main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

The 1st Bush\Kerry Debate: Who Won? Please Eplain Why.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by LordJoda-181, Sep 30, 2004.

?

The 1st Bush\Kerry Debate: Who Won? Please Eplain Why.

Poll closed Oct 5, 2004.
  1. George W. Bush

    20 vote(s)
    18.7%
  2. John F. Kerry

    76 vote(s)
    71.0%
  3. The Debate was a Tie

    11 vote(s)
    10.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    When you invade a country based on false intelligence and kill 10,000 or more civilians there, LETS FACE IT: The only right thing to do is to admit it, apologize and pay out the ass with reparations. Keeping that nation's best interests in mind, we should also try to set up a government that the people there agree with. Resignation, impeachment, and international war crimes court are also possibilities...that is if we're talking what's morally responsible.

    The reason we are all as Americans solidified in our resolve to complete the mission, is because either:
    A) you're right wing and you think its a just war
    B) you're left and you think we owe it to Iraq to rebuild after our folly
    C) You are middle and you think both
    D) We can't face the humiliation and loss of face we'd suffer in the international community if we didn't bring democracy to Iraq.
     
  2. cal_silverstar

    cal_silverstar Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 15, 2002
    I support Bush, but I think Kerry's going to cream him in the town hall debate and Kerry's home turf of domestic policy. If Bush continues w/ the mush mouth and the irritation in his facial expressions, he's finished. In the first debate, Kerry looked like Kennedy and Bush looked like Nixon.
     
  3. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    I for one am very glad we did not succumb to that thinking in WWII. No war goes "well." War by its very nature must be bloody, depressing work. But that is the price of freedom. If I were a troop, I would rather hear a message of hope than one of flip-floppy despair. This war is winnable. "The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it." Now where did we hear that......

    And this war has what to do with WWII? Does the false assumption that this war is somehow on the same level of WWII make you feel better?

    [image=http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Bush-Mission-Accomplished.jpg]

    I thought we won this war anyway? :confused:

    [image=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/marines/images/030417trauma.jpg]

    Apparently not.

    This war is not winnable under the current circumstances and conditions. We are an occupying force on foreign soil and as long as we are that, the U.S. troops will be subject to attacks from insurgents.
     
  4. Qui-Rune

    Qui-Rune Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    I thought we won this war anyway?

    That banner that says "Mission Accomplished" was NOT Bush's idea...rather General Tommy Franks. Franks admitted that he came up with that as a moral boost for the troops. The truth is...that day on that carrier Bush thanked the troops for their service but reminded them of the long road ahead and the work that was left to be done in Iraq.
     
  5. Qui-Rune

    Qui-Rune Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    Another Thing...

    Anyone else hear what the Prime Minister of Poland had to say about Kerry after the debate? He called Kerry "immoral" and was appalled at Kerry's disregard for his and other countrys' sacrifices and participation in the War on Terror. He also commended Bush for taking the time to acknowledge Poland and the other members of the coalition during the debate. In addition he complimented Pres. Bush by stating that Bush has always treated him as the True Texas Gentleman that he is.

    So much for Kerry's "foreign policy".
     
  6. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    So much for Kerry's "foreign policy".

    Kerry ticks off the PM but not the population of Poland, Bush ticks off the governments of France, Germany, India, Mexico, Brazil, just about every muslim nation, and the majority populations of Japan, Spain, Britain, Italy and Australia.

    Advantage: Kerry.
     
  7. darthtuttle

    darthtuttle Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Kerry was inconsistant. "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." I loved Bush's comments on that.
     
  8. YPL

    YPL Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2004
    A frind of mine brought this to my attention, and how it is slightly about the debate and I would like the opinion of it from people here:

    (All in a bit of humour)
     
  9. BenduHopkins

    BenduHopkins Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 7, 2004
    it's somehow appropriate that this President is driving us into bankruptcy with an orgy of deficit spending in some Quixotic quest to try to seize the last of the oil as it starts to run out. it's almost operatic or something.

    point, dizfactor.

