Who won the debate?

[1stdeadeye]

Well????

[Will Wood]

I take sides to neither, but I support bush as the lesser of two evils.


But kerry owned the debate. Simple as that.

[who_311]

I tought they both did quite well. They both spoke strongly about what they think. Kerry seems to be a bit more experienced when it comes to public speaking but, I thought Bush did a great job talking to the people, not just lecturing them. Both of them cleared up a few questions I had on their stances.

Now, that being said, I thought Kerry did a better job answering the questions, but Bush really did a great job.

alex

[personman]

Well, its a toughie, but I would have to say Kerry.
Bush has always been a pretty bad speaker, thats one of his main weaknesses that makes people believe that he is so stupid. It most certianly showed in this debate. There was alot of hesitation on his part. He did do a decent job though, and he got the point across.
Kerry was just meh.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Kerry definitly won the debate, although he brought up Vietnam too much.

And Bush in some cases, would say something and not support his points.

[VC8228]

Bush keeps stammering, making faces, and he's repeating himself when he answeres every single question.

Kerry is calm and collected, and he is talking like he's actually prepared for this debate.

Bush is losing this debate something fierce.

Found this in the other debate thread, and it's exactly how I feel.

[tony3]

I think they both were bsing around the issues and not making exact points. Coming into the debate, Bush was going to have a much harder time, overall in all the debates Bush will have a harder time, just because Bush has been president for 4 years and Kerry has a lot to knock him about, Bush on the other hand, has to just play defensive and try to prove Kerry wrong.

Honestly, I don't care who wins, I dislike both of them.

[i_baked_cookies]

kerry completely killed bush in the debate. bush lacks the lingual skills required to even debate... plus i hate him. kerry is a very good speaker, but i dont really like him either. i think kerry is the lesser of two evils, but thats only in the case of me having to choose one or the other.

vote nader :headbang:

[PissedGodzilla]

This wasn't even close... i actually felt bad for Pres. Bush towards the end. Kerry owned this debate.... BIG TIME... yet Hannity is like "bush destroyed kerry" what a loser....

[PyRo]

We had to pick apart speachs by both of them in English class. The general agreement we had on the whole was Bush had much better written speechs. Although I didn't see the debates tonight.

[PissedGodzilla]

We had to pick apart speachs by both of them in English class. The general agreement we had on the whole was Bush had much better written speechs. Although I didn't see the debates tonight.


It was a massacre... Bush spent half of his time just staring blankly at the camera, trying to think of something to say... if this was a football game, the score would be something like

Kerry 49
Bush 10

ugly to say the least....

[the electrician]

Kerry brought up the most important point.

there is nuclear material in countries that are unstable. these countries cannot afford to pay us to take care of the situation. the current plan will take 13 years to fix this problem.this is true, this is real, this is serious.

what does bush say afterwards, they didn't cut the funding, they increased it and the need to spend money on missle defense programs.

that is not true.

if bush was really interested in "homeland security" he would do something about this and the other real problems around the world, not send our troops to iraq.

[Kevmaster]

No question. Kerry won this debate. While I disagree with a lot of the things he said (and, notably many things Bush said), he won hands down. He was much more composed and well prepared. I was surprised...i was expecting Bush to win in a landslide.

[MaChu]

I think Bush had more substanance while Kerry had more composure. Bush just kinda paused and thought, didn't say things articulately, BUT he had his ideas straight and I think thats what counts. Kerry on the other hand had more public speaking experience, sounded nice, but had more contridictions than a scitzo on ritalin. I call it a draw.

[FooTemps]

bush sounded like a broken record that skipped like a bad cd player. Although I didn't watch the whole debate, Bush seemed to only have on point that he kept returning to, which was a rather weak point in the first point. Kerry on the other hand was composed and tried to at least not repeat the same topic in one sentence. Kerry did bring up the point about the nuclear materials, which hit pretty hard against bush IMO. Yeah, bush got destroyed... he stood by his point, but he still got destroyed.

[hAppy]

I think Bush had no idea what the hell he was talking about. Kerry was whiping his butt all over the place.

Anyways....
I have a question!
What does Bush and Kerry each support when it comes down to War in Iraq, and terrorism? I barely caught their ideas.

[Glickman]

decent thinkers will think kerry,
deep thinkers who are looking so deep, their ankle deep in **** say bush
:D

ive heard such idiot stuff about "looking deeper" into the debate to see how bush won.

bush is very good at talking when he has it written infront of him, but as soon as hes taken off of that, hes pretty bad compared to kerry.

while the whole thing was eventually repetative, bush repeated himself like 75% more times then kerry

but bush had much more substitance



so....


Kerry r0x0red bush :)
although i still would vote for bush

(we done need a pansy, non decisive president)

[PyRo]

Who won the debatel????

I did!!!!!!!!!!!

[BrockSampson]

There should be a "neither" option in that poll. ;)

[MrWallen]

Doesn't matter who won, all that matters is who lost: US.

[Miscue]

I watched it again and turned my brain off. If I focus on rhetoric and speaking ability, Kerry did a better job. If someone was watching the debates and had no idea what was going on beforehand - this person should pick Kerry.

Who had the best debate, and who was right - are separate items.

[t33kyboy]

Sometimes bush just goes blank for a couple seconds... its kinda funny :p

[Konigballer]

anybody who is not a blind fanatic for either candidate, or ideology, would have to say Kerry owned Bush in the debate. Whether that matters in the long run is very debatable.... ;) , but horrible puns aside, you get my point.

Kerry's been doing this since highschool and, on the debate floor, comes of as more articulate, more intelligent, and more composed than the president....but that does'nt mean Bush won't win the election, since most americans are'nt these things either. Thats why people are able to identify with Bush more I guess, he seems like a "rugular guy" :rolleyes:

I still think Bush will win come election day but I will give Kerry the victory for this debate. Either way, it gives The Daily Show plenty of fodder :dance:

[Lohman446]

I watched most of it, and your right that Kerry was far and away better at this if you look at it from an Oxford debate team standpoint.

Ever watch the Water cooler, it ran for like two weeks on SPIKE. Bush is on it, and all of the sudden his accent drops and he talks like some British aristocrat with an impossibly high IQ, he explains his other voice is "for the people" Funny as hell, but a lot of Americans don't like politicians. Kerry talks smooth, elegantly, and seems "perfect" in his speech. He looks and sounds like the classic "used car salesman / lawyer / politician" that American's love to hate. And Edwards afterwards did not take that edge off. Honestly I think Kerry needed someone who could take that edge off him, and make him seem more likeable.

Agree on the issues or not its obvious on one thing - Kerry came away a winner in the debate, but to a lot of people I am sure that Bush came across as more likeable. And what motivates people to vote - if it was at all intentional... well the one thing Kerry did that hurt him in my opinion was bringing up WMD, a couple other issues, looking at Bush and saying "its simply not true". He in essence called him a liar, when Bush looked back at him and said "we looked at the same intelligence" - if Bush had any hope in that debate, it was that moment.

Now a lot of people may think Im an idiot for looking into this deeper. The truth, I beleive that all politicians are manipulative, and look at everything they do as possibly manipulation, this may very well have been.

[BobTheCow]

Did anybody else notice what seemed to be Bush's only argument/rebuttal? "Do you want an incosistent President?" Somebody must have pounded into his head just beforehand that he needed to keep coming back to that whole flip-flop crap... and he sure did. :rolleyes: Kerry owned him.

[guysdaman]

Yea I watched it and to be honest I could care less as I am voting for neither of them. Last election it was the lesser of 2 evils with Bush and Gore. For this election, in good consience, I can't vote for either of those 2 boobs...so i'll vote independant.

Just my .02 cents.

[mirthvader]

All those debates measure is who is a better public speaker. Big deal. Do you honestly believe anything either of them say? If a poll says "the people think this", then the politicians start twisting their policies to match the polls. It's all about getting votes, not leading the country.

[scarpa43]

I said Kerry simply because he brought new information to the table, he started talking about he possitions on issues. I still do not think he would be a good president, and I am sure his wife would not make a good first wife.

I seem to remember several times when Kerry was asked how he would do something he would reply "I'll tell you exactly how I would do that, but first....." and then not get to telling "exactly how he would do that"

Did anyone else see that?

Also, what did Kerry keep writing down as Bush spoke? I wonder if his handlers told him to make it look like he was making notes on what Bush said so that his responses did not look rehearsed, like he was making a well spoken reply to something he had not been coached on.

[BobTheCow]

Also, what did Kerry keep writing down as Bush spoke? I wonder if his handlers told him to make it look like he was making notes on what Bush said so that his responses did not look rehearsed, like he was making a well spoken reply to something he had not been coached on....is it really fair to automatically assume that he was putting on a show? Ya know, it is possible to find somebody every once in a while that's capable of thinking on their own. Not saying I know for sure Kerry was, just pointing out it was a possibility. *shrugs*

[PissedGodzilla]

...is it really fair to automatically assume that he was putting on a show? Ya know, it is possible to find somebody every once in a while that's capable of thinking on their own. Not saying I know for sure Kerry was, just pointing out it was a possibility. *shrugs*



I agree ... god forbid people think Kerry might actually know what he is doing up there... lol

This was a landslide victory for Kerry and the Democrats.. I know alot of Republicans that are now shakin in their cowboy boots :ninja:

[scarpa43]

...is it really fair to automatically assume that he was putting on a show? Ya know, it is possible to find somebody every once in a while that's capable of thinking on their own. Not saying I know for sure Kerry was, just pointing out it was a possibility. *shrugs*

I was not trying to imply that Kerry is not capable of thinking on his own, after thinking about it a little, I think that he might have been writing so that he was not just staring into space like Bush was.
I think that made Bush look bad, anytime Kerry was talking Bush was staring at nothing and reacting with his facial expressions, but Kerry would just nod and take notes or whatever.

[RoadDawg]

I think Kerry won that round. Overall the debate was repetative. I didn't know Foreign Policy dealt with just the war on terrorism/Iraq. Overall it did answer some questions on Iraq/Afghanistan that I was interested in hearing. Can't wait for the other 3 debates (VP's included)

[taylor492]

Bush's redeeming quality was his ability to look into the camera when he was speaking. It really felt like he was talking to you directly. Like he wanted to talk to you. I just dont get that impression from Kerry.

But it seemed like everytime Kerry said something critical of Bush(which was alot), Bush would kinda do this tight-lipped face, that wasnt very flattering. Kerry is a better public speaker on paper but i like to hear Bush speak because he seems more personable.

Anyone else notice how Bush kept saying "my opponent"?

[i_baked_cookies]

Doesn't matter who won, all that matters is who lost: US.

very well said mr wallen

[Albinonewt]

Bush won by default.

Neither did so much better then the other that any kind of meaningfull win was scored. Plus, the majority of viewers turn off after half an hour or so, and Bush was doing much better then Kerry at that point.

Kerry is the challenger, his views relativly unknown, and is down in the polls. He needed to land some serious blows in this debate and he didn't.

[Kai]

Bush won by default.

Neither did so much better then the other that any kind of meaningfull win was scored. Plus, the majority of viewers turn off after half an hour or so, and Bush was doing much better then Kerry at that point.

Kerry is the challenger, his views relativly unknown, and is down in the polls. He needed to land some serious blows in this debate and he didn't.

I dunno... I was watching the debate with some Bush fans. There were several times when even they had to pull the "ooh, burn" face.

[Lohman446]

The problem Kerry has is the same one Gore had.

Gore and Kerry are both classically excellent debators. Think of what we think of Bush and his public speaking skills.

Many expected Kerry to win - and he did. Now he did better than Gore did, but its kind of like a Patriots Lions game. If the Patriots win by 7 points they still win, but they don't beat the point spread.

I don't think Kerry gained anything from this win, I will be interested to see the next poll figures. Kerry entering these debates... well there his chance to loose, I don't think winning them gains him anything. I honestly think more is at stake in the VP debates.

[OysterBoy]

I noticed Bush contradicting himself several times.. 'You cannot have a President who changes from situation to situation' , and then, 'You need to have a President who will change depending on the threats, such as the Al Queda and the Sadam Loyalists', or something to that effect.

[Steelrat]

Gotta love the faces he made. Rolling the eyes didn't work for Gore, didn't work for the President either.

