 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dojoboy
I'm more concerned with how Kerry would rally allies. Is he going to risk our competitive economic and military advantage? I don't believe America should worry about this, at least as long as there are people in Europe, and the world, who want to make money. |
Probably by talking to them and letting them know that their thoughts and concerns are important to us.
Also, not stomping away from International Treaties is a good thing too. If there are problems with a large international treaty that everyone has worked for years and years on, you sit down and work out those problems. You do not leave in a huff like Bush did.
quote:
Originally posted by dojoboy
Not an issue. Bush wins, Kerry makes concession speech, and life settles down. Kerry wins, Bush makes concession speech, headlines until Kerry inauguration, and life settles down. |
Bush has almost constantly had a pretty low approval rating for the last year or two. Additionally, the international community has grown to dislike him more, not like him more. None of these things are going to change much, because Bush has said he won't change anything.
quote:
Originally posted by dojoboy
This tract really is ridiculous. No incumbent would ever in his/her right mind admit directly an error in judgement during an election year. There were many criticisms of the US government and allies in post-WWII Germany. There is never a perfect way for such things. As long as the person isn't punching a hole in the wall when criticized, I could care less about how someone takes criticism. |
No, there is a very good point to be made here. Bush is in such a horrible position because he consistently ignores the advice of others that he doesn't like. This means that when you ask him what mistakes he has made he *has* to say he hasn't made any. Why? Because he can't say "Yeah, I made this mistake, and this is what I have done to fix the problem." He doesn't have anything like that to point to.
quote:
Originally posted by dojoboy
No more honest, no less honest. Right now Kerry's campaign is attempting to smear Bush over the missing explosives in Iraq, when they know full well that the explosives were missing before US forces went in. |
Evidence is unclear a the current time, but imho there is good reason to believe the explosives where there when we went in and they have disappeared since then. Read the thread on the front page of this forum. The administration didn't claim they were already gone until almost a day after they were asked, which is 10 days after they said they knew they were gone.
quote:
Originally posted by dojoboy
Re: WMDs in Iraq, if the leader of my country used information that was not accurate (knowingly or unkowingly) I'm okay with that. There are times that the "ends justify the means." I prefer my enemies cautious and nervous, rather than comfortable and plotting. |
Actions like this cause a pattern of behavior, and this is a pattern that freedom can't afford to let happen.
Additionally, the fact is the War in Iraq has distracted us from going after Terrorists and it has in fact caused more hatred and resentment of America in the Arab world. This has increased the number of terrorists, not decreased them.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Drachasor, you're dripping on the carpet... |
Which means you have no retort but the ad hominem attack, I presume.
Thanks for the info.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dojoboy
|
 |
Tansi (USA)
Nov 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Drachasor, I understand the issues & charges on the other side. As I said, if Kerry was in Bush's position, I would have voted for Kerry. But, Kerry was unable to convince me he would do better. I'm a hawk, not a dove; although, I did serve in the US Peace Corps.
My intent in posting this thread was to try and get a perspective on how I feel. There is so much that I do agree with in the Democratic Party platform. But, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I considered Badnarik, because of the "protest" vote, even looked at Cobb (Green Party).
I'm not pretending to be rational & consistent here, but trying to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
Funny that we ignored France (and some others) that doubted we'd find anything. Funny that we ignored our own intelligence that indicated there was nothing. Funny that we absolutely trusted reports that were based on hypothetical projections when there were inspectors on the ground that could have guaranteed a conclusion. Oh, and if Iraq had been moving stuff around, our surviellance was good enough to help the inspectors track such things down. |
Wanna provide some citations for the TS material you've had access to? Reports about TS intel that end up in the news are not worth the electrons they're written with.
Even Hans Blix said he was surprised when no WMD were found. The only credible witness I've seen with intel/Iraq/WMD experience who testified that he believed they would find nothing (only after the re-admittance of the inspectors) was Duelfer.
quote:
Instead of having patience and investigating the matter, we went to war. There was no rush. Under such scrutiny Iraq was contained and couldn't do anything. Additionally the sanctions were going to remain (all countries on the Security Council wanted them to remain). any holes in the Oil for Food program could have been fixed.
