Who won the debate?

[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. 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 .

[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?