[evan123]

I would have to agree with the part on Tony on how people can critque his already job while you can't do that to Mr. Kerry. Kerry happens to contradict everything he said for instance saying how the military was un-supplied in Iraq when he disapproved on the billion dollar tax to help troops get supplied. He also said that focus should be towards al-Queda and made is sound like we have done nothing towards them in which we have gotten 75% of the most important al-queda leaders. It must have been very nerve-racking to be in President Bush's shoes considering the questions seemed to be all negative towards him. Though this may sound i love bush, i don't i just think that the debate was biased in questions and the fact that they can pick at stuff he has done which you can't do towards Kerry.

[Kai]

I would have to agree with the part on Tony on how people can critque his already job while you can't do that to Mr. Kerry. Kerry happens to contradict everything he said for instance saying how the military was un-supplied in Iraq when he disapproved on the billion dollar tax to help troops get supplied. He also said that focus should be towards al-Queda and made is sound like we have done nothing towards them in which we have gotten 75% of the most important al-queda leaders. It must have been very nerve-racking to be in President Bush's shoes considering the questions seemed to be all negative towards him. Though this may sound i love bush, i don't i just think that the debate was biased in questions and the fact that they can pick at stuff he has done which you can't do towards Kerry.

It's not like Kerry has never held a public office before. I mean... The entire Bush defense consists of picking at what Kerry has done in the past. The questions just aren't concerning the same job.

You guys act like this is the first debate in which the president has had to defend his actions against a challenger who has never been in the oval office.

Edited for clarity.

[MaChu]

Ok, the real debate is later, Cheney vs Edwards. Both are very educated and well spoken, it should be very nice to see :)

[FactsOfLife]

I waited a couple of days before posting in this thread.

I did a couple of things I normally don't do in most political threads, I went and looked at the profiles of the posters.

Sort of a half assed AO demographic.

My impression of the replies here is the younger posters seem to favor Kerry considerably.

The older posters almost to a man favor Bush.

The younger posters all had basically the same response to the debate:

Kerry had a better, more polished delivery, and was the better debater.

Bush gave a solid if unspectacular debate, and stayed on message throughout the debate.

Most of the posters that gave the win to Kerry based their response on a general negativity to Bush and his debate performance rather than Kerry's superior debating style, and/or substance.

Majority of posters that liked Bush's debate performance gave their answer in a more positive tone towards the President's answers/substantive messages, and very little was said about Kerry's style of debating. Where there was a point made by someone who had given the debate win to Bush, comments about Kerry's style of debating it was generally positive for Kerry's style.

In negative posts about Bush's debate performance some of the words used were: stupid, chimp. blank faced, pwned(not technically a word).

In negative posts about Kerry's debate performance, some of the words used were: repetetive, contradictory, and one negative comment about his wife. Which is interesting in and of itself, in that lately the liberal First Wives, and Candidate First Wives are extremely polarizing to the general public. Makes you wonder if the public indeed looks at the wife of a candidate as an influence in their decision.

Just some interesting tidbits about the posters themselves.

[Miscue]

I noticed Bush contradicting himself several times.. 'You cannot have a President who changes from situation to situation' , and then, 'You need to have a President who will change depending on the threats, such as the Al Queda and the Sadam Loyalists', or something to that effect.

Wrong.

The first sentence means you need consistency - you can't keep changing your opinion for political reasons. The second sentence means you have to adapt to the situation and respond appropriately - and this can mean adopting new ways to deal with unique problems... there are not one-size fits all solutions. These are two mutually exclusive ideas and are not contradictory.

Contradiction is when you say the war is good, and then the war is bad, and then the war is good, and then the war is bad...

[Miscue]

I waited a couple of days before posting in this thread.

I did a couple of things I normally don't do in most political threads, I went and looked at the profiles of the posters.

Sort of a half assed AO demographic.

My impression of the replies here is the younger posters seem to favor Kerry considerably.

The older posters almost to a man favor Bush.

The younger posters all had basically the same response to the debate:

Kerry had a better, more polished delivery, and was the better debater.

Bush gave a solid if unspectacular debate, and stayed on message throughout the debate.

Most of the posters that gave the win to Kerry based their response on a general negativity to Bush and his debate performance rather than Kerry's superior debating style, and/or substance.

Majority of posters that liked Bush's debate performance gave their answer in a more positive tone towards the President's answers/substantive messages, and very little was said about Kerry's style of debating. Where there was a point made by someone who had given the debate win to Bush, comments about Kerry's style of debating it was generally positive for Kerry's style.

In negative posts about Bush's debate performance some of the words used were: stupid, chimp. blank faced, pwned(not technically a word).

In negative posts about Kerry's debate performance, some of the words used were: repetetive, contradictory, and one negative comment about his wife. Which is interesting in and of itself, in that lately the liberal First Wives, and Candidate First Wives are extremely polarizing to the general public. Makes you wonder if the public indeed looks at the wife of a candidate as an influence in their decision.

Just some interesting tidbits about the posters themselves.

Yeah, youth and stupidity versus age and wisdom. :D

Well... you guys have the age thing, I dunno about me yet.

[1stdeadeye]

Well said Facts!

[shartley]

Yes FOL, you hit the nail on the head with your assessment. It however does not only apply to Politics on AO.

I think a big problem with internet forums is that far too often people simply read them, but fail to “quality” what you read by also looking at who is typing it. I see folks get into rip roaring debates and getting upset at others online, and I ask, would you be doing this if the other person was sitting across from you? Some would say “YES!”, but I believe if folks are honest with themselves, they would admit that most of the time the answer would be “No!”.

[Muzikman]

Makes you wonder if the public indeed looks at the wife of a candidate as an influence in their decision.
.


Yes...

After Hillary, I am scared of the power a first lady can have over a country. I want a first lady that will keep her trap shut, smile, be pretty and pick out curtains for the white house.

[FactsOfLife]

Yes...

After Hillary, I am scared of the power a first lady can have over a country. I want a first lady that will keep her trap shut, smile, be pretty and pick out curtains for the white house.

As opposed to say a first lady that makes a statement, then when called on it to explain what she meant, denies she amde it, then tells the reporter to "shove it"?

Or that if someone disagrees with her husband's plan for helath care, they are "idiots"?

Or my personal fave, being asked what she thinks of her husband's poor poll numbers in Arizona, and dismisses the entire state?

Teresa Heinze Kerry makes Shrillary look like the Beaver's mother...


:D

[RevBrown]

I once heard someone say

"A liberal is a conservative who hasn't grown up yet, And a conservative is a liberal who lost his heart" Just someones words and sometimes they are kinda fitting

As for the debate Kerry did have a much better delivery and I would have to give that one to him. The president never has been smooth in debates. But that is what I first liked about Bush. He doesnt come off like a polished politition(sp). He is GW and that is what you see, hear, and get.

[PissedGodzilla]

Yeah, youth and stupidity versus age and wisdom. :D

Well... you guys have the age thing, I dunno about me yet.


The age thing is right... but i think it is more age and stubbornness (sp?) versus youth and rebellion. most of what FoL said was factually correct, and didn't favor either side, just statistics.... :sleeping: :p

[PissedGodzilla]

I once heard someone say

"A liberal is a conservative who hasn't grown up yet, And a conservative is a liberal who lost his heart" Just someones words and sometimes they are kinda fitting

As for the debate Kerry did have a much better delivery and I would have to give that one to him. The president never has been smooth in debates. But that is what I first liked about Bush. He doesnt come off like a polished politition(sp). He is GW and that is what you see, hear, and get.


so your saying the less intelligent the debater, the more you like him??

[FactsOfLife]

so your saying the less intelligent the debater, the more you like him??


I think he said exactly what a vast majority of people in this country used to appreciate; and that is someone who says exactly what they mean without resorting to a lot of foofery.

I've now watched the debates twice. Second time to confirm a nagging thought that I had from the first time.

Kerry never said exactly what is was he would have done, or will do differently in Iraq than the President is currently doing.

I watched him say on numerous occasions that he would have "done things better", and "done things differently" than the President. Neither of which is a platform for getting yourself elected.

He repeated his earlier point that he would get more of the world involved in the war in Iraq.

I'm not sure how he is going to accomplish this, he never gave a specific answer as to how he thought he was going to get countries like France, Russia, and Germany involved when they have flatly stated time and again that they will not go in no matter who was elected.

I also do not understand how it is that he can continually denegrate those countries that are in Iraq with us, in whatever numbers, yet say he is going to get more countries involved.

That approach makes no sense to me at all.

I saw a polished debater be exactly what he is, a career politician. Never said anything that he could be pinned down on, and gave no ammunition to the opposition. I have to say that from a purely political standpoint it was a good debate for Kerry, no major mistakes, but on the same hand no major focusing of his platform. Something he has been sorely lacking thus far.

I also simply do not understand why it is that liberals claim to be the side of compassion, yet will attack someone malisciously on the way they speak, or look. Apparently to them it's ok to do this as long as they don't agree with their message?

I think this one thing will damage Kerry's election chances out of all the other factors out there. It's seen by the average person as petty, immature, and mean.

So, yes, I do agree to some extent that Kerry may have "won" the debate.

I think he has done so at the cost of the overall goal though.

[The Action Figure]

me liek gwb

[RoadDawg]

I also simply do not understand why it is that liberals claim to be the side of compassion, yet will attack someone malisciously on the way they speak, or look. Apparently to them it's ok to do this as long as they don't agree with their message?
Thing is with Bush's campaign he has tried to twist everything Kerry has said into negative things. Even when Kerry said the exact opposite. For example is when Kerry said "Saddam is a evil dictator and deserves his own spot in hell and we've traded a dictatorship for chaos, and something needs to be done." Bush went out the same day and said "Kerry prefers a dictatorship to democracy." If need be I'll even find the Yahoo news article that says BOTH candidates are doing such tactics but more so Bush then Kerry. To me that shows that he is afraid and is resulting to dirty and untrue words.

I think this one thing will damage Kerry's election chances out of all the other factors out there. It's seen by the average person as petty, immature, and mean.

So, yes, I do agree to some extent that Kerry may have "won" the debate.

I think he has done so at the cost of the overall goal though.
To be honest I think that debate was a waste of time. It for the most part was centered around Iraq and Afghanistan. There is so much more to foreign policy then that. The fact is I know we have troops in Afghanistan. Hell my brother is one of many there. The fact is they've lightened the troop load there, and put the rest in Iraq. My brother, who is a guardsmen, was supposed to be given a 15 day "leave" to come back to the states, but due to lack of man power he's probably gonna have to skip that, after they said they were going to go thru with it. So I will agree with Kerry, that we are not putting our best foot forward and getting Osama but were pretty much finishing up what Daddy Bush didn't finish. Now I'm not saying that we should of left Saddam alone but if your gonna label the fact that he broke several rules that we the world set on him after he invaded Kuwaitt, we have got a bunch more fish to fry in that case. Israel has done so violating, the U.S has done some, Iran, N. Korea, etc. I think GWB has opened a can of worms on this one. Overall though I'm looking forward to the other debates and hope they are more interesting then repeating the same stuff over and over.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think either candidate is the greatest. Plus I feel the whole "flip flop" thing is politics. All politicians have done something similar in their past. Also FoL I've noticed more informative and explanitory posts from you, rather then the "effing Liberals" you used to be counted on saying.

I think no matter what is also said on the debates, most people have made up their minds on who they are gonna vote for.

[FactsOfLife]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think either candidate is the greatest. Plus I feel the whole "flip flop" thing is politics. All politicians have done something similar in their past. Also FoL I've noticed more informative and explanitory posts from you, rather then the "effing Liberals" you used to be counted on saying.

I think no matter what is also said on the debates, most people have made up their minds on who they are gonna vote for.


effing liberals... :D

[cphilip]

Bush girls hotter than Kerry girls.... Nuff said! :D

[RoadDawg]

Bush girls hotter than Kerry girls.... Nuff said! :D
Even then they are still ugly. They look way too much like their father.

[matt-o]

kerry completely killed bush in the debate. bush lacks the lingual skills required to even debate... plus i hate him. kerry is a very good speaker, but i dont really like him either. i think kerry is the lesser of two evils, but thats only in the case of me having to choose one or the other.

vote nader :headbang:
dont vote nader, it takes votes from kerry, its just throwing your vote away as nothing

[matt-o]

I watched most of it, and your right that Kerry was far and away better at this if you look at it from an Oxford debate team standpoint.

