Presidential Debate

[Minionman]

While people are on Iraq, what would all you guys be arguing about if the U.S. hadn't invaded? A.k.a. without this extra information or the military there what would people be thinking about Iraq, and things relating to it. I'm assuming other parts of the world keep going as they are now.

[kandrathe]

Emphasis is mine.

I have to dispute just one thing in this statement. Any idea that there was going to be cooperation between Zarqawi, Bin Laden or any other fundamentalist movement and Saddam Hussein is complete fantasy. The alleged links between the two have been discredited many times in print and recently have been refuted in the media as well -- by some of the people who pushed the whole theory in the first place, no less. Additionly, a Saddam-Al Qaida partnership was wildly implausible to begin with. Saddam, monster that he was, was nevertheless an obstacle to the express goals of Al-Qaida -- the foremost of which is the overthrow of secular governments in the Middle East. The Butcher of Bagdad was unlikely to provide advanced killing tools to his enemies.

My opinion: Removing Saddam was one of the undisputedly good things that has come from this invasion. The other is the removal of international sanctions on Iraq. Unfortunately, both of these benefits will be a cold comfort to the US if the country ends up paying the price for the Administration's sloppy execution of the post-war occupation.[right][snapback]57272[/snapback][/right]

For a homicidal megalomaniac like Saddam, logical has nothing to do with his actions. You might suppose that a secular Iraqi regime would not make alliances with fundamentalist extremists, or even sworn enemies, but you are likely to be wrong. Even if you review the documents just released by Charles Duelfer, you will find that Iraq went to extreme lengths and made deals with anyone to shed the yoke of sanctions. One of the most shocking to me was the revelation that Iraq even dealt with Iran to smuggle oil to UAE.

Smugglers, using small oil transporters similar to
the one in the picture in Figure 19, bribed RG naval
units on a regular basis in order to gain free passage
through Iranian waters. To avoid Maritime Interdiction
Force (MIF) patrols, these vessels would sail
to the southern end of the Gulf and dart across the
narrow straights from Iranian waters to UAE territory.
In the majority of these cases, the vessels would
then transfer their cargos of gas oil or fuel oil onto
larger tankers; it would then be transported to market.
This money making scheme benefited the smugglers,
Iraqis, Iranians, and oil recipients alike. From Annex F
Iraqi Oil Smuggling

Then you add in certain eyewitness testimonies and you can see why I would have doubts. Like that of Giovanni di Stefano,

He has said that he met Osama bin Laden in Baghdad in 1998. "He had a handshake like a woman. He had a soft voice. He spoke like a priest.

How can you decide a person on a few minutes conversation? I didn't know what I was stumbling on.

He was a nothing and a nobody then. It was well before the bombings there. And, had I known what I know now, I should have, as Arkan said, probably killed him." BBCNews - World's most controversial lawyer? Giovanni di Stefano

And, then tangible physical evidence like WashingtonTimes - Memo shows Iraq, Iran tried to contact bin Laden

or some of the more credible defectors, like this PBS - Frontline interview of Saba Khodada a defector who is also referenced on USInfo.gov - IRAQ: From Fear to Freedom

The entire "Gunning for Saddam" site is excellent, at least food for thought. PBS - Gunning for Saddam

And, there are many, many more "coincidences" and testimonies. I'm not conviced that there was no link.

[Minionman]

The third one (2nd Kerry/Bush)was more even from my point of view than the first one. Bush was a lot better. I'm not sure how this one will play out in total with people.


There were several funny lines from this one. Early in the debate, Bush got asked something along the lines of "how will you rebuild relations with other countries?" Bush's response started with "(2-3 second pause) , This is a great nation, blah...."

Later, Kerry was asked about stem cell research, and said something along the lines of "save them from , uh, um , uh,um (aka several seconds of stuttering trying to remember the name of some disease)"

At the end of the debate, Bush had a bushism: "Under my opponent, we would not have invaded Iraq, and the world would be a better place today". Oops.

[Roland]

At the end of the debate, Bush had a bushism: "Under my opponent, we would not have invaded Iraq, and the world would be a better place today". Oops.
[right][snapback]57337[/snapback][/right]

Two things:
1) IIRC, it was "Under my opponent, we would not have invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, and the world would be a _safer_ place today." (Unsure about the Saddam bit, as he said this once before during the debate, so I may be taking that from earlier. My full pardons if that is the case.) Key word difference: "safer", not "better". Which brings me to my next point.

2) It was wholly and completely sarcastic. Evidently you missed that, but, then, you also missed how much Bush CLOBBERED Kerry in this debate. *shrugs* To each their own, ostricization and all that.

