Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Anyone catch the Presidential debate?
Talon Mistsong
Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
Just saw it. Pretty evenly matched, except for Kerry's one line that really cracked me up.
"Going to war in Iraq based on 9/11 would be like Roosevelt going to war with Mexico over Pearl Harbor." LOL
Georgie couldn't come up with anything to top that one :D
"Going to war in Iraq based on 9/11 would be like Roosevelt going to war with Mexico over Pearl Harbor." LOL
Georgie couldn't come up with anything to top that one :D
Comments
Also, and I dont remember which question it was, but the moderator gave Bush 30 seconds to rebutle something that Kerry said and he spent the first 10 staring at the camera with the most blank of looks on his face, halrious.
I thought however that Kerry came off excellent and solid. He showed he knows the facts and has a solid strait position which he expounded. Bush tried to attack Kerry for wavering...but it is hard to say that someone wavers when they came off very strong and solid.
In my opinion both could have done better, but Kerry clearly did better then Bush in the end.
I also noted several errors in statement and questionable ideas which I don't think were noted:
1. Bush stated that North Korea was violating the 1994 Agreed Framework by developing uranium for nuclear weapons. There was no provision in that framework about uranium, only plutonium.
2. Bush stated that the reason the terrorists have made Iraq the central front is becuase they fear that freedom in Iraq would destroy their cause. This seems highly unlikely. Iraq was never freindly to terrorists before the invasion. Terrorists most likely see Iraq as a central front becuase they see the US as vunerable there. If the terrorists didn't think they had a chance in Iraq, then they wouldn't be there - they would be attacking us elsewhere!
--RC
. Bush stated that the reason the terrorists have made Iraq the central front is becuase they fear that freedom in Iraq would destroy their cause. This seems highly unlikely. Iraq was never freindly to terrorists before the invasion. Terrorists most likely see Iraq as a central front becuase they see the US as vunerable there. If the terrorists didn't think they had a chance in Iraq, then they wouldn't be there - they would be attacking us elsewhere!
[/quote]
Umm...Check your facts on Iraq again...
Iraq not friendly to terrorist? Then how do you explain Saddam giving 2 million US dollers to families of suicide bombers. Want to make your family rich? Go blow up some Israles.
Your second point however, is exactly correct. Easy access to the infidel. (Anyone not Muslim...)
Not that important...
Don't like either candidate anyways...
:rolleyes:
[B]I dont know, Kerry was pretty clear cut about his plan as opposed to Bush's stay the course (even though its not working).
[/B][/QUOTE]
First off, I did not see the debate since I had class last night...
...but I have, thus far, been rather unimpressed with Kerry's plan regarding Iraq. Most of the points he's made are very top level and provide little insite into how he would change the situation. Kerry's main effort would be to train Iraq troops faster...OK that's well and good, but I hardly think that's a unique idea, I'm sure anyone who is or would be dealing with the situation in Iraq would like to train Iraqi troops faster, but how, how do you do that? Most of Kerry's "plans" for change offer a number of "I will"s and very few "This is how I will"s
Once again I did not see the debates, but from what I heard this morning, neither candidate did more than point out what was wrong with the other. Come on! Give me some substance, tell me how, not what your going to do.
Alas all the current debate structure is good for is entertaining TV, it does little to elevate the political discourse in this country...
Jake
That, or they were provided with a crossword puzzle relieve the party while their opponent was yakking away.
they said kerry won the debate.. bush was very .. um.. lame would be the direct translation.. on important questions
and kerry was short to the point, clear, and came across well
so basically, bush they said didn't react enough to the important questions
[B]Bush tried to attack Kerry for wavering...but it is hard to say that someone wavers when they came off very strong and solid.[/B][/QUOTE]
Bush appears to be taking the approach where, if you repeat the great lie enough, people will start to believe it. What he conveniently refuses to mention in his claims that Kerry flip-flopped is WHY Kerry voted "yes" the first time and "no" the second.
Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq but voted against a bill funding the recovery. That's the root of Bush's attacks. Why did Kerry vote that way? That funding bill provided no accounting mechanism to insure the funds wouldn't simply go to Halliburton, no means of generating the money without increasing the deficit, and no exit strategy for getting out of Iraq or winding down the conflict.
As it was looking like Bush and Cheney would simply award the recovery contracts in Iraq to Halliburton without a bidding process, Kerry's concerns did have merit. If you know government contracts like I do, they tend to dislike single-source contracts/bidding processes. Extremely dislike. Even worse, here are some facts about Cheney and Halliburton:
1. First the Bush Administration claimed the contract was just limited to putting out oil fires in Iraq, but then they admitted that the contract was unlimited in scope. Halliburton has come under fire for mismanagement of taxpayer money and for poor service of our troops. (CNN.com, 5/7/03, CBS, 9/21/03)
2. Cheney has continued to be paid by Halliburton. In the two years before the Bush Administration gave Halliburton the no-bid contract worth billions, the oil services corporation paid Cheney $367,690 in deferred compensation, on top of his government salary. If you add in last year's pay, Cheney has received more than $500,000 from Halliburton, since being elected Vice President. (Financial Disclosure Report, White House website)
3. A Defense Department audit found that $1.8 billion of the $4.3 billion Halliburton received for logistical support of our troops was unaccounted for. (Reuters, 9/7/04)
[B]Most of Kerry's "plans" for change offer a number of "I will"s and very few "This is how I will"s[/B][/QUOTE]
Considering that was also Bush's approach, why the criticism only of Kerry on that front?
First, a few points: I'm not a Bush fan. I personally was backing McCain in 2000, and was very disappointed how that turned out.
That said, John Kerry scares me. I grew up in Massachussetts and New Hampshire during his rise, and he is a "politician of the polls," not one of character. I was amazed that he made it to the top slot of the ticket. The ongoing joke back home was "Kerry is like New England weather: if you don't like his position on an issue, wait a minute."
Running your administration by polls will make you popular, but you'll never get anything real done.
Personally, my belief is that leaders need to be people of conviction and steadfastness, like an oak tree in a storm.
(Putting it in B5 terms, when did Sheriden get the most done on B5?)
Third: I grew up believing that people were basically good in nature. My whole opinion changed completely last april when I forced myself to watch the unedited video of Zarquoui sawing (not cutting) Nicholas Berg's head off. I realized that there are people in this world that have shed all sense of humanity, and are now nothing more than animals. It takes more than harsh words an rhetoric to deal with these animals, and a diplomat won't cut it.
It scares me that someone whom has only attended less than 30% of the Security Council meetings thinks he "knows how to fight the war on terror."
As for the Debate:
Abriged version: Kerry spoke well, but Bush was consistant.
Detailed:
Point 1: I think GW was scowling through the debate much for the same reasons I was...Kerry's "stance of the moment." Kerry actually had no fewer than three different stances during the debate on Iraq. I think Bush was thinking to himself "am I the only one that sees this?"
Point 2: If it's the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", how exactly do you expect to get France, Germany, and Russia involved? They won't go in tomorrow for the same reasons they didn't go in yesterday. They sure won't do it just because "Kerry is a swell guy."
Point 3: OK. We need to "pass the global test" before acting, but in North Korea, we should act alone? That's ludicrous. NK, being a borderland to China (and SK), nuclear proliferation on the penninsula should be of paramount concern to them, and China should be key players, not the US. Anyone that knows the Chinese will know that bilateral and multilateral talks will not happen in concert. My wife (who is from Northern China) and several close friends that are Chinese said that China would pull out and let the US deal with it if we went into unilateral meetings; "let the Americans take the heat." As to the "plutonium vs Uranium" discussion...that is minutia--the point is that the 1996 treaty [b]banned[/b] NK from making nukes).
