Man, reading through the transcript I almost wish I would have watched it. Kerry had some good burns, like this one:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- <b>his campaign has a word for that</b> -- and went to the United Nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>Burn!</b></i>
But on the otherhand I think I would have rather been prying my own teeth out with a rusty screwdriver.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 30 2004, 11:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 30 2004, 11:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Americans have already bitten off more than they can chew in Iraq, what on Earth would prompt anyone with half a brain to say "omg but you arent fighting ALL the bad guys, so there goes your moral reasoning". Did the Allies attack Stalin in WW2? He was just as bad, if not worse than Hitler. Following this inanitiy to its ultimate conclusion, the allies should have fought both. And lost. America should be judged on what it does with each action taken individually, which is why I criticise its handling of Rwanda and Sth America, but applaud the Iraq war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd love to know what sort of inane mental disfunction resulted in that paragraph. Nevermind that you needed to quote Penny Arcade to support that argument.
I don't recall ever claiming that we needed to fight two wars to justify our actions in Iraq. I was pointing out that while Saddam was a threat to national security, there are better targets in terms of anti-terrorism and pre-emptive defense. There is no justification for our move into Iraq short of oil and unfinished business. After all, it turns out that we'd launched a war in search of wild goose - we still haven't found any WMDs.
How you drew a parallel between current events and Stalin is beyond me. For one, communist Russia was our ally at the time. They were certainly not worse than Hitler in terms of viable economic and military threat (they could barely hold their own in the war). It wasn't until the Soviet's acquisition of nuclear weaponry that America began to see communism and the USSR as a threat. Why we never invaded Russia then was obvious - nuclear armageddon wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
BTW, an average of 75% Kerry on both polls can hardly be discredible. Forlorn, kindly shut your ignorant trap until you're better educated, please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd love to know what sort of inane mental disfunction resulted in that paragraph. Nevermind that you needed to quote Penny Arcade to support that argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I couldnt agree more, given that it was your sentence that resulted in that paragraph. Which sentence you ask? This one:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you'd been paying attention, Kerry pointed out multiple times that N. Korea was just as strong a threat, but we're not shooting the hell out of them, now are we? (Not that I'm suggesting you need to be half as intelligent as Kerry to make a point out of that)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Penny arcade was mentioned just because I happened to be reading it the other day, and thought it relevant.
I don't recall ever claiming that we needed to fight two wars to justify our actions in Iraq. I was pointing out that while Saddam was a threat to national security, there are better targets in terms of anti-terrorism and pre-emptive defense. There is no justification for our move into Iraq short of oil and unfinished business. After all, it turns out that we'd launched a war in search of wild goose - we still haven't found any WMDs.
How you drew a parallel between current events and Stalin is beyond me. For one, communist Russia was our ally at the time. They were certainly not worse than Hitler in terms of viable economic and military threat (they could barely hold their own in the war). It wasn't until the Soviet's acquisition of nuclear weaponry that America began to see communism and the USSR as a threat. Why we never invaded Russia then was obvious - nuclear armageddon wasn't exactly a walk in the park.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
North Korea, to my best knowledge, have never been implicated in any sort of terrorist undertakings directly against the US, unlike Saddam the sponsor. But I see now that you are talking about US defence, and not US justification - fair enough. I still feel most of what I said applies. If Nth Korea is just as much a threat, then who do you target, Korea or Iran? We dont want anyone feeling left out do we. What about Iran, their not friendly, and certainly pose a threat, what makes them less of a target than the Koreans? Perhaps its best to just start somewhere and work your way around, and Iraq was definately the best spot to do it. Desert warfare beats the hell out of jungle warfare, plus its right smack in the middle of the wartorn Middle East, a place where everything that happens there has an impact on every Western nation in the world.
You talk about attacking Nth Korea, yet had that been done instead would Kerry be saying "Nah that's all cool, GWB did the right thing"? Please. And this is coming from a man who said "Knowing what I do now, I still would have attacked Iraq".
I also suggest you reread my post, none of those "stupid" cracks were aimed at you, they were aimed at Kerry.
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Sep 30 2004, 09:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Sep 30 2004, 09:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyway, I consider this a loss for Bush as he failed to justify his war in Iraq, and the connection between Saddam and Terrorism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Heh... failed to make the connection... between Saddam and Terrorism.
Pardon me while I have a chuckling fit... *hehehe*
Uhem... yeah, what? No, because everyone knows Saddam is the Ice Cream man, free twinkies and sugarplums with chocolate frogs and easter bunnies.
Two points here:
1. Everyone knows that Saddam and Terrorism are almost the same thing. Saddam being a terrorist is irrefutable.
2. Since everyone knows this, why would Bush waste time explaining it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Uhem... yeah, what? No, because everyone knows Saddam is the Ice Cream man, free twinkies and sugarplums with chocolate frogs and easter bunnies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. I <b>think</b> that Saddam and Terrorism are almost the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took the freedom of making your statement more accurate. Everyone refers to Saddam as a dictator, not a terrorist.
