<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Sep 30 2004, 08:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Sep 30 2004, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did you watch the debates? What did you think?
Kerry about 4 or 5 times started his sentence with something like "When I was in Vietnam..." or "What I learned in Vietnam..."
Maybe it is because I'm bias towards Bush, but I'd say he kicked some tail this time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I noticed that during the times where Kerry was criticizing Bush, several things happened:
Bush would begin blinking rapidly.
Bush's already thin lips would become wafer thin.
Bush's eyes would become beady.
Bush's cheeks would puff out.
Bush would generally look like a monkey that had lost a banana.
Apart from all that, I would give the debate to Kerry. Bush scored a few blows here and there but by and large his arguments were weak and lacked substance. Bush did a good job of _telling us_ that Kerry is inconsistent, but failed to prove that convincingly.
Whereas Kerry did a good job of making Bush look incompetent (not hard to do mind you) when pressing on issues such as no link between Saddam and Osama, failing to find Osama, failing to build a proper coalition to remove Saddam which is resulting in heavy US casualties etc.
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
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Oct 1 2004, 08:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Oct 1 2004, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me start now.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If Bush gets reelected, several members of my family are leaving the country. What have you got ey? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I figure since Bush will probably manage to establish a totalitarian regime of some sort, I'll stick around for a while and suffer indescribable torture as an atheist, then escape to Japan in a boat made of cardboard and bible paper, and get rich selling my story to the Japanese.
<!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Oct 1 2004, 03:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Oct 1 2004, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now, to help elaborate on why President Bush probably invaded Iraq, I will quite the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny, thats not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-SaltzBad+Oct 2 2004, 12:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SaltzBad @ Oct 2 2004, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Oct 1 2004, 03:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Oct 1 2004, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now, to help elaborate on why President Bush probably invaded Iraq, I will quite the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, again. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny, thats not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It might not be the exact reason, but it does explain well...pretty much every war the U.S has been involved in. That isn't the entire thing, but I figured that I would point out that Saddam Hussein, and Iraq, are guilty of the bolded items in what I did quote. Hopefully Bush did read this, and did use it when making his decisions...and if not, shame on him.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Bush's only method through the entire debate was to accuse Kerry of flip-flopping. Period. He took Kerry's quotes out of context (especially the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" quote, which he beat to death) to make him look bad. When he did say something other than "flip-flop," it was - to quote Kerry - that his administration would simply offer "more of the same."
The public is discovering that Iraq isn't all roses and sunshine, and Bush's refusal to admit that fact, I think, will hurt him among undecided voters.
Kerry, on the other hand, brought up good points and offered actual answers to the questions posed to him. His performance was not flawless by any stretch; here are a few points that I noticed: 1) He didn't go into specifics on cleaning up the mess in Iraq 2) He ran out of time on one question and was unable to make what I feel should have been a crucial point: that there is a big difference between conviction and stubbornness. 3) He could have been more definitive in clearing up the current misconception regarding the $87mill in aid that he voted against*. ___<ul><li>Visually, Kerry took his cake, ate it, and then took Bush's and ate it too. Kerry was tall and composed; Bush was hunched over his lectern, slouching his head between his shoulders. He did not look presidential. As old as the jab is, he did look very reminiscent of a monkey.</li><li>Both men had noticeable attitudes while listening to the other. As mentioned before, Bush frequently looked uncomfortable while Kerry spoke. Kerry, however, occasionally got an air of disdain or exasperation whenever he (and I as well) felt the president was being particularly true to form (from a liberal perspective) - oversimplifying, taking things out of context, speaking half-truths, etc.</li><li>As stated earlier, Bush's "ums-per-minute" was *much* higher than Kerry's. Kerry was clearly the better speaker of the two, but combined with the above, it made him look a little pompous compared to the more hokey Bush.</li></ul>___
I think Kerry's real time to shine will be in the domestic policy debate, when he can explain to the American public exactly what Bush has done to the federal government (increased it immensely without any concrete way to pay for the expense). He'll have to step carefully around the sociocultural issues, though; Bush has a strong following in the form of America's Christian population, and Kerry will have a hard time if he's forced to talk about, for instance, abortion or sex education.
I'm also eager to see the VP debate. I heard Edwards for the first time in a brief spot directly after the debate, and was frankly enthralled by him; he didn't sound at all like I'd expected, and he's got a lot of charisma. If Cheney gets angry during the VP debate, Edwards is going to have a field day with him.
The results of this first debate? I think Kerry performed better. Educated voters with facts in hand are going to be more moved by Kerry's concrete answers than Bush's repetitive accusations and vague, rote statements. On the other hand, some viewers were probably swayed by the vehemence and frequency of Bush's statements. He's a more visceral speaker than Kerry, but I think Kerry actually <i>says</i> more when he opens his mouth**.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><i>* Kerry initially supported the $87mill for the troops. When the final version of the bill came up for a vote, however, a stipulation that the extremely wealthy pay for a larger percentage of the cost had been removed. Kerry knew that the money would be granted, and therefore voted against the measure</i> <b>to protest the removal of that stipulation</b><i>.
