+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Presidential Debate (/thread-7853.html)
Presidential Debate - kandrathe - 10-04-2004
Chaerophon,Oct 4 2004, 04:40 AM Wrote:Sure. It's still a less than veiled threat. I fail to see how D-Dave is taking Bush's comments out of context.
[right][snapback]57006[/snapback][/right]
Well, in that it is in the same breath Bush mentioned "that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism", etc ... Maybe not perfectly spelled out for you, but I certainly saw the direct relationship between "with us or against us" and "if you give safe harbor to terrorists".
But I suspect, people are really just looking for anything at which they might take offense.
Presidential Debate - Chaerophon - 10-04-2004
Couldn't help but add these. Much prettier than icky Toronto (j/k, of course):
![[Image: vancouver-canada-2075-2798.jpg]](http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/Rob116/vancouver-canada-2075-2798.jpg)
![[Image: vancouver-granville-skyline-twilight-big.jpg]](http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/Rob116/vancouver-granville-skyline-twilight-big.jpg)
![[Image: BCG010.jpg]](http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/Rob116/BCG010.jpg)
![[Image: eyeseavancouverwall4800.jpg]](http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/Rob116/eyeseavancouverwall4800.jpg)
![[Image: eyeseavancouverwall1800.jpg]](http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/Rob116/eyeseavancouverwall1800.jpg)
Presidential Debate - ShadowHM - 10-04-2004
Roland,Oct 1 2004, 09:09 PM Wrote:Oh, I'd never leave this country. Not unless there were no other options for me. My home, my lifeblood is here. My pride and joy are here. For me to leave would mean abandoning my entire way and foundation of life, not to mention the admission that my faith in my country, and in myself to help guide it, had fallen beyond redemption.
[right][snapback]56899[/snapback][/right]
Thanks Roland :) That sounds a lot more like the guy I thought I knew.
Presidential Debate - Occhidiangela - 10-04-2004
Jester,Oct 1 2004, 11:07 AM Wrote:Well, believe or don't about Kerry's plan, and how much he means it when he says he'll do this, that or the other. As with all elections, these are politicians' promises.
However, you are agreeing with me that this is actually *possible*, even if Kerry is unlikely to follow through? Adding divisions wouldn't require cloning vats?
Jester
[right][snapback]56860[/snapback][/right]
As Senator Kerry should know, adding two divisions is a significant emotional event. To stand up and make ready to deploy two divissions, I will for the sake of argument assume Stryker equipped mixed Heavy - Light divisions, would be a matter of nbo less than 2 years in this day and age, starting with recruitment, finding a post, finding enough training range time, and going through the bottom to top Training and Readiness requirements, not to mention equipment.
Doable, but not in an environment where the political will is lacking, see my comments above.
Cloning Vats? Nope. Recruitment incentives or something nonsensical like Mr Rangel's draft proposal would provide the recruits. The problem is in manning two divisions worth of seasoned officers and NCO's of varying grades to ensure some corporate knowledge is imbedded in the divisions.
Whatever.
Occhi
Presidential Debate - Occhidiangela - 10-04-2004
You miss Howard Dean?
Following the same line of thought, I miss Bozo the Clown.
Dean was, and is, a load of hot air, within the context of Presidential politics. Emotion is wonderful for entertainment, but for the demands of the job he sought, it is unsuitable and even dangerous. Me, I take that position too seriously to want to see it entrusted to an entertaining blowhard.
Remember, the Pres of the US has his fingers near the Red Button. You want an emotional drama queen in that position? I don't.
Having emotion is not the required attribute for the job. Being able to lead is the required attribute. Leadership includes the demand to make unpopular decisions and having the sand in one's craw to follow through. See Reagan or Truman for good examples.
Occhi
Presidential Debate - Occhidiangela - 10-04-2004
Thecla,Oct 4 2004, 02:21 AM Wrote:Well, this is a nice sentiment; but there are many sides to every argument and every opinion, including whether the earth is flat, or war is peace.
[right][snapback]56999[/snapback][/right]
The earth is not flat, and war is not peace. What opinions do you refer to, you just presented two non-facts.