And if you guys still don't believe Bush got owned, I'll let your conservative blogger friends tell it to you straight:
Following borrowed from dailykos: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Conservative bloggers say Bush sucked by kaelamantis Fri Oct 1st, 2004 at 06:28:44 GMT
Wes Clark on the Daily Show says conservative bloggers are disappointed. I found some quotes:
PoliPundit says:
"I think most people's first impression, is that Kerry was strong and forceful, while Bush was less effective, more hesitant."
"I've been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word.Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate."
Powerline Blog says:
"But, candidly, I don't think it went that well for the President. I think Kerry helped himself tonight. He came across as a credible candidate, and he was usually on the offensive...I think Kerry made headway, and there is plenty of material there for the mainstream media to proclaim the beginning of Kerry's comeback...On the whole, though, I think Kerry helped himself tonight."
Freepers say:
"While we were all hoping that Bush would defeat Kerry handidly tonight and put the election out of reach, we can't be that upset with tonight. Kerry may have even had a slight win..."
Post more hysterical wingnut freakouts as you find them. This is fun!
Update [2004-10-1 0:22:2 by kaelamantis]: More:
Oxblog:
"ONE LINE ON THE DEBATE: Kerry won. Hands down. By a lot. That's all for now."
Winds of Change:
"Kerry did well in terms of his persona; I went in expecting a pompous windbag and he wasn't one. Bush did less well in persona; fragmented, repetitive..."
New Republicans:
"Well, if I'm generous, then Bush stuck to his talking points. As a former debater, however, I am tempted to say that Bush missed many, many, many chances to really make key points against Kerry...I'm not certain that Kerry won more than a few swing votes in this, but I don't know if Bush can win those votes back. He simply didn't deliver as well as Kerry."
Update [2004-10-1 0:54:10 by kaelamantis]: And more:
More Powerline:
"I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout."
VodkaPundit:
"Kerry won on points, which probably was enough to shore up his weakened support in New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."
Dean's World
"My gut's telling me it's a win for Kerry because, frankly, he scared me less than I expected him to."
DarkATI i dont see the relation between Sadamn and terrorism at all. Espically not with Al-Queada(sp?), Sadamn hates islamic extremists(iraq is probably the only government in the middle east that pretty much tolerated all sects of islam and didnt really hate jews/christians, which is actually one of the many reasons US gave sadamn power in Iraq because of this), they defend'd kewait when sadamn atkd and everything.
If anything i think US supports terrorism, you guys form'd Al-Queada and funded their training in the early days and supplied them with weapons and know how. During the 70~80's US created tons of terrorists, look at what happened in chille if you want to see what monstrousities US caused. Look at what israel is doing to emerging palestiene government, they atk a wheel chaired holy man from an atk helocopter in a public area causing innocent causitiles, all with US equipment and backing. During the cold war vs russia, US tried its best to supply any anti-communist or anarcheist rebels with arms so they can better do terrorist atks aswell.
Have to give this one to Kerry, got his points out, could have used a bit more charisma.
Bush went off topic, like every single time.
-Mr. President, do you think the country would be less safe if kerry was president?
-Well, Iraq iraq, safer iraq, safer world.
Didn't even draw a connection pffft. Also, Bush got pretty personal all on Kerry.
Props to kerry for mentioning his website, and curses at Bush for denouncing the ICC for the fact that "it could try americans". Good god. Too much for words.
<!--QuoteBegin-Tofumaster+Oct 1 2004, 08:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tofumaster @ Oct 1 2004, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Props to kerry for mentioning his website, and curses at Bush for denouncing the ICC for the fact that "it could try americans". Good god. Too much for words. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 1 2004, 04:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 1 2004, 04:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> huh? my country...? edit- it's rhetorical right? sorry, it's sort of lost when typed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it's out of character, but it's still wrong. So what's wrong with discussing it. It just strengthens negative conceptions of America. Everyone else joins, providing it legitimacy, but America! It's too good to be part of an international organization, it can't associate with the common <i>other</i> countries. eeew.
And the UN? It's <i>obviously</i> done no good to world right? uhh... wait.
Besides, you can't blame the UN for not making 'decisive political action' when needed or such, because at that level, all it is is the g5, so in the end, mind as well just blame the g5 including america.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 1 2004, 09:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 1 2004, 09:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Tofumaster+Oct 1 2004, 08:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tofumaster @ Oct 1 2004, 08:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Props to kerry for mentioning his website, and curses at Bush for denouncing the ICC for the fact that "it could try americans". Good god. Too much for words. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He never said he would do that! Bush put those words out there. What he said was that he would never make America go to war by itself and would instead bring his allies along so that Americans would no longer be contributing to 95% of the deaths.
There's a clear difference between not fighting because the UN wont move with you and fighting because the UN told you to do so. I think Kerry was speaking to the former, not the latter.
