Vice Presidential Debate Poll. Who Won?

Well I can tell you who was killed 'cause we waited so long; 400,000 Iraqi citizens who were found in mass graves after the fall of Iraq.

Once again you're wrong J-Rod.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

As far as the justification for the Iraqi War, of course we had justification. When you surrender and agree to the terms of surrender (or I guess it would be officially a cease fire), if you break those rules then you have to pay the consequences.

BUT just because something is justified, doesn't make it right. I've always been for the war in Iraq, just completely against how the Bush administration went about it.

The Iraqi War is a debacle, and it's a debacle because of pure incompetence. Only a moron could have thought the Iraqis would accept us with open arms. Regardless of how much many of them hated Saddam, they still grew up surrounded by anti-american sentiment. So when we didn't do things as promised, and we killed thousands and thousands of men, women, and children, how the **** are they supposed to feel?

There is no excuse for planning for the best possible situation in a war. Now terrorism is more rampant than it's EVER been, americans are dying everyday. What boggles my mind even more is that the Bush administration uses the rhetoric "it's better to fight them over there than here". Now tell me, does that give comfort to those families that have had their loved ones killed or beheaded? An american dead is an american dead, doesn't matter if it's in Wisconsin or Iraq.

Your position is exactly what frightens me in regards to Liberalism and facing Evil and Tyranny head on.
You are defending Saddam Hussein. You are defending his evil regime. The Liberal Party is an Oppostion to America's success in the War on Terror.

Blah blah blah, don't be silly, he's not defending Saddam or anything else he did. Jeez, THINK about it for a second, not everything is black and white.

 

Cyp, I would be careful about calling anyone wrong while the situation is still unfolding.

Yes, the Guardian, a single news outlet, ran a story. Their article should certainly be considered.

But there are other sources that offer differing perspectives. Traditionally, the alternative media works against the establishment, but sometimes it supports it.

Like this one, administered by a fellow Arab.

It's a personal site, so it is not immediately supportable, but should it be dismissed?

HERE

Or an offical .pdf document from the DOS.

HERE

The organization Human Rights Watch estimates that 290,000 people could be buried in mass graves, even as the group criticizes the US for not protecting the sites.

Remember, it takes years to catalog such activity.

Additionally, you seem to be presenting an interesting moral dilemma.

How many people need to be killed before action is warranted?

 

Mr. 44,

Excellent job. Your broad scope of vision for BOTH sides of this important issue needs to be commended.

 

I don't see Mr44 straddling both sides. He is fairly consistently on the defending Bush side. Its just that he is more reasonable than most when he goes about sticking up for Bush.

 

True. He is a lot more cordial than I am at times!

 

Cyp, I would be careful about calling anyone wrong while the situation is still unfolding.

Here is what he said Mr.44, " Well I can tell you who was killed 'cause we waited so long; 400,000 Iraqi citizens who were found in mass graves after the fall of Iraq." THAT IS WRONG.

Will 400,000 people in mass graves be found? Implausible, but I guess it's possible. But that's not what he said, he said THEY WERE found, which is flat out wrong.

Yes, the Guardian, a single news outlet, ran a story. Their article should certainly be considered.

I could find ten more if you want me to. It was Allawi himself that said it was untrue. What agenda would he possibly have for saying it if it wasn't true?

But there are other sources that offer differing perspectives. Traditionally, the alternative media works against the establishment, but sometimes it supports it.

Like this one, administered by a fellow Arab.

It's a personal site, so it is not immediately supportable, but should it be dismissed?

So one Arab guy is more credible than Prime Minister Allawi? Where is his evidence? How is he privy to any real information beyond photographs. Photographs that don't depict more than a few hundred dead I might add.

The organization Human Rights Watch estimates that 290,000 people could be buried in mass graves, even as the group criticizes the US for not protecting the sites.

The keyword there is "could". Heck, there COULD be a dead guy buried in my backyard. But chances are, there is not.

Remember, it takes years to catalog such activity.

