Presidential Debate

[Chaerophon]

Bah. I could continue bashing my head against the wall, or do my homework. I choose homework.

[Chaerophon]

Evil prospers when good men do nothing.

Why does "doing something" have to be exactly the same thing that America does? That's my point. If "doing nothing" is seeing things differently and taking a different approach than America, then, under this rhetoric, you are part of the problem. It is particularly important to keep in mind the general support of the war in Afghanistan when considering this point. Nobody said "don't intervene", but the difference of opinion over where to intervene is a matter of justifiable concern.

EDIT: as an addendum, as Nico points out, the statements made by the US ambassador to Canada, Celucci (sp?) I believe is his name, left little doubt in the minds of Canadians that our disagreement with the US over the war in Iraq was interpreted as being the wrong move or "against us" as regards the so-called "war on terror".

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

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.
[right][snapback]57039[/snapback][/right]

Not to repeat myself, but you'll need to provide some source material to back these accusations up, Doc. After all, all of the above could be pinned on Dubya's chest as well, and quite easily.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm not saying you're right. I *am* saying that you're just *saying*... and there needs to be some corroboration for such stuffs.

[Doc]

Not to repeat myself, but you'll need to provide some source material to back these accusations up, Doc.  After all, all of the above could be pinned on Dubya's chest as well, and quite easily.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm not saying you're right.  I *am* saying that you're just *saying*... and there needs to be some corroboration for such stuffs.
[right][snapback]57050[/snapback][/right]

I guess you would have to live here. I can't exactly point to one of his houses from here and say "lookie!" I reckon these are the sorts of things that one must see for one's self. To be honest, I am not sure how to point these sorts of things out in this format.

**Scratches head**

I guess it's easy to see when you live here, and see these things for your self. Hell, they showed one of his homes on one of his campaign tv add and it made a lot of folk raise their eyebrow and say "Huh?"

These things are easier to point out in the local barber shop to the locals than they are to try and post about here on a global scale.

I respectfully bow out of this one. I have come to the realization that there is not much I can do or say here.

[Chaerophon]

Doc,

Your analysis may be fair enough. I, like Nico, have no idea. However, that being said, I can't see him being any dirtier than Captain Haliburton over on the other side...

[D-Dave]

But I suspect, people are really just looking for anything at which they might take offense.
[right][snapback]57007[/snapback][/right]

Well, well, well. From what I have learned so far, You and I obviously have our own believes on most things regarding the Bush administration and for my part, I can accept that.
As stated before, I do realy enjoy a good factual Discussion. So let's get back on that turf rather then accusing one another for searching for things that we can take offense.

So let me get the "either with us..." context straight I was reffering to.
One hint can be found in the "Remarks by the President To the Warsaw Conference on Combatting Terrorism" (here)

Al Qaeda operates in more than 60 nations, including some in Central and Eastern Europe.

Ok, "operates" does not realy imply that they aid the Terrorists, only that they are not doing enough about it.

Later this week, at the United Nations, I will set out my vision of our common responsibilities in the war on terror.  I will put every nation on notice that these duties involve more than sympathy or words.  No nation can be neutral in this conflict, because no civilized nation can be secure in a world threatened by terror.

Ok, so in other words, other nations have duties - fair enough - and Bush will tell them what these duties are. The second point is exactly what caused all the trouble. Maybe because some nations dare to believe that they are sovereign Nations and not Bush's lackeys.

But all this realy vague and sort of foreplay, the only important thing was this:

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." (here)

sounds pretty clear to me.

So in what way did I take this "out of context"? On the contrary, I also added all my statements up in one post to show that those statements and actions can only be seen in context to each other!
More simply put, I'd be most greatful if you would stop accusing me of liking to take things out of context as this is simply untrue. After all this is a place for discussions and not for personal attacks.

