Your Reactions to the First Debate

[Pekka]

I believe he opposed the way it was conducted and to the circumtances?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pekka
I believe he opposed the way it was conducted and to the circumtances?

No doubt. But he has also said that 1) I support the war; and 2) I oppose the war; in virtually the same breath.

[Pekka]

Yes, it applies to what I said I think he meant. You can support and oppose it at the same time. Heck, I think he had a timeline, I do it at the same time!

Like I've said before, I supported the action in Iraq from the beginning. It's my thinking of never opposing a straight up attack. Some of it is juvenile attitude and romantic feelings of attack and war. Some of it is uber testosterone, and some of it is clear thinking. The thinking part was, that there were WMD. That AND the fact that Saddam was still in power and there were lot of political prisoners, torturing and killings by him. The fact, that even now when he was old, his psycho boys would be next in power, and they'd prove their point and power, and it would be worse than Saddam, or at least equal. The fact, that Iraq is the most Western type of country from ME countries (excluding Israel). The fact, that the embargo was hurting a lot of people, yes because of Saddam. Now someone asks what about attacking Iraq and you come and ask me that? Hell, I'd say yes no matter who asks.

I still support the action AND the troops especially. However, I feel very strongly, that the current strategy is not only failing, I feel it's been failing for a long time, and I feel that this policy is not going to change. I don't feel even Kerry would fix it up completely. I would hold my breath for a while if he gets the chance and see what happens, but thsi current effort will not bring the desired results in my opinion. Thus I oppose THIS strategy. I support the troops, I support the action, I do NOT support the current strategy and I believe at the end it might cost more harm than leaving Iraq alone would have, and I feel there needs to be a change in this effort ASAP. It's not enough when Bush says he is determined and all that good stuff. It doesn't show in action.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The Dems have a video up showing the "Faces of Frustration" of George Bush. Its a pretty telling video.

http://www.democrats.org/

Also, in other news, Bob Novak, who gave scoffed at the idea Kerry won and went so far to give him a "D", has broken his hip in Florida.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned


No doubt. But he has also said that 1) I support the war; and 2) I oppose the war; in virtually the same breath.

Maybe you need to read what I said and the transcripts again:

Originally said by Kerry
I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence.

But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed to do in order to proceed from a position of strength. Then the president, in fact, promised them. He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, "We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies."

Kerry is against the *way* Bush went into Iraq. He wasn't and isn't against going into Iraq per se. He has made this very clear. In fact, he has also made clear that it is possible if he had been president that we wouldn't have gone into Iraq because the above procedure he'd go through before going to War might well have worked. To say that this makes him against the War is like saying you believe it would have been fine to send in our troops without weapons or armor--oh wait, I guess you do.

As for the mistakes he has made expressing this sometimes:

Originally said by Kerry Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

He admits that he makes mistakes sometimes with how he talks about the war, but he does correct himself. Now you are getting into nitty gritty criticism over an ambiguous statement he made that has a clear and consistent explanation.

How you can do this and ignore Bush when he blatantly lies about the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror* I don't understand. One is a simple mistake of wording, the other is a deliberate attempt to mislead you about something that is critically important.

-Drachasor

*we don't have 75% of Al Qaeda leaders, we have 75% of the leaders that we knew existed on 9/11. There are a heck of a lot more than that now.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
The Dems have a video up showing the "Faces of Frustration" of George Bush. Its a pretty telling video.

http://www.democrats.org/

I don't see anything telling there besides selective editing.

There may have been a reason why Bush was a little tired.. he was visiting hurricane victims before the debate. Still I would of recommended he at least drink a red bull energy drink or something of the sort.

I think both candidates put on a lackluster performance. Kerry didn't highlight anything new and failed at numerous chances he had to capitalize. Therefore I don't consider this a victory for him. Why? Because polls show Bush's lead only narrowed by a 1-2% (recent gallup poll shows Bush with a 52%/47% lead... which is a 5% lead). Therefore, I think Kerry managed to convince almost nobody. I was disappointed in Bush's performance.

My grades on the candidate:

Bush: 62%
Kerry: 63%

All in all, it was a disappointing waste of my time. I wanted to see new ideas because believe it or not, I'm not that solidly pro-Bush. I have many disputes with the president. But as it seems, Kerry royally screwed up in presenting alternatives... he insulted allies like Italy who is contributing some 3,000 Troops and Carabinieri to Iraq and other key allies (I believe the South Koreans are still sending a detachment of 3,000).