And quite honestly, I would rather have questionable Americans be tried in an international court than have innocent Americans be unfairly tried by terrorists and then beheaded.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Oct 1 2004, 07:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Oct 1 2004, 07:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. Everyone knows that Saddam and Terrorism are almost the same thing. Saddam being a terrorist is irrefutable. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Osama and Terrorism are almost the same thing. All of our billions of dollars worth of intelligence have failed to make a connection between Sadaam and Terrorism. If theres a link between Sadaam and Al-Qaida then I guess that means that Sadaam also has ties with the Chechnian rebels, the Janjaweed, and the Columbian drug lords too right? Whatever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Since everyone knows this, why would Bush waste time explaining it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because its a debate and both candidates are supposed to explain their positions?
Anyways, the truth has come out on the Gallup polls. The only thing favorable about Bush there is that the majority of people still prefer Bush over Kerry in the handling of the Iraq War as commander in chief by something like 54% to 40%. Other than that its Kerry all the way.
<a href='http://www.gallup.com/' target='_blank'>Gallup Poll front page reads Kerry Wins Debate</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Tofumaster+Oct 1 2004, 11:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Tofumaster @ Oct 1 2004, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 1 2004, 04:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 1 2004, 04:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> huh? my country...? edit- it's rhetorical right? sorry, it's sort of lost when typed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it's out of character, but it's still wrong. So what's wrong with discussing it. It just strengthens negative conceptions of America. Everyone else joins, providing it legitimacy, but America! It's too good to be part of an international organization, it can't associate with the common <i>other</i> countries. eeew.
And the UN? It's <i>obviously</i> done no good to world right? uhh... wait.
Besides, you can't blame the UN for not making 'decisive political action' when needed or such, because at that level, all it is is the g5, so in the end, mind as well just blame the g5 including america. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes it was rhetorical, no it wasnt easy to detect that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Blame who you want Tofu, international organisations are just a whole stack of donkeys each pulling in their own seperate direction. They are impotent and often downright negative. If you couldnt stop the Rwandan massacre, then somethings wrong. That goes for NATO members and the UN - and now they're sitting by and letting it happen again. The UN has proved its supreme irrelevance, time for change.
Relsan, there is nothing you can do to stop beheadings. They dont give a sod about the ICC, you are filthy infidels and every American beheaded makes the world a cleaner place. There is one solution, and they have been quiet clear about all this. Submit to fundamentalist islamic law, or die. Thems the options.
If we had gone into Iraq with the full support of the international community I think we would have had less American beheadings and less total beheadings and there would most definitely be a lot less uncertainty about this whole war.
Oh but to stay on topic, I still think Kerry won, the Gallup polls showed he won, and when I look on Google News and click on the all 2000+ related link of the Top Story which is the presidential debate, like a large majority of the news sites share the opinion that Kerry won.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Something I want to clarify here. There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the "North Korea had weapons of mass destruction too" argument. The point is not to say, "well if you are going to attack one you have to attack all of them to remain self consistent." That would be completely retarded.
The President made a case for attacking Iraq, but North Korea fits that case just as well if not better than Iraq did. The point of bringing up North Korea is to get to that bit of the thinking behind it that hasn't been mentioned. More needs to be explained to make the case for attacking Iraq, because the argument has to single out Iraq specifically in order to be compelling. If it equally applies to a number of countries, the argument hasn't reached adequate detail yet.
The president would have to have made a case for the feasibility of pulling it off, but unfortunately, it doesn't appear that he thought thoroughly about that at all, and our troops and the Iraqis are paying the price.
I personally thought it was perfectly clear that Bush said that he doesn't want to attack North Korea if he can help it. "Peace, love, and butterflies" Kerry is questioning our inconsistency with attacking Iraq and not attacking North Korea. I think it is a perfectly clear statement on Bush's rebuttle that he really wouldn't go to war unless it were a last resort.
And by last resort, we're not talking about sending in waves after waves of inspectors just to have the door slammed in front of us. I believe Bush did exactly what he had to do knowing the intelligence he did. As far as he knew, Iraq had weapons, and he was plotting a time to use them. If Saddam wanted to bide his time and pick and choose targets to bomb, he could do so seeing how the UN continually wants to send in inspectors and getting rejected and insisting it is because it was "inconvenient" for poor Saddam to let them in.
Bush said, "okay, we've given this guy 10 chances to cooperate, and I see this as a clear sign that he is not willing to cooperate, so I will attack." Despite the continual criticism president Bush has gotten, it was perhaps the boldest, most commanding, and least "political" decision he could have made. Sign of a true leader, in my opinion. When "politics" is not your driving force for deciding things, then the only other motive could possibly be that he thought it was the best decision (and dont' give me that oil motive crap).
By the way, did anyone else hear Kerry say something like "Opium production makes up 75% of opium productions"? I swear I heard him say that, and my friend watching the debates with me thought he said the same.
edit: ^^ I think that is the shortest post ever to be ontopic <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
I missed the first half of the debate because of a class but the only thing that really stuck out for me, and something I haven't heard anywhere, is that Jim Lehrer is a really bad moderator. The guy just plain sucks. His phrasing and timing with his questions was absolutely weak. Off the top of my head I'd say someone like Tim Russert or Brit Hume would have done a much better job.