Edit: Well, I changed my view about one Member of the Bush Administration: My new best Friend Don. His speech today was just neat, despite his paddeling back later on :-) Iraq having no WMD? No link to Terrorists? Interesting Read here :D
BTW, makes me wonder what is this "important" announcment Bush has to make this wednesday, as polls are not looking too good, maybe Osama has finaly been caught? Ok, ok, that one was sarcastic...sorry ;)

[Thecla]

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.
[right][snapback]57019[/snapback][/right]

Well, to expand a little bit, IMO the divisions of opinion that exist on the Iraq war are too deeply and strongly held to simply say there are two sides to every argument. In the extreme case, one does not try to even-handedly present both sides of the argument about whether the earth is round or flat. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if we have different perpectives on who is the flat-earther. ;)

IMSHO, the Bush administration has been almost Orwellian in its justification and description of the Iraq war; something which may, perhaps, have contributed to the utter mess they have made of the occupation. I very much doubt it can be rescued by anyone at this point.

[Armin]

Al Qaeda operates in more than 60 nations, including some in Central and Eastern Europe.

Another major dent in the credibility of the Bush administration: There's not really any doubt about which country is the most important one on that list. Al Quaeda is ideologically steered, funded and recruites most of it's followers (15 of the 19 suicide bombers of 9/11 for instance) in a single country: Saudi Arabia.

But for some nebulous (or maybe...not?) reason, Saudi Arabia is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the speeches. As long as Bush and the folks that pull his strings don't elaborate on that contradiction, they'll not exactly gain credit in one of those *other* countries...

Oh, and by the way: the image that American propaganda conjures up about Al Quaeda is pretty way off beat, too. It's not the wordwide syndicate with a strong organization, closely knit network and firm hierarchy that seems to have jumped right out of a 1960's Bond movie...
It's a loose association between political radicals that share little apart from a pretty vague hatred of "the West" and the US in general. It's like a large Mc Donalds-like franchise chain where everyone who blows something up and then claims responsibility in the name of some fromer Al Quaeda celeb is allowed to invoke the name, thats pretty much it.

Something like that is nigh impossible to fight militarily.

The idea that you can force or frighten terrorists into submission is... absurd.

Terrorism is the means of the desperate and the weapon of the weak. You cannot BREAK weakness. The sheer idea is silly.

Yet America wants to fight terrorism by invading Terroristan (whererever that may lie, but how many Americans can locate Afghanistan or the Iraq on a map?)...

I really, really hope that you won't have to wake up to the catastrophic consequences of those last 2 years one day. Because today, there's a few million MORE Arabs who hate the US than in September 0f 2001.

[Tal]

Yet America wants to fight terrorism by invading Terroristan (whererever that may lie, but how many Amereicans can locate Afghanistan or the Iraq on a map?)...
[right][snapback]57072[/snapback][/right]

Did you have to add this snide little comment in? Does it help your position in the debate to sling these little arrows at all? Or was this disdainful comment just a poorly masked troll-bait to get people up in arms? Debates are a means of discussing opposing viewpoints. Not an opportunity to play the put-down game.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think Armin has a valid point even if he did express it with a touch of sarcasm.

What percentage of the American population speak a language other than English, read a magazine or newspaper not published in the USA, or have seen more of the world than '20 cities in five days'? Frankly, to dictate policies to the world, it would be nice if the dictators knew the first damned thing about the world. But in the case of the USA, that is *not* true of the bulk of the population and is almost true of this administration.

The ridicule implied in Armin's statement is well deserved, as any of the studies of education in industrial nations so well documents. We are indeed, overall, the red-neck nation whose bumper sticker is "My son beat up your honor student." The average American understands no better resolution of conflict than the 'Terminator' model. The fault is not with the people, but with an education system that has, for two generations, been failing more and more to educate. And with a 'big world' mentality in a globe that has shrunk to 90 minutes.

--Pete

[Armin]

Did you have to add this snide little comment in? Does it help your position in the debate to sling these little arrows at all? Or was this disdainful comment just a poorly masked troll-bait to get people up in arms? Debates are a means of discussing opposing viewpoints. Not an opportunity to play the put-down game.
[right][snapback]57075[/snapback][/right]

In fact, Yes.

Because honestly, it scares me out of my pants, that (when the war started) way more than a solid 2/3rd majority of the population of the most militarily powerful nation on the planet can be so easily convinced that it is right, justifiable and necessary to invade a foreign nation, killing TENS OF THOUSANDS of it's population and installing a new government - while about the same amount of said population don't even know enough solid facts about this country to locate it on a world map.