I taped the debate for my g/f to watch (WHY her idiotic math professor INSISTS on making it homework for his students to watch the debates, and then not even discuss them in class, relating or not relating it all to mathetamical principles, is beyond me; this is the SECOND time I have had to tape the debates for her, as she also works full time, while schooling full time), so I shall take that oppurtunity to review the tape (as I was going to do with my g/f anyway; we find viewing the debates together to be more enlightening than just on our own, because we pick up on much more, and we can bounce ideas off one another). If I find that I was wrong, I'll certainly post so, but I'm almost positive that my above points are accurate. I'll double-check just to be certain, though.

[Minionman]

Two things:
1) IIRC, it was "Under my opponent, we would not have invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, and the world would be a _safer_ place today." (Unsure about the Saddam bit, as he said this once before during the debate, so I may be taking that from earlier. My full pardons if that is the case.) Key word difference: "safer", not "better". Which brings me to my next point.

2) It was wholly and completely sarcastic. Evidently you missed that, but, then, you also missed how much Bush CLOBBERED Kerry in this debate. *shrugs* To each their own, ostricization and all that.

From what I saw it was pretty even. Also, I didn't hear any sarcasm in the tone. Maybe it's the accent. (which is meant in a half sarcastic way).

Bush did do way better than the first one, but he also did really bad on average with people in the firsty one, so it adds up to him being even.

[Chaerophon]

I will say that he did much better in this debate than the last one. He was more aggressive and sounded more like he knew what he was talking about. The platform was more suited to his style and he used that to his advantage. That being said, this:

you also missed how much Bush CLOBBERED Kerry in this debate. *shrugs* To each their own, ostricization and all that.

...is beyond a significant overstatement. If his words spoke to you; fair enough. However, the majority of reaction has been far more mixed. From what I can see, it may not have been enough to make up for debate number one.

The fact of the matter is that these things are so short and attuned to the sound byte culture that nothing truly substantive can come from them anyways. One would think that that should act to Bush's advantage, as Senate voting is a difficult thing to defend without reference to the circumstances of such votes. So far, I would say that he has been only marginally successful at attacking Kerry's record; particularly given Kerry's point in re: his voting to balance the budget on consecutive occasions. While Kerry's 'plan' may often sound like empty rhetoric, I'm not sure that Bush has adequately made his own case to defeat Kerry's position as "not George Bush". We'll have to see.

[kandrathe]

I will say that he did much better in this debate than the last one.  He was more aggressive and sounded more like he knew what he was talking about.  The platform was more suited to his style and he used that to his advantage.  That being said, this:
...is beyond a significant overstatement.  If his words spoke to you; fair enough.  However, the majority of reaction has been far more mixed.  From what I can see, it may not have been enough to make up for debate number one. 

The fact of the matter is that these things are so short and attuned to the sound byte culture that nothing truly substantive can come from them anyways.  One would think that that should act to Bush's advantage, as Senate voting is a difficult thing to defend without reference to the circumstances of such votes.  So far, I would say that he has been only marginally successful at attacking Kerry's record; particularly given Kerry's point in re: his voting to balance the budget on consecutive occasions.  While Kerry's 'plan' may often sound like empty rhetoric, I'm not sure that Bush has adequately made his own case to defeat Kerry's position as "not George Bush".  We'll have to see.
[right][snapback]57347[/snapback][/right]

I would rather see them box, and trash talk each other in the ring. "C'mon John, you want a piece of me?" It would be more entertaining and suited to US foreign policy anyway.

[Minionman]

I would rather see them box, and trash talk each other in the ring.  "C'mon John, you want a piece of me?"  It would be more entertaining and suited to US foreign policy anyway.
[right][snapback]57354[/snapback][/right]

That wouldn't be fair. You would have sponsor groups trying to fix the fights mafia style. :)


Actually, on something like stem cell research, I think since people have seen the positions already, they should mostly leave those subjects alone, since all that can happen is the two of them can talk about what morals system they work by, or Bush says his bit and Kerry fools around, like what happened yesterday.

[Urza-DSF]

Hmmm, well personally I'll agree that Bush did much better with this debate, but the cincher was when he completly lost his cool and was almost arguing with the moderator in order to get a response. Overall I thought that Kerry was much more compitent and at ease, and used less (though not much less) mud-slinging than Bush did.

Just my 2 coppers.

[Medicine Man]

For a homicidal megalomaniac like Saddam, logical has nothing to do with his actions.  You might suppose that a secular Iraqi regime would not make alliances with fundamentalist extremists, or even sworn enemies, but you are likely to be wrong.  Even if you review the documents just released by Charles Duelfer, you will find that Iraq went to extreme lengths and made deals with anyone to shed the yoke of sanctions.  One of the most shocking to me was the revelation that Iraq even dealt with Iran to smuggle oil to UAE.