The only real substance I got out of what I saw was the approach toward North Korea. Specifically the "global test" comment. That one perked up my ears but other than that I didn't hear anything new.
Bush said, "okay, we've given this guy 10 chances to cooperate, and I see this as a clear sign that he is not willing to cooperate, so I will attack." Despite the continual criticism president Bush has gotten, it was perhaps the boldest, most commanding, and least "political" decision he could have made. Sign of a true leader, in my opinion. When "politics" is not your driving force for deciding things, then the only other motive could possibly be that he thought it was the best decision (and dont' give me that oil motive crap).
By the way, did anyone else hear Kerry say something like "Opium production makes up 75% of opium productions"? I swear I heard him say that, and my friend watching the debates with me thought he said the same. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And by last resort, we're not talking about sending in waves after waves of inspectors just to have the door slammed in front of us. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whiiiiiiiich only happened when we were caught inserting spies into the inspection teams. Before the war, inspectors were able to do their jobs, as Blix has said before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe Bush did exactly what he had to do knowing the intelligence he did. As far as he knew, Iraq had weapons, and he was plotting a time to use them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who do you think you're kidding with this pseudo-hindsight is 20/20 garbage? Bush was told repeatedly, over and over and over again to to let inspections continue and that invading would create a mess. You people never listened and now we're stuck in a quagmire on the level of Vietnam.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Saddam wanted to bide his time and pick and choose targets to bomb, he could do so seeing how the UN continually wants to send in inspectors and getting rejected and insisting it is because it was "inconvenient" for poor Saddam to let them in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More garbage. Inspectors would have seen that there were no WMDs and that would have been the end of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You people never listened and now we're stuck in a quagmire on the level of Vietnam.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You people never listened and now we're stuck in a quagmire on the level of Vietnam.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Oct 1 2004, 12:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Oct 1 2004, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You people never listened and now we're stuck in a quagmire on the level of Vietnam.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 57,000 lives is a nitpick?
<!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Oct 1 2004, 12:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Oct 1 2004, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Oct 1 2004, 12:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Oct 1 2004, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You people never listened and now we're stuck in a quagmire on the level of Vietnam.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 57,000 lives is a nitpick?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> IIRC it took far longer to lose 1000 american lives in Vietnam than a mere year in this war. It's going to add up steadily as long as the country is occupied, and for the near future we're pretty much stuck there since neither candidate has the balls to pull the troops out. Military casualities are not the only factor in what makes a war Vietnam-esque or a quagmire.
But the neocons here should feel free to amuse me with any further nitpicking.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Oct 1 2004, 12:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Oct 1 2004, 12:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-404NotFound+Oct 1 2004, 12:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (404NotFound @ Oct 1 2004, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Oct 1 2004, 12:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Oct 1 2004, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Oct 1 2004, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You people never listened and now we're stuck in a quagmire on the level of Vietnam.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 57,000 lives is a nitpick?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> IIRC it took far longer to lose 1000 american lives in Vietnam than a mere year in this war. It's going to add up steadily as long as the country is occupied, and for the near future we're pretty much stuck there since neither candidate has the balls to pull the troops out. Military casualities are not the only factor in what makes a war Vietnam-esque or a quagmire.
But the neocons here should feel free to amuse me with any further nitpicking. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> let me see
Vietnam lasted from ~1961 - 1975. That is 14 years. We have been in Iraq for a year an a half - yet you choose to call it "Vietnamesque" and a "quagmire" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Vietnam had over 58,000 soldiers lost - Iraq 1500 (im being generous).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IIRC it took far longer to lose 1000 american lives in Vietnam than a mere year in this war<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong... 58/14 > 1.5/1.5 Do a little math before claiming crap like that.
So far your Vietnam II is little more than a domestic dispute in the theater of war... There have been far bloodier and far leingthier with far worse results - and this is not spouting Bush - this is looking at history.
I suggest stepping up to the table with some facts next time - the comparison is unfair, bias, and easily refuted. I feel sorry for you, sir, that you buy that propaganda without checking it out for yourself.
"WHY ERNT YOU SCARED? THE TERRORISTS ARE ATTACKING ANY SECOND NOW AND SADDAM IS BUILDING WEAPONS IN HEAVEN! PICK ME CUZ I'LL DO WHAT I BEEN DOIN'! KERRY FLIP-FLOPS" (failing miserably)
Yes, I'm biased. I hope he doesn't get re-elected or he'll continue trying to scare people with terrorism and he has no plan to deal with Korea or the anarchy in Iraq. And I still can't see why "flip-flopping" is a bad thing; the world changes, you change with it or you're screwed.