Scary. As. Hell.

That said nation actually HAS a huge arsenal of WMDs - quite contrary to the invaded country - doesn't exactly help my fears... :unsure:

[--Pete]

Hi,

There's a fly on the wall. I think we should use a fly swatter. You think we should use a sledge hammer. I'm not with you so therefore I'm against you? I'm supporting the fly?

Sorry -- but your argument doesn't convince me. When the nations that have been fighting terrorism for much longer than has the USA disagree with the methods proposed by a bunch of hawks figureheaded by a multi-strike failure, I do indeed think there's idiocy involved. But not on the side you imply.

--Pete

EDIT: Bah, Wrong place. This was supposed to be in answer to Occhi's post.

[Tal]

Hi,

I think Armin has a valid point even if he did express it with a touch of sarcasm.

What percentage of the American population speak a language other than English, read a magazine or newspaper not published in the USA, or have seen more of the world than '20 cities in five days'?  Frankly, to dictate policies to the world, it would be nice if the dictators knew the first damned thing about the world.  But in the case of the USA, that is *not* true of the bulk of the population and is almost true of this administration.

The ridicule implied in Armin's statement is well deserved, as any of the studies of education in industrial nations so well documents.  We are indeed, overall, the red-neck nation whose bumper sticker is "My son beat up your honor student."  The average American understands no better resolution of conflict than the 'Terminator' model.  The fault is not with the people, but with an education system that has, for two generations, been failing more and more to educate.  And with a 'big world' mentality in a globe that has shrunk to 90 minutes.

--Pete
[right][snapback]57077[/snapback][/right]

It isn't the message I disagree with but its presentation. If Armin had stated his concerns in the way he did below or even as you have you would not have heard nary a peep out of me. As I said in my first post I want to debate the ideas without personal (National) attacks.

[Doc]

Why is it we Americans can foul mouth any nationality we want, say what ever we feel, and act however we please, and pass it off as our God given right because of the Constitution... Just look at how we speak of the French. Freedom Fries anybody?

But get somebody to say one little (true) thing about America and most of us get our panties in a bunch.

Have we become a nation of thin skinned sissy Nancy boys? We sure are willing to dish it out... We just can't catch the flyback in return.

These statements are not directed at anybody in particular, just an observation on what I see an awful lot of on these forums.

Oh, and I have my asbestos underpants on today. You can't hurt me.

[Tal]

In fact, Yes.

Because honestly, it scares me out of my pants, that (when the war started) way more than a solid 2/3rd majority of the population of the most militarily powerful nation on the planet can be so easily convinced that it is right, justifiable and necessary to invade a foreign nation, killing TENS OF THOUSANDS of it's population and installing a new government - while about the same amount of said population don't even know enough solid facts about this country to locate it on a world map.

Scary. As. Hell.

That said nation actually HAS a huge arsenal of WMDs - quite contrary to the invaded country - doesn't exactly help my fears...   :unsure:
[right][snapback]57079[/snapback][/right]

*Edited* On second thought I'm bowing out of the discussion. I've already said how I felt on this matter - further discussion will not clear this up.

[Minionman]

Just saw the vice presidential debate. Foreign policy stuff was the same as the Kerry/Bush one, domestic stuff didn't have anything new either. At the beginning Edwards looked like he hadn't see the Kerry/Bush one, since the roles were reversed with Edwards getting flustered and Cheney looking on top of things. The second part was pretty boring. And again when they gave numbers you can't be sure whether the numbers are good or not.

I didn't start a new topic because I don't want to start anyther thread with "blah blah blah Iraq blah blah terrorists blah blah WMD's blah blah..." since there already have been a lot of threads like that with not much new information.

[gekko]

Just saw the vice presidential debate.  Foreign policy stuff was the same as the Kerry/Bush one, domestic stuff didn't have anything new either.  At the beginning Edwards looked like he hadn't see the Kerry/Bush one, since the roles were reversed with Edwards getting flustered and Cheney looking on top of things.  The second part was pretty boring.  And again when they gave numbers you can't be sure whether the numbers are good or not.