Point 4: I was against the war in Iraq. I still do not believe we needed to invade to contain that problem. That said, I remember how paranoid people were in the States, and knowing that Saddam had Biological and chemical weapons in the past that were used against his own people, the people of Iran, and the people of Israel (Gulf War I), I can understand how the President, the Senate, the House (and even John Kerry), upon review of the [i] best available intelligence[/i] (while, admittedly, not the [i]best of intelligence[/i] ), all agreed that Saddam was a threat we couldn't afford to ignore--if there's someone out there offering $1M bounties to the families of Hamas suicide bombers, attempted ato assasinate one of our Presidents, and was leader of one of *2* countries that publically praised the 9/11 attacks, it's probably not unreasonable to think they might be trying to think of how to do something similar.
Remember: one doesn't have to be Al Quieda to be a terrorist. They just have to want to kill people.
Something else to keep in mind: the stockpile of chemical agents he coalition is looking for, if not in warheads, can be stored in a container about the the size of a single [i]tractor-trailer[/i]. Not exactly easy to find in a country that is the size of California. This was mentioned by the person serving as head of the CIA under Clinton during an interview at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco (Sorry, name escapes me--the quote, however, didn't).
Point 5: Kerry's exceedingly long rant on how the soldiers in Iraq are ill equipped, lacking body armor and armored vehicles, relying on family members to buy and send them protective gear was the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard. If he cares so much for the safety of our troops, why did he vote against the supplimental funds that would have given them to them? A [b]protest vote[/b]? How Presidential. Good lord, Johnathan--- protest with [i]anything[/i] but the safety of America's sons and daughters. That's just bloody irresponsible.
Consensus and agreement are a good thing to have in the world, but that's idealistic, and almost never happens. France, Germany, and Russia are not in Iraq not because of "contempt for the US", but rather for the shadowy things that they did during the period of sanctions. "Things are not always what they seem." I found it hillarious that Kerry had the nerve to say we needed to have another Iraqi summit, and we should have sent inspectors in again. I'd have had real respect for the guy if he said "blockade Iraq" from the beginning. And stuck with it.
Speaking of consensus, as I recall, he voted against Gulf War 1, when we HAD a true multinational force.
"Winning" the debate: While I find the whole notion that this was called a debate laughable, I feel it neccessary to remind people: don't confuse verbal excellence with the ability to lead...if that were the case, we'd be lead by used car dealers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not "pro Bush." I just believe that we have a greater responsibility to know what we are voting for, rather than purely voting to vote against someone.
IMO, it's 2000 all over again.
-R.
Final point, regarding the war on terror: My sig, below ---v
[img]http://i.cnn.net/cnn/offbeat/gallery/2004/1001/gal.10.ap.jpg[/img]
[SIZE=4][FONT=times new roman]KITTY FOR PRESIDENT![/FONT]
[/SIZE]
-R.
it was " interesting"
[B](Putting it in B5 terms, when did Sheriden get the most done on B5?)[/QUOTE][/B]
B5, however, isn't reality.
[QUOTE][B]It takes more than harsh words an rhetoric to deal with these animals, and a diplomat won't cut it.[/QUOTE][/B]
Does that mean you believe all Kerry will use is harsh words, diplomacy and rhetoric, and won't use force if required as a last resort?
[QUOTE][B]It scares me that someone whom has only attended less than 30% of the Security Council meetings thinks he "knows how to fight the war on terror."[/QUOTE][/B]
How often has Bush gone on vacation and for how long, during his tenure as President?
[QUOTE][B]Point 1: I think GW was scowling through the debate much for the same reasons I was...Kerry's "stance of the moment." Kerry actually had no fewer than three different stances during the debate on Iraq. I think Bush was thinking to himself "am I the only one that sees this?"[/QUOTE][/B]
Since I only saw one Kerry stance on Iraq, I assume you may the only one I've spoken to today who saw that :)
[QUOTE][B]Point 2: If it's the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", how exactly do you expect to get France, Germany, and Russia involved? They won't go in tomorrow for the same reasons they didn't go in yesterday. They sure won't do it just because "Kerry is a swell guy."[/QUOTE][/B]
Do you get them involved by ignoring their concerns? You get them involved by actually listening to those concerns and working with them to try and reach an agreement on how to approach it. You don't ignore their concerns. Remember, France and Germany were with us during the first war with Iraq.
[QUOTE][B]Point 3: OK. We need to "pass the global test" before acting, but in North Korea, we should act alone? That's ludicrous. NK, being a borderland to China (and SK), nuclear proliferation on the penninsula should be of paramount concern to them, and China should be key players, not the US. Anyone that knows the Chinese will know that bilateral and multilateral talks will not happen in concert. My wife (who is from Northern China) and several close friends that are Chinese said that China would pull out and let the US deal with it if we went into unilateral meetings; "let the Americans take the heat." As to the "plutonium vs Uranium" discussion...that is minutia--the point is that the 1996 treaty [b]banned[/b] NK from making nukes).[/QUOTE][/B]
You're assuming that face-to-face discussions between the US and North Korea mean we don't do so after consulting and actually LISTENING TO China, South Korea, Japan, Russia and other countries with actual vested interests in both North Korea and the region. This is as opposed to Bush, who went in with what was effectively an alliance of two (Britain and the US), with other countries contributing statistically insignificant numbers of troops or money and/or running with their tails between their legs when they have to face the consequences of their actions.
[QUOTE][B]Point 4: I was against the war in Iraq. I still do not believe we needed to invade to contain that problem. That said, I remember how paranoid people were in the States, and knowing that Saddam had Biological and chemical weapons in the past that were used against his own people, the people of Iran, and the people of Israel (Gulf War I), I can understand how the President, the Senate, the House (and even John Kerry), upon review of the [i] best available intelligence[/i] (while, admittedly, not the [i]best of intelligence[/i] ), all agreed that Saddam was a threat we couldn't afford to ignore--if there's someone out there offering $1M bounties to the families of Hamas suicide bombers, attempted ato assasinate one of our Presidents, and was leader of one of *2* countries that publically praised the 9/11 attacks, it's probably not unreasonable to think they might be trying to think of how to do something similar. [/QUOTE][/B]
France and Germany are threats to our ability to act in our interests in the world. Hell, haven't there been specific reports from the administration that stated the belief France and Germany are working toward a European reaction force as a means to offset our leadership in NATO? India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and may just be the next place to see their use if things in Pakistan don't get a hell of a lot more stable. How far back should we go in history before we have to stop calling a leader or country a threat? Damn those British in the War of 1812! Back that far? 1950s? 1970s? 1990s? How about we stop with this ridiculous pre-emptive war deal and only go to war to defend ourselves and our allies?
A lot of countries could potentially be a danger to us or our world "leadership" in the future, China and Russia included. Do we pre-emptively go into those countries as well?
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he wasn't any danger to us. The sanctions had turned the country into a third rate power at best. We haven't been able to find any evidence of a current WMD program or useful WMD in all the time we've been in the country. I honestly don't believe Saddam still had them.
[QUOTE][B]Remember: one doesn't have to be Al Quieda to be a terrorist. They just have to want to kill people.[/QUOTE][/B]
People or civilians? Isn't terrorism the attacking of non-military targets in order to impose terror?
[QUOTE][B]Something else to keep in mind: the stockpile of chemical agents he coalition is looking for, if not in warheads, can be stored in a container about the the size of a single [i]tractor-trailer[/i]. Not exactly easy to find in a country that is the size of California. This was mentioned by the person serving as head of the CIA under Clinton during an interview at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco (Sorry, name escapes me--the quote, however, didn't).[/QUOTE][/B]
The following amounts of agents would fit in a single tractor trailer container?
2850 tons of mustard blister agent
1000 tons of nerve gas
250 tons of VX nerve agent
etc.