Ever watch the Water cooler, it ran for like two weeks on SPIKE. Bush is on it, and all of the sudden his accent drops and he talks like some British aristocrat with an impossibly high IQ, he explains his other voice is "for the people" Funny as hell, but a lot of Americans don't like politicians. Kerry talks smooth, elegantly, and seems "perfect" in his speech. He looks and sounds like the classic "used car salesman / lawyer / politician" that American's love to hate. And Edwards afterwards did not take that edge off. Honestly I think Kerry needed someone who could take that edge off him, and make him seem more likeable.

you republican goon
kerry won, simply for not being an idiot who lies to his country.

[FactsOfLife]

you republican goon
kerry won, simply for not being an idiot who lies to his country.



I don't even know where to start with this one...

[matt-o]

hah, im half messin around with you, i love seeing flame wars online
but seriously bush needs to stop misinforming everyone, stop shifting blame, and stop making it so it looks like someone isnt patriotic if they dont support him, eg. thepatriot act, the name itself implies that if you dont waive constituional rights you arent a patriot

[1stdeadeye]

you republican goon
kerry won, simply for not being an idiot who lies to his country.


:nono:

Be mature or be gone!

[matt-o]

all the hashness in that was simply a joke

but the points in my last post do stand

*edit* can me and facts have the flame war we're both itching for?

[1stdeadeye]

*edit* can me and facts have the flame war we're both itching for?

You don't want that kid. Facts would beat you down hard! Ask Collegeboy! :eek: :wow:

[matt-o]

quite possibly, but would he beat all the democrats on AO, i dont think so seeing as AO is mostly teenagers and kids like kerry
plus i do know the difference between right and wrong :rolleyes:
*edit* but whatever, for the sake of keeping the peace ill call it a draw, also in the poll kerry is in italics, whats with that? typo?

[RevBrown]

so your saying the less intelligent the debater, the more you like him??
I would like you to point out anywhere in my previous post where I mentioned the intelligence of either cantidate.

FOL is right, I don't like the guy that has to resort to alot of foofery.

[matt-o]

foofery?
:p

[RevBrown]

foofery?
:p
His word not mine.

[-Carnifex-]

Clearly Kerry did. Saying otherwise is just ludicrous.

[Miscue]

Clearly Kerry did. Saying otherwise is just ludicrous.

I give him an A for presentation, C for content. I give Bush a C for presentation, B+ for content. I agree, he clearly won the superficial part of the debate - the only part that your average Joe can evaluate.

How did Kerry specifically say he would solve the U.S.'s problems?
How did Bush say this?

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

If the transcript is read - no voices - no visuals - no judging of posture - no seeing someone who appears to be tired... it's easier to see who won on content, and not on superficial items.

[Miscue]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think either candidate is the greatest. Plus I feel the whole "flip flop" thing is politics. All politicians have done something similar in their past. Also FoL I've noticed more informative and explanitory posts from you, rather then the "effing Liberals" you used to be counted on saying.

I think no matter what is also said on the debates, most people have made up their minds on who they are gonna vote for.

Whole flip-flop thing is politics? Well, you're right! The flip-flopping is done for purely political reasons - supporting what is most beneficial to him at the given time. Do you agree that he flip-flops? Can you explain better than I have as to why he does this?

I have a problem with Kerry for condemning Bush for going to war - when he voted for it! "He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort." Kerry voted for it and said it was a good idea!!! You can't condemn someone for something you supported yourself, while you remain in the right - simultaneously.

"I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better." He never really explains how! Anybody can say that. You can ALWAYS say that "we can do better." You can always say you gotta a bigger jimmy than someone else too, but never whip it out. This is what Kerry is doing.

All politicians have done something similar? I'd like to believe that at least one counter-example exists - where this person actually believes in something and sticks to it.

[Miscue]

effing liberals... :D

You know, I don't think it's even a matter of liberals and conservatives. These "liberals" are not consistently liberal - and can be in complete contradiction. I am personally more liberal than I am conservative - but I'm not one of "those" liberals in the least bit. Intelligent liberalism is very important, and we have something to gain from it - and we have gained from it.

I think there's something much deeper, and I don't have a word to label these people - and I've been trying to characterize them in my mind but I can't quite do it yet. And these people just happen to be associated with liberalism because that's just how it works out - almost accidentally.

Liberal has almost mutated into a synonym for idiot. I think we either need a different word other than "liberal" to label these people, or use it more sparingly - when it is contextually correct... and refer to someone as a liberal when it is very accurate.

[nastymag]

Kerry said over and over again " he was wrong"

Bush said over and over again " It's hard work ...its hard work"


yea, i really think Kerry won.
but it wasnt much for content either way

[FactsOfLife]

One thing about this debate that hasn't been mentioned/noticed.

In debates there are two sides Pro and Con. The Con side in this case Kerry had the major advantage of response while the Pro side, Bush, had to state positions first. Always a tough place to be in.

Looking at the last few presidential debates, I don't think the President is in any serious trouble here.

He wiped AlGore up in the dabtes with him, Ronaldus Magnus lost his first debate in 1980 and went on to win the next ones and the office.

I would expect that President Bush would be sitting down going over where the public thinks he was weak in the next week or so and fix it.

I personally would not be suprised to see him attack Kerry on his crap Senatorial record. If that happens, it's over for Kerry.

[FactsOfLife]

You know, I don't think it's even a matter of liberals and conservatives. These "liberals" are not consistently liberal - and can be in complete contradiction. I am personally more liberal than I am conservative - but I'm not one of "those" liberals in the least bit. Intelligent liberalism is very important, and we have something to gain from it - and we have gained from it.

I think there's something much deeper, and I don't have a word to label these people - and I've been trying to characterize them in my mind but I can't quite do it yet. And these people just happen to be associated with liberalism because that's just how it works out - almost accidentally.

Liberal has almost mutated into a synonym for idiot. I think we either need a different word other than "liberal" to label these people, or use it more sparingly - when it is contextually correct... and refer to someone as a liberal when it is very accurate.


the word you're looking for is "Kooks".... :D

[aaron_mag]

Kerry clearly won. The only think he didn't come right out and say was:

I 'flip-flopped' because I made the mistake of trusting my president and the intelligence reports he cited on weapons of mass destruction. Oh and by the way for those of you who still maintain that there is the 9/11 link with Saddam. From Rummy himself:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

Now who is flip flopping?

And why is it I wasn't allowed to vote in the poll?

By the way...I'm 33 here and not a 'teenager who supports Kerry'. Not that there is anything wrong with being young and interested in politics.

[FactsOfLife]

Kerry clearly won. The only think he didn't come right out and say was:

I 'flip-flopped' because I made the mistake of trusting my president and the intelligence reports he cited on weapons of mass destruction. Oh and by the way for those of you who still maintain that there is the 9/11 link with Saddam. From Rummy himself:

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

Now who is flip flopping?

And why is it I wasn't allowed to vote in the poll?

By the way...I'm 33 here and not a 'teenager who supports Kerry'. Not that there is anything wrong with being young and interested in politics.


am, show me ONE person on here who has said and or supported the idea that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

No one here, and not even the Bush Admin has said that. What they and we have said repeatedly, and I'll say it again, is that there are clear and direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

And if US Intelligence lied about WMD's, then so did the UK, France, China, Russia, Italy, Germany, and every other world intelligence body.

Oh by the way, if the intelligence was bad, why didn't your boy Kerry notice it? He is on the Senate Intelligence Commitee....

[aaron_mag]

am, show me ONE person on here who has said and or supported the idea that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.

No one here, and not even the Bush Admin has said that. What they and we have said repeatedly, and I'll say it again, is that there are clear and direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.


Since you didn't click on the link I'll bring you the quote:

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

There you have it . He said it. He later retracted the statment (hours later) saying that it was misinterpreted (I don't know how such a clear thing can be misinterpreted). He waffles so much on this issue purely because it is the old house of cards thing. It keeps collapsing under scrutiny.

Accept it guys...Sadam and al-Qaida did not have 'clear and direct links'.

[shartley]

Accept it guys...Sadam and al-Qaida did not have 'clear and direct links'.
Yes folks, just admit and accept it.

Of course not having any “clear and direct links” is far from saying “there is no link”. And far too often what we know to be true and what can be proven are quite different. It does not however mean that “it” is not true.

Of course I guess that would depend on what your definition of “it” is. (oops, sorry… I couldn’t resist. ;) )

[aaron_mag]

Of course I guess that would depend on what your definition of “it” is. (oops, sorry… I couldn’t resist. ;) )

Heh heh...

I'll admit that you got me to crack up with this one!!! :D

We could go on with the rest of the debate, but, unlike some of the younger AOers, I have no interest in wasting all of our times in a flame war. Been there, done that, ad nauseum, over this issue.

-Later

[FactsOfLife]

NEW YORK - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein, although he later backed off the statement and said he was misunderstood.

Nice editing AM...

Why do you guys persist in attempting to deny any connection existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Are we supposed to believe that this world wide network of terrorism existed everywhere BUT Iraq??

[matt-o]

I personally would not be suprised to see him attack Kerry on his crap Senatorial record. If that happens, it's over for Kerry.
what if kerry attacked bush on his record of telling the truth? :rolleyes:

[matt-o]

Why do you guys persist in attempting to deny any connection existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Are we supposed to believe that this world wide network of terrorism existed everywhere BUT Iraq??
no but iraq was one of the places al-queda wasnt in, now terrorists are everywhere in iraq

well facts if all liberals are kooks then all conseravites are rednecks

[aaron_mag]

Nice editing AM...

Why do you guys persist in attempting to deny any connection existed between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Are we supposed to believe that this world wide network of terrorism existed everywhere BUT Iraq??

Anyone can read the link to the article here.

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

The actual article is a heck of a lot stronger than the 'edited' post I made.

And, furthermore, so it is a world wide network? So what? Does that mean we attack the United Kingdom and depose the prime minister because Al Qaeda is active in their country?

We're talking about about SADDAM and Al Qaeda. Saddam was a dictator, and horrible, etc, etc, etc. No one is arguing that point. But was he a threat to the U.S.? No, he wasn't. He was a dictator who was terrified of being deposed. He knew, better than anyone because of the Gulf War, that the U.S. could take him out at any time. He was terrified of us and had a lot to lose.

The guys to fear from terrorist attack are people like Bin Laden. They have nothing to lose. So we should have concentrated on him in Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq.

Now look what you made me do. You made me get into it again...;)

[RogueFactoryKid]

I Won a Math Debate. I'll be exiting to the door on my right.

[FactsOfLife]

what if kerry attacked bush on his record of telling the truth? :rolleyes:


Then Kerry would simply lose.

Don't bother to attempt to get me riled up with that lame nonsense. Either come up with hard evidence or get another tag line. This nonsense that Bush is a liar is pendantic liberal horsecrap.

[FactsOfLife]

Anyone can read the link to the article here.

http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/769c232b-9b12-406e-a9c6-93348ce1ed96.html

The actual article is a heck of a lot stronger than the 'edited' post I made.

And, furthermore, so it is a world wide network? So what? Does that mean we attack the United Kingdom and depose the prime minister because Al Qaeda is active in their country?

We're talking about about SADDAM and Al Qaeda. Saddam was a dictator, and horrible, etc, etc, etc. No one is arguing that point. But was he a threat to the U.S.? No, he wasn't. He was a dictator who was terrified of being deposed. He knew, better than anyone because of the Gulf War, that the U.S. could take him out at any time. He was terrified of us and had a lot to lose.

The guys to fear from terrorist attack are people like Bin Laden. They have nothing to lose. So we should have concentrated on him in Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq.

Now look what you made me do. You made me get into it again...;)

The actual article states that Rumsfeld retracts that "statement". YOU LIBERALS refuse to accept that.

Yes it is a world wide network. We had 6 people arrested, convicted and jailed locally for being associated with Al Qaeda here in NY. Your lame assed comment about attacking the UK because there are AlQaeda present shows how far away from reality you've slipped.

We are going to defend ourselves AM, no matter how loud you bleat about pre-emptive strikes.

Where on earth do you get the idea that Saddam was "terrified" of us? He was defiant, and adamant that he should not have to follow your much lauded UN mandates. Terrified? LOL What nonsense. If he was so terrified of us, then you tell me why he threw the weapons inspectors out knowing that it would inevitibly lead to his being in violation of UN resolution and possibly another war?

Yeah sounds like he was real scared.

And why is it that you guys can not seem to grasp the simple concept of a country like Iraq, Syria, or Iran handing over WMD's to highly mobile terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to attack us?????