There was no rush, no rush at all. |
Whether it would have been better to have dealt with Iraq after Afghanistan was over is a new question. For 11 years Hussein defied the UN resolutions. The Duelfer report made it quite clear that Iraq wasnt contained and that the oil for food program was a disaster (how high that corruption goes within the UN, French, and Russian governments has yet to be determined). What reason was there to believe that the Iraqi's would allow the inspections to finish? Their track record on the issue over 11 years was hardly 'stellar'. Saddam Hussein admitted to Duelfer that he wanted to keep the possibility of Iraqi WMD 'on the table' in order to negate Iranian aggression.
BTW. That was a possibility even discussed here at poly when faced with the lack of evidence of WMD.
quote:
If you ignore their report that there is no evidence of any collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then sure, I guess there is "virtually nothing." |
I didnt ignore it. All that report mentions is one comment on a memo by a Rice staffer
"The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks."
Given the wealth of reports from the intel agencies I call one short blurb from a staffer 'virtually nothing'.
quote:
Is this because Bush has no plans to balance the budget and Kerry does? Is this because Bush wants to increase our debt by more than 3 trillion dollars and Kerry wants to minimize the increase and reduce the debt as much as possible? Bush has said he wants to reduce the deficit, but he has offered no plan as to how that is to happen; Kerry has. |
I'd rather have my hard earned cash in my hand rather than in the governments coffers. As a general rule, republicans agree with that viewpoint and democrats dont. I call that fiscally responsible. Candidate promises about taxes are fluff or perhaps you're too young to remember Bush I's promises.
quote:
And when has this occurred with Bush? When haven't we had time for more talk than what has happened? |
So you're saying Bush didnt act? Interesting.
quote:
Afghanistan is just about the only answer, and Kerry would have done the same thing, though with better execution and more troops staying in Afghanistan near the end. |
No, all we have is what pundits say Kerry would have done or not. It's hardly the same thing as actually doing something. Clinton had lots of chances to act against Al Queda in Afghanistan and didnt. What suggests to you that would Kerry have done anything different from Clinton? His war record, his actions before congress after Vietnam, his support for the military and inelligence while in the senate .............
quote:
And who got us here? Who made the nation and the world so divided over how the U.S. was handling things? Who took one of the most unifying moments in U.S. history (9/11) and turned the next three years into the most divisive? |
The 2000 election demonstrates that the country was split along the same lines prior to 9/11. Perhaps you think that if Kerry wins that the people who hate him now will change their minds.
quote:
The fact that the Bush administration continually silences and marginalizes desenters, to the point of not even allowing scientists a part of any executive sanction comittee if they disagree with the President on any issues (no President in anything close to recent history has done this), might be a clue that one group is worse than another. They marginalize generals, civil workers, and anyone else that disagrees with the administrative line. |
Wanna provide some refs so we're talking about the same thing? In any case, guess what, people have differences of opinion. At some point, someone has to make a choice.
quote:
They refuse to listen to such viewpoints, which is one major reason why we don't have enough troops in Iraq. They also refuse to listen to the countries involved in the 6-way 'talks' with North Korea when they want 2-way talks to start. |
You dont suppose they might have completely valid reasons for why they did those things or have those opinions?
You're using your own interpretations as references. Perhaps you'd like to use the bible to prove the existence of god.
quote:
Bush, on the other hand not only does the above, but has Karl Rove in the employ, a man known for his win-at-all costs attitude. He spread lies in the South saying that McCain was homosexual in the 2000 primaries. He spread pictures of McCain's adopted Nigerian daughter (who is black) in the South, only stating that she was McCain's daughter. He deliberately stirs up the worst aspects of the human psyche in order to win campaigns. This is Bush's campaign manager, a man that Bush trusts. It speaks of a lack of ethics and lack of a moral judgement.