I think it looked like whoever you were supporting "won" the debate to both sides, so no one can come to a conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Vietnam lasted from ~1961 - 1975. That is 14 years. We have been in Iraq for a year an a half - yet you choose to call it "Vietnamesque" and a "quagmire" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In part because it's already become a bad situation, genius. Try to keep up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Vietnam had over 58,000 soldiers lost - Iraq 1500 (im being generous).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little over 1000 so far, do try to keep up
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong... 58/14 > 1.5/1.5 Do a little math before claiming crap like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG try knowing what you're talking about. We involved in Vietnam for six years before US casualties hit <b>500</b> in 1965. In this war we've had twice that many in ONE YEAR.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Oct 1 2004, 12:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Oct 1 2004, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong... 58/14 > 1.5/1.5 Do a little math before claiming crap like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG try knowing what you're talking about. We involved in Vietnam for six years before US casualties hit <b>500</b> in 1965. In this war we've had twice that many in ONE YEAR. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So... You're <b>predicting</b> it will be the next Vietnam based on the assumption that we will heavily ramp up occupation, rather than diminishing it?
I'll admit, i said generously 1500 people died, when in reality it is little over 1000 - that's ok, 1500 would have supported your argument better. I'm keeping up.
And how is this a quagmire? They are going to have elections in under 2 years from the start of the war - that didn't happen in vietnam.
So, the correlation is ... both wars had at least 1000 soldiers killed. Hmm, they sound exactly alike. I might as well try to draw a correlation to the 100 years war.
I'm looking for the similarities, really, I am. Here is your opportunity - show me how they are alike - in time spent, resources spent, lives lost, technology used, condition the troups were in, who the opponent is. How are these two wars similar?
Until you answer that - Vietnam is little more than a catch phraze scare tactic when it comes to these elections.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- <b>his campaign has a word for that</b> -- and went to the United Nations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i><b>Burn!</b></i>
But on the otherhand I think I would have rather been prying my own teeth out with a rusty screwdriver.
I'd love to know what sort of inane mental disfunction resulted in that paragraph. Nevermind that you needed to quote Penny Arcade to support that argument.
I don't recall ever claiming that we needed to fight two wars to justify our actions in Iraq. I was pointing out that while Saddam was a threat to national security, there are better targets in terms of anti-terrorism and pre-emptive defense. There is no justification for our move into Iraq short of oil and unfinished business. After all, it turns out that we'd launched a war in search of wild goose - we still haven't found any WMDs.
How you drew a parallel between current events and Stalin is beyond me. For one, communist Russia was our ally at the time. They were certainly not worse than Hitler in terms of viable economic and military threat (they could barely hold their own in the war). It wasn't until the Soviet's acquisition of nuclear weaponry that America began to see communism and the USSR as a threat. Why we never invaded Russia then was obvious - nuclear armageddon wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
BTW, an average of 75% Kerry on both polls can hardly be discredible. Forlorn, kindly shut your ignorant trap until you're better educated, please.
I couldnt agree more, given that it was your sentence that resulted in that paragraph. Which sentence you ask? This one:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you'd been paying attention, Kerry pointed out multiple times that N. Korea was just as strong a threat, but we're not shooting the hell out of them, now are we? (Not that I'm suggesting you need to be half as intelligent as Kerry to make a point out of that)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Penny arcade was mentioned just because I happened to be reading it the other day, and thought it relevant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I don't recall ever claiming that we needed to fight two wars to justify our actions in Iraq. I was pointing out that while Saddam was a threat to national security, there are better targets in terms of anti-terrorism and pre-emptive defense. There is no justification for our move into Iraq short of oil and unfinished business. After all, it turns out that we'd launched a war in search of wild goose - we still haven't found any WMDs.
How you drew a parallel between current events and Stalin is beyond me. For one, communist Russia was our ally at the time. They were certainly not worse than Hitler in terms of viable economic and military threat (they could barely hold their own in the war). It wasn't until the Soviet's acquisition of nuclear weaponry that America began to see communism and the USSR as a threat. Why we never invaded Russia then was obvious - nuclear armageddon wasn't exactly a walk in the park.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
North Korea, to my best knowledge, have never been implicated in any sort of terrorist undertakings directly against the US, unlike Saddam the sponsor. But I see now that you are talking about US defence, and not US justification - fair enough. I still feel most of what I said applies. If Nth Korea is just as much a threat, then who do you target, Korea or Iran? We dont want anyone feeling left out do we. What about Iran, their not friendly, and certainly pose a threat, what makes them less of a target than the Koreans? Perhaps its best to just start somewhere and work your way around, and Iraq was definately the best spot to do it. Desert warfare beats the hell out of jungle warfare, plus its right smack in the middle of the wartorn Middle East, a place where everything that happens there has an impact on every Western nation in the world.
You talk about attacking Nth Korea, yet had that been done instead would Kerry be saying "Nah that's all cool, GWB did the right thing"? Please. And this is coming from a man who said "Knowing what I do now, I still would have attacked Iraq".
I also suggest you reread my post, none of those "stupid" cracks were aimed at you, they were aimed at Kerry.
