|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#11
10-01-2004, 06:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bush came across as a blathering idiot. His awkward pauses, long moments of silence and inability to say anything other than stupid, catch phrases really bothered the hell out of me.
Kerry destroyed Bush in this debate. Period. That said, Kerry came across to me as a naive and idealistic. However, the independent, American voter who doesn't know where Iraq is let alone North Korea and the complexities of our relationships around the world won't even realize it. I have no idea how one can be so unprepared for a debate.
__________________
I command by the power of Christ and the Gospel for this evil spirit that is inside this man or woman to come forward now and to face the judgment of God. 
|
|
#12
10-01-2004, 07:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
He did, WMD's are what the media decided to focus on resulting in tons of people thinking that was THE only reason. Just because we didn't find Wmd's YET doesn't mean they're not there.. Saddam had plenty of time to pass them over to Syria or where ever... It is common knowledge that he had them and used them in the past.. The point is Saddam posed the biggest threat to the world.. He would, could, and probably did put them into the hands of radicals. Saddam needed to be eliminated as the financial source of Palestinian homicide bombers, and Al Qaeda operations . He paid 25 grand to the family of anyone who would strap a bomb to themselves. Iraq was home to Ansar Al- Islam another terrorist group. He used WMD's on thousands of Kurds and slaughtered 200,000 Iraqis. He attacked Iran with WMD's. Iraq deserved to be liberated, they've been waiting for a long time for help from the west... The reason the war happened when it did is because of September 11th. It was an eye opener to say the least. The biggest threat to the world in this new day of Terror on US soil was Saddam and everyone knew it. The UN bullshit was all for France, Russia, and Germany to cover their asses because there was a paper trail leading to each one of them. 43 Countries were for using force if Saddam did not comply which he didn't. This was based on the international laws he had continued to break. That had nothing to do with WMD's.... Fuck the UN , that's like asking all of your neighbors to vote on whether or not you should lock your doors at night. We don't need anyone's permission to protect ourselves. Iraq was a good place to start.
|
|
#13
10-01-2004, 07:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Talking with North Korea won't solve anything...
|
|
#14
10-01-2004, 07:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
the debate
We as Americans do a lot of flip flopping, first we say why didn't you stop 9/11 if you had any idea that it MIGHT happen. Then we turn around and say why did we start a war over what MIGHT be there. Make up your mind!
One thing is an absolute certainty, terrorists hate us and our way of life. If we do nothing, it will be destroyed. The very things that make us free, make us vulnerable. The fact that we can disagree with and criticize our government and its actions, is a freedom. That we can discuss it here openly without worrying someone may find out who we are and imprison us or persecute us, is a freedom. We can speak out, or we can remain silent, it is our choice. We don't realize that our civil liberties, our freedoms, are what they hate. They want us to live in fear with a government that knows everything about us, where we shop, where we talk, who owns a gun, who disagrees with the government, who doesn't. They want us to live like they do, I make the rules, you follow them, or you die! I agree that the war in Iraq has degraded into a mess, but WHAT DO WE DO? Because doing nothing and living in fear, is exactly what they want us to do.
|
|
#15
10-01-2004, 07:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
per michael moore who i don't necessarily like, but he has made some good points here:
"I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you! Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking: 1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours. 1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators. 1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam. 1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein. 2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist: “I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.” --October 3, 2000 2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said: Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” --February 24, 2001 Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” --July 29, 2001 2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq. 2003: WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy! 2003: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less! 2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there. Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again? I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop. And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president. That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off. We can't take another minute of it. "
|
|
#16
10-01-2004, 07:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
that aside, in regards to the media implying that WMD was the sole purpose, it was positioned as the Primary purpose, and that aside most media today is biased in many different ways thus allowing ample oppurtunity for any other reasons of high importance to have equal coverage.
|
|
#18
10-01-2004, 08:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
10-01-2004, 08:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
what the hell is a democrate and a republican becuase i dont know
|
|
#20
10-01-2004, 08:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm gonna have to agree on Kerry coming out on top in this debate. I missed the first half hour but from what I did see ,Bush kept on coming back to Kerry's so called inconsistencies. It seemed like that was all he had.IMO
Normally I don't get involved in political threads because of the flame wars that usually follow. On a lighter note. Does anyone else see the similarities between Kerry and Treebeard? 
|
 |
|
|