I didn't start a new topic because I don't want to start anyther thread with "blah blah blah Iraq blah blah terrorists blah blah WMD's blah blah..." since there already have been a lot of threads like that with not much new information.
[right][snapback]57123[/snapback][/right]

Heh, I thought almost exactly the opposite. I found that early on, Edwards looked really good. Where Cheney looked bored at best (annoyed if not angry to be there at worst), Edwards seemed to be in control -- he got some good shots in and really took it to the Bush administration.

Then the second half of the debate rolled around. And, well... Edwards may not want to quit his day job. Yowza. Any ground Kerry gained last week was just flushed down the toilet. Cheney really nailed Edwards and Kerry on a few points (if he can't stand up to pressure from Howard Dean...), and Edwards just looked flustered and inexperienced.

How else can I put this... I'm not American, but if I were, I'd much prefer Kerry be my president than Bush... however, I would not be comfortable at all knowing Edwards was the next in line for the seat.

gekko

[Minionman]

Heh, I thought almost exactly the opposite.  I found that early on, Edwards looked really good.  Where Cheney looked bored at best (annoyed if not angry to be there at worst), Edwards seemed to be in control -- he got some good shots in and really took it to the Bush administration.

Then the second half of the debate rolled around.  And, well... Edwards may not want to quit his day job.  Yowza.  Any ground Kerry gained last week was just flushed down the toilet.  Cheney really nailed Edwards and Kerry on a few points (if he can't stand up to pressure from Howard Dean...), and Edwards just looked flustered and inexperienced.

How else can I put this... I'm not American, but if I were, I'd much prefer Kerry be my president than Bush... however, I would not be comfortable at all knowing Edwards was the next in line for the seat.

gekko
[right][snapback]57124[/snapback][/right]

I see we have different things we want from people getting elected. It was way closer than the Kerry/Bush one.

It also seemed like this debate was less serious than the other one, it sure was less interesting.

I don't think that this debate will have a big effect on the election compsred to whatever the Kerry/Bush one has, since it seemed "closer" than the Kerry/Bush one was. Of course, this is the first year I've really paid attention and I haven't read much about debates, so this one may actually have a big difference.

[kandrathe]

...
Ok, so in other words, other nations have duties - fair enough - and Bush will tell them what these duties are. The second point is exactly what caused all the trouble. Maybe because some nations dare to believe that they are sovereign Nations and not Bush's lackeys.

But all this realy vague and sort of foreplay, the only important thing was this: (CNN link)  sounds pretty clear to me.

So in what way did I take this "out of context"? On the contrary, I also added all my statements up in one post to show that those statements and actions can only be seen in context to each other!
More simply put, I'd be most greatful if you would stop accusing me of liking to take things out of context as this is simply untrue. After all this is a place for discussions and not for personal attacks.

Even the US and Canada have active Al Queda cells operating as we have witnessed. So, the administrations bluster at Europe and Central Asia is more of "what are we going to do about this" and less of "here we come with our war machine".

When you quote one inflamatory sentence from a speech given before an outraged congress and US populace from 10 days after one of the most horrendous days in our history, and then use that one sentence to imply that the US is going to march their war machine over any nation (friend or foe) that is not willing to surrender a suspect to gitmo... Well, to me, that is taking things wildly out of context.

I am not attacking you personally, only what you are saying. I'm sorry if it feels personal, but it is not. I think the source of your misperception is that you relied on CNN to predigest your facts. CNN took the Presidents words out of contect as well. But, that's what sells newspapers and advertisements.

[Chaerophon]

then use that one sentence to imply that the US is going to march their war machine over any nation (friend or foe) that is not willing to surrender a suspect to gitmo... Well, to me, that is taking things wildly out of context.

That's not what any of us have been saying. Certainly not me. The fact is, the US can hurt you in other ways... ever heard of the softwood lumber dispute? The US is free to break NAFTA or the WTO/GATT any time they like and has demonstrated the will to do so. Other countries aren't so lucky.