Sticking your collective heads in the sand will NOT make the problem go away guys.

[aaron_mag]

The actual article states that Rumsfeld retracts that "statement". YOU LIBERALS refuse to accept that.


Dude!!! The Bush Administration is attacking Kerry of being the great 'waffler' and yet you have high up officials of the Bush Administration 'retracting' statements they made. Can you not see the irony of it?

And we are NOT a nation that has a history of premptive strikes. We've always been the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' mentality. Our nation has always hated war and had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. That is what makes us a great country. War is a costly and unproductive endeavor.

But once we get dragged into it we don't have a problem with waging it. When bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could anyone protest that they hadn't begged and asked for what was coming to them (with their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor)? How about N. Korea begging for us to bomb and fight them by invading S. Korea? What about Saddam invading Kuwait? All are incidents of the U.S. reacting (not preempting).

Diplomacy and deterrent strength. Those have always served us against enemies and will continue to serve us against those that have a lot to lose.

[FactsOfLife]

Dude!!! The Bush Administration is attacking Kerry of being the great 'waffler' and yet you have high up officials of the Bush Administration 'retracting' statements they made. Can you not see the irony of it?

And we are NOT a nation that has a history of premptive strikes. We've always been the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' mentality. Our nation has always hated war and had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. That is what makes us a great country. War is a costly and unproductive endeavor.

But once we get dragged into it we don't have a problem with waging it. When bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could anyone protest that they hadn't begged and asked for what was coming to them (with their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor)? How about N. Korea begging for us to bomb and fight them by invading S. Korea? What about Saddam invading Kuwait? All are incidents of the U.S. reacting (not preempting).

Diplomacy and deterrent strength. Those have always served us against enemies and will continue to serve us against those that have a lot to lose.


I see people in the Admin clarifying statements for stupid reporters with agendas, so no, I can't see the irony.

You can't seriously think that terrorsist organisations are going to respect our diplomacy????

Last I checked, we were dragged into this kicking and screaming. 9-11? Hello?

[Miscue]

Since you didn't click on the link I'll bring you the quote:


Accept it guys...Sadam and al-Qaida did not have 'clear and direct links'.

If Al-Qaida asked Hussein for a bomb to attack the U.S. - would he give it to them?

Yes or no.

If Al-Qaida told Hussein "We are going to attack the U.S. just to let you know." Would Hussein be for or against this?

Yes or no?

If Hussein had the opportunity to harm the U.S. without being caught, would he?

Yes or no?

And if he did, does he have the power and money to do this?

Yes or no?

[-Carnifex-]

If Al-Qaida asked NK, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, China, Russia, France, Germany, et al, for a bomb, would they give it to them?

[Miscue]

If Al-Qaida asked NK, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, China, Russia, France, Germany, et al, for a bomb, would they give it to them?

You did not answer the question. I asked about an individual, not a country. Heck, put the U.S. on the list - there are plenty of kooks here who would if they could..

I will answer yours, although you have insolently not answered mine. India, China, Russia, France, and Germany do not have a reason to attack us and these countries to my knowledge are not affiliated with terrorist activities - can you tell me why the leaders of these countries would attack us? NK has weapons, but also are not commonly affiliated with terrorist activities... what has NK attacked?

Saddam, the leader of Iraq, murdered MILLIONS. He HAS committed numerous terrorist acts. He is a sick, sick man. His record has shown that he is a very dangerous man. How are we equating this with other nations now? We defeated him in the first Gulf War - how do you think he feels about this? Do you trust in Saddam's character enough that he would not help attack us, even covertly? Do you doubt that he does not have the resources to hurt us if he wanted to? What type of resources were used in 9/11? Assuming he had no involvement, could he do a 9/11 of his own? Do you think he would if he could?

Are we safer with Saddam in power?

[Target Practice]

Are we safer with Saddam in power?

Hell no.

[Miscue]

Hell no.

Ha. The argument has been, well all these terrorist cells have sprung up - or whatever, making things more dangerous. Newsflash: They did not spring out of the ground magically, they were already there! When Saddam was in power, do you think they were crocheting all day? Look how much effort they can dedicate to fighting us in Iraq... what do you think they were doing before this? Playing on their Ataris and going to mosque I'd imagine. We were chasing around Nazis for several years after we took Germany, fighting them for a while - but eventually they go away... it takes time. Iraq will be similar.

[Target Practice]

Ha. The argument has been, well all these terrorist cells have sprung up - or whatever, making things more dangerous. Newsflash: They did not spring out of the ground magically, they were already there! When Saddam was in power, do you think they were crocheting all day? Look how much effort they can dedicate to fighting us in Iraq... what do you think they were doing before this? Playing on their Ataris and going to mosque I'd imagine.

I understand that they were there while he was in power. I also think that Saddam being in power added an extra variable to this big equation of crap. I think it complicated it to a degree.

[RoadDawg]

Whole flip-flop thing is politics? Well, you're right! The flip-flopping is done for purely political reasons - supporting what is most beneficial to him at the given time. Do you agree that he flip-flops? Can you explain better than I have as to why he does this?

I have a problem with Kerry for condemning Bush for going to war - when he voted for it! "He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort." Kerry voted for it and said it was a good idea!!! You can't condemn someone for something you supported yourself, while you remain in the right - simultaneously.

"I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better." He never really explains how! Anybody can say that. You can ALWAYS say that "we can do better." You can always say you gotta a bigger jimmy than someone else too, but never whip it out. This is what Kerry is doing.

All politicians have done something similar? I'd like to believe that at least one counter-example exists - where this person actually believes in something and sticks to it.

Ok. First off I can see how his actions can be seen as flip flopping. As you might have seen in the VP debate both sides are guilty of doing it. I won't deny it. Kerry's decision for use of force (vote) was only because the Pres said "Invasion is a last result". He was expecting Bush to wait for the inspectors to do their job, gather of a grander coalition, instead Bush jumped the gun. That's what Kerry has been saying. So basically he's saying. It needed to be done, but he didn't pass the "global test". Also for those that don't know what Kerry was saying with "global test". A good example would be Afghanistan after 9-11. The world knew the reason and for the most part supported us. On the other hand with Iraq parts of the world are left saying WTF??? Don't blame them as I don't know the real reason we went in. It keeps changing (flip flopping maybe?). ex: WMD, to 9-11 connection, Saddam was a bad person (last one I'll agree with)

"I think it's wrong and we can do better". To me- it means that we did the wrong thing by jumping the gun and we as a global power can do better. Whether or not that's what it means I guess is up to the end user. That is what I got from it.

I'd like to believe it too but politics are a class of it's own. People lie, cheat and steal and get away with it, til the person that helped needs something bigger in return.


Also FoL- From what I gather from your post anything said about Bush is "liberal crap", but if it's spoken about Kerry, it must be true. I couldn't stop laughing when I can to this. Remove the eye patch and see with both eyes. :argh: :wow: :) Both parties do a bunch of name calling and finger pointing. Doesn't mean any of it is right. Also Rummsfeild isn't the only one saying "No hard link". Colin Powell has said the same. Then again I guess we can only believe what fits our own agenda and not the 9-11 commision. CIA is about to release the same thing.

By the way everybody had the wrong intelligence as it stands now. Noboby could of predicted the outcome unless the inspectors were able to finish. I still stand by my thought that, they were either already used up or already sold to the highest bidder. I mean he had PLENTY of time to get rid of them to neighbor countries.

[Flamebo]

If Al-Qaida asked Hussein for a bomb to attack the U.S. - would he give it to them?

Yes or no.

If Al-Qaida told Hussein "We are going to attack the U.S. just to let you know." Would Hussein be for or against this?

Yes or no?

If Hussein had the opportunity to harm the U.S. without being caught, would he?

Yes or no?

And if he did, does he have the power and money to do this?

Yes or no?

Here's another chance for you to sit back and ask yourself, "Why do all these people want to bomb us?". Did it ever occur to you republican hardliners that maybe, just MAYBE there's a reason all these countries are so pissed off and eager to blow themselves up along with their targets? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it isn't so cut and dry as the United States being the good guys and everyone who opposes us being "evildoers"?

There's absolutely no way, short of the world government control 1984-style (which seems to be a conservative's wet dream nowadays), that you'll be able to prevent all terrorist attacks. Any single intelligent person with an agenda that they value above their own life could wipe out hundreds of people. An organized group of such individuals, untold numbers.

I realize it's the policy is to not negotiate with terrorists, and I believe that was brought into effect with good intentions. However, that it becomes a huge problem when civil rights, the economy, and the lives of innocents become a casualty. Foriegn and domestic policies have to be reviewed and rewritten if anything is to ever get better. The ends justify the means? Yeah, I'm really looking forward to see how this is all gonna turn out down the road :rolleyes:.

[Flamebo]

Saddam, the leader of Iraq, murdered MILLIONS. He HAS committed numerous terrorist acts. He is a sick, sick man.

You've got some of that right, but your numbers are far, far off.....

1.4 MILLION Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the Gulf War I, and the sanctions and regular bombings ordered by the United States up until the second official invasion in Iraq.

13-15k - low-high official estimates for Iraqi civilian death toll post-9/11 invasion.

100 thousand Kurds is Cheney's estimated death toll after Saddam began attacking them in the mid-80's**. Official estimates dated shortly post-Gulf War ('93-94') in non-election years were closer to 50,000.

3,200 U.S. civilians killed in the 9/11 attacks linked to Al-Qaida, a private organization in Afghanistan.

3,400 Afghanistan civilians killed during the post-9/11 occupation of Afghanistan.

1,000+ U.S. troops dead since the invasion of Iraq. I'll leave you to estimate the number wounded, and how many kids that left in their peak physical condition will return home with no chance at living normal lives. Ask some of them their feelings on our foriegn policy.

Put each of those numbers in perspective for a moment. Humor me. Who's dying, who's calling the shots to make it happen, and why are they doing it?

I swear that those are unbiased numbers. In conflicting figures, I took the low averages of civilian and military deaths. I DID NOT INFLATE THE NUMBERS. Please, I encourage you to google up and check the facts yourself and think about them. People need to take a moment and evaluate their politics by the facts on hand and what they feel is "right" rather than believing everything their favorite politicians say (Believing POLITICIANS of all things! They're the most notoriously skilled bull****ters in all the land, save perhaps lawyers). Anyways, [/rant]


**Gulf War I and U.S. involvement in Iraq didn't begin until 1990. If Kurdish welfare was the reason for invading Iraq that time, why did we wait half a decade to do something about it? Consider that after no WMD were found, our "reason" for Gulf War II became Iraqi civilian welfare.

[Lohman446]

But once we get dragged into it we don't have a problem with waging it. When bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could anyone protest that they hadn't begged and asked for what was coming to them (with their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor)? How about N. Korea begging for us to bomb and fight them by invading S. Korea? What about Saddam invading Kuwait? All are incidents of the U.S. reacting (not preempting).

Diplomacy and deterrent strength. Those have always served us against enemies and will continue to serve us against those that have a lot to lose.

THe problem I see with terrorists and the new ideas of war though make a deterrent strength a joke. When it was the USSR and they knew that we had like 100 warheads aimeda t Moscow and Kiev they knew that a nuclear war meant the end of at least there country and ours, and in reality probably the world as we know it. Russia was a "sane" enemy, detterence worked.

Say a terrorist managed to set off a nuke in our country - who are we going to respond against, who are we going to launch a nuclear offensive against? What country is going to have a million or so civilians killed when we do? Are we depending on the sanity of terrorists to not end the world? The same type of people who flew planes into the world trade centers so that they would see Allah. We have an enemy not afraid of death, not afraid of destroying the world (I think). The old rules are out, we have to act first in this instance.

Though I will give you the historical signifigance of occupation of the middle east, of helping set up a government there. History teaches us time and time again that it will not work.

[aaron_mag]

Miscue-

The answer is yes. He would. But you also phrased your question with the qualifier:

Without getting caught

That is important. Heck...there are probably a majority of people that would happily engage in some bank fraud to be set for life if they could have the qualifier 'without getting caught' (I, personally, couldn't live with myself).

The fact is, however, that they probably WOULD be caught. We can tell a lot from the yield of a bomb (where it was manufactured/etc.). Overwhelming deterrent still works when it comes to nations. N. Korea is petrified. They know that their people see the prosperity of South Korea and are jealous. They know that China is moving towards a free market economy. Just one excuse and their regime is dead, dead, dead. The same was true with Saddam. They desperately want to keep the status quo (with themselves in power) and, hence, want to avoid a fight if at all possible.