Care to elaborate? Post was almost too brief.
As to MEAT's point, I'll add a corralary or two.
1. One, having gone in and dismantled the skeleton of Iraqi government -- the wisdom of that is still open to debate and shall be for decades -- there is a practical obligation incurred that falls in the realm of equity. Repair the damage and leave Iraq in at least as good a condition as we found it. That is NO trivial undertaking. It requires immense political will, drive, effort and ability to withstand distraction. It requires on a national scale what we in the military call Mission Focus. We owe the folk of Iraq no less. Will America cash the check written in emotion in Fall 2002/Spring 2003? I have no idea.
2. Having created a power vacuum, a whole host of players wish to fill it, for their own ends. A good parallel is a gangland war in New York City when a major Mafia Don dies and there is a power struggle for his "turf." Any number of outside actors, to include Iran but not limited to them, have an interest in keeping Iraq unstable, or under to influence of parties sympathetic to their side. Iran in particular has a vested interest in the US being focused on Iraq and not them.
That a civil war is going on in parallel with the efforts I mentioned in paragraph 1 makes the reconstruction/Marshall Plan style efforts difficult. It does not help that the international community has shown its cowardice: Kofi withdrew UN HQ and support after one car bomb. That was damaging to UN prestige and reputation. That the US handled the entire reconstuction the way it did helped the effort not at all. (Remember the quibbling over who gets contracts?)
The civil war also provides an opportunity for those inimical to the US to be targeted and killed because their recruiters lied to them. Many a young man is induced into heading into the fray in Iraq, with the promise of being able to kill lots of Americans. Some are trained, a few are well trained, and many are minimally trained. They die by the dozens every week.
One of these days, the word is going to get out that the recruiters are lying. When these amateurs run into Marines or Soldiers, trained and dedicated professionals, they tend to get slaughtered, by the cartload.
The strategy of attrition undertaken by the Anti Iraqi Forces (those against the nation getting stable and getting back on its feet, to include such jagovs as Sadr and Zarqawi) attempts to challenge and overcome American will. Their assumption is that Viet Nam is a cookie cutter template for how to deal with Americans.
What remains to be seen is whether or not they have guessed correctly. Has America learned anything in 30 years time? Data point Somalia says no. Data point Bosnia says yes.
It's a gamble. In the mean time, these arseholes have embarked on a program of
"If I can't have it, no on can, I'll blow it all up."
And some idiots in the UN, and in Europe, think these goons can be negotiated with.
Nope.
That said, just because something is hard does not mean you give up.
Occhi
Presidential Debate - Tal - 10-04-2004
MEAT,Oct 1 2004, 02:23 PM Wrote:The draft is inevitable. I probably shouldn't say this, but I know someone personally high up in politics who says there is a bill going around quietly that *will* pass in late October with a draft on it.
It won't pass. Not so long as the Military stands firm in it's philosophy that an all volunteer force is more effective than a mixed force. And I don't really see that happening anytime soon.
MEAT,Oct 1 2004, 02:23 PM Wrote:I find this deeply, deeply disturbing, but it is unavoidable and that is the truth! The armed forces aren't getting nearly as many recruits as they had hoped for with their aggressive advertising and campus recruitment plans of late.
[right][snapback]56873[/snapback][/right]
The only thing that is unavoidable is mealy-mouthed politicians who wish to redress the problems with today's youth by forcing them into a Military Selective Service. It makes far more sense for Congress to bring salaries in the armed forces up to par and provide signup bonuses than to institute a draft of the unwilling into the services that don't want them.
Presidential Debate - Occhidiangela - 10-04-2004
Chaerophon,Oct 2 2004, 01:40 PM Wrote:Much of the Western world interpreted that comment in exactly the same way as D-Dave. Perhaps they were mistaken in doing so, and that wasn't Bush et al's intent; fair enough. The point is that he never really clarified. The speech was quite ambiguous, and you can't really blame people for interpreting it as such. I, for one, think that it is a bit of a stretch to suppose that the speech wasn't intentionally unclear.