And, there are many, many more "coincidences" and testimonies.  I'm not conviced that there was no link.
[right][snapback]57283[/snapback][/right]

You're not sure that there was a link either. Without Saddam representing a clear and present danger to the US, the full on frontal assault of an Iraq invasion is dangerous overkill. You see, it is not enough to speculate that Saddam *might* be tempted to align himself anti-American terrorists. You have to be able to imagine a scenario where he would realistically give those terrorists WMDs and he has to actually *have* the WMD to give.

I'm not arguing that Saddam didn't need to be dealt with. You are right -- he probably was waiting for the sanctions to end so that he could rebuild his regime *and* his stockpile of banned weaponry.

I'll go one step further: I'm positive that he *would* have collaborated with terrorists, if given enough time. Maybe Al-Qaeda, maybe someone else. He has supported Palestinian terrorists in the past after all. He didn't give the Palestinians WMDs however, even when he did have them to give.

So sooner or later, Saddam was going to have to go. Leaving him in place was going to become a security risk, if it wasn't already.

My main problem with the whole Iraq invasion was how it was executed -- ignoring all of what should be the primary imperitives of the so-called war on terror. Disbanding the Iraqi army and border guards, occupying the country, and eventually turning the population against the west. In a global struggle against non-state actors, we need to prop up the states, even if we eliminate their leadership. We also need to separate the terror groups from their ever widening base of support, which means rebuilding the muslim world's faith in America.

Bush banged his fist on the table, but he didn't bang his fist on the right table.

[nobbie]

Check out his one:

http://www.jibjab.com

:lol:

By the way: Michael Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be aired for *FREE* on November 1, 2004 on German TV, one day before the U.S. elections. So, critics can't say that he is just after the money, because that will certainly cost him quite some DVD sales.

[eppie]

Hmmm, well personally I'll agree that Bush did much better with this debate, but the cincher was when he completly lost his cool and was almost arguing with the moderator in order to get a response.  Overall I thought that Kerry was much more compitent and at ease, and used less (though not much less) mud-slinging than Bush did.

Just my 2 coppers.
[right][snapback]57365[/snapback][/right]

He but that's his style. Also in international realtions and treaties. If mr. Bush does not like how things go he just walks away and calls the other party/country incompetent.

[apandapion]

When you swear to your commission or your enlistment, you swear to go when called.  Many were called.  It comes with the badge. 

Agreed. I think a lot of reservists expected to never be called. I really like the idea of having most of our forces as reservists - the idea of having enough troops to fight a two front war active full time all the time seems like an abberation to me. Sure, some of them are training and the others are off in a "police action" somewhere even in times of peace, but surely some of them are getting make-work.

At the same time, it doesn't suprise me at all that the integration of reserves into the iraq engagement didn't go as smoothly as planned. From those who never expected to be called - "Here's your M16! Here's some NATO rounds! Go check that block for terrorists." "But but but I'm a tax accountant" to the logistical nightmares of getting everyone in the field.

And then there's the whole body armor thing. For those not following the issue closely, most body armor can not stop an AK round, which is by and large what we're getting shot at with. However, there is a modern suit of body armor - called the Interceptor, I believe - that can stop an AK round. Long story short, there wasn't enough interceptor armor around for the reservists.

Sounds really bad ... and yet, I have some sympathy for the logistical difficulties. Say a new suit of body armor comes out every 3 years. Do you always buy enough for all of the reservists? If so, don't you think that the companies will come out with more slightly better armor so you can buy millions of suits of that too? What happens to all the suits that never, ever get used? (Because, after all, the reservists arn't getting shot at most of the time.)

Tricky.

[apandapion]

You are delusional if you think there will be more recruits should Kerry win.

Um... my programming career isn't going all that great, (no jobs out here since the dot com crash) so I'm considering joining the military before I'm too old. You know, new life direction and all that.

I decided, however, to wait for the election before making any immediate decisions. If Bush wins, I'll be less happy about the prospects of signing up. Bush went AWOL from the guard and he gets his advice from neocons who have a vile world agenda. (Instead of his generals, for instance.)

I think Kerry, a former soldier himself (and yet, still capable of thinking for himself. Kerry can think for himself, while Bush's ass must be sore from all the people using him as a hand puppet.) might be a little more responsible about how he uses America's military might.

[apandapion]

The sad thing is, people in good ol' Europe aren't a lot different from the "ignorant masses" in America. Super-arrogant as it may sound, a hefty percentage of any population are just, well, "uneducated" (used to avoid the word dumb). Sounds really arrogant, but take a look around your country. Ignorance reigns supreme, apparantly it really is bliss to some :( . This is not meant as a self-glorifiying "I so smart" comment. I assume that we, who post on an internet forum of considerable standards, more or less were all treated to some kind of higher education and live in circumstances that don't inhibit our ability to "learn". We are lucky.

I've really enjoyed reading this thread, just because there are a bunch of different ideologies present.