-Drachasor
Edit: Links fixed |
As for Karl Rove, he's no friend of mine. Shall we mention the names of the democrats doing the same job for their 'man'.
In any case, I didnt say that Bush was squeaky-clean. In fact, he's not the man I would choose to have as president. That doesnt change that Kerry has shown himself to be dishonest about issues that matter to me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
well some of my friends have basically cracked and said they are voting for Bush. what do i mean by cracked? I mean the anti-Bush rhetoric forced unto them everyday finally reached the critical point when they realized it was all complete bullshit... yall liberals in Philly just pushed too hard...
it was a couple of things... the blaming Bush for the flu... blaming Bush for soldiers dying (like one of my friends said, every soldier enlisted knowing the risks)... and dozens of other things...
it got to the point where one guy (who is pro-life, pro-death penalty, and opposed to welfare) who was always quoting Michael Moore as gospel (once again, conservatives who swear they are liberals) suddenly just did a 180 when he heard some woman just lamentating every problem and blaming Bush for things completely irrelevant... he did a 180 on the spot and realized how stupid the liberals are.
see what yall don't realize is that yall liberals are overdoing it. you blame Bush and the GOP for every little thing (come on now... the flu?) because you're trying to get more and more poeple to hate Bush and ultimately the only thing you are doing is showing your own stupidity and ignorance.
thank you liberals for adding three new Bush votes from Philly...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Funny that we ignored France (and some others) that doubted we'd find anything. Funny that we ignored our own intelligence that indicated there was nothing. Funny that we absolutely trusted reports that were based on hypothetical projections when there were inspectors on the ground that could have guaranteed a conclusion. Oh, and if Iraq had been moving stuff around, our surviellance was good enough to help the inspectors track such things down. |
Wanna provide some citations for the TS material you've had access to? Reports about TS intel that end up in the news are not worth the electrons they're written with.
Even Hans Blix said he was surprised when no WMD were found. The only credible witness I've seen with intel/Iraq/WMD experience who testified that he believed they would find nothing (only after the re-admittance of the inspectors) was Duelfer. |
Hans Blix wanted to go back in, but he wasn't too surprised nothing was found.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3160602.stm
And if you somehow missed that almost the entire world was skeptical of what Britain and the US were saying, then you are grossly out of touch with the international community.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Instead of having patience and investigating the matter, we went to war. There was no rush. Under such scrutiny Iraq was contained and couldn't do anything. Additionally the sanctions were going to remain (all countries on the Security Council wanted them to remain). any holes in the Oil for Food program could have been fixed.
There was no rush, no rush at all. |
Whether it would have been better to have dealt with Iraq after Afghanistan was over is a new question. For 11 years Hussein defied the UN resolutions. The Duelfer report made it quite clear that Iraq wasnt contained and that the oil for food program was a disaster (how high that corruption goes within the UN, French, and Russian governments has yet to be determined). What reason was there to believe that the Iraqi's would allow the inspections to finish? Their track record on the issue over 11 years was hardly 'stellar'. Saddam Hussein admitted to Duelfer that he wanted to keep the possibility of Iraqi WMD 'on the table' in order to negate Iranian aggression.
BTW. That was a possibility even discussed here at poly when faced with the lack of evidence of WMD. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3718150.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3722144.stm
THe Deufler report comments on the Oil for Food program, but in no way indicates it was causing anything close to an immediate threat. There was plenty of time to patch up the loopholes that existed and make sure that Saddam couldn't take advantage of the program. Sanctions were not going away, and Saddam was not a threat for the near future, especially with inspections going on. We called off the inspections by deciding to go to war, Saddam didn't.
There is also no indication of any widespread corruption regarding the oil for food program in the U.N., Germany, or France. Nor the U.S. I'd add, which also had companies involved in the corruption (though their names haven't been released).