[right][snapback]56925[/snapback][/right]
If folks choose to read something into a statement, whose "the moron" that the Eurotrash are always on about? Those who choose that line need to look in the mirror.
Let's try understanding what is behind the "with us or against us" concept.
"If you do not choose to actively be part of the solution, you are part of the problem." i.e; it takes a dedicated effort by all the nations to take down terrorism.
Related thought: "Evil prospers when good men do nothing."
Occhi
"
Presidential Debate - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 10-04-2004
Occhidiangela,Oct 4 2004, 08:31 AM Wrote:Me, I take that position too seriously to want to see it entrusted to an entertaining blowhard.
Alas, Dubya got in anyway. :rolleyes:
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-04-2004
Quote:Simple answer. I included the entire paragraph so that there would be some context. Not a stretch at all! In fact it is a huge stretch to leave out the "emotional appeal" of "WTC rubble". Leaving that out would be seriously taking the whole speech out of context since at this point in time the buildings were still burning.
A rather huge stretch. Add the emotional appeal of "WTC rubble" and you've said... absolutely nothing!
Quote:Nope. By "lengthy" most assumed that subsequent battles would be against those most relevant to the terorist threat. For instance, finishing matters in Afghanistan before extending operations to Iraq.What did the first sentance have to do with the other? Maybe you think Afghanistan should be a pristine 1st world nation with a booming economy before we go for the next stop in the terrorism list? Seriously what does "finish" mean? It took us many years after the war was officially over to "finish" Germany. Some might say that by having bases there, we still technically haven't. As for "most relevant", Saddam was perceived to be that. Are there others that will require more of the same, and different tactics? Of course. I took that to be what "lengthy" meant, even at the time. It will take quite awhile to force or negotiate terrorist states to change.
Quote:Fact is, Iraq didn't really have much of anything to do with terrorism.They didn't have much to do with Al-quieda. There is a significant difference between those 2 sentances. Many terrorists found their refuge and funding there. Since at the time it was believed they had WMD not just because of intelligence obtained by the US, but because of that obtained by other countries as well, that made it a pretty significant threat. Now with 20/20 hindsight it's fair to say that there was an intelligence failure, and the people involved with that should be paying a much higher price than they are, but the President's actions were responsible going on the information that was givin to him as fact.
Quote:It was, perhaps, a broader political and economic security issue that "needed to be dealt with" (in view of the larger context of American political hegemony). Equating Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.So do you think it was right or wrong to go to Iraq? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. As for equating Afghanistan and Iraq, I do, only that they were both terrorist states. There are plenty of morons on both side of an issue, it just happens that the ones on mine think Saddam was responsible for 911. Don't confuse me with them, and I won't confuse you with the morons who think this is all a campaign for Israel against the Palestinians.
Quote:Well. We shall see about that. As far as I can tell, fundamentalist Islam and the "terrorist world" has at least as much, if not more support now, post-Iraq than it did before operations commenced.Thanks Al-jazeera. The irony of their skewed reporting is that exactly what they want they delay all the more by inciting violence.
Quote:Sure, it sounds great. Point is that there is more to stopping terrorists than chasing them around.Hence Bush's use of the word "lengthy".
Quote:In the process of invading Iraq, American military involvement has probably bred as many new terrorists as it has caught. Granted, sovereign nations might think twice before harbouring terrorists. However, they can't really do much other than 'act nice' at an ambassadorial level if the bulk, or even a significant percentage of their populations support the terrorists.Or they could perhaps begin efforts to stop the schools that teach extreamist Islam. This certainly won't be solved in a day by a government's agreement to stop supporting terror, but that's where it starts. "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." Is that making more sence to you yet?
Quote:Did you read my post? I don't think that you understood it. You did not address the point, that's for sure. Bush, or more accurately, his strategic 'team', was completely ambiguous with their blanket statement, and it was intentional. "With us or against us" is an empty and counterproductive rhetoric.I understood it just fine. You hate Bush and you are just looking for reasons to hate him more. Who cares if he qualified the statement before he said it? That doesn't help your world view. He said "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists", you didn't like it, and that is all that matters. Now, since the US and its allies don't see eye to eye on the how that must mean Bush has plans to invade, enact sanctions or otherwise destabilize them.