Heh... failed to make the connection... between Saddam and Terrorism.
Pardon me while I have a chuckling fit... *hehehe*
Uhem... yeah, what? No, because everyone knows Saddam is the Ice Cream man, free twinkies and sugarplums with chocolate frogs and easter bunnies.
Two points here:
1. Everyone knows that Saddam and Terrorism are almost the same thing. Saddam being a terrorist is irrefutable.
2. Since everyone knows this, why would Bush waste time explaining it?
Please, back this statement up, man.
~ DarkATi
Although Kerry is so far behind in the presidential polls it might not even matter.
Uhem... yeah, what? No, because everyone knows Saddam is the Ice Cream man, free twinkies and sugarplums with chocolate frogs and easter bunnies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strawman.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Two points here:
1. I <b>think</b> that Saddam and Terrorism are almost the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took the freedom of making your statement more accurate. Everyone refers to Saddam as a dictator, not a terrorist.
And if you guys still don't believe Bush got owned, I'll let your conservative blogger friends tell it to you straight:
Following borrowed from dailykos:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Conservative bloggers say Bush sucked
by kaelamantis
Fri Oct 1st, 2004 at 06:28:44 GMT
Wes Clark on the Daily Show says conservative bloggers are disappointed. I found some quotes:
PoliPundit says:
"I think most people's first impression, is that Kerry was strong and forceful, while Bush was less effective, more hesitant."
"I've been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word.Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate."
Powerline Blog says:
"But, candidly, I don't think it went that well for the President. I think Kerry helped himself tonight. He came across as a credible candidate, and he was usually on the offensive...I think Kerry made headway, and there is plenty of material there for the mainstream media to proclaim the beginning of Kerry's comeback...On the whole, though, I think Kerry helped himself tonight."
Freepers say:
"While we were all hoping that Bush would defeat Kerry handidly tonight and put the election out of reach, we can't be that upset with tonight. Kerry may have even had a slight win..."
Post more hysterical wingnut freakouts as you find them. This is fun!
Update [2004-10-1 0:22:2 by kaelamantis]: More:
Oxblog:
"ONE LINE ON THE DEBATE: Kerry won. Hands down. By a lot. That's all for now."
Winds of Change:
"Kerry did well in terms of his persona; I went in expecting a pompous windbag and he wasn't one. Bush did less well in persona; fragmented, repetitive..."
New Republicans:
"Well, if I'm generous, then Bush stuck to his talking points. As a former debater, however, I am tempted to say that Bush missed many, many, many chances to really make key points against Kerry...I'm not certain that Kerry won more than a few swing votes in this, but I don't know if Bush can win those votes back. He simply didn't deliver as well as Kerry."
Update [2004-10-1 0:54:10 by kaelamantis]: And more:
More Powerline:
"I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout."
VodkaPundit:
"Kerry won on points, which probably was enough to shore up his weakened support in New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."
Dean's World
"My gut's telling me it's a win for Kerry because, frankly, he scared me less than I expected him to."
Whee!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anything i think US supports terrorism, you guys form'd Al-Queada and funded their training in the early days and supplied them with weapons and know how. During the 70~80's US created tons of terrorists, look at what happened in chille if you want to see what monstrousities US caused. Look at what israel is doing to emerging palestiene government, they atk a wheel chaired holy man from an atk helocopter in a public area causing innocent causitiles, all with US equipment and backing. During the cold war vs russia, US tried its best to supply any anti-communist or anarcheist rebels with arms so they can better do terrorist atks aswell.
Bush went off topic, like every single time.
-Mr. President, do you think the country would be less safe if kerry was president?
-Well, Iraq iraq, safer iraq, safer world.
Didn't even draw a connection pffft. Also, Bush got pretty personal all on Kerry.
Props to kerry for mentioning his website, and curses at Bush for denouncing the ICC for the fact that "it could try americans". Good god. Too much for words.
Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed.
Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
huh? my country...? edit- it's rhetorical right? sorry, it's sort of lost when typed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it's out of character, but it's still wrong. So what's wrong with discussing it. It just strengthens negative conceptions of America. Everyone else joins, providing it legitimacy, but America! It's too good to be part of an international organization, it can't associate with the common <i>other</i> countries. eeew.
And the UN? It's <i>obviously</i> done no good to world right? uhh... wait.
Besides, you can't blame the UN for not making 'decisive political action' when needed or such, because at that level, all it is is the g5, so in the end, mind as well just blame the g5 including america.
Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He never said he would do that! Bush put those words out there. What he said was that he would never make America go to war by itself and would instead bring his allies along so that Americans would no longer be contributing to 95% of the deaths.
There's a clear difference between not fighting because the UN wont move with you and fighting because the UN told you to do so. I think Kerry was speaking to the former, not the latter.
And quite honestly, I would rather have questionable Americans be tried in an international court than have innocent Americans be unfairly tried by terrorists and then beheaded.