** And I don't just mean he uses bigger words or talks for longer. In fact, by my count Bush went over the allotted time more often than Kerry! Funny that the Bush campaign were the ones clamoring for the visible time indicators.</i></span>
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
<!--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-->A Gallup Poll prepared for CNN showed that 53 per cent of respondents thought Mr. Kerry had won the debate, whereas only 37 per cent gave the victory to Mr. Bush. And 60 per cent believed that the Democrat had expressed himself more clearly than Mr. Bush.<!--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-->A separate poll for CBS of uncommitted voters was even more striking. More than half of the respondents said that the debate had improved their opinion of Mr. Kerry, compared with only 22 per cent who thought better of Mr. Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's easy to look back and say "Bush costs us billions of dollars and caused American casualties for no reason" and "Bush did this" and "Bush did that." Frankly, I'm tired of it.
You're not putting yourself in his shoes. Suppose that in the year 2006, intelligence has indicated that North Korea might have nuclear weapons pointing at United States. United States brings this attention to the UN, and UN opens talks with North Korea, which promises to cooperate. We send diplomats out there for talks, and North Korea refuses due to "inconvenience" purposes. A month down the road, UN tries again, and once again, North Korea refuses.
At this point, Bush would probably try more aggressive approaches such as giving an ultimatum. Kerry, would once again send out diplomats to talk to North Korea (and will most likely fail seeing how the pattern is going). If North Korea fails to satisfy the ultimatum, Bush would invade. It would cost America lots of money, no doubt, but do you think invading North Korea would be the best choice of action, or would it be to send yet more diplomats while we are facing a chrisis that North Korea might be preparing to launch nukes.
Who would you rather have in office? I sure as hell would not want Kerry in that case.
<!--QuoteBegin-camO.o+Oct 1 2004, 08:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (camO.o @ Oct 1 2004, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 1 2004, 08:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 1 2004, 08:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously though, Bush is going to win, I don't think the debate had as big an effect as Kerry was hoping for.
I'm only in this to hear the anguish filled screams of a million liberals come Nov. 3rd....oh yes...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me start now.
<!--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 North Korea fails to satisfy the ultimatum, Bush would invade. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And if N.K. really has nukes pointing at us this would be a VERY bad idea. Do you think they would just sit on their Nuclear payload until we finished the invasion?
You would think that pointing nukes at US would be a bad idea, but at least 3 countries have done it in our short history after inventing nukes. I wouldn't have thought it'd be wise to pronounce to the world that I was producing nuclear weapons, but North Korea has done so apparently. I wouldn't be surprised if they said they had nuclear weapons ready to launch at US.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 2 2004, 04:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 2 2004, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You would think that pointing nukes at US would be a bad idea, but at least 3 countries have done it in our short history after inventing nukes. I wouldn't have thought it'd be wise to pronounce to the world that I was producing nuclear weapons, but North Korea has done so apparently. I wouldn't be surprised if they said they had nuclear weapons ready to launch at US. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And none of this changes the fact that if they DO have nukes pointed at us it would be a tremendously BAD idea to force them to use them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 2 2004, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 2 2004, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's easy to look back and say "Bush costs us billions of dollars and caused American casualties for no reason" and "Bush did this" and "Bush did that." Frankly, I'm tired of it.
You're not putting yourself in his shoes. Suppose that in the year 2006, intelligence has indicated that North Korea might have nuclear weapons pointing at United States. United States brings this attention to the UN, and UN opens talks with North Korea, which promises to cooperate. We send diplomats out there for talks, and North Korea refuses due to "inconvenience" purposes. A month down the road, UN tries again, and once again, North Korea refuses.
At this point, Bush would probably try more aggressive approaches such as giving an ultimatum. Kerry, would once again send out diplomats to talk to North Korea (and will most likely fail seeing how the pattern is going). If North Korea fails to satisfy the ultimatum, Bush would invade. It would cost America lots of money, no doubt, but do you think invading North Korea would be the best choice of action, or would it be to send yet more diplomats while we are facing a chrisis that North Korea might be preparing to launch nukes.
Who would you rather have in office? I sure as hell would not want Kerry in that case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're talking about something that hasn't even happened, and the stuff that has happened (Bush's mistakes) you are defending by saying the mistakes were somehow understandable? I don't agree with that at all. Especially when we all know that Bush refuses to learn from his mistakes, and he's dragging America down with him. No way, man. I don't buy that at all.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Oct 2 2004, 08:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Oct 2 2004, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 2 2004, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 2 2004, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's easy to look back and say "Bush costs us billions of dollars and caused American casualties for no reason" and "Bush did this" and "Bush did that." Frankly, I'm tired of it.
You're not putting yourself in his shoes. Suppose that in the year 2006, intelligence has indicated that North Korea might have nuclear weapons pointing at United States. United States brings this attention to the UN, and UN opens talks with North Korea, which promises to cooperate. We send diplomats out there for talks, and North Korea refuses due to "inconvenience" purposes. A month down the road, UN tries again, and once again, North Korea refuses.
At this point, Bush would probably try more aggressive approaches such as giving an ultimatum. Kerry, would once again send out diplomats to talk to North Korea (and will most likely fail seeing how the pattern is going). If North Korea fails to satisfy the ultimatum, Bush would invade. It would cost America lots of money, no doubt, but do you think invading North Korea would be the best choice of action, or would it be to send yet more diplomats while we are facing a chrisis that North Korea might be preparing to launch nukes.
