US political debate

[Zmid]

Although this doesn't directly affect me, I did actually see the debate, so I'll give my view as somebody from across the pond:

 

You all know this but agian, he himself voted in congress to war. Then he said war is bad. Then he said its horrible. Then he said it's bad but its good to do it. Then he said its good then its bad then both at this debate................

 

I just wonder how far his party's trend continues. Anyone bet that he will say war is good then bad then good then bad agian in some speech.

 

To me, what Kerry was saying was perfectly clear - war is bad, evil, in an ideal world something that should not happen. However, this is not an ideal world, so sometimes war is the best thing to do, but only as a last resort, unlike the Iraq War.

 

Even worse, Kerry seemed to be trying to maintain his reputation for indecisiveness. When asked about Iraq, he insisted on international support. But when North Korea was mentioned, suddenly his position became that we should do it regardless of international support. That's about the worst thing he could have done!

 

No, what he was saying was that Bush's assertation that if you have bilateral talks, you will lose international support was wrong. He was saying it was difficult, but not impossible to have bilateral talks and retain international support. To be honest, I don't know enough about the North Korean situation to know who's right.

 

 

 

Overall, my impression was that Kerry came off far better than Bush in this debate. He seemed far better armed with facts, whereas Bush seemed to almost copy Blair's line of 'only knowing what he believes', to which I say that you can believe something that's totally wrong.

 

One thing that really stuck out was, at one point, Kerry suggested a situation where you genuinely believed something, acted on that belief, then received new information that totally changed what you believed (ie what you originally believed was wrong). Bush only responded with a rather weak response of being perfectly prepared to 'change tactics', but mentioned nothing about actually being prepared to admit he was wrong, or change his whole direction, not just his tactics.

 

Another thing that Kerry said was rather interesting - he pointed out that the US was saying to the world that having nuclear weapons was wrong, but at the self-same time, it is developing a new type of nuke designed as a 'bunker buster'. This was totally unrefuted by Bush.

[postaldudeleo]

I remember the bunker buster isn't supposed to be a nuke and if its a nuke then it is probably a very small warhead to be allowed to be used in urban areas.............

 

But I agree with one thing, why the hell would you want more nukes when Britian, russia, and usa have already made a 92 megaton hydrogen bomb. That bomb has never and will never be used because it's radiation circles the entier world no less then 7 times .

 

So in short we can bomb china and everybody ends up like chernobly all around the fricking world. This is not to mention that this bomb weigs as much as a house and can make a hole in the ground the size of ohio when detonated.

 

How more explosive can you get? Oh yeah technically you cqan make a bomb the size of the statue of liberty and that can blow up the planet to little chunks like in the awsome game "dark reign" but why the hell for? Its not liek we are ever gonna need to nuke earth? Or are we?

[Roecc]

I pretty much agree with Peregrine. I think Bush showed far more humanity than Kerry did, as Kerry's only concern was to make Bush look bad, despite agreeing with him on most points.

I don't mean tot be rude, but did you watch Bush during the debates? Half the time he was scowling at the comments Kerry made. I'm not sure how much of a humanitarian showed through that..

[surian]

Kerry has been attacked again and again for being a "Flip-flopper" but in reality he isn't. The problem is that Bush can drag up his senatorial voting records and pick and choose what he will and won't critisize. Kerry voted FOR the war in Iraq based on the same information that the president had, this is true, but the bill he voted on actually said that war would be a LAST resort and that all efforts would be made to gain international support from the UN if and when weapon inspectors had done their job. This never happened. Bush called back the weapon inspectors and then cut off all talks with the UN and went to war relatively quickly. Kerry NEVER supported that and he has been very vocal about it. The problem is that Bush, as I said, can pick and choose what he wants to reveal about Kerry's senate votes. Kerry can't afford to go on the defensive and so he can't always be trying to defend himself from these attacks. He also voted against a bill that would have increased the amount of gear and equipment sent to troops in Iraq, not because of the bill itself but because of HOW the bill would have been payed for. This is common for a senator to do, the bill may *look* good on the surface but there are some ugly little tags that go along with it. For example: if you saw a bill that said it would give families of victims of 9-11 psycological couseling for free you might think that's a great bill and worth voting through, however there could be a little note at the bottom that says "By the way, Marajuana is legal". In our current legislative system that kind of thing actually DOES happen and if you vote the bill down becasue of it you may look like you have contempt for the 9-11 families when in reality you just don't want to legalize pot.