    LOL
     
  10. Nightowl

    Nightowl TFN Timetales Writer star 4 VIP

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Here's some more humor:

    I couldn?t believe I was down. I couldn?t believe I had been knocked down twice in the first debate. And I had seen every punch coming.
    This was getting embarrassing! I could hear Karl screaming something. I could hear thousands of conservatives screaming my name. But none of them knew what was going on inside my head.
    Kerry was trying to kill me, no doubt about it. Every line, every verbal jab had dynamite on it. I saw him go back to the neutral corner, and he was smilin? and wavin? at the crowd, and that kinda made me mad. I got up, took a deep breath, and waited for Kerry to come on. If he was gonna take me out, let him do it toe-to-toe, an? not stand back there waving and wasting his time trying to embarrass me.
    I knew he was setting me up and I should have covered up, but I didn?t care. If he was gonna take me out, let him take me out clean, but I wasn?t running. I was gonna take his best ? that?s all there was to it.

    John Kerry stood in his corner, not even bothering to take his seat. He had all the earmarks of a man who realized he controlled the fight and could take out his opponent at a moment?s notice. The booing and cursing he was receiving from the Republicans made him smile even more broadly. The manager leaned close to the challenger. ?Did his ?flip flopper? bit throw you off??
    ?No way.?
    ?Then you should have had him! Hook off the jab! I told you not to let up ? don?t let him cut the ring off! The man is still dangerous, hear??
    ?Dangerous nothing!?
    ?He?s dangerous!?
    ?Two, he?s through in two! He was lucky!?
    ?You better pay attention to that man over there!? his campaign manager insisted.


    This was based, btw, from the novelization of Rocky II by Sylvester Stallone. :p
     
  11. liberalmaverick

    liberalmaverick Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Qui-Rune:
    KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC?s "This Week," 2/22/98)

    LM: This is an obvious statement anyone can agree with. Of course he can rebuild chem or bio weapons - it would have been very difficult for him to do it, and it would have been near impossible for him to do so without us finding out - but there was the possibility he could do it. And of course his ability to do so cannot be stopped with a mere bombing attack; it would require active inspectors on the ground as well as constant intelligence monitoring of Saddam's activities and assets moving in and out of the country.

    The quote you posted doesn't indicate anywhere a support for war. Show me where it says he wants war.


    Nor does it show Kerry "requiring active inspectors".

    Nor did I say it did. I was offering that as an example of why Kerry was right that Saddam's ability to acquire WMD's would not be stopped with just a bombing attack.

    In addition it definatley says nothing about opposition to war. Because of his other statement supporting ground troops if needed, that whole quote IMO lends itself to supporting a Military Campaign against Saddam...even back in '98.

    Just because he doesn't say anything in opposition, doesn't mean that he's in support.

    And like I said earlier, that ground troops comment came with "if that's what it meant". Kerry was referring to doing everything to disrupt Saddam's regime. If war had to be used, he would support it. That's been his position this whole time on the current Iraq war. He would support it only as a last resort. It's because he felt the war was unnecessary that he's spoken out despite having voted for the resolution authorizing it.

    KERRY: "I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I?m probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before. He has invaded another country. He views himself as a modern-day Nebuchadnezzar. He wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. And I think we have to stand up to that." (ABC?s "This Week," 2/22/98)

    LM: Show me where he "new" what should really be done. Show me where he advocates war.


    Back then, Clinton had merely an arm's legnth approach to Iraq and terrorism in general.

    That's bull. The counterterrorism effort was at the forefront of the Clinton administration's foreign agenda. That's why he worked on a peace solution between Israel and Palestine and worked to deny terrorists of safe haven in places like Sudan (that led to the unfortunate bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory). How about you show me evidence that Clinton was lax on counterterrorism?

    Kerry agreed that he was ahead of Clinton and wanted to "stand up" to Saddam. Clinton already was thru the UN resolution bullcrap and lobbed a couple dozen missle at him. That is what Kerry meant by saying we needed to do more!