Who would you rather have in office? I sure as hell would not want Kerry in that case. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're talking about something that hasn't even happened, and the stuff that has happened (Bush's mistakes) you are defending by saying the mistakes were somehow understandable? I don't agree with that at all. Especially when we all know that Bush refuses to learn from his mistakes, and he's dragging America down with him. No way, man. I don't buy that at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How would you propose he learn from his mistakes?
Pull out of Iraq 100% by tomorrow?
Also, I think that what he means by "put yourself in the President's shoes" is to look back to before the war in Iraq and say to yourself:
"Can I take the chance that this intelligence is wrong and abstain from removing Saddam after the largest security breech in American history has occured? Is our security system now strong enough to fend off any attacks that could happen?"
Because if he were to do nothing and wait for UN red tape, and something DID happen, then he would have been in HUGE hot water over "why didn't he act? look at all this evidence!" While at the current time, it is easy to look back and see evidence to the contrary.
Remember that ONE memo that was found before 9/11? Many liberals have used that ONE VAGUE memo as reason to have upped the Osama-hunt and take other measures to prevent against that ONE possible attack. Just think how that quote by the intelligence advisor that said "it's a slam-dunk case" would sound if Bush did NOTHING in Iraq and something happened.
Guys, you better knock off the flames before this tread becomes locked.
Coming from an objective point of view, I would say Kerry won it. No question, Kerry has more glib then Bush. Bush in my opinion came out flat and non aggressive. I’ve watched clips in when Bush was running for governor of Texas around 1992 (or 1994. Correct me if I’m wrong) and was wondering what happened? He was more aggressive, articulate and fluent. Same goes in the 2000 debate. Bush came out on Thursday as if he didn’t have a grasp of the issues; breaks, excessive repetition of words (he said hard work 15 times) etc. I thought there were huge openings where Bush could have poked holes in Kerry’s foreign policy but for some reason, went soft (voting record, going back to the UN with another UN resolution, Kerry in the beginning of the debate saying Saddam was not a threat, but at the end saying he was a threat etc.)
My guess why in my opinion Bush was not as aggressive or not as fluent as he was in 1992 or in 2000 was that 1) not to come off as too mean so he wouldn’t alienate the women vote and 2) was not prepared. Again, there were so many
Since this debate was watered down, I am going to watch the 2 debate. I’m going to expect a better performance by him.
On a side note: I wish our debates were as lively as the ones in the UK. It’s sad that we let partisans on both sides water down our debates. I watch Cspan from time to time and get a glimpse of what goes on in there. Chants, Boos moans etc. HAHA it’s great.
Actually I think it was good of Kerry to cite his war experience. Bush is sending people off to die, and all he did was fly a desk. Kerry knows what it's like at the very least.
If we're going to have a president in a time of war, I want a president that had to slog through the most horrific war since WW2 on foot, not a president who thinks war is like Star Wars.
My point was to simply say that you wrap on Bush for not acting to prevent 9/11 when there might have been evidence to suggest it was going to happen, BUT you criticize him for taking action against another possible threat on America.
I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator.
Quite frankly, under those circumstances, I'm glad he choose that. Maybe you would have risked a nuclear strike, or you would have preferred it if Kerry did, but I for one am glad we abolished the risk entirely by invading. What would you do in Bush's shoes? Can you really tell me you'd live with the possibility that a nuke could blow up one of your major cities and it would be your fault?
Remember, no statue was ever erected in honor of a critic. Again, it is easy to criticize decisions made for the bad it caused, but it conveniently slips your mind the reasons and the good for those decisions made. If being president was easy, anybody could do it.
Well I have to say if you blame 9/11 on Bush you're just stupid. The terrorists were in the US in... when did they say? 1996 or something?
And um... Iraq a threat against America? Since when did Iraq have the capability of launching ICBMs around the world? They don't even have reliable power and they're going to engineer a nuclear missile with a GPS targetting system capable of high-atmosphere travel? No, I don't think so.
Yes, Kerry won the debate. I wanted Bush to win, and I was dissappointed. Kerry looked prepared, aggressive, and relaxed I'll admit it. But think about this if you were biased before the debate even happened.
Yes, 9/11 was coming before the Bush administration was in office. Remember when President Clinton had all of them cruise missiles launched at Afghanistan??? Remember the world trade center bombing???
And think about this. It is a known fact that Iraq was giving over $20,000 to each family of suicide bombers in Israel before the war in Iraq started.
Im glad there is no more Sadaam Hussein, or old school Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. <!--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--> I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc.
<!--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--> Quite frankly, under those circumstances, I'm glad he choose that. Maybe you would have risked a nuclear strike, or you would have preferred it if Kerry did, but I for one am glad we abolished the risk entirely by invading. What would you do in Bush's shoes? Can you really tell me you'd live with the possibility that a nuke could blow up one of your major cities and it would be your fault? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abolished the risk by invading? If I was Saddam and had a suit-case nuke to give... I think an invasion would just **** me off enough to hand that over to somebody.
They had no conventional means of attacking the USA. Not now, not ever most likely.
