there.




Query, then ... whatever happened to that infamous braggart "Permission Slip" speech mentality and faculty? Only when it applies to someone who didn't attack us?

Kerry lost by a land slide, only because of the closing statements. He rambled on about his plan, what freaking plan do you have buddy?
The President closed and sealed the show with his. Point blank, you never fight the enemy at his choosing, and we have chose to fight the enemy at our choosing.
Correction, "we" have chosen to fight the "enemy" and are losing. If there was any integrity at all to that at least the "enemy" would have been someone WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US OR HAD THE CAPABILITY TO!
Closed and sealed the show with some "um ..."'s and a few sips of water. Point blank, after swallowing so much of something else during the debate he needed to finish off with something to get rid o'the old cottonmouth.

This all adds up to failures in judgement, actions and deeds?

Failure to get Bin Laden through poor troop disbursement and/or relying on ex Taliban warriors.

Failure to stay the course in Afghanistan to totally secure that country.

Failure to realize that the US would need far more troops to attack Iraq than was assembled.

Failure to realize that the capture of Baghdad was really just the beginning of hostilities.

Failure to communicate honestly with the public.

Failure to wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work in Iraq.

Failure to realize that the Iraqi people were not looking for the type of "freedoms" that America was offering, and that these people would not see America as their saviours.

Failure to level with Congress that the info from the CIA and the FBI was not of high calibre.

Failure by the Bush adminstration to acknowledge their own failures, and to lay the blame on poor intelligence.

Failure to realize the sheer determination of the Iraqi people, and that these people were willing to give up their lives to protect their country.

I could go on but I think you get the message?
You ROCK!

Perhaps you need to read the news. Although there are many coalition troops in Iraq, the country is not under control. Members of the Provisional Council were executed and there have been many attempts to assassinate Allawi. The election process is in jeopardy, death tolls are rising, and the infastructure is under constant attack.

I'll say it again. The mission accomplished banner was for the ousting of SADDAM HUSSEIN! That was Phase number 1. Phase Number II is rebuilding Iraq. The nation was taken down by US and British Forces. Yes members of the Provisional Council have been assassinated but welcome to an insurgency that took place AFTER Iraq fell. The election Process IS NOT in jeopardy. Allawi has vowed that the elections will take place in January even if it is in only part of the country.

Ahhhh the same old line Bush himself has used. The fact remains that America's Number One Priority was Bin Laden. It is hard to find that guy if you send most of your troops to take out Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with the attack on America. Why can't you staunch Bush supporters see the error in that?

Bin Ladin is no longer important. He doesn't even have the balls to produce a tape with HIS VOICE on it. All we are hearing these days is that of his 2nd in command. Why?

Do you have a link to this story?

All I really have is snippets but he used words that he hasn't used before.

"He also acknowledges the possibility of being killed or captured -- the first time al-Zawahiri would have made such a direct remark about such a fate.

"Oh, young men of Islam, here is our message to you. If we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight," the speaker says."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/01/zawahiri.tape/index.html

Terrorist attacks around the world have increased, how is this parlayed into an accomplished mission? Even in the US, there have been rumblings of imminent attacks or do you choose to ignore those, just as Bush did in 2001?

Yes terror attacks have continued but now the Iraqis and the US are on the offensive to try and stop it. Last I heard, they have launched an all out attack on Sammara and at least 80% of the city is in government hands. Don't be surprised if we both go after Fallujia. They want to put an end to as much of the attacks as possible before the January elections. As for Mission Accomplished, I already explained it too many times to you but I will do so again.

Phase I: Ousting Saddam Hussein---Accomplished! That was what the Mission Accomplished banner was for. Ousting Saddam! That was accomplished and all I can say is good ridence. And as for Bush Ignoring warnings of imminent threat in 2001, does Pearl Harbor ring a bell? We DID NOT have concrete proof just like we didn't by december 7, 1941. Actually there is an interesting article regarding this.

Iraq is not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133518,00.html)

It is done by The Weekly Standard but the link is to Fox News.

Thank you Aryanis for your comments and views, ut there are a few things that you said that have left me a bit... bewildered.

"To me, threat of force and the knowledge that for once, someone actually meant what they were saying to him likely caused him to either stash whatever weapons he had and convert the factories into legitimate looking enterprises, or sell them and destroy the factories."

So you maintain that Sadam did indeed have WMDs, and had them at the time that Kerry along with hsi fellow Congressmen voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. You then maintain that by the time we actually mobilized and invaded, they were either 'stashed' or sold.

First, by stash, do you mean that those weapons are still IN iraq, but we're simply incompetant at finding them? Or by having them sold, you mean that when this administration had it's eye fixed on Iraq, our intelligence services gathering all the information they could in preperation for invasion, this administration let those weapons slip away without catching a single one?

For a moment, I'll assume you mean that he somehow did "stash" or 'sell" those weapons, getting them out of the country. In that case, he had disarmed. He no longer had the weapons. BEFORE a single american soldier set foot on Iraq soil. Thus, the power Kerry gave to Bush did its intended job, it forced Sadam to disarm. and in that case, the invasion to MAKE him disarm was completely unnecesarry, an invasion into a nation no longer a threat. A war of agression.