Facts-

Saddam was not a terrorist organization. We're not talking about 9/11 (as we keep trying to remind you), but Iraq. The two are not related. The 9/11 commission has said it. Even the Bush administration has said it. They are NOT related.

[aaron_mag]

THe problem I see with terrorists and the new ideas of war though make a deterrent strength a joke. When it was the USSR and they knew that we had like 100 warheads aimeda t Moscow and Kiev they knew that a nuclear war meant the end of at least there country and ours, and in reality probably the world as we know it. Russia was a "sane" enemy, detterence worked.

Say a terrorist managed to set off a nuke in our country - who are we going to respond against, who are we going to launch a nuclear offensive against? What country is going to have a million or so civilians killed when we do? Are we depending on the sanity of terrorists to not end the world? The same type of people who flew planes into the world trade centers so that they would see Allah. We have an enemy not afraid of death, not afraid of destroying the world (I think). The old rules are out, we have to act first in this instance.

Though I will give you the historical signifigance of occupation of the middle east, of helping set up a government there. History teaches us time and time again that it will not work.

Who did we launch an attack against after 9/11? Afghanistan? Yes...we did. The world SAW what happened to those that harbored our enemies. They were petrified that regime change, like in Afghanistan, could happen to them. No more Taliban. It was the right move at the right time. But then we royally screwed up by getting distracted in Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11).

Perfect scenario would have been to keep overwhelming troop deployment in Afghanistan. Capture and execute Bin Laden. Reorganize Afghanistan into a success story. End game. After a show like that...the world would have been put on notice. Allies, who highly supported the Afghanistan invasion, would be tripping over themselves to align with us. But we instead, royally screwed it all up...

[-Carnifex-]

You did not answer the question. I asked about an individual, not a country. Heck, put the U.S. on the list - there are plenty of kooks here who would if they could..

I will answer yours, although you have insolently not answered mine. India, China, Russia, France, and Germany do not have a reason to attack us and these countries to my knowledge are not affiliated with terrorist activities - can you tell me why the leaders of these countries would attack us? NK has weapons, but also are not commonly affiliated with terrorist activities... what has NK attacked?

Saddam, the leader of Iraq, murdered MILLIONS. He HAS committed numerous terrorist acts. He is a sick, sick man. His record has shown that he is a very dangerous man. How are we equating this with other nations now? We defeated him in the first Gulf War - how do you think he feels about this? Do you trust in Saddam's character enough that he would not help attack us, even covertly? Do you doubt that he does not have the resources to hurt us if he wanted to? What type of resources were used in 9/11? Assuming he had no involvement, could he do a 9/11 of his own? Do you think he would if he could?

Are we safer with Saddam in power?

Your question wasn't posed to me, so I did not answer.

No, I don't believe we are safer with Saddam gone.

[FactsOfLife]

Facts-

Saddam was not a terrorist organization. We're not talking about 9/11 (as we keep trying to remind you), but Iraq. The two are not related. The 9/11 commission has said it. Even the Bush administration has said it. They are NOT related.

Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism. To deny this is to have optical anal inversion.

How many damned times must I say this.

Iraq had/has numerous contacts with Al Qaeda. No one, NO ONE, NOOOOOO ONNNNEEEEE, has said they had anything to do with 9-11. Are you people daft or something????

[FactsOfLife]

Your question wasn't posed to me, so I did not answer.

No, I don't believe we are safer with Saddam gone.


How's the sand taste? :rolleyes:

[matt-o]

Ha. The argument has been, well all these terrorist cells have sprung up - or whatever, making things more dangerous. Newsflash: They did not spring out of the ground magically, they were already there! When Saddam was in power, do you think they were crocheting all day? Look how much effort they can dedicate to fighting us in Iraq... what do you think they were doing before this? Playing on their Ataris and going to mosque I'd imagine. We were chasing around Nazis for several years after we took Germany, fighting them for a while - but eventually they go away... it takes time. Iraq will be similar.

after the war started these people came from other countries to fight us, as well as being recruited from ex-saddam loyalists, they werent already there, we attracted them and gave them a reason to fight us. the fact that we even invaded iraq proves their ideas that we hate islamic nations right, therefore giving them more and more reasons to hate us. if we just backed off with the troops and tried giving these countried aid like we do to the asians, latin americans, africans, and especially the jews in isreal they might not hate us anymore

also the nazis were a world power with millions of devoted followers, unlike saddams regime who was hated by a good percent of the iraqis, its been almost a year since "major fighting" ended and bush declared the "mission accomplished" also i assume that the casualties of fighing the nazis after the war slowly dropped, not steadily rose, as in iraq, this isnt gonna end till we change what were doing, and bush wont do that

[matt-o]

Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism. To deny this is to have optical anal inversion.

How many damned times must I say this.

Iraq had/has numerous contacts with Al Qaeda. No one, NO ONE, NOOOOOO ONNNNEEEEE, has said they had anything to do with 9-11. Are you people daft or something????

it was reported that osama bin laden personally vetoed the idea of allying with saddam hussein, ill look for it online and repost with a link when i find the site honestly not sure on that, i just think i heard it on the news about 10 months or so ago

i also agree with carnifex, since saddam didnt have weapons of mass destrucion as bush lied and lied about, and also had way too much on his plate in the middle east (especially inside iraq) to overcme the sanctions and boycotts on him and do anything to america, and as i said before he did not sponsor any terrorists

the insurgents in iraq are the remnants of saddams army, not terroists, there is a difference and their recruits fighting to try to regain the power saddam gave them, they are fighting like they are because thats the only way they can, if they got into major battles with our troops they would be crushed

[FactsOfLife]

Kerry once again shows he couldn't find his backside with both hands....

[FactsOfLife]

it was reported that osama bin laden personally vetoed the idea of allying with saddam hussein, ill look for it online and repost with a link when i find the site honestly not sure on that, i just think i heard it on the news about 10 months or so ago

i also agree with carnifex, since saddam didnt have weapons of mass destrucion as bush lied and lied about, and also had way too much on his plate in the middle east (especially inside iraq) to overcme the sanctions and boycotts on him and do anything to america, and as i said before he did not sponsor any terrorists

the insurgents in iraq are the remnants of saddams army, not terroists, there is a difference and their recruits fighting to try to regain the power saddam gave them, they are fighting like they are because thats the only way they can, if they got into major battles with our troops they would be crushed


Then explain the presense of Al Zarqawi please.

[matt-o]

they aren't a native iraqi organization, for the most part these people ignore the borders, they had to ties to saddam, and he is fighting in a war against, against soldiers not civilians, so at the moment they are not commiting acts of terror, they are using guerilla tactics, i just think terrorist is becoming a buzz word bush is using to get people to support him, if their terrorists they have to be destroyed by any means possible no matter who suffers but if they were freedom fighters or enemy soldiers people would want to negotiate and try to end the fighing without as harsh of penalties to them, thats what i meant

[-Carnifex-]

How's the sand taste? :rolleyes:

I don't know, you could probably tell better than I.

Are we safer with Saddam gone? Yes.

Are we safer with the new terrorists? No

Would we be safer had we gone after Iran or UBL instead? Yes, very much so.

Would we be safer if the Suadi's didn't have America in their pockets? Yes.

[FactsOfLife]

I don't know, you could probably tell better than I.

Are we safer with Saddam gone? Yes.





No, I don't believe we are safer with Saddam gone.


Who are you really? This is John Kerry isn't it? Come on you can tell us.... :D

[-Carnifex-]

Who are you really? This is John Kerry isn't it? Come on you can tell us.... :D

Err, I apologize, I meant to couple the two in that sequence together.

[FactsOfLife]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/gm/2004/gm040929.gif

[-Carnifex-]

Ahahaha, that's great.

[cphilip]

it was reported that osama bin laden personally vetoed the idea of allying with saddam hussein, ill look for it online and repost with a link when i find the site honestly not sure on that, i just think i heard it on the news about 10 months or so ago

i also agree with carnifex, since saddam didnt have weapons of mass destrucion as bush lied and lied about, and also had way too much on his plate in the middle east (especially inside iraq) to overcme the sanctions and boycotts on him and do anything to america, and as i said before he did not sponsor any terrorists

the insurgents in iraq are the remnants of saddams army, not terroists, there is a difference and their recruits fighting to try to regain the power saddam gave them, they are fighting like they are because thats the only way they can, if they got into major battles with our troops they would be crushed


Where to start....

1) At one time it is believed he did and in fact they both did. But in he end they restarted talks. Nothing seemed to come of them in the end before things went down. At least this is what the 911 commission reports. Talks were held again AFTER they earlier decided not to cooperate with each other. One can only assume they were rethinking that or why the talks resumed? Also a very quick reminder is that Saddam openly hosted the families of Palestinian Suicide bombers (terrorists) in Iraq to present them with "rewards" for the service of thier sons and daughters in bombing Israeli citizends. This is plain and simply "support of terrorists". And its not the only example. Al Quieda had trained there. Al Quieda had started back into discussions with Iraq and the fear here is they would eventually find some sort of support there. As they had long in the past. Gaining access to knowledge about how to make weapons was one fear. Not just getting them pre-made. And not just Al Queda. Any such group.

2) Saddam DID have weapons of Mass destruction. He used them. And sometimes on his own people. That is a fact. And he never was able to nor did he want to prove he got rid of them. As he was ordered to do. And clearly was seeking to restart making them again. This was clear in the report yesterday. He, it now seems, did not want to verify the lack of them because he feared Iran would take advantage of that. THis is what was reported yesterday as well. He decided to decieve the UN on this for his own purposes. He gambled and lost. He was counting on Russia, Germany and France to see that we would not go in there as he knew they had been aiding him on diverting Oil money from food program. So he did have them, every intelligence agency in the world thought he still probably had them and he deliberately wanted us to think is. No one lied. They were decieved. All of them. Bush and Kerry and everyone. All over the world.


3) there are both. Insurgents are made up of all sorts of groups. Religeous Militants that want power. Old regime members that want power and incoming Militants that are terrorists as well. Terrorists are people who use terrorist tactics of fear to extract thier control. It makes no matter what thier background was or is now... once you resort to terrorist tactics to influence a matter you are a Terrorist. Plain and simple. No argument. I think you missunderstand what a terrorist really is. These people are using terrorist tactics to try and obtain power. So they are all terrorists.

[PissedGodzilla]

2) Saddam DID have weapons of Mass destruction. He used them. And sometimes on his own people. That is a fact. And he never was able to nor did he want to prove he got rid of them. As he was ordered to do. And clearly was seeking to restart making them again. This was clear in the report yesterday. He, it now seems, did not want to verify the lack of them because he feared Iran would take advantage of that. THis is what was reported yesterday as well. He decided to decieve the UN on this for his own purposes. He gambled and lost. He was counting on Russia, Germany and France to see that we would not go in there as he knew they had been aiding him on diverting Oil money from food program. So he did have them, every intelligence agency in the world thought he still probably had them and he deliberately wanted us to think is. No one lied. They were decieved. All of them. Bush and Kerry and everyone. All over the world.



Saddam had WMD's PRE-First Iraq war, AND NEVER SINCE, according to Pres. Bush's own weapons inspector.


According to Pres. Bush's own CIA, THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAUEDA

His own people are telling him this.

The fact is the UN sanctions WERE WORKING!!!!!!!!!!!!! Peaceful negotiations were WORKING... he had no means to attain any of the WMD goals he may have had... you want to tell me he was the only guy that wants wmd's? I want one too does that make me a terrorist?? i don't think so... lol wanting WMD's and having them are completely different things.

Now onto my next point. whatever happened to "The buck stops here"??? who were we decieved by?? the intelligence community of PRES. BUSH..


He is responsible, as President of the United States for the people he trusts.... he had terrible judgement in who he had in the intellegence community.

He, as Pres., failed the people of the United States of America in this regard.

It's time for a change, and on Nov. 2nd, the people will have their say.

[FactsOfLife]

The sanctions were working?

To do what? Ensure that the oil for food monies were funneled properly into Saddam's coffers?

If you had taken the time to actually read the content of the report, instead of regurgitating demorate spin, you'd realise that it does NOT say what you just claimed it says.

Saddam was being told by the French Governement, and by the French Ambassador to the UN specifically, that he had nothing to worry about from the US, because France was going to VETO ANY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ.