Again, invasion was not the only option. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for all kinds of nasties.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. <!--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--> I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. <!--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--> I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Inspections just before the invasion were actually working, with the highest level of Iraqi cooperation I might add. I hope none of your children (assuming you have or had any) die by playing with an unexploded cluster bomb.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 3 2004, 09:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 3 2004, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 3 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 3 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. <!--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--> I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Inspections just before the invasion were actually working, with the highest level of Iraqi cooperation I might add. I hope none of your children (assuming you have or had any) die by playing with an unexploded cluster bomb. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They were working?
Look, the reason the inspections were working towards the end was because the USA was putting a LOT of pressure on them in the first place at the time, so they "started" to coorpirate in order to buy time.
Forlorn, the inspectors were working, they said no weapons, they had no weapons. Im sorry but you cannot descredit that. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sadamn was not given any choices at all when america said they'll invade unless they had over the WMD's(which he doesnt have -.-') and to banish himself from iraq(that would destabilize iraq + Sadamn would take the money he has and get revenge with it), Sadamn trying to be courageous stayed aslong as he could to try defend his country(of course that didnt work well because as the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no WMD's or A proper army to defend itself).
Everyone knows 1 of the main reasons(not only im not saying sadamn was a totally cool person, but he's been over hyped alot) Bush invaded iraq for personal $$$ to his family and the saudi's( is there a differance ?.?). Bush has given tax cuts so oil companeys can reape the huge profits there getting with oil price being the highest in the past 20 years. Again you cant descredit any of that.
Sadamn + his regime had 0 link with terrorism prior to the invasion of iraq. Sadamn is very much hated by islamic extremists, espically Osama bin laden, All other islamic countries see Sadamn as a **** who was given leadership to Iraq by USA to **** them off(which he did he atk'd pretty much every islamic country around him just like USA wanted him to do). Osama actually helped fight against sadamn when he invaded Q-8(im not even going to try spell that t.t').
Blah blah blah gargle i hate america im glad i dont live there gargle kerry should be pres just so that america can try to make itself look like a creditable nation again, kerry said he wants to rebuild America's image to stop europe and asia hating them so much.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Robot+Oct 4 2004, 02:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mr.Robot @ Oct 4 2004, 02:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Forlorn, the inspectors were working, they said no weapons, they had no weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed. <!--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-->Sadamn was not given any choices at all when america said they'll invade unless they had over the WMD's(which he doesnt have -.-') and to banish himself from iraq(that would destabilize iraq + Sadamn would take the money he has and get revenge with it)...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed. <!--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-->Everyone knows 1 of the main reasons(not only im not saying sadamn was a totally cool person, but he's been over hyped alot) Bush invaded iraq for personal $$$ to his family and the saudi's( is there a differance ?.?). Bush has given tax cuts so oil companeys can reape the huge profits there getting with oil price being the highest in the past 20 years. Again you cant descredit any of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Huh? Sure, Bush's tax cuts have been horribly tilted towards the rich and there have been questions of various contracted work in Iraq (e.g. Halliburton), but "invaded for personal $$$ to his family and the saudis"? Call him a cowboy, say the war was for oil... but Bush didn't go to war to make a quick buck for his family. And if it *was* for oil, it wasn't personal interest; it was to get oil in the hands of Americans (super-rich American friends of Bushes? Maybe. Not really important IMO). <!--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-->Sadamn + his regime had 0 link with terrorism prior to the invasion of iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> At the least, I'm pretty sure Iraq was passive towards terrorists - not denouncing them or taking action against them. More accurately, Saddam had no connection to the Sept 11 attacks.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is one of the worst things to happen to this country in a long time. But liberals spewing made-up or half-researched facts hurt our objectives more than help them. At least read up on what you're saying before you say it.
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
edited October 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 3 2004, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, they clearly didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, and that was the original goal right? So I guess you could say they already worked . . .
Oh, and one more poll <a href='http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6405360' target='_blank'>Bush and Kerry are now in a "statistical dead heat" after the debate</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Robot+Oct 4 2004, 01:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mr.Robot @ Oct 4 2004, 01:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Forlorn, the inspectors were working, they said no weapons, they had no weapons. Im sorry but you cannot descredit that. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sadamn was not given any choices at all when america said they'll invade unless they had over the WMD's(which he doesnt have -.-') and to banish himself from iraq(that would destabilize iraq + Sadamn would take the money he has and get revenge with it), Sadamn trying to be courageous stayed aslong as he could to try defend his country(of course that didnt work well because as the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no WMD's or A proper army to defend itself).
Everyone knows 1 of the main reasons(not only im not saying sadamn was a totally cool person, but he's been over hyped alot) Bush invaded iraq for personal $$$ to his family and the saudi's( is there a differance ?.?). Bush has given tax cuts so oil companeys can reape the huge profits there getting with oil price being the highest in the past 20 years. Again you cant descredit any of that.
Sadamn + his regime had 0 link with terrorism prior to the invasion of iraq. Sadamn is very much hated by islamic extremists, espically Osama bin laden, All other islamic countries see Sadamn as a **** who was given leadership to Iraq by USA to **** them off(which he did he atk'd pretty much every islamic country around him just like USA wanted him to do). Osama actually helped fight against sadamn when he invaded Q-8(im not even going to try spell that t.t').