Osama and Terrorism are almost the same thing. All of our billions of dollars worth of intelligence have failed to make a connection between Sadaam and Terrorism. If theres a link between Sadaam and Al-Qaida then I guess that means that Sadaam also has ties with the Chechnian rebels, the Janjaweed, and the Columbian drug lords too right? Whatever.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Since everyone knows this, why would Bush waste time explaining it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because its a debate and both candidates are supposed to explain their positions?
Anyways, the truth has come out on the Gallup polls. The only thing favorable about Bush there is that the majority of people still prefer Bush over Kerry in the handling of the Iraq War as commander in chief by something like 54% to 40%. Other than that its Kerry all the way.
<a href='http://www.gallup.com/' target='_blank'>Gallup Poll front page reads Kerry Wins Debate</a>
Your country is obsessed, completely mad, completely infatuated, rabidly fanatic about its rights, its constitution et al
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
huh? my country...? edit- it's rhetorical right? sorry, it's sort of lost when typed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For you to surrender that up to some international body (cause we all know international bodies are the win right, just look at the UN) would be so completely out of character I dont know why its even being discussed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it's out of character, but it's still wrong. So what's wrong with discussing it. It just strengthens negative conceptions of America. Everyone else joins, providing it legitimacy, but America! It's too good to be part of an international organization, it can't associate with the common <i>other</i> countries. eeew.
And the UN? It's <i>obviously</i> done no good to world right? uhh... wait.
Besides, you can't blame the UN for not making 'decisive political action' when needed or such, because at that level, all it is is the g5, so in the end, mind as well just blame the g5 including america. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it was rhetorical, no it wasnt easy to detect that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Blame who you want Tofu, international organisations are just a whole stack of donkeys each pulling in their own seperate direction. They are impotent and often downright negative. If you couldnt stop the Rwandan massacre, then somethings wrong. That goes for NATO members and the UN - and now they're sitting by and letting it happen again. The UN has proved its supreme irrelevance, time for change.
Relsan, there is nothing you can do to stop beheadings. They dont give a sod about the ICC, you are filthy infidels and every American beheaded makes the world a cleaner place. There is one solution, and they have been quiet clear about all this. Submit to fundamentalist islamic law, or die. Thems the options.
Oh but to stay on topic, I still think Kerry won, the Gallup polls showed he won, and when I look on Google News and click on the all 2000+ related link of the Top Story which is the presidential debate, like a large majority of the news sites share the opinion that Kerry won.
The President made a case for attacking Iraq, but North Korea fits that case just as well if not better than Iraq did. The point of bringing up North Korea is to get to that bit of the thinking behind it that hasn't been mentioned. More needs to be explained to make the case for attacking Iraq, because the argument has to single out Iraq specifically in order to be compelling. If it equally applies to a number of countries, the argument hasn't reached adequate detail yet.
The president would have to have made a case for the feasibility of pulling it off, but unfortunately, it doesn't appear that he thought thoroughly about that at all, and our troops and the Iraqis are paying the price.
And by last resort, we're not talking about sending in waves after waves of inspectors just to have the door slammed in front of us. I believe Bush did exactly what he had to do knowing the intelligence he did. As far as he knew, Iraq had weapons, and he was plotting a time to use them. If Saddam wanted to bide his time and pick and choose targets to bomb, he could do so seeing how the UN continually wants to send in inspectors and getting rejected and insisting it is because it was "inconvenient" for poor Saddam to let them in.
Bush said, "okay, we've given this guy 10 chances to cooperate, and I see this as a clear sign that he is not willing to cooperate, so I will attack." Despite the continual criticism president Bush has gotten, it was perhaps the boldest, most commanding, and least "political" decision he could have made. Sign of a true leader, in my opinion. When "politics" is not your driving force for deciding things, then the only other motive could possibly be that he thought it was the best decision (and dont' give me that oil motive crap).
By the way, did anyone else hear Kerry say something like "Opium production makes up 75% of opium productions"? I swear I heard him say that, and my friend watching the debates with me thought he said the same.
edit: ^^ I think that is the shortest post ever to be ontopic <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
10% have a more favorable view of Kerry
12 % have a more favorable view of Bush.
Pretty much says to me:
The debate was boring as hell and really didn't highlight anything new.
The only real substance I got out of what I saw was the approach toward North Korea. Specifically the "global test" comment. That one perked up my ears but other than that I didn't hear anything new.
Bush said, "okay, we've given this guy 10 chances to cooperate, and I see this as a clear sign that he is not willing to cooperate, so I will attack." Despite the continual criticism president Bush has gotten, it was perhaps the boldest, most commanding, and least "political" decision he could have made. Sign of a true leader, in my opinion. When "politics" is not your driving force for deciding things, then the only other motive could possibly be that he thought it was the best decision (and dont' give me that oil motive crap).