"As for Germany, they "invaded" (without resistance) the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and annexed Austria before Poland. This of course brought Munich, which was sort of akin to the Annan-Kerry-Shroeder-Chirac way of dealing with things, and Chamberlain certainly did acquire "peace in our time", at least for a couple weeks."

If you will notice, I specifically noted the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 as the time Germany took the "global test". True, they had taken it multiple times before in recent years, and because much of europe fely guilty for the blatnt mistreatment of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, they were allowed to pass.

September 1st, Germany retook that test. And failed miserably.

America failed the global test with Iraq, and I thank God that we didn't fail it as badly as Germany did on that day.

Given the consequences for Germany for the next 6 years after that day, do you feel their failure of that test was of no consequence?


"They're increasing themselves right into our gunsights, quite true."

This is true. They are also increasing well outside our gunsights, in countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting that it should be America's next move to invade these countries, and kill those new terrorists? What do we do then, about the people that now hate us for THOSE invasions and deaths?

The only way to end hate with violence or death is genocide. I, for one, am opposed to that.


"There's one measuring stick, and it's attacks on American soil since 9/11."

Let's extend that measuring stick a bit further, to terrorist attacks on US soil since, say... the signing of the Declaration of Indepencence. I may be missing a few, so feel free to add to the list.

al Queda, lead by Osama bin Laden, attacks the World Trade Center with a massive car bomb, but fails to destroy the structure.

al Queda, lead by Osama bin Laden, attacks the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coordinating the hijacking of 4 planes, three of which reach their targets.

Timothy McVey explodes a car bomb, rather similar to the one used on the World Trade Center, destroying a federal building in Oklahoma.

... and that's the list. 3 terrorist attacks, in the last 228 years. by that rate, we're not due for our next one until... 2080.

Further, you claim that Bush's policies have reduced the terroristic threat, because there have been no attacks since 9/11. I can with equal proof cite that my decision in early 2002 to switch majors from physics to computer science has prevented terrorist attacks, because no attacks have occourced since that time. We have yet to see any evidence of attacks that have actually been prevented. Further, if you simply consider the two attacks orcastrated by bin Laden, nearly a decade passed between the two events. And that was when we were in the "pre 9/11 mindset".

And if I'm to believe the Vice president, and the press releases/warnings from Homeland Security, we have become no safer now when we were 4 months after 9/11. Has the national threat analysis ever gone below yellow? If we are so much safer now then we were then, I would have expected at least one day of, say, blue.


"If the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can do something about it or shut the hell up about that which is not their affair, being as indebted to us as they are."

Far too many people around the world are deciding TOO do something about it.. joining groups like al Queda. Further, you say this isn't their affair? It is certaintly their affair, if America decides to invade them next. It's certaintly their affair if they had any trade or diplomacy with the invaded nation. It is certaintly their affair if the actions of the President of the United States' actions cause a stable country in their region to become highly unstable, where there are areas that even the "liberating" force is not allowed to go.

Are you implying that if China or Russia invaded Canada, it would be none of the United States' buisness?


"Well, until the first person on the other side of the coin comes up with an actual strategy besides our current "kill as many towelheads as possible" instead of just complaining about what we ARE doing, we'll follow this course, as the only other option is appeasement, and no one with half a brain or non-European blood would advocate such cowardice."

I suppose all those protesters in Africa and Asia are lacking hald their brain?

The first step in being forgiven for making a mistake, not matter how small, no matter how colossal, no matter how bloody, is to ADMIT that a mistake was made. Admit it to yourself, and admit it to those you angered with that mistake. From what I can tell, Kerry is doing everything he can ALREADY to appologise to the world for America's actions, even before he's elected or not, even while the responsibility of doing so still rests with a man more inclined to changes his reasons for the mistake, rather then admit it was a mistake, no MATTER the reason.

This issue of the arger toward the USA is not limited to "towelheads" or "ragheads", ans you seem want to call them. A poll roughly one year ago of South Koreans showed that the majority felt that the USA was a greater threat to world peace then North Korea, This dispite the breakdowns in talks due to the US breakign off bilaterial negotiations, and potent reports coming out of North Korea that the nation was getting close to testing a neuclear weapon. One of our oldest allies, a nation without whose help no historian doubts the American Revolution would have failed, has suffered nothing but ridicule and insult from the USA for three years, how do you think its citizens feel about us now?

"I find this to be a despicable, cowardly attitude."

Again I ask, are you suggesting genocide?

We do not need to give into terrorist demands, or negotiate with them, to keep from giving fuel to their causes. By both of our opinions of the war on iraq, Sadam had disarmed before the first american soldier set foot on iraq soil. Therefor, we did not NEED to go in. And doing so has only given strength to the anti-american cause.

A president that was tempering his actions to try to reduce, and finally eliminate the threat of terroristic attacks on American soil would have used the inspectors already in place, to check, one last time, to see if Iraq was indeed a threat to the United States. Such a president would not have invaded, and al Queda and other terrorist networks would not have gained the support they now have.