That is pretty much what Bush claimed he had.
[QUOTE][B]Point 5: Kerry's exceedingly long rant on how the soldiers in Iraq are ill equipped, lacking body armor and armored vehicles, relying on family members to buy and send them protective gear was the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard. If he cares so much for the safety of our troops, why did he vote against the supplimental funds that would have given them to them? A [b]protest vote[/b]? How Presidential. Good lord, Johnathan--- protest with [i]anything[/i] but the safety of America's sons and daughters. That's just bloody irresponsible.[/QUOTE][/B]
You're falling for the Bush great lie again. Do some research on _why_ Kerry voted against the bill.
Now I'll reply.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]
B5, however, isn't reality.
[/B]
[/quote]
I never said it was. It does, however, talk about shades of grey, and how all things are seldom what they seem, which [b]was[/b] my point.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
Does that mean you believe all Kerry will use is harsh words, diplomacy and rhetoric, and won't use force if required as a last resort?
[/B][/quote]
I believe more people will die than have to, yes.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
How often has Bush gone on vacation and for how long, during his tenure as President?
[/B][/quote]
No arguement there. You assume I'm defending Bush. I'm not. I do think that Kerry has more to prove, though, as he's the one applying for the job, not the one that currently has it.
I'm encouraging one to hold the burden of proof higher than "GW is a twit, and the war in Iraq sucks" rhetoric. That's irresponsible.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
Since I only saw one Kerry stance on Iraq, I assume you may the only one I've spoken to today who saw that :)
[/B][/quote]
As it's not really feasably for me bandwidth-wise to splice a tape together for the net (grin), I'd just encourage you to re-listen to it in it's entirty. My specific areas of frustration were his comments retractiung his earlier "pull out" related comments made just prior to the debate.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
Do you get them involved by ignoring their concerns? You get them involved by actually listening to those concerns and working with them to try and reach an agreement on how to approach it. You don't ignore their concerns. Remember, France and Germany were with us during the first war with Iraq.
[/B][/quote]
Now, let me get this straight before it goes any further: I'm NOT defending the position to go into Iraq.
That said, John, you and I have both known each other long enough to know that France and Germany had other reasons for their stance. Kerry's not going to be able to "wave a magic wand" and make them commit troops to a death zone and a war they wanted no part of to begin with.
What is the upside for them?
Look what happened with Spain. Committing to something like that will be a tough sell in France and Germany.
Do I blame them? No. They took a stance and stuck with it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
You're assuming that face-to-face discussions between the US and North Korea mean we don't do so after consulting and actually LISTENING TO China, South Korea, Japan, Russia and other countries with actual vested interests in both North Korea and the region. This is as opposed to Bush, who went in with what was effectively an alliance of two (Britain and the US), with other countries contributing statistically insignificant numbers of troops or money and/or running with their tails between their legs when they have to face the consequences of their actions.
[/B][/quote]
My point is "why"? That would be like the US relying on China to make Castro give up nuclear weapons (if he had them--it's hypothetical).
It's in their part of the world, so what good does it serve NOT to have them in the room when talks are taking place?
I can say that George Bush is right on how the Chinese will react. That comes from first-hand experience.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
France and Germany are threats to our ability to act in our interests in the world. Hell, haven't there been specific reports from the administration that stated the belief France and Germany are working toward a European reaction force as a means to offset our leadership in NATO? India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and may just be the next place to see their use if things in Pakistan don't get a hell of a lot more stable. How far back should we go in history before we have to stop calling a leader or country a threat? Damn those British in the War of 1812! Back that far? 1950s? 1970s? 1990s? How about we stop with this ridiculous pre-emptive war deal and only go to war to defend ourselves and our allies?
[/B][/quote]
France and Germany are not our allies? I guess I slept longer than I should have last night.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
A lot of countries could potentially be a danger to us or our world "leadership" in the future, China and Russia included. Do we pre-emptively go into those countries as well?
[/B][/quote]
(edit, for clarity) I don't think I ever proposed that, nor would I.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he wasn't any danger to us. The sanctions had turned the country into a third rate power at best. We haven't been able to find any evidence of a current WMD program or useful WMD in all the time we've been in the country. I honestly don't believe Saddam still had them.
[/B][/quote]
I believe that was my stance, mentioned several times in my post.
What I posted was stating that [i]"I can understand how the President, the Senate, the House (and even John Kerry), upon review of the best available intelligence (while, admittedly, not the best of intelligence ), all agreed that Saddam was a threat we couldn't afford to ignore--if there's someone out there offering $1M bounties to the families of Hamas suicide bombers, attempted ato assasinate one of our Presidents, and was leader of one of *2* countries that publically praised the 9/11 attacks, it's probably not unreasonable to think they might be trying to think of how to do something similar."[/i]
Don't put word s in my mouth...only my wife is allowed to do that ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]People or civilians? Isn't terrorism the attacking of non-military targets in order to impose terror?
[/B][/quote]
Don't be a ninny. You know exactly what I meant, John :P :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]The following amounts of agents would fit in a single tractor trailer container?
2850 tons of mustard blister agent
1000 tons of nerve gas
250 tons of VX nerve agent
etc.
That is pretty much what Bush claimed he had.
[/B][/quote]
You're going to make me dig through 12 months of commonwealth club transcripts for the quote on concentrated nerve agent stores, arent you? :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i][b]
You're falling for the Bush great lie again. Do some research on _why_ Kerry voted against the bill. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, I'm not. I'm quite aware of the whole "loan versus gift" debate. My point is, don't call the the man irresponsible for not protecting the troops, when you voted against the supplimental funds that were earmarked to do just that.
-R.
*damn zipper*
Ok, Im ready...
First off, and this is just because this isuue is near to me, you see Ive bought 2 sets of body armor for buddies of mine.
Id have voted against that bill too. You see, only a very small amount of that bill was for the body armor for troops and vehicle armor, and it was such a small amount that it really would not have a difference. This is one of those "tricks" on capitol hill, lets call this the Body Armor bill, but then tack on a whole bunch of other shit we want. 85% of that bill was to approve funds for completely unrelated stuff. Im too lazy to go back and look it up again (believe me I did when I heard it got voted down), but the rest of that bill was bullshit. Thats why Kerry wasnt the only one to vote against it, and thats why it failed. 2 more resalutions have come through senate for Body Armor for the troops, and once again they get the boot because people try to push other shit on there that doesnt need to be there.
now that Ive said that, lets look at the rest of this before the thread gets killed :D
Kerry did vote against the war in Iraq in 1991. So what, someone had to and he drew the short straw. Hell, there were 2 people that voted against going to war with Germany and Japan in WW2. That put him in a tough position for this war though, he couldnt be seen as soft on Saddam twice, that would not be good for him running for president. It was a political move then and a political move now, he IS a politician remember.
As far as France and Germany, I dont think anyone believes that if Kerry is elected that they will run into his arms and embrace him and do our bidding. But, you have to understand that they HATE Bush. They think hes an asshole. The thing that does irritate me is why. Bush did NOT exhaust all other options before going to war in Iraq, he put the US Military on the line without taking the time to verify the British Intelligence or build a coalition to take him on. YES, Hussein needed to go, for that much there is no doubt. Was this the way to do it? I think the events following the war have answered that question for us. More civilians are dying now than they did last year under his rule.
The haliburton thing, pisses me off. That was wrong, and they know it. Down here in Tyler there was an explosian near here in a Haliburton site, it got minimal news coverage because Cheney kept it under wrap. Despite the 3 people that were killed and dozen more injured. You would think something like that would make news, not much. Its also interesting how the people injured were transfered out of the local hospitals. Sounds like a cover up. Sounds like exactly what Bush says Putin is doing in Russia.