Moving on, though, very few people are totally ignorant. You have to be ignorant about something, like I am, say, about automotive repair. There's not enough hours in the year to know everything.

When somone (person A) describes someone else (person B ) as ignorant because they don't know about issue X ... the only real fact we learn from that is that person A considers issue X important. And important is all in the eyes of the beholder. Terrorism is only important now because it got to us (USA) now - despite the fact that other countries have been dealing with it for a long time. It was important long before 9/11 and will be important long after the eye of the hivemind focuses on some other problem. The eye of the hivemind has not made it magically more important, just more well known - and the things that we used to worry about (crime, aids, poverty) before the terrorism meme exploded across our forebrain have not become less important. But my how that wheel does squeak, so to speak.

Not #$%&ting your pants about the new world order's "problem of the week" may not be a sign of ignorance - it might be a sign of maturity.

[NuurAbSaal]

You kind of missed my point, well, the point I tried to make (obscured as it may be by possible bad wording choices). For me, ignorance has more to do with the lack of will to learn (or even try) than with the absence of knowledge. The sad fact about a lot of people today is that they do not even try to educate themselves to 10% of their "highest possible standard of education, given their circumstances", but choose to remain ignorant out of complacency.
Sometimes it is a struggle for me to get off my butt and research this or that or try to explore a new field of interest, instead of, say, play a round of DII, but I refuse to get by on the lowest possible amount of education. Well, most of the time, anyway. ;)

That was kinda, you know, whatever...

:)

Greetings

Nuur

[--Pete]

Not #$%&ting your pants about the new world order's "problem of the week" may not be a sign of ignorance - it might be a sign of maturity.
[right][snapback]57508[/snapback][/right]

Hi,

There are important problems and immediate problems. The two are not necessarily exclusive, but they are not synonymous either. The issues at stake in this election are primarily immediate, but few are truly important.

Your analogy about ignorance fails because you do not plan to do auto repairs. Thus, not knowing how to does not matter. If the people ignorant about the political issues would refrain from voting, then your analogy would apply. However, since many people will exercise their sovereignty without true knowledge or understanding, then the ignorance does indeed become an issue.

"Not #$%&ting your pants" about the song, the actor, the TV series, the sport, the movie, or the fad of the week is indeed a mark of maturity. As is not focusing all of one's energy keeping abreast of the real events in the world. But to totally ignore said events and to use apathy as an excuse for ignorance is more an indication of immaturity than it is of the opposite.

--Pete

[Sir_Die_alot]

Um...  my programming career isn't going all that great, (no jobs out here since the dot com crash) so I'm considering joining the military before I'm too old.  You know, new life direction and all that.

I decided, however, to wait for the election before making any immediate decisions.  If Bush wins, I'll be less happy about the prospects of signing up.  Bush went AWOL from the guard and he gets his advice from neocons who have a vile world agenda.  (Instead of his generals, for instance.)

I think Kerry, a former soldier himself (and yet, still capable of thinking for himself.  Kerry can think for himself, while Bush's ass must be sore from all the people using him as a hand puppet.) might be a little more responsible about how he uses America's military might.
[right][snapback]57507[/snapback][/right]

If you believe the memos from Dan Blather why don’t you believe the hundreds of people at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth? This was started by swift boat veterans (that is what Kerry's Vietnam service consisted of if you are not aware), and most of the veterans who served with Kerry do not want him as president. If you want to eat the mud thrown you should really digest it all, not just that you find politically appetizing.

Personally, I believe both to a degree. So in the end we are stuck between someone who slacked his way through the last years of his service, and a glory hound who exaggerated his 4 months in Vietnam. Neither of those count for much to me, so as far as millitary records go it's a wash for both.

[Zarathustra]

This just in...

I caught a quick ad on Fox for the debates tonight. The last line of the narration was:

"Will the facts get in the way of a good debate?"

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

[Griselda]

If you believe the memos from Dan Blather why don’t you believe the hundreds of people at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth? (snip) If you want to eat the mud thrown you should really digest it all, not just that you find politically appetizing.[right][snapback]57550[/snapback][/right]

There's a problem with that logic, especially since one can believe that the "Dan Rather documents" were fake and still have some serious questions about Bush's time in the military.

But, suggesting that one should put every "outside voice" in this election into the same group- take it all or leave it all- is just ridiculous. The truth is buried, and each source needs to be evaluated on it's own merits (often, each individual argument from each source must be evaluated separately).

That system not immune to individual bias, of course, but the truth isn't going to be found by seeing only black or white.

Sigh.

Guess it's time for another round of "I met with some folks out in Tempe the other day who are struggling because of blah, blah, blah, and why can't opponent X see that he will ruin their lives if he is the next President".

There are important issues involved, but nobody is coming close to scratching the surface. It's all about the horse race. I will be watching the debate though, either live or on rebroadcast.

</rant>