To say anybody "PWNED" anybody is a bit politically immature... quite frankly this debate remind me of a western. Both pulled out their guns and shot each other at the same time.

Kerry is still the idiot I think he is. He doesn't have another plan. He would of screwed up the situation in Iraq if it was left up to him. He would of sent in troops and then not give them extra funding (note the voting against the $87 billion funding).

We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies.

We did go to our allies.. and we didn't make war inevitable... in fact we were putting it off 13 years. You know what? Kerry is an idiot. Bush isn't exactly smart but you know what will be the deciding factor for me in this election?

THE VP DEBATES. I feel bad for Edwards... the man reminds me of Dan Quayle in the level of intelligence.

[Edan]

and we didn't make war inevitable

Apparently, war was inevitable, since Bush has said, time and again, that he would only go to war as a last resort to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs. He has also said that he would have made the same even if he knew what he knows now. And yet, given that we know now, that Iraq no longer had WMD programs, I can't help but think the war was not the last resort and the only option to ending Iraq's WMD programs.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Giancarlo Kerry is still the idiot I think he is. He doesn't have another plan. He would of screwed up the situation in Iraq if it was left up to him. He would of sent in troops and then not give them extra funding (note the voting against the $87 billion funding).

Just because he voted against a bill that was full of a ton of unnecessary expenditures doesn't mean he didn't want our troops prepared. The fact is that body armor and the like was a small component against that bill, and overall the bill was a bad one.

Originally posted by Giancarlo We did go to our allies.. and we didn't make war inevitable... in fact we were putting it off 13 years. You know what? Kerry is an idiot. Bush isn't exactly smart but you know what will be the deciding factor for me in this election?

For those 13 years Sadam was not a significant threat, he even wasn't one when we moved in. The Bush administration put so much force on the intelligence agencies to find data against Iraq that the resulting report was extremely biased and poorly thought out. Sadam had no weapons to supply terrorists with and he was wholly contained.

We would have also found this out if we had let the inspectors keep doing their work. Saddam moving trucks (which contained no weapons) around on the inspectors? Use the satellite photos and pressure to get the inspectors to those trucks. The fact is that Bush didn't want a non-war solution on Iraq and we did go early, even thoug the inspectors were begging for more time. Bush jumped the gun, was rude and condecending to our allies, and largely went in without them. The number of non-american troops in Iraq is pitifully small, especially considering the first Gulf War and Afghanistan.

Bush made the war inevitable, and then he didn't even plan out how we were going to handle the aftermath. We had vague notions of getting the Iraqi military to help police the area afterwards, and that was basically it (we had far less troops than the pentagon says we need for policing action--they have hard numbers on this!) What's the first thing we do after we go in? Disband said military we supposedly were going to have help us; so they go home like we tell them too, compounding the disaster of bad decisions on further bad decisions.

Anyone who thinks Team Bush is half-way competent in military matters doesn't understand what has been going on. They are too focused on their ideology of "low expense wars with few troops" to even be able to admit when it isn't working. That's the main flaw of the Bush administration, they can't even admit their mistakes, and if they don't admit them, they won't correct them.

-Drachasor

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Just because he voted against a bill that was full of a ton of unnecessary expenditures doesn't mean he didn't want our troops prepared. The fact is that body armor and the like was a small component against that bill, and overall the bill was a bad one.

This is bloated rhetoric that really doesn't mean much. He voted against a bill that was meant to give our troops more equipment and the bill was very good. Yet again, you are very wrong on this subject.

For those 13 years Sadam was not a significant threat, he even wasn't one when we moved in. The Bush administration put so much force on the intelligence agencies to find data against Iraq that the resulting report was extremely biased and poorly thought out. Sadam had no weapons to supply terrorists with and he was wholly contained.

WRONG AGAIN. Saddam was very much a threat. It was known that he was planning terrorist attacks against the United States, according to Russian intelligence sources. Saddam was always a threat when he held power. The Bush adminstration didn't put force on the intelligence agencies (again you made another deluded statement based on nothing but lies). Saddam had weapons to supply terrorists, in fact plenty of them. He was not contained because he was still murdering his people.