As for Afghanistan, dealing with it before any serious considering of invading Iraq was question they should have been asking themselves then. It should not be a "new" question.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
If you ignore their report that there is no evidence of any collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then sure, I guess there is "virtually nothing." |
I didnt ignore it. All that report mentions is one comment on a memo by a Rice staffer
"The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks."
Given the wealth of reports from the intel agencies I call one short blurb from a staffer 'virtually nothing'. |
I guess you ignore what the Commission itself said, as well as Rumsfeld:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3718956.stm
http://cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/report.release/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3916175.stm
There was no evidence of any collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there were only the rare interaction between the two parties. No collaboration.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Is this because Bush has no plans to balance the budget and Kerry does? Is this because Bush wants to increase our debt by more than 3 trillion dollars and Kerry wants to minimize the increase and reduce the debt as much as possible? Bush has said he wants to reduce the deficit, but he has offered no plan as to how that is to happen; Kerry has. |
I'd rather have my hard earned cash in my hand rather than in the governments coffers. As a general rule, republicans agree with that viewpoint and democrats dont. I call that fiscally responsible. Candidate promises about taxes are fluff or perhaps you're too young to remember Bush I's promises. |
I see, so Bush increasing spending and decreasing taxes so that your children will have to have massive taxes to get us out of the hole we are in is no problem to you? I am talking about our huge deficit and debt, something you seem to have forgotten. Bush has no plans on how to take care of it, and you seem to just ignore that it exists (pretty much like Bush). Conservatives have traditionally never found ignoring a deficit or debt fiscally responsible.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
And when has this occurred with Bush? When haven't we had time for more talk than what has happened? |
So you're saying Bush didnt act? Interesting. |
I thought I stated it pretty clearly. We've always have had plenty of more time to talk THAT WE DIDN'T USE, because Bush has acted rashly.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Afghanistan is just about the only answer, and Kerry would have done the same thing, though with better execution and more troops staying in Afghanistan near the end. |
No, all we have is what pundits say Kerry would have done or not. It's hardly the same thing as actually doing something. Clinton had lots of chances to act against Al Queda in Afghanistan and didnt. What suggests to you that would Kerry have done anything different from Clinton? His war record, his actions before congress after Vietnam, his support for the military and inelligence while in the senate ............. |
Clinton's Administration tried to warn Bush that something big was on the horizen, but they were ignored. Clinton kept terrorism under control and he kept it as a nuisance. He did this by meeting every day with advisors on terrorism. Bush wasn't half as vigilant before 9/11.
If 9/11 had happened, then any president would have taken swift, decisive action against those responsible. Of course, it might have been the case that we wouldn't of had 9/11 if a more reasonable administration that listened to others had been in charge.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
And who got us here? Who made the nation and the world so divided over how the U.S. was handling things? Who took one of the most unifying moments in U.S. history (9/11) and turned the next three years into the most divisive? |
The 2000 election demonstrates that the country was split along the same lines prior to 9/11. Perhaps you think that if Kerry wins that the people who hate him now will change their minds. |
If you somehow think we are just as divided as we were in 2000, you are quite, quite wrong. There was a lot more apathy and a lot more people that didn't really care, even after the SCOTUS mess. 9/11 brought everyone together, both in the US and in the World, but Bush took that golden opportunity of unity and squashed it by his inability to handle diplomacy.
I know I certainly had a much more positive view of Bush 4 years ago than I do now, and I am willing to wager that is true of nearly everyone that is voting against Bush this election. Just go to the gallup poll's website and you can easily see he has increased the polarization, not decreased it or maintained status quo.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
The fact that the Bush administration continually silences and marginalizes desenters, to the point of not even allowing scientists a part of any executive sanction comittee if they disagree with the President on any issues (no President in anything close to recent history has done this), might be a clue that one group is worse than another. They marginalize generals, civil workers, and anyone else that disagrees with the administrative line. |
Wanna provide some refs so we're talking about the same thing? In any case, guess what, people have differences of opinion. At some point, someone has to make a choice. |
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...=archive:search
(hmm, they seem to have made this pay-only in the last week).