"We do what we can do to win over the countries who we've monkey-spanked with all the construction and humanitarian stuff"

What aid have we given to Iran? What aid to North Korea? China? If you can list aid that has reached every country in the world, reached every citizen in the world in order to fill their hearts with love and compassion for the United States, I personally will be amazed.


"Iraq WILL be a democracy, it will not become a radical Islamic Theocracy like the Taliban, or another dictatorship."

Interestingly, the leader that initial polls showed the Iraqi people, by an overwhelming majority, wanted to be their new Prime Minister was a radical Islamic Extremist. Dispite him being th epost popular candidate, America refused to allow him to be the one to take the office. Apparently we curretly are working toward a goverment decided by the Iraqi people, but only so long as we agree with the shape of that new goverment.


"These men don't respect resolutions or debate, they respect power and resolve, because terrorism cannot defeat these principles if held to."

Terrorism itself is also based on these principles, the power of fear, the power of threat, and the resole to use them no matter the cost. Power unchecked or poorly used has as much ability to destroy as it has to create. And to keep your resolve when you are making a mistake is as foolish as holding your hand on a lit stove burner, deciding to keep it there no matter the pain.

What really gets me is both men went to the same college ,
and both are in Skull and Crossbones.

I'll say it again. The mission accomplished banner was for the ousting of SADDAM HUSSEIN! That was Phase number 1.
Don't you get tired of being an apologist for Bush's foreign policies?

As far as the Mission Accomplished banner is concerned, that came due to the fall of Baghdad, even though that city was far from secured and still remains that way. Also Saddam was still at large.

Here is a news item regarding the "Mission Accomplished" fubar:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo op continues to dog President Bush six months after he landed on an aircraft carrier to declare "one victory" in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said Tuesday.

Now his statements are being parsed even further.

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it........

.... "Landing on an aircraft carrier and saying 'mission accomplished' didn't end a war, and standing in the Rose Garden and stating that 'Iraq is a dangerous place' does nothing to make American troops safer," Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said in a written statement Tuesday.

Phase Number II is rebuilding Iraq. The nation was taken down by US and British Forces. Yes members of the Provisional Council have been assassinated but welcome to an insurgency that took place AFTER Iraq fell.
It is extremely difficult to rebuild something, if the insurgency leads to destruction, scaring off contractors, kidnappings, lack of funding, and increased disruption of peace processes. This was a severe miscalculation by the Bush administration.

The election Process IS NOT in jeopardy. Allawi has vowed that the elections will take place in January even if it is in only part of the country.
Apparently 5 or 6 provinces are nowhere near being able to hold a vote, so why bother? For a simple analogy, lets go to the last US Presidential election in 2000 as an example. Suppose the powers that be declared that Florida's Electoral College votes were somehow null and void. That would have created a totally different election result. Gore would have won the Presidency. So why bother having elections in Iraq unless everyone can vote in a truly democratic election?

Forcing elections in Iraq before the country is ready for them is undemocratic and a self serving goal of the current Bush administration to try and demonstrate that the Iraq situation is moving forward.

Bin Ladin is no longer important.
WOW!! Let me see now. The Number One guy who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is "No Longer Important"

I guess capturing Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11, is ten times more important than catching the guy who WAS. I find it very difficult to argue with your logic and that of your President, who seems to have taken on the same attitude.


Yes terror attacks have continued but now the Iraqis and the US are on the offensive to try and stop it. Last I heard, they have launched an all out attack on Sammara and at least 80% of the city is in government hands. Don't be surprised if we both go after Fallujia. They want to put an end to as much of the attacks as possible before the January elections.

Yup, gotta have those elections, even if they won't be truly representative, to give Bush some kind of twisted legitamcy to his failed foreign policies.

CH! We could battle this all the time.

However, I grow tired of this debate because your talking in circles and don't care to know the reasons behind certain things.

Until you do then I will be waiting to debate you again!

CH! We could battle this all the time.

However, I grow tired of this debate because your talking in circles and don't care to know the reasons behind certain things.

Until you do then I will be waiting to debate you again!
Making the following statement kinda hurts your credibility?

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Bin Ladin is no longer important.

If anyone is talking in circles, that would be you?

Your President Bush went to war looking for the scalp of Bin Laden (who has caused extreme damage to the US) and came back with Saddam Hussein's who has been a toothless tabby since the end of the Gulf War hostilities.

I can understand you getting tired of this debate, as it becomes increasingly difficult to defend the failed policies of George W. Bush?

Making the following statement kinda hurts your credibility?

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Bin Ladin is no longer important.

If anyone is talking in circles, that would be you?

Your President Bush went to war looking for the scalp of Bin Laden (who has caused extreme damage to the US) and came back with Saddam Hussein's who has been a toothless tabby since the end of the Gulf War hostilities.

I can understand you getting tired of this debate, as it becomes increasingly difficult to defend the failed policies of George W. Bush?

Actually I'm more concerned about Al Zarqawi than Bin Laden. As for not being able to defend it, I'm not. I'm just explaining what a banner was saying and that you were not paying attention too because you don't understand it being a Liberal and a Canadian to boot.