    Where does it say "we needed to do more"? I don't see that in any of the quotes.

    If you're talking about the "bombing attack" quote, yes he said that a simple bombing run wasn't the solution. But what makes you think he thought that a full-scale war ala Iraqi Freedom was? You're twisting quotes to satisfy conclusions that you have already conceived in advance.

    So couple that with supporting ground troops and what do you have?

    A steaming pile of Republican feces, that's what we have.

    You have to understand what was already done by Clinton at the time to fully grasp Kerry's position.

    Then tell me what Clinton did. And post proof please.

    Voted for it but not to use it? Please. He should have voted against it then. I see it as Kerry just wanting to be "popu
     
  12. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    I can't believe 21 people said Bush won this debate.
     
  13. darth_paul

    darth_paul Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2000
    I listened to the audio form of the debate. Each of them tended not to make especially good points, and each of them was overly repetitive and at times too contentious. I say it was a tie.

    -Paul
     
  14. Qui-Rune

    Qui-Rune Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    Liberalmaverick,

    I dont have time for a lengthy response but:

    All the quotes you posted about Bush "hyping" things, aren't hytpes at all. All of those statements are sound and backed up by the 9/11 report and Sentate Intel Committee.

    AS far as the Cheney quote....Please

    Read this: Democrats on WMD's in Iraq

    EVERYONE made statements about WMD's....even before Bush was ever in office!
     
  15. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Another thing people are failing to address is the alternative.

    An alternate plan has never been discussed by Kerry, and for me at least, that's a major concern.

    See, someone posted above a statement about an illegal war that killed 10,000 yadda yadda...

    And again, as it has been brought up, but never commented on, how does the below fit into an alternative?

    WASHPOST

    Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5.

    Each year of containment is a new Gulf War.

    Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5.

    Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis


    And that is not even counting the approx 300+ Iraqi soldiers who were killed as a result of No-Fly Zone enforcement EVERY YEAR. (around 3816 total)

    Simply as a result of UN sanctions, and without any type of invasion, a low estimate of 720,000 Iraqis have been killed.

    That figure is 55 times greater than the current count that resulted from the actual invasion

    So the question that has been ignored and unanswered is: Which situation was actually more "violent," and which situation actually addressed any kind of real concerns?

    Remember, every month of santions would have killed another 6,000 people (That's 290,000 people during a term of a "wait and see" President)
     
  16. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    But why are we paying that price when our freedom is so clearly not at stake? Unless of course you're justifying the war on the grounds that we're securing a future oil supply.

    You don't think Sept. 11 put our freedom at stake? And before you say, "OSB attacked us, not Saddam," let me remind you that Hitler did not attack us at Pearl Harbor; that didn't stop us from going into Germany and cleaning up.

    And this war has what to do with WWII? Does the false assumption that this war is somehow on the same level of WWII make you feel better?
    It has everything to do with WWII. Aside from what I said above, if terrorists were to come into possesion of nuclear weapons, do you honestly believe a World War is avoidable? But, you might say, "Saddam didn't have waeapons." That is still not the majority opinion. And still not reliable enough to leave to chance, IMO.

    BTW, good news from Samarra:

    U.S. and Iraqi forces battled their way into the heart of [the Sunni stronghold of Samarra] Friday [Oct. 1] and moved house to house in search of militants in what appeared to be the first major offensive to regain control of areas lost to insurgents before the January elections. More than 100 guerrillas were killed and 37 captured, according to an Iraqi official. The military said one American soldier was killed and four were wounded."-

    AP NEWS Service (Taken from National Review Online)


     
  17. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    You don't think Sept. 11 put our freedom at stake?

    Let me be blunt about this: no. September 11 did not put our freedom at stake.
     
  18. Qui-Rune

    Qui-Rune Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    Plus, you totally ignored what I said: "Also, your "further investigation" is as phony as the one that claimed there were WMD's in Iraq. Unless you don't count Presidents FDR, Truman, and Kennedy as liberals."