Quote:Allow me to oversimplify to a ridiculous extent; as sovereign nations, we reserve the right to judge what is justified and useful and what is not. It is possible for 'us' to disagree with US action. In so doing, we may not necessarily be 'supporting' terrorists. If Canada decides that they don't want to deport citizens without due process a la the Patriot Act, is it really the US's place to hold such an ambiguous threat over our head? I guess in some senses, it's not a matter of 'right or wrong'. Fair enough. It just 'is'. Regardless, the threat remains.Only because you want it to. Maybe that is a guilty conscience and you think your country is not doing as much as it might. But if it is a real fear Bush has military plans for United States' allies, then you have had a little too much of the anti-Bush retoric.
Presidential Debate - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 10-04-2004
kandrathe,Oct 4 2004, 03:20 AM Wrote:Is the textual context, but 9 days after the main US financial district was turned into a still burning ruin and 3,000 people had been killed. Can you grant him and the US a little slack in being a bit pumped up emotionally?
A little introspection is in order. Imagine the center of this being destroyed.
[right][snapback]57004[/snapback][/right]
We did grant slack. We went into Afghanistan and fought with you, died with you (sometimes directly BECAUSE of you) and are STILL there, attempting to fulfill the mission that Dubya spouts on about... except he had a grudge to carry out, elsewhere.
We're friends. We're neighbors. That should be enough to respect the fact that if we disagree with any of your extreme stands, we have a good enough reason for doing so that you can respect it in return. Beyond the "with us or against us" rhetoric, there was many, MANY harsh words directed at Canada when we opted out of the Iraq invasion. Your ambassador was the mouthpiece of most of them.
So don't show me a picture of Toronto and tell me that I should think about it. We already did, with as much empathy as anyone in the world and more than most. Funny how that is forgotten when we try to tell you you're stepping over the line.
Presidential Debate - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 10-04-2004
*applause*
I've never felt better to be a Canadian than right at this very moment. I've never felt better about Canadian choices than right at this very moment.
Quote:Quote:It was, perhaps, a broader political and economic security issue that "needed to be dealt with" (in view of the larger context of American political hegemony). Equating Iraq and Afghanistan is a mistake.
So do you think it was right or wrong to go to Iraq? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
You completely missed the point, and the sarcasm.
Quote:Maybe that is a guilty conscience and you think your country is not doing as much as it might.
Alas, petulance won't win you the argument... or any fans.
Presidential Debate - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 10-04-2004
Occhidiangela,Oct 4 2004, 08:49 AM Wrote:That said, just because something is hard does not mean you give up.
True, that.
However, when watching your friend and neighbor attempt to do the backstroke in a whirlpool, it becomes frustrating when you continuously throw them a life-jacket in an attempt to prevent their drowning only to have them throw it back with disdain and insist that it's "their" pool and they're doing JUST fine.
Just because something is hard does not mean you give up your friends' offers of assistance, either... even if Halliburton tells you to.
Presidential Debate - eppie - 10-04-2004
Yrrek,Oct 1 2004, 02:07 AM Wrote:Now, I did not watch all of the debate, I was becoming angry with the candidates mud-slinging. But here are a few things I noticed:
1) Bush not standing up strait
2) Both candidates showing far too much emotion
3) Mud-slinging...ugh
4) Too much focus on others faults, and not enough on their plans to better the situation
Opinions?
[right][snapback]56788[/snapback][/right]
So the next debate is between the candidate vice presidents am I right?
And there will be still another between Bush and Kerry?.
Anyway, I wonder what Kerry will do with the new NYTimes article. (why did nobody mention this one in this thread) It is getting more and more difficult for Bush to keep saying that he didn't lie.
Something else: the Brits refuse to get their Selafield nuclear installations inspected.....I wonder what GWB will do. :D
Presidential Debate - Sir_Die_alot - 10-04-2004
Quote:Alas, petulance won't win you the argument... or any fans.Ditto.