I agree with the statement ...
[QUOTE]Third: I grew up believing that people were basically good in nature. My whole opinion changed completely last april when I forced myself to watch the unedited video of Zarquoui sawing (not cutting) Nicholas Berg's head off. I realized that there are people in this world that have shed all sense of humanity, and are now nothing more than animals. It takes more than harsh words an rhetoric to deal with these animals, and a diplomat won't cut it.[/QUOTE]
but I dont believe that we can win the war on terror the way we are doing it now. All we are doing is stirring up the hornest nest. We havent solved anything except put more terrorist into the country. They arent coming because a free Iraq would be defeat for them, they are coming because this is where the Americans are, and more importantly, this is where they are vulnerable. and the 1000+ dead Americans proves that.
The current administration has failed in my eyes. Its time to make a change. Does that mean Kerry, well I suppose. Am I in full agreement with Kerry, hell no. First off hes a democrat, which means more uselss gun ban laws that take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and doesnt even come close to adressing the fact that criminals dont buy guns at wallmart. Secondly does appear to be worried about image, obviously image is important, the image of Kerry is hes a flip-flopper and the image of Bush is, hes a raging fucking lunatic and is either a puppet or the dumbest person to ever be in the whitehouse. So image is important, but not to the point where you change your moral stance just to win approval.
What I do believe is paramont though is that the United States have allies. Without them we are standing alone with all the little terrorist around us. We wont win that way.
[B]excuse me whilest I don my asbestos suit...
*damn zipper*
[/B][/QUOTE]
LOL, mate...you don't need that here. It's conversation, not warfare :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i][B]
First off, and this is just because this isuue is near to me, you see Ive bought 2 sets of body armor for buddies of mine.
Id have voted against that bill too. You see, only a very small amount of that bill was for the body armor for troops...
[/B][/QUOTE]
I understand that. I have a cousin over there as well, and watched that bill and it's iterations ping-pong back and forth. We send him care packages, as well as things to give out to the kids over there (beanie babies appear to be quite popular).
What you're talking about, and the level at which you are talking is what I wanted to see out of the debate, but I didn't.
I didn't hear any details of how Kerry was going to go in and make it better, or how he plans to entice the rest of NATO into the frey when they have abosolutely no motivation to.
I didn't hear him explain his voting record.
I didn't hear how he's going to make the troops any safer, or crack down on the insurgents.
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he said that the day he took office, he'd order the MXUs and a few Armored Divisions in to level Falluja. I honestly think that is what it will take to get rid of these animals.
Let me reiterate, I'm not defending Bush or Kerry; I'm voicing my utter contempt for both and the lack of any discussion of real issues beyond what is barely above namecalling. Don't assume that because I'm criticising Kerry that I'm Pro-Bush. Believe me, I am not.
I don't think that we needed to invade Iraq---I do think, however, that Bush had a point when he said that the UN does have to be prepared for the "or-else" side of sanctions, otherwise it becomes a paper tiger. Just like we did after Somalia.
The genocide that continues to occur in Africa right now sickens me. Neither the US not the UN have the moral fortitude to do what is right and go in there and stop the genocide. And that wasn't even mentioned in the debate.
It infuriates me that we continue to pussyfoot around the House of Saud, when most of the hijakers and their funding originated from Saudi Arabia.
Believe me, I want an alternative, but I want to be sure that the alternative is a leader, not just flash and image, and that they have a plan with clear objectives and milestones, otherwise why the hell vote the current guy out? Because he ticks off the French?
"Vote for me because Bush sucks," isn't a platform. Kerry needs to tell people how he's going to FIX it.
Also---I agree: Hands of Ammendment #2. It's there for a reason. I feel safer in a town filled with guns rather than one where only criminals have them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i][B]
I dont believe that we can win the war on terror the way we are doing it now. All we are doing is stirring up the hornest nest. We havent solved anything except put more terrorist into the country. They arent coming because a free Iraq would be defeat for them, they are coming because this is where the Americans are, and more importantly, this is where they are vulnerable. and the 1000+ dead Americans proves that.
The current administration has failed in my eyes. Its time to make a change. Does that mean Kerry, well I suppose. Am I in full agreement with Kerry, hell no. First off hes a democrat, which means more uselss gun ban laws that take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and doesnt even come close to adressing the fact that criminals dont buy guns at wallmart. Secondly does appear to be worried about image, obviously image is important, the image of Kerry is hes a flip-flopper and the image of Bush is, hes a raging fucking lunatic and is either a puppet or the dumbest person to ever be in the whitehouse. So image is important, but not to the point where you change your moral stance just to win approval.
What I do believe is paramont though is that the United States have allies. Without them we are standing alone with all the little terrorist around us. We wont win that way. [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't disagree with that at all. Iraq has been horribly mismanaged. I think that is why Colin Powell is never heard from nowadays-- my bet is that he was the only one saying "are you all out of your fripping minds?"
What will it take to oust the terrorists? The same thing it does in any war:
Deny them resources & funding
Isolate them
Surround them
Eliminate their leaders
Exterminate them. Without remorse.
Show me a plan with those five steps, and I'll see someone I can vote for.
The best thing I think I can do right now is to vote for whatever party does not control the senate or the house, at least no further damage can be done that way until 2008.
-R.
PS--Don't even get me started on firearms control. The "assault weapons ban" was the biggest joke ever passed--all it did was cause minor annoyance to the firearms makers that had to perform minor retools to their products.
Like most "political" solutions addressed the symptoms of the problem, not the disease itself. People kill people, not guns. Address that problem. Come down harder on crime. There's a reason people don't steal in Islamic countries, and it's not because they are more religious than we are.
On a related note, spirit...did you hear about the .50 cal rifle ban that passed the night the "assault weapons ban" expired? Ludicrous. Not one crime has ever been perpestrated with a 0.50...a 35 lb gun just isn't practical for such crimes.)
[B]Third: I grew up believing that people were basically good in nature. My whole opinion changed completely last april when I forced myself to watch the unedited video of Zarquoui sawing (not cutting) Nicholas Berg's head off. I realized that there are people in this world that have shed all sense of humanity, and are now nothing more than animals. It takes more than harsh words an rhetoric to deal with these animals, and a diplomat won't cut it.[/b][/QUOTE]
The trouble with that view is that everything does what it does for a reason. Even the animals. Hell, even the plants. I can't just look at any action and write it off as "They're animals, and have to be butchered as such." That kind of thinking never solved anything.
Consider the make up of the terrorist groups. There have got to be more normal people among them than Adolph Hitler-level psychos. So why would they go along with it? That's the core issue. And I don't know what the answer is, honestly. Trouble is, neither does the current administration. You have to recognize the source of a problem before you can deal with it.
The way the War on Terror is being fought now is like pushing down on a bubble underneath wallpaper and expecting it to go away. It'll just move somewhere else. If you push down really hard, you might compress it, but soon it will expand back to its old size. Once you understand why it's there, you can do something more permanent. Poke a hole in it and work the air out through that. Or force it to the edge of the paper and out.
The current policy seems to be just mashing a finger into the metaphorical wallpaper and hoping, somehow, it will start to work. It won't though.
Scott Adams recently wrote, "A strong leader is expected to maintain steadfast resolve in his opinion even if the environment changes or he gets new information. In any other context, that would be considered the first sign of a brain tumor."
That's the crux of this election (steadfast resolve, not the brain tumor), but not how you'd expect. Right now, its the portion of the population who believes we should keep on doing the same things that we've been doing for the last four years, with the same people who have been doing it, versus the part that wants to try something else, if only to see how it will turn out.
Mashing the bubble doesn't work. Shall we keep trying that approach, or find one that will get the job done?