Again, J-Rod didn't say "there could very well be 400,000 dead buried in mass graves" he said "there are 400,000 dead buried in mass graves". Big difference, no matter how you look at it, he's wrong.

Additionally, you seem to be presenting an interesting moral dilemma.

How many people need to be killed before action is warranted?

The answer is simple, NONE. Any human rights violation is a cause for action, including war if absolutely necessary. Again, I was for the IDEA of the war in Iraq, not for how it was handled.

 

The answer is simple, NONE. Any human rights violation is a cause for action, including war if absolutely necessary.

Well, if you include "if absolutely necessary," then it is still subjective to the details of the violation. I think sanctions worked against Saddam, and the post 9/11 international community was unified enough to start effecting the whole middle east for the better. If not for the invasion, our troops would be available for present day genocides, such as Sudan.

 

I think sanctions worked against Saddam,

Except the sanctions killed more people than the invasion ever has, so right there, they fail your own "casualty test."

Additionally, the enforcement of the sanctions were not universally applied, and increasing allegations of extreme corruption are being released every day.

The sanctions illustrated perfectly how NOT to initiate any kind of change, except I suppose it allowed people to actually ignore what was happening.

For arguments like Sudan, I fail to see the consistancy.

 

Cheney lied. He suggested that there may be a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. He did it several times. No, he never said there WAS a connection, but he made that suggestion several times. If Cheney had said to Edwards "I have never claimed Saddam was in fact connected to 9/11," it would be one thing, but he said SUGGESTED, and he suggested it on more than one occasion. Just like he met Edwards on more than one occasion.

 

Except the sanctions killed more people than the invasion ever has

Please give examples. I am curious.

 

For reference I checked Iraqicivilianbodycount.hysteria

Their current estimate for civilian deaths range from 13 to 15 thousand.

For reference they're also including attacks by insurgents on civilians and coalition airstrikes on suspected safe houses and staging points.



We were speaking of inflated number weren't we?

 

Ok, whether it is 13,000 or 20,000, so far, my argument is the same. Good point about the insurgents, but I think we still need to consider those deaths as caused by the invasion.

As for the sanctions deaths. I am looking into it. But if we look at the sanction deaths as U.S. caused deaths, then who is worse, us or Saddam? I don't really think it is that simple though. If you fail to give the homeless guy down the street 10 dollars because you think he would use it for booze, and he dies of starvation that night, did you kill him?

 

So basically you're arguement is that Saddam wasn't a threat because the sanctions were working and the US was evil for killing all those innocent Iraqis with their evil sanctions?

Que?


Could you please outline your actual position instead of jumping from part to part with no apparent rhyme or reason? It is rather hard to have an actual discussion when one side appears to be just taking random stands on issues with no logical reasoning behind them.

 

Please give examples. I am curious.

More examples? You must have missed the previous examples that were posted yesterday.

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

In addition to the sources already supplied..

The concrete figures estimate that the sanctions were killing 5,000 Iraqis every month. Total estimates fall between 700,000 and 1.2 million over the life of the sanctions.

And this is what you call "successful."

And this figure doesn't include the 3,500+ Iraqi soldiers who were killed during No-Fly Zone enforcement.

The main problem that I see, revolves around the fact that there was simply no popular attention paid to Iraq before the invasion.

The sanctions were violent, arbitary, and imposed horrible conditions on the people of Iraq.

But as long as their faces were not plastered on the daily news, or there was no "Sanction Body Count" site, everything was a-ok, as the sanctions must be working.

So, it must have come as quite a shock to some when the US invaded, but the reality was quite different.

 

Your position is exactly what frightens me in regards to Liberalism and facing Evil and Tyranny head on. You are defending Saddam Hussein. You are defending his evil regime. The Liberal Party is an Oppostion to America's success in the War on Terror.

So, you're saying the Democratic Party stands with the terrorists? Is that what you mean to say, that the party of Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy side with the enemy of the United States?