We would have also found this out if we had let the inspectors keep doing their work. Saddam moving trucks (which contained no weapons) around on the inspectors? Use the satellite photos and pressure to get the inspectors to those trucks. The fact is that Bush didn't want a non-war solution on Iraq and we did go early, even thoug the inspectors were begging for more time. Bush jumped the gun, was rude and condecending to our allies, and largely went in without them. The number of non-american troops in Iraq is pitifully small, especially considering the first Gulf War and Afghanistan.

Nope. If we let the inspectors continue their work, Saddam would continue taking them on cat and mouse games. You are wrong again. Bush wanted a non-war solution. It was you peaceniks who didn't realize that this showdown was eventually going to happen. The inspectors knew they were being fooled with. Bush was not rude to our allies, because we had the biggest coalition go into Iraq with us. The number of non-american trops in Iraq is pitifully small? THERE YOU GO AGAIN INSULTING OUR ALLIES. The number of non-american troops is constrained by the fact that America is the only nation that can project significant portions of its military in the world.

Bush made the war inevitable, and then he didn't even plan out how we were going to handle the aftermath. We had vague notions of getting the Iraqi military to help police the area afterwards, and that was basically it (we had far less troops than the pentagon says we need for policing action--they have hard numbers on this!) What's the first thing we do after we go in? Disband said military we supposedly were going to have help us; so they go home like we tell them too, compounding the disaster of bad decisions on further bad decisions.

This is of course inflated left wing rhetoric that is not looking at the facts. We very much had a plan. If not, then why is their an interim government in Iraq? We practically predicted there was going to be upheaval in Iraq after the war. We knew that. And the amount of troops in Iraq is adequate. Bush had a plan and is carrying it out. Rather John Kerry is the one without a plan. You on the other side don't ever propose a plan. Your plan is to pull out and cause the death of millions. But I guess a civil war is something you want. The disbanding of the Iraqi military was a mistake and I will grant you that.

Anyone who thinks Team Bush is half-way competent in military matters doesn't understand what has been going on. They are too focused on their ideology of "low expense wars with few troops" to even be able to admit when it isn't working. That's the main flaw of the Bush administration, they can't even admit their mistakes, and if they don't admit them, they won't correct them.

-Drachasor

Nope.

You don't understand what you are doing. The Bush team is very competent in the conducting of affairs. You again are wrong. This war has cost very few casualities (over 1,000 KIA is an inaccurate state, as most of those were killed in accidents and accidents happen in war). The main flaw of the opposition here is in the inability to rationalize and propose a different plan. You are wrong and you know it. So is John Kerry. You don't even present an alternative plan.

Edit: Oops didn't finish the response.. wait a few minutes for a complete reply.

[Stefu]

Still I would of recommended he at least drink a red bull energy drink or something of the sort.

Now that's good strategery. When the debate would get too tough for him, he could grow wings and fly away.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Stefu


Now that's good strategery. When the debate would get too tough for him, he could grow wings and fly away.

Well I drink a can of red bull before giving a speech to one of my classes and I stay put. He could fly around John Kerry and give that incompetent crap a kick in the butt.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


WRONG AGAIN. Saddam was very much a threat. It was known that he was planning terrorist attacks against the United States, according to Russian intelligence sources.

Just like it was known that Saddam still possessed WMDs and a nuclear WMD program, according to US intelligence sources?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Edan


Just like it was known that Saddam still possessed WMDs and a nuclear WMD program, according to US intelligence sources?

He had intentions of building WMDs... and besides all of this.. would you want the now dead Udai Hussein running Iraq? I wouldn't.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


He had intentions of building WMDs... [/qb]

Intentions don't mean **** if he doesn't carry them out.

and besides all of this.. would you want the now dead Udai Hussein running Iraq? I wouldn't.

If the option would be between

1. What we have now

and

2. Udai Hussein running Iraq without WMDs and being better situated to deal with an Iranian nuclear threat

I might. If I was soley concerned about trying to fix humanitarian problems, rather than threats against us, I'd start with the Sudan.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Edan
1. What we have now

and

2. Udai Hussein running Iraq without WMDs and being better situated to deal with an Iranian nuclear threat

I might. If I was soley concerned about trying to fix humanitarian problems, rather than threats against us, I'd start with the Sudan.

You of course know, Iraq always has had WMDS. To say it didn't is a lie. Udai Hussein would invade Iran.

I was only concerned about humanitarian problems. I wanted this invasion to happen so Hussein could be kicked out for his sheer brutality. I think the world needs more work and Iraq was a starting point.