I agree with you in principal, but I'm guessing that you didn't watch the videos.
Al-Queida doesn't have moderates. It's not a country. It's a group that, by definition, is made up of extremists. You can't negotiate with it. It has no ambassadors or diplomats. It acheives it's goals through domination by fear. We're not talking about moderates that have legitimate greivances, these are people that kill other people like livestock to strike fear into other people.
It's one thing to shoot someone, or bomb someone. That's part of war.
But pulling someone's head back ands slowly slicing through their neck as their screams become drowned by the horriffic gurgling of their own blood draining into their esophagus, then placing their severed head on the back of the person, and breaking intocelebration--- that's just not human. Especially when the people being killed are not even soldiers.
As I watched that video, I felt unspeakable horror, revulsion, and anger. I was physically ill for hours. I felt the very wiring of my belief system changing as the seconds went by...a very unsettling feeling, to say the least. And, for the first time, I realized just how important it is that we take this threat seriously and come down on it like no other threat before it. It was a stronger feeling even than 9/11...perhaps it's because the victim had a face. I'll never forget the frozen gaze of absolute terror on the face of that decapatated head.
This war cannot be allowed to find it's way to our shores. But the way things are going, I fear it will. The people I work with right now are paranoid about something happening here like what happened in Russia a few weeks back. These guys kill [i]kids[/b] because [i]they're bored[/i] (their words, not mine...read back on those transcripts from Russia).
Designing and executing a plan to deal with terrorism is, I believe, the most important issue of our generation.
The scary part is I don't think either canidate has a plan worth more than the paper it's written on, and that should scare every one of us.
-R.
[B]I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he said that the day he took office, he'd order the MXUs and a few Armored Divisions in to level Falluja. I honestly think that is what it will take to get rid of these animals.[/quote][/b]
It won't work. The Terrorist will not be dissuaded simply by mass destruction. Hell, we weren't, and the Terrorist is shaping up to be the anti-America, in the sense that if God switched us over so we all had the same drives and fortitude, and just the opposite sides aims and goals, nothing would change to an outside observer.
If we level Falluja, the only thing that will happen is another warlord will pop up somewhere else, taking up the battle for their "brave brothers, valiantly fighting to the man while they were slain by the American devils." If their really lucky, they'll have some juicy shots of innocent Iraqi civilians lost in the crossfire. End result, same problem, different place.
[quote][b]The genocide that continues to occur in Africa right now sickens me. Neither the US not the UN have the moral fortitude to do what is right and go in there and stop the genocide. And that wasn't even mentioned in the debate.[/quote][/b]
Yes, it was.
[quote]From the [url=http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html]First Presidential Debate in the Election of 2004[/url]
[b]KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide.
...
Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action.
I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold.
Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today.
I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended.
Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing.
So this is the way the president has overextended the United States.
That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.
But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.
It's the moral responsibility for us and the world.[/quote][/b]
And, with all respect, I don't think there as been a time anywhere in history when someone has stuck their neck out to help someone else that was being genocided. Hell, if Hitler hadn't started invading other countries, he probably could've gotten away with killing every man, woman and child in Germany without anyone lifting a finger to help. This isn't that kind of world.
[quote][b]Believe me, I want an alternative, but I want to be sure that the alternative is a leader, not just flash and image, and that they have a plan with clear objectives and milestones, otherwise why the hell vote the current guy out? [/quote][/b]
Because he's not doing a good job? See, that's what I thought was supposed to happen when someone sucked at their job. They were fired. I would be surprised if anyone had ever kept their job because their employer was worried the replacement wasn't going to be perfect.
"Well, Bob, your decisions have consistently lost this company money, your slipshod work ethic has led to hundreds of deaths caused by industrial accidents, and you divorced my sister after you got her pregnant and used high-priced lawyers to leave her penniless. You disgust me on any number of levels, and not only do I have every reason to fire you, I have every reason to leap over this table and kill you with my bare hands. But I won't, because the next guy in line for your job is Jim, and I don't like his hair.
"Now, get your ass back out there and continue screwing things up horribly."
No. Don't see it happening.
[quote][b]"Vote for me because Bush sucks," isn't a platform. Kerry needs to tell people how he's going to FIX it.[/quote][/b]
I beg to differ. Four years ago, all I heard from my republican friends and family members was stuff about how great it was that the crook was out of office, that a moral man was in the White House, so on, so forth.
And, frankly, I think that if the choice in the election was between Bush and Satan, I'd pull the lever for Satan. At least he'd make the road to hell look appealing.
[quote][b]Also---I agree: Hands of Ammendment #2. It's there for a reason. I feel safer in a town filled with guns rather than one where only criminals have them.[/b][/quote]
You're thinking about England, right?
[quote][b]What will it take to oust the terrorists? The same thing it does in any war:
Deny them resources & funding
Isolate them
Surround them
Eliminate their leaders
Exterminate them. Without remorse.
Show me a plan with those five steps, and I'll see someone I can vote for.
[/B][/QUOTE]
It'll just make things worse. You refereed to treating the symptoms and not curing the disease. Terrorism doesn't pop up in a vacuum. Killing all the current terrorists will not stop it. The conditions still exist to make more. These people weren't spit from their mother's wombs sure that Americans were pure evil, and the only way to safe guard the Muslim world was to kill them all and drive off the survivors (which, ironically, is also your plan. How wonderful that even enemies like Al Quadia and America can still find common ground in their pure, unthinking hatred). They were presented with a world that made this the only logical thing to do.
So what will be caused by a policy of dehumanizing and killing the enemy? A confirmation in their belief that we are inhuman and they must kill up. Why not? An American bomb killed that guy's brother. An American politician said the brother deserved it. The American considered the brother of no more value than a rabid dog, who needed to be put down for the good of all.
I wouldn't take too kindly to someone who did that to my brother. Neither would you. And neither will they.
We have to find another solution.
-----
You know, it would be endlessly convenient if I could simply think my response and have it magically appear on my screen. It would mean I'd never have someone make more good points while I was posting, necessitating an even longer post. For all intents and purpose, consider this two posts put together.
-----
[quote][b]I agree with you in principal, but I'm guessing that you didn't watch the videos.[/quote][/b]
Why should I have? All it would have done is disgusted me. Made me angry beyond imagining. And angry people are sloppy people. This is not a situation where we can afford to strike out of blind rage. And it's called blind for a reason.
[quote][b]Al-Queida doesn't have moderates. It's not a country. It's a group that, by definition, is made up of extremists. You can't negotiate with it. It has no ambassadors or diplomats. It acheives it's goals through domination by fear. We're not talking about moderates that have legitimate greivances, these are people that kill other people like livestock to strike fear into other people. [/quote][/b]
And this is worse than factory-style extermination of millions (for example), how? I don't see anyone suggesting the total elimination of the Germans as a solution to the worlds ills. Remember what I said about everything having a reason? What if the reason for these kidnappings and murders is to lather us into a rage, convinced they are no more than animals, and then being blind-sided when they pull something clever?
Now, I'm not saying that we can just all hold hands and sing kumbya and have peace in the Middle East, but if your four point plan for ending terrorism is kill the bastards, kill the bastards, kill the bastards, and kill the bastards, you aren't taking into account what made the bastards, and what will make more. Fighting the symptoms and ignoring the disease.
[quote][b]It's one thing to shoot someone, or bomb someone. That's part of war.
But pulling someone's head back ands slowly slicing through their neck as their screams become drowned by the horriffic gurgling of their own blood draining into their esophagus, then placing their severed head on the back of the person, and breaking intocelebration--- that's just not human. Especially when the people being killed are not even soldiers.[/quote][/b]
Ever see [i]Macbeth[/i]? Good play. Based on a true story. The last scene is of the new King of Scotland celebrating his victory, with the disembodied head of Macbeth looking on.
