Presidential Debate
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
King Tojo 1
THATHERTON!
- Nov 11, 2003
- 125
Tie. Neither was good enough last night to be declared the winner. Bush had his moments, Kerry had his. Bush should have stayed on the fact that Kerry voted against the $87 million supplement for the soldiers. If he had, the debate might have come out in his favor.
D
Don Francisco
I agree, tie. Bush could've (and should've) beaten Kerry down. I mean, foreign policy - this is Bush's thing. However, he didn't. Oh well. The big problem was Kerry started becoming aggressive and Bush was caught off guard. I mean, he'd ask for 30 seconds and then sit there for 5 seconds thinking about what to say. Oh well, maybe he'll prepare better for the next debate.
P.S. Everyone who doesn't know shit about the issues talks about Bush being a moron. Well, Kerry wants bilateral talks with North Korea. Who's the moron now? I mean, really, what is this guy thinking?
P.S. Everyone who doesn't know shit about the issues talks about Bush being a moron. Well, Kerry wants bilateral talks with North Korea. Who's the moron now? I mean, really, what is this guy thinking?
B
belle
Yoda. What is Bush doing about North Korea? it's a reality NOW, he needs to deal with it. He's not. He is the moron now. Kerry might be the moron later. When he's actually making policy. We can only fucking hope.
D
Don Francisco
FYI the Bush administration has had 6 (I believe... maybe more) multinational talks with North Korea. Although they have failed, at least they are continuing to pressure NK. If, God forbid, Kerry is elected he will completely take China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan out of the picture. Alienating those countries, who would be affected by NK's nuclear program much more than us, is definitely not the way to go about.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
belle
They talked.. and... failed? Oh... impressive. Why didn't he handle the imminent threat from (*ahem*weaponless) Iraq the same way? ... 
Taking countries out of the picture who are more affected by the threatening country than we are is a bad idea? Who knew? I thought we were all for having total world support with our foreign policy.
I don't believe you know what will happen if/when Kerry is elected. That's one of the biggest complaints about him, right? His indecisiveness? I believe the term "flip-flopper" is predominant regarding that issue.
I'd like to hear good reasons why Bush should stay in office. Note, this is independent of any mention of Kerry. It does not matter who the only other candidate(who matters in our fucked up two party system in disguise) is. I'm not asking why I shouldn't vote for Kerry. Convince me I should vote for Bush.. based on things he has done, not empty promises.
Taking countries out of the picture who are more affected by the threatening country than we are is a bad idea? Who knew? I thought we were all for having total world support with our foreign policy.I don't believe you know what will happen if/when Kerry is elected. That's one of the biggest complaints about him, right? His indecisiveness? I believe the term "flip-flopper" is predominant regarding that issue.
I'd like to hear good reasons why Bush should stay in office. Note, this is independent of any mention of Kerry. It does not matter who the only other candidate(who matters in our fucked up two party system in disguise) is. I'm not asking why I shouldn't vote for Kerry. Convince me I should vote for Bush.. based on things he has done, not empty promises.
D
Don Francisco
The reason they failed is because North Korea keeps on delaying talks in hopes of getting a better deal from Kerry's bilateral talks.
The US proposed a resolution passed by the UN for the Iraqi conflict to be resolved peacefully before we occupied it. Iraq continually refused to give the UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access to their facilities. The US, keeping with their promise of initiating military action if Iraq refused, decided to go to war with or without the backing of the UN. They waited while the UN Security Council repeatedly delayed the vote. Eventually the vote did not pass (France, Germany, and Russia voted no) and the US was forced to go to war without the backing of the UN.
...We are. But when we say we are going to initiate military action on Iraq if they go against the resolution and then the Security Council does not back us up, we don't really have a choice. How would it look if we just didn't go to war because the UN didn't agree after we repeatedly said we would?
Why you should vote for Bush? Why should I waste my time? If you ask me political debates really are for entertainment purposes only. More often than not you aren't going to change a belief someone already holds.
B
belle
I dunno, why should you waste your time?
You're wasting your time defending our (um.. well.. our? hm..) decision (not NECESSITY) to go to war with a country who posed no threat to us or anyone else.
You're wasting your time defending our (um.. well.. our? hm..) decision (not NECESSITY) to go to war with a country who posed no threat to us or anyone else.