You know, I don't mind people showing a little mettle here and there which I do myself from time to time. But there is a line in polite society that is generally not crossed by someone with class. I'm going to sincerely try and not stoop to this level of insolence, and I strongly encourage my fellow citizens of the world on this board to do the same.

This soldier has news for you tonight. Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people.

Franklin Roosevelt said it best. "Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth."

This hall, this Democratic Party are filled with veterans who have served under the American flag. And this is our flag. Right there, that flag, we saluted this flag. We rose up in the morning and stood reveille to this flag. We fought for that flag. We've seen brave men and women buried under that flag. That flag is ours, and nobody, nobody will take it away from us. -General Wesley Clark

 

So basically you're arguement is that Saddam wasn't a threat because the sanctions were working and the US was evil for killing all those innocent Iraqis with their evil sanctions?

You failed to read my whole post.

My position is, Saddam wasn't a WMD threat, due to the crippling effect of the sanctions. That much is certain. As for the sanctions, I made a point above regarding the homeless. If you don't pay a homeless man because you think he'll buy booze, and he dies of starvation that night, did you kill him? The issue of sanction deaths is something I am studying as a result of our discussion, and I will adapt my opinion based on it. But I won't adapt it to a pro invasion stance.

 

Farraday, be reasonable. You must by now understand the liberal position on Iraq.

The threshold we believe is necessary to launch a war was not met. Saddam wasn't in the act of committing genocide, he wasn't attacking his neighbors, he didn't possess WMD's, and he was not an imminent threat.

You know that. Instead of trying to attack the structure of the arguments of people less disciplined in construction as you would like, be fair enough to recognize their side of the argument.

 

I'm ignoring your point about the homeless because it has about as much importance here as if I made a point about the culpability of watching someone get raped and doing nothing.

Sanctions.

In your study please feel free to come across this.

The sanctions mostly existed in retribution for Saddams refusal to comply completely and totally with the inspections. If he had, and disarmament had been forthright and transparent, the sanctions would have been dropped(most likely, can't gaurentee it, but most likely).

That leaves you with three problems regarding the sanctions.

1. Since the sanctions were put into place because of Iraqs refusal to make complete and public disclosure and disarmament, arguing the sanctions worked in disarming Saddam is tantamount to an arguement they should have been ended, thus allowing Saddam to rebuild. It would be similar to banning the sale of guns until no criminals had guns anymore, then allowing people to buy guns again.

2. The sanctions were killing or hastening the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Arguing they were working is tantamount to arguing those deaths were regretable but necessary. I would note that same position is one you're disavowing for deaths several orders of magnitude less.

3. Many nations in the world wanted to get rid of the sanctions all togeather, even lacking full and forthright compliance by Iraq. The US and a small number of it's allies(I believe the liberal phrase for such a group is 'unilateral US action') were keeping them in place. What do you do in the face of mounting world pressure to drop the sanctions that you argue keep us from needing to invade?


OWM feel free to respond for him. Your position ignores these questions rather then answering them as if the sanctions themselves were an end rather then a means.

You say I understand the liberal position on Iraq, I would disagree since as far as I'm concerned liberals have taken to ignoring the reality of the situations and instead take great delight in arguing about thresholds of threat as if they existed pristine and untouched by anything considerations of such vile words as practicality.

 

OWM,

Cheney lied. He suggested that there may be a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. He did it several times. No, he never said there WAS a connection, but he made that suggestion several times. If Cheney had said to Edwards "I have never claimed Saddam was in fact connected to 9/11," it would be one thing, but he said SUGGESTED, and he suggested it on more than one occasion. Just like he met Edwards on more than one occasion.

Wrong. He NEVER suggested the connection to 9/11. He DID suggest a connection to al-qaeda. You simply made the leap from al-qaida to 9/11.

He may have met Edwards before but all of the examples given ...never once was it actually IN THE SENATE!! It does NOT change Edwards attendance record!

Crix,

So, you're saying the Democratic Party stands with the terrorists? Is that what you mean to say, that the party of Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy side with the enemy of the United States?