Saddam KNEW that if he waited long enough he was going to get the sanctions lifted and restart his WMD programs. He KNEW that if he continued to divert the monies from the OFF program and kept starving his people that the UN would eventually cave, and remove the sanctions. Which the report SPECIFICALLY points out would have been the needed catalyst for Saddam to restart ALL of his WMD programs.

We KNOW he had WMD's when he gassed the Kurds. We have found numerous examples of forbidden weapons like the Bi-Mixture Serin shells. We have found large stockpiles of precursor materials.

So if there are none in Iraq now, where did they go?

Now, I have a direct question for all you libs crowing about this report:

Which argument are you going to now give up? That he never had WMD's or that he was supplied WMD's by the US?

Can't have it both ways kids...

[FactsOfLife]

He is responsible, as President of the United States for the people he trusts.... he had terrible judgement in who he had in the intellegence community.


You do realise that they guy who told him WMD's in Iraq was George Tenet right? Remember which administration he was held over from?

Oh yeah, that'd be Bill Clinton's...

Course that little detail doesn't matter right? :rolleyes:

[Hasty8]

I've been trying to stay out of the more political debates but I simply cannot here. Not because of any great love for Bush but out of a greater love for the truth.

In Godzilla's above rant he forget two vital pieces of information.

First, Tenet was appointed as head of the CIA by Clinton. as was then-head of the FBI Louis J. Freeh.

Now add to the fact that Clinton gave extremely lighthanded responses to the terrorist attacks against America and it's worldwide presence in 1993 <b>AND</b> 1995 <b>AND</b> 1996 <b>AND</b> 1998 <b>AND</b> 2000 and you can see a clear line of how the democratic party is ineffective in handling just about any threat.

For concrete proof of this let's take it from Kerry:


"I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation."

John Kerry said this on the Larry King Live show July 8th, 2004
Transcript (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html)

Now here is what I find revolting about Kerry supporters. They are totally blind.

The second plane hit the WTC a 9:03AM and the Pentagon was hit at 9:43AM. Bush was addressing the nation at 9:31AM.

By Kerry's own words he, and the rest of the Democratic party leadership were completely knocked dumb by the event and simply sat in a daze.

Face it. With the exception of Roosevelt, there has never been a decent Deomcratic President during a time of war.

And don't even think of saying that we started this war. The religious zagnuts started this war.

Now, in regards to Godzilla's comment that the sanctions were working.

MSNBC article on "The Report" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6194795/)

I'm not sure what report you were reading but Duelfer himself said that Saddam told him that he [Saddam] fully intended to pursue WMD's as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Why do liberals always insist on waiting until the gun is loaded, cocked and against our heads? :tard:

[Hasty8]

The Duelfer report said Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received secret oil vouchers, with Saddam personally approving the list of recipients. The voucher list was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business leaders, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6194795/)

And people wonder why the French, German and Chinese were those strongest voice of opposition to our removing Saddam from power. :rofl:

Here's one final tidbit of information. Kerry says that we should have waited yet listen to what the Duelfer report says:


<b>The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime.</b>
OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
<b>By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.</b>
Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

So Kerry [and Godzilla} were saying that the sanctions were working yet the Duelfer report clearly shows that they were not and had in fact assisted in pulling Saddam's regime out of the red and into the black. Waiting a few more years could have proven disasterous as that time would have allowed Saddam to restart his WMD programs.

Key findings on the search for WMD in Iraq.(Requires Adobe Acrobat to view) (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Terrorism%20&%20Security/041006_CIA_WMD_Report_Key_Findings.pdf)

Download the free Adobe Reader here. (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)

[cphilip]

Saddam had WMD's PRE-First Iraq war, AND NEVER SINCE, according to Pres. Bush's own weapons inspector.


According to Pres. Bush's own CIA, THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAUEDA

His own people are telling him this.

The fact is the UN sanctions WERE WORKING!!!!!!!!!!!!! Peaceful negotiations were WORKING... he had no means to attain any of the WMD goals he may have had... you want to tell me he was the only guy that wants wmd's? I want one too does that make me a terrorist?? i don't think so... lol wanting WMD's and having them are completely different things.

Now onto my next point. whatever happened to "The buck stops here"??? who were we decieved by?? the intelligence community of PRES. BUSH..


He is responsible, as President of the United States for the people he trusts.... he had terrible judgement in who he had in the intellegence community.

He, as Pres., failed the people of the United States of America in this regard.

It's time for a change, and on Nov. 2nd, the people will have their say.


They were working but no one could VERIFY they were working because Saddam refused to comply. And hind site is always 20/20. Easy to now say. But if Bush was wrong then so was every single country at the UN that voted for further sanctions and final resolutions because they COULD NOT VERIFY if the weapons were destroyed. In fact to this day no one knows where they went. They were there. What did he do with the ones he had? He was supposed to verify thier destruction. And to this very day he has not nor has anyone else determined what happened to them.

The President will and is taking the hit for the misinformation that was widely believed before we could realy go in and verify what the current situation was. But had he not gone in we would not know anything even today. When you go in and discover you take what you find. And to date until we went in there... everyone chose to believe he had still these weapons. And he probably does still have them. Burried somewhere but old. And he was trying to get in postion to remake more. Thats from the latest investigations. It seems Saddam was the victim of his own Folly. Trying to fool the world into thinking he might still have capability and so it bit him in the arse.

Now again.. No one has said there is no connections between Al Queda and Saddam. No one. Your confused. Was there a close working relationship resently. Not that we can find. But that is not the same thing your spouting out. There were communications. THere used to be some internal cooperation. There is evidence it might have started to rekindle. But your flat out wrong. You know what your confusing. Your confusing the conclusion that there was no link between Al Quida and Saddam over the 911 hijackings. And probably just taking a leap of faith to apply it to everything else. Very convenient but not factual.

If you consider being misslead and purposely thwarted from finding out the clear truth with lying then your a bit addled. Fact is Saddam played a game and fooled everyone. Everyone at the UN.... Kerry and Edwards too! So did they lie? I don't think so. They were misslead. And so was everyone else. And the funny thing is, in the end, the person who thought he would gain by misleading and playing games in rightfully in jail.

[Hasty8]

phil, don't give him the concession that the sanctions were working as they clearly were not. According to the Duelfer report [see my post directly above yours] the only thing the sanctions did do was pave the way for the Oil For Food program which was manipulated by Saddam to totally shred the sanctions and give him the money he needed to, at the very least, maintain his pursuit for WMD's.

As far as I am concerned, this report only bolsters the argument to go to war. Saddam was a total threat that simply was not in our faces yet.

If you're driving down a two lane road and notice that a car is in your lane do you swerve as soon as possible or do you wait to the last second hoping the other driver will swerve first? It's been my experience, talking to those libs that I can, that they seem to take a stance of waiting for the last possible moment, choosing instead to hope for the best of humanity, whatever that is.

[Zygote]

Which argument are you going to now give up? That he never had WMD's or that he was supplied WMD's by the US?

Can't have it both ways kids...


It's been known for quite a while that the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran, which he turned around and used on the Kurds. I believe his biggest supplier was Germany, but our hands aren't clean in that matter.

[FactsOfLife]

It's been known for quite a while that the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran, which he turned around and used on the Kurds. I believe his biggest supplier was Germany, but our hands aren't clean in that matter.


That was not my question.

[matt-o]

2) Saddam DID have weapons of Mass destruction. He used them. And sometimes on his own people. That is a fact. And he never was able to nor did he want to prove he got rid of them. As he was ordered to do. And clearly was seeking to restart making them again. This was clear in the report yesterday. He, it now seems, did not want to verify the lack of them because he feared Iran would take advantage of that. THis is what was reported yesterday as well. He decided to decieve the UN on this for his own purposes. He gambled and lost. He was counting on Russia, Germany and France to see that we would not go in there as he knew they had been aiding him on diverting Oil money from food program. So he did have them, every intelligence agency in the world thought he still probably had them and he deliberately wanted us to think is. No one lied. They were decieved. All of them. Bush and Kerry and everyone. All over the world.


3) there are both. Insurgents are made up of all sorts of groups. Religeous Militants that want power. Old regime members that want power and incoming Militants that are terrorists as well. Terrorists are people who use terrorist tactics of fear to extract thier control. It makes no matter what thier background was or is now... once you resort to terrorist tactics to influence a matter you are a Terrorist. Plain and simple. No argument. I think you missunderstand what a terrorist really is. These people are using terrorist tactics to try and obtain power. So they are all terrorists.
he had WMD's before the first gulf war, and not since, we already knew that, the inspectors never found any evidence nor was it ever reported to be used
and to me there is a difference between terroist and guerilla fighter, they are on their soil or allied soil, not ours they are fighing a defensive war, and they are fighting soldiers, not civilians, that is why i dont think the current fighters in iraq are terrorists, but guerilla fighters the words just have slightly different connotations and bush is heavily exploiting that

[PissedGodzilla]

You do realise that they guy who told him WMD's in Iraq was George Tenet right? Remember which administration he was held over from?

Oh yeah, that'd be Bill Clinton's...

Course that little detail doesn't matter right? :rolleyes:


hold on a second here, The director of the CIA is an appointed position.... Dubya chose to keep him... a gross mistake.


IT was his choice.

Why do right wing whackos think that attacking Clinton is going to do anything... Hello!!!! wake up people, He's not running for president!!!

OF course, Right wingers want no responsibility put on George. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[PissedGodzilla]

Which argument are you going to now give up? That he never had WMD's or that he was supplied WMD's by the US?

Can't have it both ways kids...


I dare you to find anywhere were I said anything about wmd's supplied by the US... you won't find it... another irrelevant FoL question.... :ninja:

[PissedGodzilla]

phil, don't give him the concession that the sanctions were working as they clearly were not. According to the Duelfer report [see my post directly above yours] the only thing the sanctions did do was pave the way for the Oil For Food program which was manipulated by Saddam to totally shred the sanctions and give him the money he needed to, at the very least, maintain his pursuit for WMD's.

As far as I am concerned, this report only bolsters the argument to go to war. Saddam was a total threat that simply was not in our faces yet.

If you're driving down a two lane road and notice that a car is in your lane do you swerve as soon as possible or do you wait to the last second hoping the other driver will swerve first? It's been my experience, talking to those libs that I can, that they seem to take a stance of waiting for the last possible moment, choosing instead to hope for the best of humanity, whatever that is.

The only problem with your argument is that your reasons for going to war were not the reasons we were given... we were decieved. and the President is responsible for his people.


and your anology is a very poor one. It should be more like this... if your'e driving down a 2 lane road, and notice a car in your lane, do you swerve into the next lane as soon as possible, or wait until the van next to you with the innocent people gets out of the way, and act intelligent by doing everything you can to get that car in front of you out of the way. Doing it your way leaves the innocents dead without their having a chance t get out of the way. that is a more equal analogy.

[Hasty8]

he had WMD's before the first gulf war, and not since we already knew that, the inspectors never found any evidence nor was it ever reported to be used
and to me there is a difference between terroist and guerilla fighter, they are on their soil or allied soil, not ours they are fighing a defensive war, and they are fighting soldiers, not civilians, that is why i dont think the current fighters in iraq are terrorists, but guerilla fighters the words just have slightly different connotations and bush is heavily exploiting that


Matt, just so we are clear on this. Your "guerillas" are not fighting for a free IRaq, they are fighting for a muslim one.

[PissedGodzilla]

They were working but no one could VERIFY they were working because Saddam refused to comply. And hind site is always 20/20. Easy to now say. But if Bush was wrong then so was every single country at the UN that voted for further sanctions and final resolutions because they COULD NOT VERIFY if the weapons were destroyed. In fact to this day no one knows where they went. They were there. What did he do with the ones he had? He was supposed to verify thier destruction. And to this very day he has not nor has anyone else determined what happened to them.

The President will and is taking the hit for the misinformation that was widely believed before we could realy go in and verify what the current situation was. But had he not gone in we would not know anything even today. When you go in and discover you take what you find. And to date until we went in there... everyone chose to believe he had still these weapons. And he probably does still have them. Burried somewhere but old. And he was trying to get in postion to remake more. Thats from the latest investigations. It seems Saddam was the victim of his own Folly. Trying to fool the world into thinking he might still have capability and so it bit him in the arse.