Blah blah blah gargle i hate america im glad i dont live there gargle kerry should be pres just so that america can try to make itself look like a creditable nation again, kerry said he wants to rebuild America's image to stop europe and asia hating them so much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First yes I can. They said they had no weapons, and they had nothing to prove that they didn't. No sort of records. You suppose we are going to rely on the good word of a dictator? How can you trust that? Through dillusionality or irrationality?
Second, he was given plenty of chances. In reality though, he should have only needed 1 or 2, not 13. Saddam wasn't being courageous by staying in Iraq either. He was one of the worlds' most brutal dictators who loved power. Why would he want to leave, Iraq was his playground.
Conspiracy theories are not your friend.
Saddam gave something like 10,000 to a family for each sucide bomber that hit Isreal. That was only his public support towards terrorism. Chances are he supported terrorists through underground connections.
By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms.
Your loss though, we already have masses of irrational people so I guess it's not that bad...
<!--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-->By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away.
"Sir, we've got reports here that Iraq has no nuclear weapons."
"Nonsense!"
"Yes, we've been unable to find anything aside from nuclear facilities we dismantled a decade ago that haven't been used, and talks with their Head of Defense indicate that they have none."
"They must be hiding something!"
"Uh... sir..."
"Hang on a second, I need to tell the American public that Al Queda, Saddam, and the ghost of Hitler were planning to burn a swastika into the moon with a massive laser."
Comments
*Savors*
Kerry about 4 or 5 times started his sentence with something like "When I was in Vietnam..." or "What I learned in Vietnam..."
Maybe it is because I'm bias towards Bush, but I'd say he kicked some tail this time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I noticed that during the times where Kerry was criticizing Bush, several things happened:
Bush would begin blinking rapidly.
Bush's already thin lips would become wafer thin.
Bush's eyes would become beady.
Bush's cheeks would puff out.
Bush would generally look like a monkey that had lost a banana.
Apart from all that, I would give the debate to Kerry. Bush scored a few blows here and there but by and large his arguments were weak and lacked substance. Bush did a good job of _telling us_ that Kerry is inconsistent, but failed to prove that convincingly.
Whereas Kerry did a good job of making Bush look incompetent (not hard to do mind you) when pressing on issues such as no link between Saddam and Osama, failing to find Osama, failing to build a proper coalition to remove Saddam which is resulting in heavy US casualties etc.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Bush gets reelected, several members of my family are leaving the country. What have you got ey? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now, to help elaborate on why President Bush probably invaded Iraq, I will quite the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, again.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, thats not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now, to help elaborate on why President Bush probably invaded Iraq, I will quite the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, thats not the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It might not be the exact reason, but it does explain well...pretty much every war the U.S has been involved in. That isn't the entire thing, but I figured that I would point out that Saddam Hussein, and Iraq, are guilty of the bolded items in what I did quote. Hopefully Bush did read this, and did use it when making his decisions...and if not, shame on him.
The public is discovering that Iraq isn't all roses and sunshine, and Bush's refusal to admit that fact, I think, will hurt him among undecided voters.
Kerry, on the other hand, brought up good points and offered actual answers to the questions posed to him. His performance was not flawless by any stretch; here are a few points that I noticed:
1) He didn't go into specifics on cleaning up the mess in Iraq
2) He ran out of time on one question and was unable to make what I feel should have been a crucial point: that there is a big difference between conviction and stubbornness.
3) He could have been more definitive in clearing up the current misconception regarding the $87mill in aid that he voted against*.
___<ul><li>Visually, Kerry took his cake, ate it, and then took Bush's and ate it too. Kerry was tall and composed; Bush was hunched over his lectern, slouching his head between his shoulders. He did not look presidential. As old as the jab is, he did look very reminiscent of a monkey.</li><li>Both men had noticeable attitudes while listening to the other. As mentioned before, Bush frequently looked uncomfortable while Kerry spoke. Kerry, however, occasionally got an air of disdain or exasperation whenever he (and I as well) felt the president was being particularly true to form (from a liberal perspective) - oversimplifying, taking things out of context, speaking half-truths, etc.</li><li>As stated earlier, Bush's "ums-per-minute" was *much* higher than Kerry's. Kerry was clearly the better speaker of the two, but combined with the above, it made him look a little pompous compared to the more hokey Bush.</li></ul>___
I think Kerry's real time to shine will be in the domestic policy debate, when he can explain to the American public exactly what Bush has done to the federal government (increased it immensely without any concrete way to pay for the expense). He'll have to step carefully around the sociocultural issues, though; Bush has a strong following in the form of America's Christian population, and Kerry will have a hard time if he's forced to talk about, for instance, abortion or sex education.
I'm also eager to see the VP debate. I heard Edwards for the first time in a brief spot directly after the debate, and was frankly enthralled by him; he didn't sound at all like I'd expected, and he's got a lot of charisma. If Cheney gets angry during the VP debate, Edwards is going to have a field day with him.