By the way, did anyone else hear Kerry say something like "Opium production makes up 75% of opium productions"? I swear I heard him say that, and my friend watching the debates with me thought he said the same. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And by last resort, we're not talking about sending in waves after waves of inspectors just to have the door slammed in front of us. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whiiiiiiiich only happened when we were caught inserting spies into the inspection teams. Before the war, inspectors were able to do their jobs, as Blix has said before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe Bush did exactly what he had to do knowing the intelligence he did. As far as he knew, Iraq had weapons, and he was plotting a time to use them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who do you think you're kidding with this pseudo-hindsight is 20/20 garbage? Bush was told repeatedly, over and over and over again to to let inspections continue and that invading would create a mess. You people never listened and now we're stuck in a quagmire on the level of Vietnam.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Saddam wanted to bide his time and pick and choose targets to bomb, he could do so seeing how the UN continually wants to send in inspectors and getting rejected and insisting it is because it was "inconvenient" for poor Saddam to let them in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More garbage. Inspectors would have seen that there were no WMDs and that would have been the end of it.
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire.
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
57,000 lives is a nitpick?
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
57,000 lives is a nitpick?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IIRC it took far longer to lose 1000 american lives in Vietnam than a mere year in this war. It's going to add up steadily as long as the country is occupied, and for the near future we're pretty much stuck there since neither candidate has the balls to pull the troops out. Military casualities are not the only factor in what makes a war Vietnam-esque or a quagmire.
But the neocons here should feel free to amuse me with any further nitpicking.
to quote the big lebowski "umm, that's like.. your opinion, man."
We have a long way to go before Vietnam II, read a history book and you'll see how much farther we have to go. It is funny how of-base and ill-informed that particular piece of liberal propaganda is, yet everyone claims it. How sad <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You call it off-base propaganda like a good little Bushiite but don't explain why that is. Typical. Even if you had a reason it would likely amount to a nitpick, which STILL wouldn't change the fact that this situation is a quagmire. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
57,000 lives is a nitpick?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IIRC it took far longer to lose 1000 american lives in Vietnam than a mere year in this war. It's going to add up steadily as long as the country is occupied, and for the near future we're pretty much stuck there since neither candidate has the balls to pull the troops out. Military casualities are not the only factor in what makes a war Vietnam-esque or a quagmire.
But the neocons here should feel free to amuse me with any further nitpicking. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
let me see
Vietnam lasted from ~1961 - 1975. That is 14 years. We have been in Iraq for a year an a half - yet you choose to call it "Vietnamesque" and a "quagmire" <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Vietnam had over 58,000 soldiers lost - Iraq 1500 (im being generous).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IIRC it took far longer to lose 1000 american lives in Vietnam than a mere year in this war<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong... 58/14 > 1.5/1.5 Do a little math before claiming crap like that.
So far your Vietnam II is little more than a domestic dispute in the theater of war... There have been far bloodier and far leingthier with far worse results - and this is not spouting Bush - this is looking at history.
I suggest stepping up to the table with some facts next time - the comparison is unfair, bias, and easily refuted. I feel sorry for you, sir, that you buy that propaganda without checking it out for yourself.
"WHY ERNT YOU SCARED? THE TERRORISTS ARE ATTACKING ANY SECOND NOW AND SADDAM IS BUILDING WEAPONS IN HEAVEN! PICK ME CUZ I'LL DO WHAT I BEEN DOIN'! KERRY FLIP-FLOPS" (failing miserably)
Yes, I'm biased. I hope he doesn't get re-elected or he'll continue trying to scare people with terrorism and he has no plan to deal with Korea or the anarchy in Iraq. And I still can't see why "flip-flopping" is a bad thing; the world changes, you change with it or you're screwed.
I think it looked like whoever you were supporting "won" the debate to both sides, so no one can come to a conclusion.
In part because it's already become a bad situation, genius. Try to keep up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Vietnam had over 58,000 soldiers lost - Iraq 1500 (im being generous).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little over 1000 so far, do try to keep up
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong... 58/14 > 1.5/1.5 Do a little math before claiming crap like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG try knowing what you're talking about. We involved in Vietnam for six years before US casualties hit <b>500</b> in 1965. In this war we've had twice that many in ONE YEAR.
OMG try knowing what you're talking about. We involved in Vietnam for six years before US casualties hit <b>500</b> in 1965. In this war we've had twice that many in ONE YEAR. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So... You're <b>predicting</b> it will be the next Vietnam based on the assumption that we will heavily ramp up occupation, rather than diminishing it?
I'll admit, i said generously 1500 people died, when in reality it is little over 1000 - that's ok, 1500 would have supported your argument better. I'm keeping up.
And how is this a quagmire? They are going to have elections in under 2 years from the start of the war - that didn't happen in vietnam.
So, the correlation is ... both wars had at least 1000 soldiers killed. Hmm, they sound exactly alike. I might as well try to draw a correlation to the 100 years war.
I'm looking for the similarities, really, I am. Here is your opportunity - show me how they are alike - in time spent, resources spent, lives lost, technology used, condition the troups were in, who the opponent is. How are these two wars similar?
Until you answer that - Vietnam is little more than a catch phraze scare tactic when it comes to these elections.