 

I have some hope for Kerry's campaign but not much, and the reason isn't because Kerry is indecisive or that he's a bad leader. The reason is that Bush appeals to the lowest common denomitator in our country much better than Kerry. What's easier to understand between these two ideas: Sadam was dangerous so we took him out, or The situation in Iraq is a very complicated one that must be handeld with great care and all variables taken into account before we make any rash decisions that may kill Ameriacan troops and Iraqi civilians. I think it's fairly obvious that the first one is much easier for "Joe Shmoe" to understand than the later. This is the only reason I can see that Bush is so popular; he makes his actions seem so reasonable and simple when in reality they are nothing of the sort and he is making huge errors in judgement all the time. His sole strength comes from the ability to make his mistakes seem like they are the only possible courses of action. However, I will say that Bush has shown good leadership in speaking up and saying what he believes is true and sticking to it. The only problem is that Kerry has done the same exact thing from a different point of view but as a senator his records are open to examination and critisizm while Bush's voting records as Governor and President are under lock and seal. Kerry is just as much of a leader as Bush is, Bush's views are just easier to swallow than Kerry's (which doesn't make them right).

[DreamOfTheRood]

The reason is that Bush appeals to the lowest common denomitator in our country much better than Kerry.

 

 

 

 

What's easier to understand between these two ideas: Sadam was dangerous so we took him out, or The situation in Iraq is a very complicated one that must be handeld with great care and all variables taken into account before we make any rash decisions that may kill Ameriacan troops and Iraqi civilians.

Right. That explains why P. Diddy has all of his 'Vote for Bush' shirts. I don't buy your argument, and I think your position is quickly becoming intolerable, due to statements like this:

 

What's easier to understand between these two ideas:  Sadam was dangerous so we took him out, or The situation in Iraq is a very complicated one that must be handeld with great care and all variables taken into account before we make any rash decisions that may kill Ameriacan troops and Iraqi civilians.

 

Two years of work went into planning this war, and you're making it sound like it was an overnight decision. Secondly, Kerry has never said what you attribute to him. He himself is a very rash individual when speaking in public, saying whatever comes to his mind in regards to political issues. He'll say that we need unilateral efforts in Iraq, and then he'll call the French and Russians a bunch of "spineless cowards." That's NOT a good way to get foreign forces on our good side.

 

I'll be the first one to say that Bush has made some major mistakes, but he's also made some good decisions. I think taking out Saddam was something we should have done in 1991; the Iraqis would be in a better position today if we had done it back then. Now that he and his regime are gone, the Iraqis have an opportunity to get back on their feet, and we're going to help them do that. We're going to help them become the second country to have a major industry that is not terrorism.

[surian]

Right. That explains why P. Diddy has all of his 'Vote for Bush' shirts. I don't buy your argument, and I think your position is quickly becoming intolerable, due to statements like this:

 

You are misunderstanding my point. I also think you mean "untenable" (incapable of being defended or justified) rather than "intolerable", if you do mean "intolerable" then I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but that's beside the point. My point is that Bush makes very complicated things seem like they are as simple as black and white when in reality they just aren't. However, most people don't want to think things through enough to see that what Bush has done is made a bad situation worse through his poor logic. It seems fairly obvious to me that Bush truely does believe what he is doing is right. Kerry actually agrees with him that Sadam's removal from Iraq is a good thing. The problem arises when you look at how it was done. Bush first told people that there was an iminant danger, then it was that they had weapons of mass destruction, then it was maybe they don't have them but they were making them, then it was maybe they weren't making them but the world is better without Sadam (flip flop anyone?). I'll agree with that, it is. But there are is more than one way to skin a cat on this issue.

 

There was no reason for us to rush into war with Iraq without getting any real backings. Britain is a good ally but that is really the only sizable ally that we have in this war and it's becasue (to be honest) they are our lap-dogs on just about every issue that comes across our doorsteps. Bush critisized Kerry for saying that our "coalition" was a sham (those are my words not his -- paraphrazed). But in reality, it really IS a sham. 30 nations in which our troops comprise over 90% of the troops deployed and a huge majority of the casualties does not an alliance make. Yet Kerry gets blasted for telling the truth. I personally admire his ability to actually call a spade a spade on that issue.