Presidential Debate - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 10-04-2004
Cheney/Edwards this evening. Bush/Kerry will meet twice more in the coming two weeks.
Tonight should be quite the circus sideshow.
*edit: TOMORROW night, rather. I always get mixed up when I'm on days-off*
Presidential Debate - Doc - 10-04-2004
I know this Edwards fellow rather well.
He is just educated enough to think he is very smart. And isn't.
He is a lying stealing adulterous cheat. The man is trash. Scum. And the Master of Trailer Park Politics.
One only need to look round these parts local to see his record speak for it self.
Presidential Debate - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 10-04-2004
Doc,Oct 4 2004, 11:54 AM Wrote:I know this Edwards fellow rather well.
He is just educated enough to think he is very smart. And isn't.
He is a lying stealing adulterous cheat. The man is trash. Scum. And the Master of Trailer Park Politics.
One only need to look round these parts local to see his record speak for it self.
[right][snapback]57035[/snapback][/right]
That's nice; care to provide some literary links for those of us that don't care to sojourn to South Carolina and would care to view said "record"?
Presidential Debate - Doc - 10-04-2004
Nicodemus Phaulkon,Oct 4 2004, 01:19 PM Wrote:That's nice; care to provide some literary links for those of us that don't care to sojourn to South Carolina and would care to view said "record"?
[right][snapback]57037[/snapback][/right]
He made many promises to return jobs to the Carolinas. He had lots of fancy talk. Under his watch, because of his new policies, more mills and factories closed then one could believe. He placed a huge burdon on businesses. He has cut down education spending, destroyed the local economies, and has allowed ecological disaster to take place. All things he had promised to fight. Big business loves this guy. His strings are easily pulled and he is easily distracted by shiny things, like glitter finish bass boats and NASCAR collectables. Under his watch millions of dollars are now unaccounted for. He has his fingers in every conceiveable bit of dirty business you could imagine. For a "poor" working class country fella from Seneca SC, he has more wealth then you could shake a stick at. If you look at his salary and his various forms of income, his lifestyle does not add up. Multi-million dollar homes and estates, vacation properties, cars, boats, etc. And he flaunts it all, knowing that he is pretty much untouchable for the time being. He has been investigated repeatedly, and each time he has somehow wiggled away free as a bird due to a lack of evidence, or, he was the victim of one of the plots of one of his underlings. Who would then take the blame and the fall as well. He would then use victim status to garner sympathy and further his career.
This man has wrecked more lives then anybody could possibly imagine.
Presidential Debate - Medicine Man - 10-04-2004
Occhidiangela,Oct 4 2004, 02:49 PM Wrote:The civil war also provides an opportunity for those inimical to the US to be targeted and killed because their recruiters lied to them. Many a young man is induced into heading into the fray in Iraq, with the promise of being able to kill lots of Americans. Some are trained, a few are well trained, and many are minimally trained. They die by the dozens every week.
One of these days, the word is going to get out that the recruiters are lying. When these amateurs run into Marines or Soldiers, trained and dedicated professionals, they tend to get slaughtered, by the cartload.
The strategy of attrition undertaken by the Anti Iraqi Forces (those against the nation getting stable and getting back on its feet, to include such jagovs as Sadr and Zarqawi) attempts to challenge and overcome American will. Their assumption is that Viet Nam is a cookie cutter template for how to deal with Americans.
[right][snapback]57019[/snapback][/right]
I sometimes worry that heavy attrition amongst their own people may in fact be the goal of these terrorist masterminds. It seems counter-intuitive, but a recent article by a retired general, Willian S. Lind, got me thinking about modern assymetric warfare (what Lind calls 4G, or fourth generation) and its goals. It is entirely possible that the enemy feels that even while losing tactically, they may be winning strategically and operationally. Looking at the way things are going in Iraq, I wonder if they may have a point.
If you are at all interested, Occhi, I think I can find a link to Lind's article. It has a lot of interesting observations about the capabilities of state militaries. I know I would certainly be interested in hearing some second opinions about its content.
Cheers.