The results of this first debate? I think Kerry performed better. Educated voters with facts in hand are going to be more moved by Kerry's concrete answers than Bush's repetitive accusations and vague, rote statements. On the other hand, some viewers were probably swayed by the vehemence and frequency of Bush's statements. He's a more visceral speaker than Kerry, but I think Kerry actually <i>says</i> more when he opens his mouth**.
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><i>* Kerry initially supported the $87mill for the troops. When the final version of the bill came up for a vote, however, a stipulation that the extremely wealthy pay for a larger percentage of the cost had been removed. Kerry knew that the money would be granted, and therefore voted against the measure</i> <b>to protest the removal of that stipulation</b><i>.
** And I don't just mean he uses bigger words or talks for longer. In fact, by my count Bush went over the allotted time more often than Kerry! Funny that the Bush campaign were the ones clamoring for the visible time indicators.</i></span>
<!--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-->A separate poll for CBS of uncommitted voters was even more striking. More than half of the respondents said that the debate had improved their opinion of Mr. Kerry, compared with only 22 per cent who thought better of Mr. Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041001.wcamp2/BNStory/Front/' target='_blank'>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/</a>
You're not putting yourself in his shoes. Suppose that in the year 2006, intelligence has indicated that North Korea might have nuclear weapons pointing at United States. United States brings this attention to the UN, and UN opens talks with North Korea, which promises to cooperate. We send diplomats out there for talks, and North Korea refuses due to "inconvenience" purposes. A month down the road, UN tries again, and once again, North Korea refuses.
At this point, Bush would probably try more aggressive approaches such as giving an ultimatum. Kerry, would once again send out diplomats to talk to North Korea (and will most likely fail seeing how the pattern is going). If North Korea fails to satisfy the ultimatum, Bush would invade. It would cost America lots of money, no doubt, but do you think invading North Korea would be the best choice of action, or would it be to send yet more diplomats while we are facing a chrisis that North Korea might be preparing to launch nukes.
Who would you rather have in office? I sure as hell would not want Kerry in that case.
I'm only in this to hear the anguish filled screams of a million liberals come Nov. 3rd....oh yes...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me start now.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anguish-filled screams? Don't you mean "conspiracy-theory filled whines"?
And if N.K. really has nukes pointing at us this would be a VERY bad idea. Do you think they would just sit on their Nuclear payload until we finished the invasion?
And none of this changes the fact that if they DO have nukes pointed at us it would be a tremendously BAD idea to force them to use them.
You're not putting yourself in his shoes. Suppose that in the year 2006, intelligence has indicated that North Korea might have nuclear weapons pointing at United States. United States brings this attention to the UN, and UN opens talks with North Korea, which promises to cooperate. We send diplomats out there for talks, and North Korea refuses due to "inconvenience" purposes. A month down the road, UN tries again, and once again, North Korea refuses.
At this point, Bush would probably try more aggressive approaches such as giving an ultimatum. Kerry, would once again send out diplomats to talk to North Korea (and will most likely fail seeing how the pattern is going). If North Korea fails to satisfy the ultimatum, Bush would invade. It would cost America lots of money, no doubt, but do you think invading North Korea would be the best choice of action, or would it be to send yet more diplomats while we are facing a chrisis that North Korea might be preparing to launch nukes.
Who would you rather have in office? I sure as hell would not want Kerry in that case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're talking about something that hasn't even happened, and the stuff that has happened (Bush's mistakes) you are defending by saying the mistakes were somehow understandable? I don't agree with that at all. Especially when we all know that Bush refuses to learn from his mistakes, and he's dragging America down with him. No way, man. I don't buy that at all.
You're not putting yourself in his shoes. Suppose that in the year 2006, intelligence has indicated that North Korea might have nuclear weapons pointing at United States. United States brings this attention to the UN, and UN opens talks with North Korea, which promises to cooperate. We send diplomats out there for talks, and North Korea refuses due to "inconvenience" purposes. A month down the road, UN tries again, and once again, North Korea refuses.
At this point, Bush would probably try more aggressive approaches such as giving an ultimatum. Kerry, would once again send out diplomats to talk to North Korea (and will most likely fail seeing how the pattern is going). If North Korea fails to satisfy the ultimatum, Bush would invade. It would cost America lots of money, no doubt, but do you think invading North Korea would be the best choice of action, or would it be to send yet more diplomats while we are facing a chrisis that North Korea might be preparing to launch nukes.
Who would you rather have in office? I sure as hell would not want Kerry in that case. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're talking about something that hasn't even happened, and the stuff that has happened (Bush's mistakes) you are defending by saying the mistakes were somehow understandable? I don't agree with that at all. Especially when we all know that Bush refuses to learn from his mistakes, and he's dragging America down with him. No way, man. I don't buy that at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How would you propose he learn from his mistakes?
Pull out of Iraq 100% by tomorrow?
Also, I think that what he means by "put yourself in the President's shoes" is to look back to before the war in Iraq and say to yourself:
"Can I take the chance that this intelligence is wrong and abstain from removing Saddam after the largest security breech in American history has occured? Is our security system now strong enough to fend off any attacks that could happen?"
Because if he were to do nothing and wait for UN red tape, and something DID happen, then he would have been in HUGE hot water over "why didn't he act? look at all this evidence!" While at the current time, it is easy to look back and see evidence to the contrary.