 

Oh and talk about flip-flopping on an issue... Bush says that Kerry was disrespectful of the "coalition of the willing" by calling it as it is. Bush said that as a Nation we cannot afford to treat our allies in such a way, no leader would be taken seriously if they did that. However, Bush did exactly that when he went over the heads of the entire UN and declared war on Iraq without any consent from them. That was extremely disrespectful and could be interpreted as illegal in the world court. His justification is that the US is not accountable to anyone else when it comes to protecting itself, which by the way makes us a "Rouge State". Ok, fine. I'll agree with that. However, by his own logic his actions that day alienated this country from some of its largest and most powerful allies (Germany, France, and most of the rest of Europe). How is that supposed to look? Also, if it's ok for us to defend ourselves agianst an immenant attack what is stopping Indea from nuking the hell out of Pakestan? There is definately more of an imminant threat there than there was to the US from Iraq, but no one in their right minds would allow India to do such a thing without getting UN support (Read: US Support).

 

Two years of work went into planning this war, and you're making it sound like it was an overnight decision. Secondly, Kerry has never said what you attribute to him.

 

It was not my intention to make it sound like this was a decision taken lightly or that it happened over night. However, it was the wrong decision. Given the eveidence that was there we had no reason to go into Iraq as quickly as we did. What was called for was giving the UN inspectors enough time to do their job. Bush claims that the inspectors were not being allowed to do their jobs by Sadam (i.e. Sadam wasn't cooperating) However, Hanz Blix who was the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq completely disagreed with this and actually said that if Bush was to give him more time he could get the job done, which by the way resulted in a smear campaign against Blix by Karl Rove. Bush ignored this and pulled them out anyway while sticking to his story that the inspections were not working.

 

I'm not saying it was done quickly, just that the decision was wrong. There were other ways to handle this. By Bush's own admission the planning of the attack did not go the way they wanted it to. They went in too fast, got to bagdad too quickly and therefor the insurgents were able to regroup and attack them from the outside in. Bush claims that this just proves that this fight is not going to be won quickly and that we need to be vigilant. Unfortunately, this kind of scenario was very well known and it was very much a concern even before this war. Bush's own father said that he wouldn't go into Bagdad because we would have been faced with an untenable position with no exit plan. Bush Jr. did it anyway and what happened? Exactly what we knew would happen.

 

Also, I'm not sure if you were listening to the debate or not but Kerry did in fact say exactly what I attributed to him. He claimed that he has always had ONE opinion on the war and that is: Getting Sadam out was good, freedom of the iraqis was good, but we did it in the wrong way and that war should have been a last resort.

 

Now that he and his regime are gone, the Iraqis have an opportunity to get back on their feet, and we're going to help them do that. We're going to help them become the second country to have a major industry that is not terrorism.

 

This proves one of my points. Rather than actually thinking about this situation you have imidiately jumped to the simplest conclusion: The Iraqis are free and that because they are free the US is now safer. This isn't true. The Iraqis are not free. They are being occupied by the US forces right now. Their leader is a puppet of the US government, selected by the government and kept in power by our troops. Can such a man truely be free to make his own choices? What if he decided to tell the US troops to leave tomorrow and never return. He is the leader of the people right now isn't he? You would think he would have that power but he doesn't. That makes him a puppet. The Iraqi people are not free because they havn't ever been given the chance to be free, and in my opinion we have no right to force democracy (which is not synonymous with freedom) on them.

 

It's exactly what I mean when I say that Bush views this as black and white. He thinks that we are good, and the terrorists are evil and that's that. In fact if you listened to him in the debate (and any time before or sinse) when he talks about the terrorists or Sadam he claims that they were "against freedom". That would make them our polar oposites and a black and white decision could be made to take them out based on that. However they are NOT "against freedom" they are against the injustices that have been forced upon them through military and economic sactions, through the occupation of palestine, through the US's support both militarily and economically of Israel and through our occupation of several countries (Iraq and Afgahnistan) in which untold thousands of muslim people were killed. If that's not enough to make someone pissed off I don't know what is. To say that they are simpley "against freedom" is not only irresponsible, it's downright dangerous. And it's even more dangerous that people believe him when he says it.