Im sorry but today's Democratic Party is far from that of Jefferson, FDR or JFK. They should be so lucky.
What I AM saying is that right now fighting the liberals seems to be much harder than fighting the terrorists. The Liberals are opposing the war on Terror in every facet they can.

You know, I don't mind people showing a little mettle here and there which I do myself from time to time. But there is a line in polite society that is generally not crossed by someone with class. I'm going to sincerely try and not stoop to this level of insolence, and I strongly encourage my fellow citizens of the world on this board to do the same.

With all do respect, I simply am being honest and truthful. I mean no disrepct to anyone on a personal level.

 

Wrong. He NEVER suggested the connection to 9/11. He DID suggest a connection to al-qaeda. You simply made the leap from al-qaida to 9/11.

and the "Relationship" that apparently exists is barely traceable and seems to in fact be less of a relationship with al-Qaida than the average muslim nation. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egype and Libya likely have greater links to Al-Qaida. Heck, even Iran, one of thier largest enemies, likely has more links than Iraq.

 

Crix-Madine is my new hero!


Accusing people of being traitors and weak on terrorism because they're liberal, or conservative, or don't follow your own ideology is nothing more than the new McCarthyism.


And on that note, I will quote the the man who brought McCarthy down, Joseph Welch:
"Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?"

 

QR, check your facts. Cheney suggested a connection. He didn't state there was a connection, but the news outlets (maybe not fox news) have all said so.

Furthermore, Cheney lied about meeting Edwards, (unless he forgot.) He wasn't in the Senate floor during the debate, so I don't see how your point has any merit.

Farraday, the sanctions had a limited impact, perhaps, but I don't see how that strengthens your argument at all.

 

Accusing people of being traitors and weak on terrorism because they're liberal, or conservative, or don't follow your own ideology is nothing more than the new McCarthyism.

Liberals have been weak on terrorism. Our recent history shows that most Liberals have consitently been wrong when confronted with evil. Period. I sited perfect examples in the other debate thread and I challenged you to refute them after you said they were lies.

I know it isn't what they want to hear but it is a truth that needs to be faced nonetheless. And like I have said time and time again...The myopic hatred that they have for Bush stems from them attempting to fight for their political relevancy in this post 9/11 world.
They have shown complete disregard for patriotism, National Security, the War on Terror and the men and women in uniform.
"Have they no decency?"

OWM,

QR, check your facts. Cheney suggested a connection. He didn't state there was a connection, but the news outlets (maybe not fox news) have all said so.

All I have seen so far presented are quotes that suggest Iraq and Al-Qaeda...not 9/11. As a matter of fact someone posted a quote where Cheney was asked that dirsect question. His response? "We don't know" "What we DO know is there may have been a link to al-qaeda members."

The night of the debate when Mrs Cheney went up to meet her husband she reminded him that he HAD met Edwards before. He said, "Oh." It doesn't really matter anyway...Edwards is a just trial lawyer.

 

OWM nice of you to brush off anything I said but if your arguement is the sanctions had a limited impact you have to answer on whom and what that impact was.

The entire arguement as you presented it relies on Saddams lack of threat which is entirely a function of his ability to project force. The limits on his ability to do so were entirely based on outside actions, the sanctions and the no fly zones, both of which caused Iraqi civilian casualties and deaths, thus rather undercutting the virulent hand wringing about the Abominable Nature of this unjust war and how CIVILIANS are DYING!!!

Were the sanctions working OWM? Because to argue so is to argue the yearly deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis was mission accomplished.


Oh I am quite aware that the liberal position on the Iraq war is we shouldn't have fought it, but I have never once had the liberal position on Saddam's Iraq explained to me. Never once had a liberal actually express what we should've done rather then what we shouldn't have done, as if hindsight were their guiding principle.

 

Question, farraday: You're asking whether or not sanctions worked. Did Hussein and Iraq have WMD, one of the reasons for those sanctions? Was Hussein attacking factions in Northern and Southern Iraq with WMDs--the other reason for those sanctions?

So, you tell me. Were the sanctions working?