    This was in response to your quote: "Upon further investigation I find that Liberals for the most part have always been on the wrong side of the winning team when it came to opposing evil and tyranny."


    As my statement says: MOSTLY, which does not mean ALL.
    Sure...there have been a handful that actually get it, but it seems less and less in more recent years. Carter, Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Clinton...all have been opposed to facing evil head on. 86% of Democrats in Congress voted AGAINST military action towards Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait...an innocent, major Ally in the Mid East. I mean Come on! WHAT MORE DO THEY NEED!!! They couldn't even come to the aide of an ally after they were invaded by an evil dictator.

    Remember what Ted kennedy said back then, too:

    "It is sad to see America, after all of our history, driving the vehicle of war while other countries offer the olive branch of peace"

    What?? AMERICA driving the vehicle of WAR??? Iraq invades another country, an ally nonetheless and Ted wants to blame US!!! What a stroke! We can NOT trust them on National Security and Defense...the wrong party, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

    EDIT: as far as Clinton goes, I'll get some things together on how he downplayed the severity of the terror attacks that occured during his watch. He talked a good talk but never acted to face it head on. He knew it would take OFFENSIVE measures not just DEFENSIVE...but never did anything about it...did some things defensivley, perhaps but not offensively...which is the way terrorism needs to be dealt with.
     
  19. CitizenKane

    CitizenKane Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Let me be blunt about this: no. September 11 did not put our freedom at stake.

    Absurd. Then I guess you're also going to inform me that the unification of the United States post 9/11 was wasted?
    I would rather not have to see another airplane crash through another buliding killing another 3000 innocent people. Yes, Sept. 11 put our freed om at stake. We were attacked like never before. I fterrorism is not engaged, the you sir might be the next person screaming in horror as terrorists destroy you world and mine.
     
  20. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    September 11 has nothing do to with freedom. That is a ridiculus assertion.

    Also, it doesn't matter what most people believe about WMD in Iraq if in fact there are no WMD in Iraq.

     
  21. Guinastasia

    Guinastasia Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2002
    You don't think Sept. 11 put our freedom at stake? And before you say, "OSB attacked us, not Saddam," let me remind you that Hitler did not attack us at Pearl Harbor; that didn't stop us from going into Germany and cleaning up.

    OH for the love of cheese!

    Let ME remind YOU that Hitler and Japan were allies-and that Hitler declared war on US first! We had only declared war on Japan!

    Bin Laden and Hussein were never even REMOTELY allied!

    And no, it didn't put our "freedom" at stake.


    Oh, and need I remind you who supported Saddam back in the 1980s? That's right-the good ol' US of A! In fact, there's a picture taken of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand.

    Mark my words-this war in Iraq will come back and bite us in the ass someday.
     
  22. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Mark my words-this war in Iraq will come back and bite us in the ass someday.

    As opposed to what, everything else the US has ever done in the last 50 years?
     
  23. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    As opposed to what, everything else the US has ever done in the last 50 years?

    Point conceded.

    But I don't think it's been 50. More like 25 or so.
     
  24. Crix-Madine

    Crix-Madine Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 7, 2000
    I agree with both points, and it should be interesting to see the middle eastern landscape in 25 years for sure.
     
  25. Qui-Rune

    Qui-Rune Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 18, 2002
    Oh, and need I remind you who supported Saddam back in the 1980s? That's right-the good ol' US of A! In fact, there's a picture taken of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand.

    This is a great point. However...you need to realize why we supported Iraq. It was during the Iran/Iraq war and we had no choice at the time but to support the lesser of 2 evils. But look at what led to that conflict in the beginning....Jimmy Carter. His failed attempts at Foreign Policy and lack of Gumption to face evil head on led to the Sha of Iran (our biggest ally in the Middle East) to be overthrown in his own country and Ayatullah Khomeini, a radical Anti-American leader took over.

    IMO, if it was NOT for Jimmy Carter's failure...we would not be in the mess we are in today.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.