 

Now, had you thought about the issue a little bit you might have seen that, but many people don't think about it because thinking takes time and effort and they trust our president (also dangerous as our democracy is founded on the necessity of distrust in the government to keep it honest).

 

Oh and one more thing which supports my "lowet common denomitator" theory. You implied that Iraq was a large terrorism source in the above quote. Unless I drastically misunderstood what appears to be a very clear suggestion on your part then you are gravely mistaken. Iraq has not been linked to ANY terroist organization for quite some time and there is NO link to Al Queda at all (in fact Sadam was at odds with that particular group). It's another example of the black and white view of the world on Bush's part that appeals to so many in this country. There is no in between on the issue, you are either good or bad, terroist or not terrorist. If you are against us you are a terrorist or you support them. If you are for us then you are good. When France and Germany decided to speak out against our war in Iraq we vilified them almost to the point of calling them terrorist nations.

 

Can you see my point a little clearer now and why it's so dangerous to view the world like that?

[postaldudeleo]

Ill sum all this up guys. Politics seem like thier black and white when thier actually more gray.

 

I understand that the fact that you say that kerry is not indecisive and that common people will generally vote for bush because of his campaigning.

 

The fact is that the war in iraq is indeed a complex thing but saddam was a fricken male without a father who did deserve to get his regime smacked to hell. USA needed a strong point in the middle east. And stratigically and militarilly FOR THE 2000+ DEATHS OF USA TROOPS, THE ENEMY HAVE LOST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND FOR EVERY USA SOLDIER DEAD, HUNDREDS OR EVEN THOUSANDS OF THE ENEMY DIE OR ARE CAPTURED.

 

THIS IS A VICTORY NO MATTER WHAT PRICE AND AS i SEE THINGS, I VOTE TAKE THAT ENTIRE AREA. iT DEFINITALLY WILL BRING MORE PEACE IN THE LONG RUN AND IN THE LONG RUN WILL ESTABLISH BETTER ECONOMIES FOR ALL THOSE COUNTRIES EXCEPT IRAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA WHICH ARE OK FOR NOW.

 

Plus whats wrong with pot?

[Peregrine]

Remember that thing called a "debate"? Discuss it. If you want to talk about politics in general, start a new thread.

[tyjet3]

There is one good thing I will say about Bush... the general public like him better. In case you guys didn't notice, Kerry NEVER in the whole debate talked to the cameras... Bush did that A LOT... that was one of Kerry's biggest mistakes.

 

I would still say Kerry did pretty well, but Bush put up a good fight and his stance on pre-emptive attack made him sound stronger... the American people are more worried about the American people, not what some "global test" says...

 

I don't know much about the North Korea thing either, but from not knowing much, it sounded like Bush had a stronger response.

 

Kerry didn't do bad at all... but both of them could have done better....

[surian]

Sorry Peregrine, just got on a roll.

 

Yes, as for the debate. I think it's really not fair to call Kerry the "winner" of the debate. I feel I have a fairly unique outlook on this as I have practically secluded myself from all media outlets except NPR (for news) and what I download off the internet (mostly simpsons episodes). So this was actually the first time I had turned my TV on in over 6 months other than to watch said simpsons episodes. Therfor I had seen no political ads, I had listened to nothing from any television news group and I really didn't even know about the debate until the day before. I also didn't *watch* the debate, I listened to it on NPR for the first 1/2 or it and then dusted off my rabbit ears to watch the debate out of curiousity.

 

As I was watching it I thought that Bush had won the debate. It wasnt' until the next day that I heard Kerry was proclaimed the winner. I thought Keryr wasn't able to articulate his points as well as Bush was and I thought that he was on the defensive much more than Bush was in the beginning of the debate. He did however pull himself together at the end but it didn't seem like Bush was really on the defensive, just that he wasn't on the offensive as much in the later half of the debate. There were times when Bush was talking that I actually thought he might not be as terrible as I thought he was, then he would slip up and say something that made my skin crawl and I remembered how much I want him out of the White house. But for someone with such steadfast opinions as I have, for Bush to even shake my preconcieved notions a tiny bit is enough to make me think he did a good job in the debate.

 

I'm curious to see why people thought Kerry was the winner of the debate though. Everyone I've talked to said that they thought he won hands down and I just didn't see it that way (although I'm glad that most people did).