Remember that ONE memo that was found before 9/11? Many liberals have used that ONE VAGUE memo as reason to have upped the Osama-hunt and take other measures to prevent against that ONE possible attack. Just think how that quote by the intelligence advisor that said "it's a slam-dunk case" would sound if Bush did NOTHING in Iraq and something happened.
Coming from an objective point of view, I would say Kerry won it. No question, Kerry has more glib then Bush. Bush in my opinion came out flat and non aggressive. I’ve watched clips in when Bush was running for governor of Texas around 1992 (or 1994. Correct me if I’m wrong) and was wondering what happened? He was more aggressive, articulate and fluent. Same goes in the 2000 debate. Bush came out on Thursday as if he didn’t have a grasp of the issues; breaks, excessive repetition of words (he said hard work 15 times) etc. I thought there were huge openings where Bush could have poked holes in Kerry’s foreign policy but for some reason, went soft (voting record, going back to the UN with another UN resolution, Kerry in the beginning of the debate saying Saddam was not a threat, but at the end saying he was a threat etc.)
My guess why in my opinion Bush was not as aggressive or not as fluent as he was in 1992 or in 2000 was that 1) not to come off as too mean so he wouldn’t alienate the women vote and 2) was not prepared. Again, there were so many
Since this debate was watered down, I am going to watch the 2 debate. I’m going to expect a better performance by him.
On a side note: I wish our debates were as lively as the ones in the UK. It’s sad that we let partisans on both sides water down our debates. I watch Cspan from time to time and get a glimpse of what goes on in there. Chants, Boos moans etc. HAHA it’s great.
If we're going to have a president in a time of war, I want a president that had to slog through the most horrific war since WW2 on foot, not a president who thinks war is like Star Wars.
I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator.
Quite frankly, under those circumstances, I'm glad he choose that. Maybe you would have risked a nuclear strike, or you would have preferred it if Kerry did, but I for one am glad we abolished the risk entirely by invading. What would you do in Bush's shoes? Can you really tell me you'd live with the possibility that a nuke could blow up one of your major cities and it would be your fault?
Remember, no statue was ever erected in honor of a critic. Again, it is easy to criticize decisions made for the bad it caused, but it conveniently slips your mind the reasons and the good for those decisions made. If being president was easy, anybody could do it.
And um... Iraq a threat against America? Since when did Iraq have the capability of launching ICBMs around the world? They don't even have reliable power and they're going to engineer a nuclear missile with a GPS targetting system capable of high-atmosphere travel? No, I don't think so.
Yes, 9/11 was coming before the Bush administration was in office. Remember when President Clinton had all of them cruise missiles launched at Afghanistan??? Remember the world trade center bombing???
And think about this. It is a known fact that Iraq was giving over $20,000 to each family of suicide bombers in Israel before the war in Iraq started.
Im glad there is no more Sadaam Hussein, or old school Iraq.
<!--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-->
I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc.
<!--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-->
Quite frankly, under those circumstances, I'm glad he choose that. Maybe you would have risked a nuclear strike, or you would have preferred it if Kerry did, but I for one am glad we abolished the risk entirely by invading. What would you do in Bush's shoes? Can you really tell me you'd live with the possibility that a nuke could blow up one of your major cities and it would be your fault?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abolished the risk by invading? If I was Saddam and had a suit-case nuke to give... I think an invasion would just **** me off enough to hand that over to somebody.
They had no conventional means of attacking the USA. Not now, not ever most likely.
Again, invasion was not the only option. Now Iraq is a breeding ground for all kinds of nasties.
<!--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-->
I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites.
<!--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-->
I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Inspections just before the invasion were actually working, with the highest level of Iraqi cooperation I might add. I hope none of your children (assuming you have or had any) die by playing with an unexploded cluster bomb.
<!--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-->
I mean if you don't invade Iraq and they DO have nukes, then Bush would have gotten hell. Likewise if he did invade and they DIDN'T have nukes, Bush would have gotten hell. I suppose he weighed the decisions carefully and decided a few soldier deaths were better than cities of innocents dying by the hands of a ruthless dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about giving weapons inspectors enough time to do their job before invading. How about back-channel negotiations to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.
It's not just about dead soldiers, many have lost limbs and are in constant pain. Cities of innocents dying...theirs or ours? Now that Iraq has been destabilized there seems to be no end of car-bombings etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, 13 years of negotiations and inspections JUST AREN'T ENOUGH TIME PPL!
And I guess I missed the part of the US killing entire (aka nuking them was in the original post) cites. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Inspections just before the invasion were actually working, with the highest level of Iraqi cooperation I might add. I hope none of your children (assuming you have or had any) die by playing with an unexploded cluster bomb. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They were working?
Look, the reason the inspections were working towards the end was because the USA was putting a LOT of pressure on them in the first place at the time, so they "started" to coorpirate in order to buy time.
Sadamn was not given any choices at all when america said they'll invade unless they had over the WMD's(which he doesnt have -.-') and to banish himself from iraq(that would destabilize iraq + Sadamn would take the money he has and get revenge with it), Sadamn trying to be courageous stayed aslong as he could to try defend his country(of course that didnt work well because as the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no WMD's or A proper army to defend itself).