Or the head-hunters of bygone days. The most valued heads were not those of the great warriors, but of the women and children, proving they had made it into the village.
In short, any number of honorable people have considered decapitation a perfectly reasonable means of killing someone. And, not to be cruel, but the people killed in that particularly gruesome fashion are just as dead as if they were bombed or shot.
And, now, can you tell me, honestly, if you would not, given the opprotunity, just as slowly, with just as much relish, end the life of one of the perpetrators of that crime. Don't you hate them that much? Don't you consider them that low? And would you not be happy, when you were finished, that you had put down a monster? An unfeeling animal?
Tell me that you wouldn't. But even with you do, I'll find someone just as American, just as civilized as you who would.
[quote][b]As I watched that video, I felt unspeakable horror, revulsion, and anger. I was physically ill for hours. I felt the very wiring of my belief system changing as the seconds went by...a very unsettling feeling, to say the least. And, for the first time, I realized just how important it is that we take this threat seriously and come down on it like no other threat before it. It was a stronger feeling even than 9/11...perhaps it's because the victim had a face. I'll never forget the frozen gaze of absolute terror on the face of that decapatated head.[/quote][/b]
It is the goal of any creature to reproduce. To make more of itself. What if that, too, is the goal of this evil? To make more of itself. To destroy even one man, to make him ready and willing to cross any line, break any rule, to fulfill his vengence.
What if, by being willing to do to them what they did to that poor man, you give them exactly what they want?
[quote][b]This war cannot be allowed to find it's way to our shores. But the way things are going, I fear it will. The people I work with right now are paranoid about something happening here like what happened in Russia a few weeks back. These guys kill kids[/b] because [i]they're bored (their words, not mine...read back on those transcripts from Russia).[/quote][/b]
So have our kids. Our own children were willing to kill their fellow innocents, for far less reason (justifiable reason, mind you, not "America/Russia is the devil" reason). What does that say about us?
We have seen the face of the enemy. And he is us. Them is an illusion. Accept that the man who took joy in the brutal slaying of an innocent has the same blood that runs through your veins. Accept that in another life, you would do the same. Accept it, or you will fail to defeat those who would foolishly consider you not of their kind.
[quote][b]Designing and executing a plan to deal with terrorism is, I believe, the most important issue of our generation.
The scary part is I don't think either canidate has a plan worth more than the paper it's written on, and that should scare every one of us.[/quote][/b]
Oh, right. Politics. I almost forgot what this was about.
The terrorists are an enemy. There have always been enemies in the past. There will continue to be enemies in the future. The only thing that has changed is the name and the tactics. To say they are the worst enemy of all time is deluded. The Jews believed that about the Nazis. I'm sure the Indians believed the same about those who would give them smallpox-infected blankets under a facade of friendship. And all the way back. Just remember: The only reason this enemy seems so big is because we have to deal with it here and now. When this is all over, I'm sure the new enemy, who ever that is, will seem far more threatening.
If what the U.S. is not doing now is correct what is the solution? Too go back how we were doing it before? Too offer the bigger bribe?
If the scuttlebutt is true, The U.N. was making lots of money during the 90's. The oil for food program was a bunch of garbage. Those honest and true Europeans did nothing but make money during this time. They could have whacked UBL if they choose too. For now, the are just angry they can't make the same level of kickbacks at the previous levels.
This Europe, this European Union, has not proved anything in the way that empowers people enslaved too feel liberty or for EU armies too fight for liberty. All they have shown is a repeat of the Roman Empire. Which is too enslave people but make it look good so the wallets don't look that big!
We must win this war for our lifestyles to stay what they are. We cannot win this war without adressing the root cause of the crisis. Attacking terrorists is just like jury rigging an engine - it works for a little while, but it will fail. We cannot afford to make military action the main anti-terrorist force of the US - we must find alternative, and less costly (economically and diplomatically) means by which to win this war.
-------------
Bush is very narrow minded when it comes to his views. He seems to think that "if a little is good, a lot must be better." A little war (that against terrorists) is good, therefore war against Iraq must also be good...and further wars will be even better! I see him saying this. Reality is that moderation is better then extremes. Bush represents the extremes. Kerry represents the moderation. Vote against knee-jerk reactions and vote for Kerry.
:)
--RC
[B]
[i]
Originally posted by Rick:[/b]
What will it take to oust the terrorists? The same thing it does in any war:
Deny them resources & funding
Isolate them
Surround them
Eliminate their leaders
Exterminate them. Without remorse.
Show me a plan with those five steps, and I'll see someone I can vote for.[/i]
[B]
It'll just make things worse. You refereed to treating the symptoms and not curing the disease. Terrorism doesn't pop up in a vacuum. Killing all the current terrorists will not stop it. The conditions still exist to make more. These people weren't spit from their mother's wombs sure that Americans were pure evil, and the only way to safe guard the Muslim world was to kill them all and drive off the survivors (which, ironically, is also your plan. How wonderful that even enemies like Al Quadia and America can still find common ground in their pure, unthinking hatred). They were presented with a world that made this the only logical thing to do. [/B][/QUOTE]
While war will not always make things worse, a movement that is tied to ideology and a cultural conflict cannot be won by military might alone. I agree with David of Mac's comment here.
Not only that though but in responce to Rick: Winning a conventional war means wiping out the enemy military and their leadership. Winning terrorism means wiping out the enemy ideology. In this is is similar to the cold war where we wished to wipe out the idea of communism. However, it is also very different - there is no defined state actor then when that state falls so will communism. One cannot wipe out ideology by military force alone without completely wiping out the entire populations that condone this ideology (much of the Islamic world). This is where the administration fails in its understanding.
As has been found with guerrilla war you need approximately a 10-15 to 1 ratio of conventional military vs guerrilla . If you assume that when we attack approximately 2% any country's Islamic population would turn guerrilla , we would need one hell of a lot of troops to military win this war in every country in the world. This is why we need a trigger happy chicken-hawk out of the White House.
[B]While war will not always make things worse, a movement that is tied to ideology and a cultural conflict cannot be won by military might alone. I agree with David of Mac's comment here.
Not only that though but in responce to Rick: Winning a conventional war means wiping out the enemy military and their leadership. Winning terrorism means wiping out the enemy ideology. In this is is similar to the cold war where we wished to wipe out the idea of communism. However, it is also very different - there is no defined state actor then when that state falls so will communism. One cannot wipe out ideology by military force alone without completely wiping out the entire populations that condone this ideology (much of the Islamic world). This is where the administration fails in its understanding.
As has been found with guerrilla war you need approximately a 10-15 to 1 ratio of conventional military vs guerrilla . If you assume that when we attack approximately 2% any country's Islamic population would turn guerrilla , we would need one hell of a lot of troops to military win this war in every country in the world. This is why we need a trigger happy chicken-hawk out of the White House. [/B][/QUOTE] Exactly you've only achieved victory when your enemy no longer believes in his cause.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
It won't work. The Terrorist will not be dissuaded simply by mass destruction. Hell, we weren't, and the Terrorist is shaping up to be the anti-America, in the sense that if God switched us over so we all had the same drives and fortitude, and just the opposite sides aims and goals, nothing would change to an outside observer.
If we level Falluja, the only thing that will happen is another warlord will pop up somewhere else, taking up the battle for their "brave brothers, valiantly fighting to the man while they were slain by the American devils." If their really lucky, they'll have some juicy shots of innocent Iraqi civilians lost in the crossfire. End result, same problem, different place.
[/b][/quote]
Perhaps. But death is an easy thing to say you do not fear, as opposed to what it does when you face it. It's more to get rid of them and Let the Iraqis get on with their lives. Not spite.