Now again.. No one has said there is no connections between Al Queda and Saddam. No one. Your confused. Was there a close working relationship resently. Not that we can find. But that is not the same thing your spouting out. There were communications. THere used to be some internal cooperation. There is evidence it might have started to rekindle. But your flat out wrong. You know what your confusing. Your confusing the conclusion that there was no link between Al Quida and Saddam over the 911 hijackings. And probably just taking a leap of faith to apply it to everything else. Very convenient but not factual.

If you consider being misslead and purposely thwarted from finding out the clear truth with lying then your a bit addled. Fact is Saddam played a game and fooled everyone. Everyone at the UN.... Kerry and Edwards too! So did they lie? I don't think so. They were misslead. And so was everyone else. And the funny thing is, in the end, the person who thought he would gain by misleading and playing games in rightfully in jail.



The flaw in your argument as well is that the President didn't wait for inspectors to finish... he just assumed they would find the WMD's


Also, there is no argument from a sane person that it is better for Iraq in the long run for Saddam 5to be out. The important question is, why did we oust him, and was it for the right reasons. They answer is no it wasn't for the right reasons.

Our reason to go to war in Afghanistan was justified, Osama attacked us. we went into Iraq under the belief that he was supporting Osama and had WMD's ... neither one is true.

All this war did for us in the war against terrorism was hurt us. all of our brave soldiers should be in Afghanistan getting the guy who attacked us, not Saddam. :nono:

[Hasty8]

The only problem with your argument is that your reasons for going to war were not the reasons we were given... we were decieved. and the President is responsible for his people.


and your anology is a very poor one. It should be more like this... if your'e driving down a 2 lane road, and notice a car in your lane, do you swerve into the next lane as soon as possible, or wait until the van next to you with the innocent people gets out of the way, and act intelligent by doing everything you can to get that car in front of you out of the way. Doing it your way leaves the innocents dead without their having a chance t get out of the way. that is a more equal analogy.


First off, I care about myself first, innocents second.

Sorry if that's a tad cold for you but I'm not risking my life for someone I don't know.

Second, to sit there and say that Bush lied is total bullhockey.

Did he present wrong intelligence?

Yes, and he has admitted to such but he did not lie. He went on the best intelligence available at the time which at that time said that Saddam still had considerable WMD's.

Considering how he had not been cooperative in regards to the weapons inspectors it's not hard to understand how everyone could belive those claims.

Finally, Saddam was a threat. Perhaps not an "iimediate and direct" one but he was one nonetheless. Now, what sense does it make to let Saddam get to North Korea status before taking him out?

And yes, the President is responsible. So what are we supposed to do now that we are in there and have instituted a regime change which will eventually be for the better? Are we supposed to say "oops. Sorry, no weapons here so Saddam gets to take control again."

No, you stay the course.

Something Kerry seems wholly unable to do. Simply choosing breakfast must be a three hour long process with this guy.

[Hasty8]

hold on a second here, The director of the CIA is an appointed position.... Dubya chose to keep him... a gross mistake.


IT was his choice.

Why do right wing whackos think that attacking Clinton is going to do anything... Hello!!!! wake up people, He's not running for president!!!

OF course, Right wingers want no responsibility put on George. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Jesus, now you are just grabbing for excuses. Clinton and his cronies were in the office for eight years before the attacks while Bush was in office for one.

Clinton presided over several of the worst terrorist attacks against this nation on our own land and against our middle eastern presence yet essentially did nothing.

What I was trying to say is that if you suffer a bully without reprise you are bound to expect larger and more significant attacks.

I wholly put the blame of the attacks of 2001 on Clintons shoulders. He never took it to those who were responsible and ran when ever we lost a life.

[PissedGodzilla]

First off, I care about myself first, innocents second.

Sorry if that's a tad cold for you but I'm not risking my life for someone I don't know.

Second, to sit there and say that Bush lied is total bullhockey.

Did he present wrong intelligence?

Yes, and he has admitted to such but he did not lie. He went on the best intelligence available at the time which at that time said that Saddam still had considerable WMD's.

Considering how he had not been cooperative in regards to the weapons inspectors it's not hard to understand how everyone could belive those claims.

Finally, Saddam was a threat. Perhaps not an "iimediate and direct" one but he was one nonetheless. Now, what sense does it make to let Saddam get to North Korea status before taking him out?

And yes, the President is responsible. So what are we supposed to do now that we are in there and have instituted a regime change which will eventually be for the better? Are we supposed to say "oops. Sorry, no weapons here so Saddam gets to take control again."

No, you stay the course.

Something Kerry seems wholly unable to do. Simply choosing breakfast must be a three hour long process with this guy.


Well, this blows that entire argument away... Ready??


Where did I say Pres. Bush Lied?? I didn't. Boom you lose.


:rofl:

[PissedGodzilla]

Jesus, now you are just grabbing for excuses. Clinton and his cronies were in the office for eight years before the attacks while Bush was in office for one.

Clinton presided over several of the worst terrorist attacks against this nation on our own land and against our middle eastern presence yet essentially did nothing.

What I was trying to say is that if you suffer a bully without reprise you are bound to expect larger and more significant attacks.

I wholly put the blame of the attacks of 2001 on Clintons shoulders. He never took it to those who were responsible and ran when ever we lost a life.


yet another problem with your thinking is that Bill isn't running for President. blame him all you want for 9/11 I'm talking about the war in Iraq.

Bill Clinto this, Bill Clinton that... anything to get away from the ineffectiveness and Mistakes of Dubya :rolleyes:

[PissedGodzilla]

And yes, the President is responsible. So what are we supposed to do now that we are in there and have instituted a regime change which will eventually be for the better? Are we supposed to say "oops. Sorry, no weapons here so Saddam gets to take control again."



No, you replace the man who took our country into war in error. we did it in Vietnam, I believe...

You put someone in there who has a clear plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

John Kerry :clap:

[FactsOfLife]

I dare you to find anywhere were I said anything about wmd's supplied by the US... you won't find it... another irrelevant FoL question.... :ninja:


Irrelevent? Hardly.

What's becoming increasingly irrelevent in this world is liberals.

Your policies are bankrupt, your stands on this country are out of touch, your need for "Global Tests" is fallacy.

Spare me your nonsense. You and others like you are arguing that Saddam should have been left in power to murder yet more innocents.

Nice try. How's it feel to be a failure?

[matt-o]

Irrelevent? Hardly.

What's becoming increasingly irrelevent in this world is liberals.

Your policies are bankrupt, your stands on this country are out of touch, your need for "Global Tests" is fallacy.

Spare me your nonsense. You and others like you are arguing that Saddam should have been left in power to murder yet more innocents.

Nice try. How's it feel to be a failure?
do you realise how stupid that was?

you basically said that we need to stop working with the rest of the world "testing" them, then said that it was right to topple a forign government, you hypocritical moron
you also spouted off tons of opinions without any proof at all
think before you speak next time

i dont want to hear from you about people saying irrelevant or dumb things :p

[matt-o]

Why do right wing whackos think that attacking Clinton is going to do anything... Hello!!!! wake up people, He's not running for president!!!

OF course, Right wingers want no responsibility put on George. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

AGREED! you guys seem to bash clinton here as much as you do kerry, he has nothing to do with this election so drop that crap

[PissedGodzilla]

Irrelevent? Hardly.

What's becoming increasingly irrelevent in this world is liberals.

Your policies are bankrupt, your stands on this country are out of touch, your need for "Global Tests" is fallacy.

Spare me your nonsense. You and others like you are arguing that Saddam should have been left in power to murder yet more innocents.

Nice try. How's it feel to be a failure?

And this is when you know youv'e pissed FoL off... lol you can just feel his hitting each and every key muttering to himself about the "damn Liberals... grumblegrumblegrumble..."



Your changing of resons for our invasion of Iraq just adds to you incredulity.

The only failure in hear is your neocon ways.

Since when was our reason to oust Saddam to save innocents in Iraq. that's such a copout. That how you know you lost the argument... in fact, i don't think you have yet to win an argument against me, Facts....

Stop trying to change the subject. This President failed the people of America when he chose UNWISELY and RASHLY to invade Iraq when we should have been focusing on the man who is behind the attacks on America, Osama bin laden.




:ninja:

[-=Squid=-]

FOL > You.

[PissedGodzilla]

FOL > You.


apparently not.... :clap: :rolleyes: :D

[Miscue]

do you realise how stupid that was?

you basically said that we need to stop working with the rest of the world "testing" them, then said that it was right to topple a forign government, you hypocritical moron
you also spouted off tons of opinions without any proof at all
think before you speak next time

i dont want to hear from you about people saying irrelevant or dumb things :p

3 days. Same reason as Squid. Personal attack = bad juju. Heated discussion is one thing - but this is unacceptable.

[-=Squid=-]

apparently not.... :clap: :rolleyes: :D
No, FOL > You.

[PissedGodzilla]

lol hey Cue, who's next, Mr. BMF...


Awwww Look at squid with the huge additions to the conversation... :headbang:

[Miscue]

And this is when you know youv'e pissed FoL off... lol you can just feel his hitting each and every key muttering to himself about the "damn Liberals... grumblegrumblegrumble..."



Your changing of resons for our invasion of Iraq just adds to you incredulity.

The only failure in hear is your neocon ways.

Since when was our reason to oust Saddam to save innocents in Iraq. that's such a copout. That how you know you lost the argument... in fact, i don't think you have yet to win an argument against me, Facts....

Stop trying to change the subject. This President failed the people of America when he chose UNWISELY and RASHLY to invade Iraq when we should have been focusing on the man who is behind the attacks on America, Osama bin laden.




:ninja:

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

From: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[Miscue]

lol hey Cue, who's next, Mr. BMF...


Awwww Look at squid with the huge additions to the conversation... :headbang:

Haha, yup. I haven't BMF'd in a long time. Although, I keep paying his monthly bill... hurm.

[PissedGodzilla]

Who in particular are you acusing of an ad hominem?

well, not accusing, but a cool website nevertheless...


I haven't played CoH because since the last update, my computer can't handle the truth....

[-=Squid=-]

I don't need to provide huge additions when half intelligent people such as FOL get the point across perfectly fine.

[Miscue]

Who in particular are you acusing of an ad hominem?

Both you, FOL, and a lot of others in here. :p

I took notice of your post because, you mentioned something about an "argument." Well, what is everyone's argument?

Trick is to word it simply, without rhetoric. Form logically valid arguments, and then it's a matter of testing the premises for soundness. There are formal rules on how to construct a valid argument - review sites on formal logic for either review or introduction.

If you want good argument, this is the way to go - otherwise it's rhetoric. People are "arguing" but not in the sense of logical argument. Note that "logical argument" has a specific meaning - it's nearly mathmatical - it does not mean that how everyone has been going about it is illogical or dumb.

[PissedGodzilla]

I don't need to provide huge additions when half intelligent people such as FOL get the point across perfectly fine.


I think that was the most perfect back-handed compliment ever... :D

[Miscue]

I think that was the most perfect back-handed compliment ever... :D

Hehe, I got a chuckle out of it.

[-=Squid=-]

Hehe, I got a chuckle out of it.
I'm sure you would laugh at something completely unfunny in front of your monitor.


You seem the type.

http://members.aol.com/mahddawg/rockgtr7.gif

[Automaggot68]

I'm sure you would laugh at something completely unfunny in front of your monitor.


You seem the type.

http://members.aol.com/mahddawg/rockgtr7.gif


I found that most of Kerry's replies were....well..Cheesy.

I bow down to Squid.

[-=Squid=-]

I found that most of Kerry's replies were....well..Cheesy.

I bow down to Squid.
We all should.

[FactsOfLife]

I think that was the most perfect back-handed compliment ever... :D


If he thinks I'm only half intelligent, wonder what he thinks about you? :rofl:

[Hasty8]

Well, this blows that entire argument away... Ready??


Where did I say Pres. Bush Lied?? I didn't. Boom you lose.


:rofl:


"The only problem with your argument is that your reasons for going to war were not the reasons we were given... we were <b>decieved</b>. and the President is responsible for his people.


Definition of Deceived. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deceived)

you read the definition of deceived and tell me how it does not equate to lying.

[Zygote]

Reading only that quote it looks like he was saying someone under Bush lied and since he's subordinate to Bush, Bush is ultimately responsible.

Whether that's what was meant, who knows.

[Hasty8]

yet another problem with your thinking is that Bill isn't running for President. blame him all you want for 9/11 I'm talking about the war in Iraq.