There is of course Sineski and others in the military that said there weren't enough troops.
The fact that Bush and Cheney have said they would do everything the same way in Iraq if they had it to do over. (explicitely they have said this. Cheney in the debate, and Bush in the last two weeks). All this is testement to how they simply don't listen and pay attention or acknowledge how they might be wrong. They claim everyting is going well in Iraq, when it clearly is not. If they cannot see problems, then they cannot fix problems.
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
They refuse to listen to such viewpoints, which is one major reason why we don't have enough troops in Iraq. They also refuse to listen to the countries involved in the 6-way 'talks' with North Korea when they want 2-way talks to start. |
You dont suppose they might have completely valid reasons for why they did those things or have those opinions? |
Which I suppose neither of us can fathom nor can the American people which is why they never say them?
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
You're using your own interpretations as references. Perhaps you'd like to use the bible to prove the existence of god. |
I am sorry. I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of COUNTING. Because that's all I did. I went into each article, counted the lies, and then I added them all up. You can go look and check. It is pretty simple. Oerdin's (sp?) position is a bit more subjective, but not too much.
If you disagree you can post where you think he erred or give your own assessment. Since I listed each article it is pretty easy to do so for me. You aren't too busy saying Kerry lies more to go check to see if that is actually the case, are you?
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
quote:
Originally posted byOriginally posted by Drachasor
Bush, on the other hand not only does the above, but has Karl Rove in the employ, a man known for his win-at-all costs attitude. He spread lies in the South saying that McCain was homosexual in the 2000 primaries. He spread pictures of McCain's adopted Nigerian daughter (who is black) in the South, only stating that she was McCain's daughter. He deliberately stirs up the worst aspects of the human psyche in order to win campaigns. This is Bush's campaign manager, a man that Bush trusts. It speaks of a lack of ethics and lack of a moral judgement. |
As for Karl Rove, he's no friend of mine. Shall we mention the names of the democrats doing the same job for their 'man'. |
Is the guy Kerry is using even HALF as bad as Karl Rove? Is the man Kerry trusts even HALF as bad as the man Bush trusts?
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
well some of my friends have basically cracked and said they are voting for Bush. what do i mean by cracked? I mean the anti-Bush rhetoric forced unto them everyday finally reached the critical point when they realized it was all complete bullshit... yall liberals in Philly just pushed too hard...
it was a couple of things... the blaming Bush for the flu... blaming Bush for soldiers dying (like one of my friends said, every soldier enlisted knowing the risks)... and dozens of other things... |
I don't agree with the flu-thing at all, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush lies a lot more and in worse ways than Kerry does.
I guess your friends don't pay attention to Bush's lies. Maybe they should visit factcheck.org, and read about current events more.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
It's because certain religious people want to force their religion down the throats of others by persecuting homosexuals and other "deviants".
|
You are the one bringing up the term deviant, not I. Even the Catholic catechism merely says disordered.
quote:
You either take liberal democracy as primary or religion. There is no real compromise (although some people like to believe that there is). I agree with you when you say that liberal democracy is anti-religious. It is. It is anti-anything which would seek to supplant it.
|
No, I'm not talking about liberal democracy. I'm talking about the self-professed liberals in particular, the ones who cleanse themselves by attacking the church, be it with spraypaint, or through words that make them feel better.
quote:
It so happens that I support liberal democracy, because keeping peoples' noses out of others' private, personal choices causes less damage than allowing half a country to act as the morality police.
|
I agree with you here. That's why I think those who prefer the church, ought to have their choice respected by those who disagree with them.
Just because one disagrees with someone, does not mean that you reject them altogether. Funny, how everyone gets down on the church for judging people, when those same people are so quick to judge Christians.
quote:
In a modern pluralist society, there is simply no reasonable option but to keep religion out of the law.
|
Yet that is a futile quest, Agathon. You study virtues. Do they not come from the same source?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-10-2004 00:50
. 
/
/
/
/
|