WRT Rwanda: I stand corrected. I must have missed that part, and I commend him on that statement.
I did hear his mention of adding two active Army divisions and doubling of the special forces...the question I had all through the statement was "how does he plan to do this with all-volonteer recruitment?" I don't know the answer to that one yet.
I'm willing to bet that there's a 50-50 chance that Bush won't be able to keep it up with a volunteer only force, despite what he said in the debate.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]And, with all respect, I don't think there as been a time anywhere in history when someone has stuck their neck out to help someone else that was being genocided. Hell, if Hitler hadn't started invading other countries, he probably could've gotten away with killing every man, woman and child in Germany without anyone lifting a finger to help. This isn't that kind of world.
[/b][/quote]
Somalia. Unfortunately, we didn't support our troops with the air cover they needed, and got our butts kicked.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
Because he's not doing a good job? See, that's what I thought was supposed to happen when someone sucked at their job. They were fired. I would be surprised if anyone had ever kept their job because their employer was worried the replacement wasn't going to be perfect.
"Well, Bob, your decisions have consistently lost this company money, your slipshod work ethic has led to hundreds of deaths caused by industrial accidents, and you divorced my sister after you got her pregnant and used high-priced lawyers to leave her penniless. You disgust me on any number of levels, and not only do I have every reason to fire you, I have every reason to leap over this table and kill you with my bare hands. But I won't, because the next guy in line for your job is Jim, and I don't like his hair.
"Now, get your ass back out there and continue screwing things up horribly."
No. Don't see it happening.
[/b][/quote]
You missed my point. I was saying that voting against someone purely to get them out of office without considering exactly what the alternative represents would be ludicrus and irresponsible...
It's more like "Hey, Bob..you really stink at your job, so you're outta here...by the way, we're going to hire this guy Jake to replace you. No, we don't have a resume from him, and his history has some weird things in it, but how could he be worse than you?"
That's all I'm saying.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
I beg to differ. Four years ago, all I heard from my republican friends and family members was stuff about how great it was that the crook was out of office, that a moral man was in the White House, so on, so forth.
And, frankly, I think that if the choice in the election was between Bush and Satan, I'd pull the lever for Satan. At least he'd make the road to hell look appealing.
[/b][/quote]
I'd move to norway, if those were my choices.
On a more serious note...I hated Clinton's personal life, but he was a "decent" President.
I would say that Bush has a righteous sense of morality, but I think he's a horrible President.
I have no idea what kind of a leader Kerry would be. All I have is what I know from growing up in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and remembering his politics back then, as well as what I can learn of his voting record, legislation, and attendance.
God knows we need a President that doesn't go off to Kennibukport and Crawford Notch 7 months out of the year.
People often ask "where are all the great leaders, like Lincoln, and Roosevelt, and Kennedy?", but truth be known, their lives were never subject to the intense media scrutiny of today, and if they were, history would probably remember them differently.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
You're thinking about England, right?
[/b][/quote]
No, not really. I'm thinking of the per capita death rate in 1800's US, where most people carried guns like we carry cellphones...funny how no one in the gun control lobby bothers to look at those figures...probably because they'll learn of a flaw in their logic.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
It'll just make things worse. You refereed to treating the symptoms and not curing the disease. Terrorism doesn't pop up in a vacuum. Killing all the current terrorists will not stop it. The conditions still exist to make more. These people weren't spit from their mother's wombs sure that Americans were pure evil, and the only way to safe guard the Muslim world was to kill them all and drive off the survivors (which, ironically, is also your plan. How wonderful that even enemies like Al Quadia and America can still find common ground in their pure, unthinking hatred). They were presented with a world that made this the only logical thing to do.
So what will be caused by a policy of dehumanizing and killing the enemy? A confirmation in their belief that we are inhuman and they must kill up. Why not? An American bomb killed that guy's brother. An American politician said the brother deserved it. The American considered the brother of no more value than a rabid dog, who needed to be put down for the good of all.
I wouldn't take too kindly to someone who did that to my brother. Neither would you. And neither will they.
We have to find another solution.
[/b][/quote]
Unfortunately, there really is no "solution."
Of course it will take more than blatant militism, but when dealing with Al Quaeda, that's probably the right course. Idealists and zealots remain just that...even today we have reminants of the KKK, Nazism, etc.
I agree with everything you say about getting to the people of the nations Al Quaeda is exploiting. It's starting to work in Afghanistan. I was amazed to learn that over 40% of registered voters there are women. That will change policy real quick, don't you think?
Allot of it will come from re-tooling our foreign policy (nore on that later).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
Why should I have? All it would have done is disgusted me. Made me angry beyond imagining. And angry people are sloppy people. This is not a situation where we can afford to strike out of blind rage. And it's called blind for a reason.
[/b][/quote]
I forced myself to watch it. I knew it would be grizzly, but I felt it was like the Nazi death camp footage---to understand why something should never be allowed to happen, you have to see it.
WRT anger, I disagree...the type of anger that this breeds is one that makes people become resolved and focussed. Active. Wanting to do their part to make sure this never happens again. Sure, there may be people that feel blind rage, but, on the whole, I believe it builds resolve more than anything.
Like Pearl Harbor, for example. The country became insanely motivated to win that war because of that event.
Even 9/11...the families of the victims are the loudest voices demanding that we not forget their loved ones, and demand focus on bringing to justice the ones that killed them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
And this is worse than factory-style extermination of millions (for example), how? I don't see anyone suggesting the total elimination of the Germans as a solution to the worlds ills. Remember what I said about everything having a reason? What if the reason for these kidnappings and murders is to lather us into a rage, convinced they are no more than animals, and then being blind-sided when they pull something clever?
Now, I'm not saying that we can just all hold hands and sing kumbya and have peace in the Middle East, but if your four point plan for ending terrorism is kill the bastards, kill the bastards, kill the bastards, and kill the bastards, you aren't taking into account what made the bastards, and what will make more. Fighting the symptoms and ignoring the disease.
[/b][/quote]
I never advocated eliminating the Germans. The Nazis, however, were the problem, and are still being hunted to this day.
No, my plan is not to "kill the bastards,"...but, since you're taking sidebars from history, there's a reason Romans could roam the lands of the known world freely in their day. That type of tactic, however, isn't going to solve the problem.
Some aspects of the problem will demand military action, others will involve humanitarian acts to clean up the bowl of dung created by 20 years of shoddy foreign policy.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
Ever see [i]Macbeth[/i]? Good play. Based on a true story. The last scene is of the new King of Scotland celebrating his victory, with the disembodied head of Macbeth looking on.
[/b][/quote]
I know Macbeth well, but an act being in literature makes it no less haenous or acceptable. I certainly wouldn't vindicate the practice of Draw-and-Quarter or impaling simply because it was in a book or a movie.
It's a horrific way to die that is meant to humilate and torture the person being killed, and strike fear into those that watch it. It has no place in a civilized world.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
Or the head-hunters of bygone days. The most valued heads were not those of the great warriors, but of the women and children, proving they had made it into the village.
[/b][/quote]
And this is supposed to make me think decapitation is acceptable ?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
In short, any number of honorable people have considered decapitation a perfectly reasonable means of killing someone. And, not to be cruel, but the people killed in that particularly gruesome fashion are just as dead as if they were bombed or shot.
And, now, can you tell me, honestly, if you would not, given the opprotunity, just as slowly, with just as much relish, end the life of one of the perpetrators of that crime. Don't you hate them that much? Don't you consider them that low? And would you not be happy, when you were finished, that you had put down a monster? An unfeeling animal?
[/b][/quote]
No, I would not. That would be sinking to their level, and vindicating all of the extrmist rhetoric they spew on the soft minded folk that let others do their thinking for them.