Bill Clinto this, Bill Clinton that... anything to get away from the ineffectiveness and Mistakes of Dubya :rolleyes:


Fine, let's discuss the war in Iraq.

Saddam was order, not asked, <b>ORDERED</b> to disarm. In response he tossed out the inspectors.

Add on to that the numerous regime insiders who fled the country and told stories of how Saddam was trying to rebuild his WMD programs.

Add to that Saddam's past history of using WMD's against Iran, the US and his own citizens.

Add to that 17 resolutions by the UN demanding Saddam step up and he simply refuses.

Add to that current intelligence of the time stating that Saddam either has or soon will have WMD's.

Add to that 39 nations agreeing with the current situation.

No matter how you add it all up it equates to a potential threat and I fully agree with removing a potential threat long before it becomes a North Korea.

Not a single argument you have posted here, Godzilla, has been based ona single piece of fact.

The intelligence was wrong. You claim Bush "deceived".
If Bush "deceived" then so did Kerry. Which should not surprise anyone who knows the mans history.

Kerry enlisted in Vietnam only to get a few medals. Then he comes home, after serving 4 months "in-country" and betrays his fellow soldiers. Then he betrays his protesting buddies by throwing someone' else's pins and medals over the White House wall.

The primary difference between KErry and Bush is that Bush is willing to hold the line. This is something that Kerry has simply not be able to do in over 30 years of being in the public eye. He cowtows to which ever party or interest he feels will give him the best "bang for the buck".

Yes, the intelligence that Bush used as evidence of Saddam's intentions was wrong. However, had Saddam done what was ordered of him by the UN and allowed proper inspections then this war would not have happened.

Blame for this war falls on Saddam.

Also, the Duelfer report, which if you have not read the key points of I highly suggest that you do, has clearly painted a picture of how Saddam was directly involved in the continual weakening of UN sanctions against Iraq while ferverently working to acquire, develop and maintain the capital needed to restart his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Not a single on of your arguments, that I have seen so far, has been factual. Rather they have been based solely on personal interpretation of facts and your own internal feelings.

Now, let's discuss "ineffectivesness and mistakes".

First off, Kerry has apparantly made the same mistakes as Bush. He did vote for the war after all.

And I think my earlier post about how Kerry handled the attacks of Sept 11th gives a clear enough image of just how "effective" he can be.

<edit>BTW, Godzilla, your quote at the top of this post shows just how far you will go to try and twist the facts to fit your truth. The war in Iraq is a direct result of the September 11th attacks. Not because of any link to Al-Qaida but becuase Iraq is a state that supports terrorism. Again, had Saddam done what the UN asked and allowed ful access by the weapons inspectors we would not be in there now. </edit>

[Hasty8]

do you realise how stupid that was?

you basically said that we need to stop working with the rest of the world "testing" them, then said that it was right to topple a forign government, you hypocritical moron you also spouted off tons of opinions without any proof at all think before you speak next time

i dont want to hear from you about people saying irrelevant or dumb things :p

Perhaps you should think before you go spouting off.

You seem to feel that Bush was wrong for invading a soverign nation and effecting regime change.

Well, let's not act like that's solely a Republican thing.

Roosevelt invaded Germany and effected regime change. So did Truman, Kennedy & Johnson and of course, Clinton.

And that was just with direct invasion.

Think of this, my factually impared friend.

At the end of WWII there were 4, yes 4, democracies worldwide. There are now over 130.

Do you think they just sprang up overnight ala 7-Eleven?

You moral indignation is cute but hardly worth it.

As for FOL's comment about "not working with the world" I think he was more accurately commenting on Kerry's wholly scary sense of appeasing the world first and defending America second.

In the '70's Kerry told that if he had his way he would put control of the AMerican military in the hands of the US.

That scares the hell out of me. If that were in place right now Saddam, North Korea, Iran and over a dozen other tinpot dictators would now have the right to influence where and what our military does.

And now Kerry talks about any pre-emptive strikes passing a "global test"?

I'm sorry but no one but an American should have the right to decide where, when and how our military is used.

While I do not agree with a lot of the things that FOL says I do feel that your personal attacks are juvenile and makes you look all the more like a rash and impudent child and you owe him an apology.

[Hasty8]

and your anology is a very poor one. It should be more like this... if your'e driving down a 2 lane road, and notice a car in your lane, do you swerve into the next lane as soon as possible, or wait until the van next to you with the innocent people gets out of the way, and act intelligent by doing everything you can to get that car in front of you out of the way. Doing it your way leaves the innocents dead without their having a chance t get out of the way. that is a more equal analogy.

After re-reading this analogy I am shocked and amazed that you think yours was better.

You refer to the "innocent". I wonder who you speak of.

Perhaps you are referring to the innocent eldery and children that Saddam used nerve gas on to quell a "rebellion".

Or perhaps you are referring to the innocent hundreds of thousands that died under the UN OFF program in which Saddam illegally siphoned monies intended for medicial and food purchases into funding his re-armamnet programs.

"act intelligent". Another nice try Godzilla but, as I have said before, there were <b>17</b> resolutions about Saddam's IRaq and his weapons program.

How "intelligent" is it to keep admonishing someone and not finally spank? Out of curiousity, just how many resolutions is the "intelligent" amount? 20? 30? 100? How many resolutions do we need to give before we are finally allowed to act?

It was a nice try to add the "innocents" to my analogy.

[FactsOfLife]

As for FOL's comment about "not working with the world" I think he was more accurately commenting on Kerry's wholly scary sense of appeasing the world first and defending America second.

While I do not agree with a lot of the things that FOL says I do feel that your personal attacks are juvenile and makes you look all the more like a rash and impudent child and you owe him an apology.


Maybe I need to get myself a case of diarrhea of the keyboard. I apparently post here under the assumption that what I say is going to be understood by people that claim they have at least an 8th grade level of reading comprehension....

As for his attacks, doesn't bother me in the least. And I hardly expect any kind of apology, apparently he couldn't contain himself in his exuberence for a flame war. He even admits it in an earlier post.


all the hashness in that was simply a joke

but the points in my last post do stand

*edit* can me and facts have the flame war we're both itching for?

I look at it like this, the more shrill and insane their responses are to the facts of this world the more I'm convinced President Bush will be re-elected in a landslide.

I can't wait to see them lose it after the election.

10 bucks says that one of them says anything but a win for Kerry, means that Bush stole the election again. :rofl:

[Hasty8]

No, you replace the man who took our country into war in error. we did it in Vietnam, I believe...

You put someone in there who has a clear plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

John Kerry :clap:

I have yet to hear a single plan of Kerry's that handles specifics.

In closing, let's just agree to disagree.

These arguments bore me already.

I just find it frustrating that all this country has to offer is Bush and Kerry.

[-=Squid=-]

If he thinks I'm only half intelligent, wonder what he thinks about you? :rofl:... I don't feel like getting another 3-day.

[FactsOfLife]

... I don't feel like getting another 3-day.

ahahahaha nice one

[-=Squid=-]

ahahahaha nice one
I try.

[1stdeadeye]

Hast8 has now left my ignore list! :clap:

[-Carnifex-]

All I have to say is:

GRAWRBAAHAHAGEGGEGEHRGREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEGAGAGABhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[-=Squid=-]

Hast8 has now left my ignore list! :clap:
If he was on your ignore list, how did you know to remove him, seeing as you couldn't see his posts?

[1stdeadeye]

If he was on your ignore list, how did you know to remove him, seeing as you couldn't see his posts?

Because quotes still show up in other peoples posts. Intrigued, I clicked on the View Post pox in the top right corner. I then unblocked him. :rolleyes:

:tard:

[-=Squid=-]

Because quotes still show up in other peoples posts. Intrigued, I clicked on the View Post pox in the top right corner. I then unblocked him. :rolleyes:

:tard:
I thought I was on your ignore list too?

I guess you hit "view post"

Seems pretty ignorant to have us on your ignore list if you are still going to take the time to read our posts.

[FactsOfLife]

I thought I was on your ignore list too?

I guess you hit "view post"

Seems pretty ignorant to have us on your ignore list if you are still going to take the time to read our posts.


I don't put anyone one ignore, might miss some gem of stupidity... :D

[-=Squid=-]

I don't put anyone one ignore, might miss some gem of stupidity... :D
Same here; if I put someone on my ignore list my curiosity is peaked when I see that they posted.

[1stdeadeye]

I thought I was on your ignore list too?

I guess you hit "view post"

Seems pretty ignorant to have us on your ignore list if you are still going to take the time to read our posts.


Thanks for reminding me. I knew I forgot to do something.

CUL8R! :p

[-=Squid=-]

Thanks for reminding me. I knew I forgot to do something.

CUL8R! :p
I take it putting me on your ignore list was on your real life agenda?

[matt-o]

I look at it like this, the more shrill and insane their responses are to the facts of this world the more I'm convinced President Bush will be re-elected in a landslide.

I can't wait to see them lose it after the election.

10 bucks says that one of them says anything but a win for Kerry, means that Bush stole the election again. :rofl:
well i just got off my 3-day and i dont want another so this will be my last post in this thread, and i just want to say that no matter how insane, rediculous or stupid these posts get, no matter which side they come from each still means one vote per person, therefore facts of life made so sense whatsoever in his last quote of me, futhermore he quoted my second post here and it had nothing to do with anything he said
my conclusion is that he is a fool :p
just messin around im sure he's moderately reasonable

[PissedGodzilla]

... I don't feel like getting another 3-day.


It's pretty obvious from your 6,000 plus posts that you have no life other than AO.... lol so i gues i can understand why you don't want another suspension... It's funny how when people like squid lose arguments they lower themselves to the level of children and attempt to come off cool by using half-cocked insults. it only makes you look like a tool... BTW how old are you again in real life??


Back on topic. I just got back from a beautiful weekend in Boston. I reccomend it to anyone who's never been.

I did not get a chance yet to see much of the second debate.... any comments?

[PissedGodzilla]

You seem to feel that Bush was wrong for invading a soverign nation and effecting regime change.

Well, let's not act like that's solely a Republican thing.

Roosevelt invaded Germany and effected regime change. So did Truman, Kennedy & Johnson and of course, Clinton.

And that was just with direct invasion.

Think of this, my factually impared friend.

At the end of WWII there were 4, yes 4, democracies worldwide. There are now over 130.

Do you think they just sprang up overnight ala 7-Eleven?

.

My problem is not with affecting regime change, my problem is with my president making horribly wrong choices. Another attempt to take the focus off that fact....

Nevertheless, The majority of those democracies were made by popular decision amongst the countries population, no forced regime change.




As for FOL's comment about "not working with the world" I think he was more accurately commenting on Kerry's wholly scary sense of appeasing the world first and defending America second.

In the '70's Kerry told that if he had his way he would put control of the AMerican military in the hands of the US.

That scares the hell out of me.



Okay so it scares the hell out of you that we should have the control over the American militray??? that makes no sense!!!!


Of course, i assume you meant in the hands of others... To that I say read my next statement which shows that no such thing will ever happen.



And now Kerry talks about any pre-emptive strikes passing a "global test"?

I'm sorry but no one but an American should have the right to decide where, when and how our military is used.




My opinion is that if you are going to invade another country, you better have a damn good reason for it, so that other countries don't freak out and assume you are going to invade theirs. If you have a justifiable reason to invade a country, then that is passing the global test of other countriwes supporting such a move.

Why don't you quote the part of the Global test refrence where Sen. Kerry says "he will never allow any other country a veto power over our soverignty"

You know why you don't quote that? Because it TOTALLY destroys your argument.

[Automaggot68]

I have yet to hear a single plan of Kerry's that handles specifics.

In closing, let's just agree to disagree.

These arguments bore me already.

I just find it frustrating that all this country has to offer is Bush and Kerry.


On the note of lightening up this thread...
Hasty, Bladerunner Rocks


Some of the best damned quotes are from that movie.
Also, I love how you word your posts.
I look foreward to reading more.

[FactsOfLife]

Why don't you quote the part of the Global test refrence where Sen. Kerry says "he will never allow any other country a veto power over our soverignty"

You know why you don't quote that? Because it TOTALLY destroys your argument.


So you think using yet ANOTHER Kerry contraadiction is going to somehow convince people that your argument is right?

How about this one?



"I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat." "Well, the president has been preoccupied with Iraq where there wasn't a threat."

Less than an hour apart, at the same debate.

It's simply mind boggling...