Everyone knows 1 of the main reasons(not only im not saying sadamn was a totally cool person, but he's been over hyped alot) Bush invaded iraq for personal $$$ to his family and the saudi's( is there a differance ?.?). Bush has given tax cuts so oil companeys can reape the huge profits there getting with oil price being the highest in the past 20 years. Again you cant descredit any of that.
Sadamn + his regime had 0 link with terrorism prior to the invasion of iraq. Sadamn is very much hated by islamic extremists, espically Osama bin laden, All other islamic countries see Sadamn as a **** who was given leadership to Iraq by USA to **** them off(which he did he atk'd pretty much every islamic country around him just like USA wanted him to do). Osama actually helped fight against sadamn when he invaded Q-8(im not even going to try spell that t.t').
Blah blah blah gargle i hate america im glad i dont live there gargle kerry should be pres just so that america can try to make itself look like a creditable nation again, kerry said he wants to rebuild America's image to stop europe and asia hating them so much.
Agreed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sadamn was not given any choices at all when america said they'll invade unless they had over the WMD's(which he doesnt have -.-') and to banish himself from iraq(that would destabilize iraq + Sadamn would take the money he has and get revenge with it)...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone knows 1 of the main reasons(not only im not saying sadamn was a totally cool person, but he's been over hyped alot) Bush invaded iraq for personal $$$ to his family and the saudi's( is there a differance ?.?). Bush has given tax cuts so oil companeys can reape the huge profits there getting with oil price being the highest in the past 20 years. Again you cant descredit any of that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? Sure, Bush's tax cuts have been horribly tilted towards the rich and there have been questions of various contracted work in Iraq (e.g. Halliburton), but "invaded for personal $$$ to his family and the saudis"? Call him a cowboy, say the war was for oil... but Bush didn't go to war to make a quick buck for his family. And if it *was* for oil, it wasn't personal interest; it was to get oil in the hands of Americans (super-rich American friends of Bushes? Maybe. Not really important IMO).
<!--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-->Sadamn + his regime had 0 link with terrorism prior to the invasion of iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the least, I'm pretty sure Iraq was passive towards terrorists - not denouncing them or taking action against them. More accurately, Saddam had no connection to the Sept 11 attacks.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is one of the worst things to happen to this country in a long time. But liberals spewing made-up or half-researched facts hurt our objectives more than help them. At least read up on what you're saying before you say it.
And it's "Saddam."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they clearly didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, and that was the original goal right? So I guess you could say they already worked . . .
Oh, and one more poll <a href='http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6405360' target='_blank'>Bush and Kerry are now in a "statistical dead heat" after the debate</a>
Sadamn was not given any choices at all when america said they'll invade unless they had over the WMD's(which he doesnt have -.-') and to banish himself from iraq(that would destabilize iraq + Sadamn would take the money he has and get revenge with it), Sadamn trying to be courageous stayed aslong as he could to try defend his country(of course that didnt work well because as the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no WMD's or A proper army to defend itself).
Everyone knows 1 of the main reasons(not only im not saying sadamn was a totally cool person, but he's been over hyped alot) Bush invaded iraq for personal $$$ to his family and the saudi's( is there a differance ?.?). Bush has given tax cuts so oil companeys can reape the huge profits there getting with oil price being the highest in the past 20 years. Again you cant descredit any of that.
Sadamn + his regime had 0 link with terrorism prior to the invasion of iraq. Sadamn is very much hated by islamic extremists, espically Osama bin laden, All other islamic countries see Sadamn as a **** who was given leadership to Iraq by USA to **** them off(which he did he atk'd pretty much every islamic country around him just like USA wanted him to do). Osama actually helped fight against sadamn when he invaded Q-8(im not even going to try spell that t.t').
Blah blah blah gargle i hate america im glad i dont live there gargle kerry should be pres just so that america can try to make itself look like a creditable nation again, kerry said he wants to rebuild America's image to stop europe and asia hating them so much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First yes I can. They said they had no weapons, and they had nothing to prove that they didn't. No sort of records. You suppose we are going to rely on the good word of a dictator? How can you trust that? Through dillusionality or irrationality?
Second, he was given plenty of chances. In reality though, he should have only needed 1 or 2, not 13. Saddam wasn't being courageous by staying in Iraq either. He was one of the worlds' most brutal dictators who loved power. Why would he want to leave, Iraq was his playground.
Conspiracy theories are not your friend.
Saddam gave something like 10,000 to a family for each sucide bomber that hit Isreal. That was only his public support towards terrorism. Chances are he supported terrorists through underground connections.
By the way, I'm sorry you don't want to live in America, which happens to be the richest nation on the earth and has the most personal and economic freedoms.
Your loss though, we already have masses of irrational people so I guess it's not that bad...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least it did, until our government used terrorism as an excuse to take a bunch of them away.
"Nonsense!"
"Yes, we've been unable to find anything aside from nuclear facilities we dismantled a decade ago that haven't been used, and talks with their Head of Defense indicate that they have none."
"They must be hiding something!"
"Uh... sir..."
"Hang on a second, I need to tell the American public that Al Queda, Saddam, and the ghost of Hitler were planning to burn a swastika into the moon with a massive laser."