I'm going to revise a statement I made earlier: what these acts show is what it is that truely separates man from animals.
Animals do not take pleasure in torturing and killing each other.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
Tell me that you wouldn't. But even with you do, I'll find someone just as American, just as civilized as you who would.
[/b][/quote]
Then they would be neither as American, nor as civilized. That's what separates us from them---we can control our impulses to do the unthinkable, and that's, unfortunately, what they exploit.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
It is the goal of any creature to reproduce. To make more of itself. What if that, too, is the goal of this evil? To make more of itself. To destroy even one man, to make him ready and willing to cross any line, break any rule, to fulfill his vengence.
What if, by being willing to do to them what they did to that poor man, you give them exactly what they want?
[/b][/quote]
I'm not advocating slow torture or death of these people. I'm advocating the elimination of a few extremists and a restructuring of our foreign policy which compliments the idealism that the framers of the Constitution had.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
So have our kids. Our own children were willing to kill their fellow innocents, for far less reason (justifiable reason, mind you, not "America/Russia is the devil" reason). What does that say about us?
We have seen the face of the enemy. And he is us. Them is an illusion. Accept that the man who took joy in the brutal slaying of an innocent has the same blood that runs through your veins. Accept that in another life, you would do the same. Accept it, or you will fail to defeat those who would foolishly consider you not of their kind.
[/b][/quote]
Funny thing about that is I never really feared Russia as a cold-war kid, because I saw people that had children, and two governments squabbling over ideological and economic differences. In the back of my mind, I knew that politicians would never push the button.
This conflict is one that demands a great deal of care, because, at it's center, is not ideolegy, but theology, and those wars can last millenia.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
Oh, right. Politics. I almost forgot what this was about.
[/b][/quote]
LOL...yeah, me too ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i][B]
The terrorists are an enemy. There have always been enemies in the past. There will continue to be enemies in the future. The only thing that has changed is the name and the tactics. To say they are the worst enemy of all time is deluded. The Jews believed that about the Nazis. I'm sure the Indians believed the same about those who would give them smallpox-infected blankets under a facade of friendship. And all the way back. Just remember: The only reason this enemy seems so big is because we have to deal with it here and now. When this is all over, I'm sure the new enemy, who ever that is, will seem far more threatening. [/B][/QUOTE]
I never said they were the "worst enemy of all time," I said "Designing and executing a plan to deal with terrorism is, I believe, the most important issue of our generation."
That means setting up a plan that fights them that is effective; it will, most likely, involve a combination of the Military, Humanitarianism, and, most of all, follow-though.
I'm of the honest opinion that we created allot of this mess ourselves over the last 20 years...in our efforts to defeat communism, we neglected the fact that we stepped on allot of people to do it.
As the most powerful nation in the world, we, more than ever, have to understand and honor what our founders know so well, that Liberty and Freedom come with Responsibility.
It's not too late to make an effort to fix those errors, and augment them with other conventional and non-conventional means, as neccessary.
The funny thing is that the concept of setting up a Democracy in the Middle east was a noble idea.
What was forgotten is that freedom must be fought for to be truly appreciated. I never really felt the Iraqi's were at that level yet.
It's also why I'm glad that since the Bay of Pigs we've kept our hands off Cuba.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
[quote]
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
[/quote]
On that note, I guess I'll call this a thread.
Holpefully, I didn't offend anyone. That wasn't my purpose---my purpose was to remind everyone that you should question everything, and assume nothing. Don't let Spin make your decision...make that on your own.
-R.
[B]Hey, David...I'm enjoying this conversation...it's actually made me think about a few things.[/quote][/b]
Thank God. I'm always a bit nervous about this sort of discussion. Writing in the passion of the moment, I end up wondering if I came of as a raving lunatic. Luckily, I still haven't. Yet. ;)
I'm just going to cover a couple of things. Doing my part of prevent the scourge of ultra-long post proliferation from reaching this thread.
[quote][b]You missed my point. I was saying that voting against someone purely to get them out of office without considering exactly what the alternative represents would be ludicrus and irresponsible...
It's more like "Hey, Bob..you really stink at your job, so you're outta here...by the way, we're going to hire this guy Jake to replace you. No, we don't have a resume from him, and his history has some weird things in it, but how could he be worse than you?"
That's all I'm saying.[/quote][/b]
There would have to be, though, some point where the odds become so stacked that the risk is the logical option. I can't say definitively if that point has been reached, though. That's for the historians of the next generation to do once we're all old enough to have stopped caring.
[quote][b]I'd move to norway, if those were my choices.[/quote][/b]
It's a small pity the flow of the gulf stream would prevent me from swimming towards freedom in Cuba, so my options were a bit limited. And, hell, it's a pain in the butt going to the airport now. If the Prince of Lies were running for public office, I can only imagine how bad the lines would be.
[quote][b]People often ask "where are all the great leaders, like Lincoln, and Roosevelt, and Kennedy?", but truth be known, their lives were never subject to the intense media scrutiny of today, and if they were, history would probably remember them differently.[/quote][/b]
Don't worry, the media is still working on causing the leaders of the past to disgust us as well.
Also, just out of curiosity, you meant World War II Roosevelt, right?
[quote][b]No, not really. I'm thinking of the per capita death rate in 1800's US, where most people carried guns like we carry cellphones...funny how no one in the gun control lobby bothers to look at those figures...probably because they'll learn of a flaw in their logic.[/quote][/b]
I'm a bit curious as to exactly what those numbers covered. I mean, back then, people died from hangnails, so it couldn't have have been the total death rate. And as for guns, they don't have quite the same versatility for the modern citizen. Back then, you needed a gun to defend against wild animals and indians, in case you were suddenly called into the militia, to fight off outlaw gangs which the law couldn't (or didn't want to) take down, and in case the Secretary of the Treasury said something bad about you in a speech.
Nowadays, there are far fewer uses for a high-speed hunk of lead.
[quote][b]I know Macbeth well, but an act being in literature makes it no less haenous or acceptable. I certainly wouldn't vindicate the practice of Draw-and-Quarter or impaling simply because it was in a book or a movie.[/quote][/b]
Still and all, I was alluding to the fact that the real Macbeth also probably had his head lopped off. It doubtless wasn't pleasant, but how many deaths are?
[quote][b]And this is supposed to make me think decapitation is acceptable ?[/quote][/b]
Of course not. It is food for thought, though, that just as you said earlier that its one thing to be bombed or shot, and another to have your head forcibly removed, many people in history, who would've been (and, perhaps still are) considered good and honorable probably would've said that its one thing to cut off the head of an enemy, but quite another to, I don't know, leave him to die of a lingering abdominal wound over a period of days, in constant agony.
[quote][b]Then they would be neither as American, nor as civilized. That's what separates us from them---we can control our impulses to do the unthinkable, and that's, unfortunately, what they exploit.[/quote][/b]
What is control? The total, unyielding control over base instincts favored by myself? The more lax control that says its okay to run a red light if there's no one around? The control that says that a racist should act politely to people who, were they not in front of him, he would insult and scorn out of his bigotry?
Now, I realize running a red light and not calling people names to their faces isn't on a par with brutally killing someone (albeit in extenuating circumstances), but there is something to be said for the inability to maintain control when confronted with that which you most hate.
[quote][b]I'm not advocating slow torture or death of these people. I'm advocating the elimination of a few extremists and a restructuring of our foreign policy which compliments the idealism that the framers of the Constitution had.[/quote][/b]
Ditto. Except I'd rather they're locked up and left to rot (metaphorically). Ideally, I'd like them to be forced to view and hear every recording of every one of their victims for every waking moment for the rest of their lives. Luckily, the U.S. Justice system doesn't allow for that kind of inventiveness.