D
Don Francisco
Nah, I wasn't "defending" our choice to go to war. I was proving my point that the Bush administration DID attempt peace talks before going to war. Now these are reasons that justify war:
You say they posed no threat, however is threat the only reason to go to war?
A UN resolution in 1991 demanded that Saddam's regime halt repressing its citizens (specifically minorities). The resolution fell on deaf ears (according to a 2001 UN Commission on Human Rights). We're talking extreme cruelty - burning, electric shock, mutilation, rape.
Another UN resolution also passed in 1991 demanded that Iraq return prisoners from the Gulf War. Again the Iraqi government paid no heed.
Iraq was also told to give up any and all involvement with terrorism, including housing terrorist organizations. You guessed it - Iraq went against its promise yet again. I'm not talking about the 9/11 attacks (although people in connection with them did flee to Iraq) - in 1993 Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait not to mention funding several attacks on Israel and Iran.
Iraq agreed to destroy and halt any development of nuclear weapons. It also agreed to comply with rigorous inspections, which, as I mentioned in my last post, was broken.
The UN Security Council renewed their demands in 1994, twice in 1996, three times in 1997 (while pointing out clear violations), and three times in 1998 (while calling Iraq's behavior unacceptable), and again in 1999. Do you seriously think Iraq would have listened to talks had the US waited even longer than it did? It was only a matter of time before something had to happen, and as the sole superpower of today's world it was our responsibility to initiate it.
As to why I waste my time? I guess I don't want to do my homework.
You say they posed no threat, however is threat the only reason to go to war?
A UN resolution in 1991 demanded that Saddam's regime halt repressing its citizens (specifically minorities). The resolution fell on deaf ears (according to a 2001 UN Commission on Human Rights). We're talking extreme cruelty - burning, electric shock, mutilation, rape.
Another UN resolution also passed in 1991 demanded that Iraq return prisoners from the Gulf War. Again the Iraqi government paid no heed.
Iraq was also told to give up any and all involvement with terrorism, including housing terrorist organizations. You guessed it - Iraq went against its promise yet again. I'm not talking about the 9/11 attacks (although people in connection with them did flee to Iraq) - in 1993 Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait not to mention funding several attacks on Israel and Iran.
Iraq agreed to destroy and halt any development of nuclear weapons. It also agreed to comply with rigorous inspections, which, as I mentioned in my last post, was broken.
The UN Security Council renewed their demands in 1994, twice in 1996, three times in 1997 (while pointing out clear violations), and three times in 1998 (while calling Iraq's behavior unacceptable), and again in 1999. Do you seriously think Iraq would have listened to talks had the US waited even longer than it did? It was only a matter of time before something had to happen, and as the sole superpower of today's world it was our responsibility to initiate it.
As to why I waste my time? I guess I don't want to do my homework.
Last edited by a moderator:
B
belle
All that you're saying is they didn't comply with <b>UN</b> resolutions. Much as we'd like to be, we're not the world's police force. The UN made the decision not to ok a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. It wasn't our decision to make if you're using their agreements with the UN as a basis for said strike.
Now, when the war begun it wasn't even about that. Intent matters, regardless of outcome. I could go intend to shoot someone in the head and end up saving someone instead (or.. also.) as a result of being there at the right time. That doesn't change the fact that I intended murder.
What, exactly, is your problem? That they didn't want vigorous inspections? Neither would you. Neither would I. It's invasive. We are all (hopefully) aware now that they weren't hiding anything...
So, it's ok for us to fund terrorism but if an Al Qaeda member gets treated in a medical facility in Iraq, that's grounds for killing off thousands of people and causing general chaos without a solid plan for resolving it?
My mind is being really jumpy and shifty.. blah.
Now, when the war begun it wasn't even about that. Intent matters, regardless of outcome. I could go intend to shoot someone in the head and end up saving someone instead (or.. also.) as a result of being there at the right time. That doesn't change the fact that I intended murder.
What, exactly, is your problem? That they didn't want vigorous inspections? Neither would you. Neither would I. It's invasive. We are all (hopefully) aware now that they weren't hiding anything...
So, it's ok for us to fund terrorism but if an Al Qaeda member gets treated in a medical facility in Iraq, that's grounds for killing off thousands of people and causing general chaos without a solid plan for resolving it?
My mind is being really jumpy and shifty.. blah.