Presidential Debate Discussion

Terrorism will never go away, it's like garden weed you chop most of it away, then it just grows back again.

Only way it can be dealt with is by the terrorists themselves.
 
very intresting grandmaster... lol why do i feel dirty haveing to say that.
 
ok well here is my two cents

first of all I think both of the candidates sounded like absolute idiots, neither of them had a straight to the point answers

Kerry through the whole thing said I have a plan I have a plan but no, all he gave is general answers even after the moderator of the event asked him to give specifics which were again just regular general answers.

Bush said the same thing over and over again...clear message to the troops and people of the world. blah blah blah

My personal thought would be that putting a new president in while we are in the mess we are in would be bad. That would turn so much stuff upside down and would be hard for Kerry to just jump right into war and get caught up to speed. So personally I think Kerry would be set up for disaster.

But as of right now I completely agree with what bush has done in Iraq. It may have been a little wrong to go into Iraq but since I have a brother that was a security analyst in the army and could clue me in on alittle of what bush has done I am a little more informed. What bush has done, and he slightly mentioned last night without declaring his goal to the world, was to keep the americans in Iraq to put the majority of terrorists in that area and have focused such a large group of them there that they have less focus on the rest of the world and our homeland securuty has become safer

So even though they got rid of saddam and the supposed WMDs it is really a decoy to make most if not all the terrorists put all their energy and resources at attacking Iraq and keeping their attentions there. This is smart because Bin Laden and other leaders of terrorist groups used to think that if you hit the americans they run and hide and what bush has done is show the terrorists that they can attack the americans but we aren't going anywhere..

so it's more of a military strategy than anything but it is working. We have lost a total of 1032 people out there and that is a miniscule amount compared to all wars we have been in before.

Also as I was writing this an audio tape was released by bin laden's second hand and after translating the message was that if anything happened to him or bin laden that the terrorists need to keep fighting...are we or the pakistanis getting closer to bin laden? I don't know take what you will from the recently released audio tapes.

Question for all
If you were trying to stop a world of terrorists or a main group of them and had their leader boxed in but could listen to every conversation they make and know everything they are about to do, Would you give that up or go in and capture them? This is what I see with Osama. If we capture him and the group that is in the mountains of Tora Bora we lose all the information that is helping us stay safe. Now since we will never know if we aren't getting any info then get him and I think we can but don't lose all the info we might be receiving from keeping them in one place in those mountains to have all their info
 
invading and occupying iraq was a mistake...

it was a secular country... not a religious one...

now you have a bunch of terrorists and insurgents playing the religion card to further their goals...

terrorists will attack where there is an opportunity... they are not attacking in iraq because of a brilliant ploy by bush... they are attacking because of the chaos in the wake of his bone-headed plans for post-war iraq and his incompetence...

terrorism is on the rise in afghanistan as well, implying that not everyone has moved to iraq as your assertion puts it...

further you have terrorist activity in other nations... ie spain, turkey and the like that are linked to al-qaeda...

the terrorists are not one massive body that is going to fight pitched battles.. they employ guerilla tactics and strike @ points that are going to disrupt and terrorize people... its how they operate and how they have operated for decades (not just al-qaeda but terrorists in general)

also the loss of life in iraq continuing through today is way too high considering it was supposed to be a peace-keeping and reconstruction mission... not a continued war... I remember what the president promised before the war and after the "mission accomplished" speech and what has happened since is not what he promised...

wrt your loaded question.. I would eliminate the terrorists @ the earliest opportunity... I seriously doubt that what you have said is what bush is doing... given how haphazard his policies in general have been and how many mistakes have been made, repeatedly, I seriously doubt him or his chosen cabinet would have the brains to think of something like this...

further just think of the photo-ops the president could have gotten for himself... seeing as he NEVER misses a photo-op to boost himself it is a little far-fetched to think he would pass this up...

please do not insinuate that iraq is the center-piece in a fabulous masterplan to rid the world of terrorism... statements like that imply that terrorists are armies... the only armies we have faced in iraq have been iraqi armies led by anti-saddam loyalists who are opposed to the US presence...
 
I will add my ten (maybe 20) cents. The hardline of both sides won't budge as a result of this debate but it would seem a lot of fence sitters are moving towards Kerry. Kerry's approval rating sky rocketed after the speech according to a poll. The thing is that over 3/4s of Americans think Kerry did a better job or at least this is what CNN's online poll said last night. Now they are saying only 51% or something think Kerry did better and 38% think Bush did a better job. So what does this tell me? I don't trust polls that are given to me over the TV. Simply because the figures were extremely different then what I was seeing on websites WITH REAL numbers. On CNN they just spit out percentages that have no actual votes or figures but are rather it would seem opinionated guesses by CNN analysts. So in short don't pay attention to the polls you see on TV because they are usually a result of republican money and power to sway news media to scew the results. The only polls we know to legitimate are those that exist online and so far they show Kerry doing extremely well.
 
the general consensus is that kerry did a better job overall... the bush camp has been building up kerry's debating skillz forever, implying he is the best thing since sliced bread of something for weeks...

regardless of that kerry did a better job @ answering the questions and laying out an idea for how to do things when he is in power... bush has not done that in his 4 years in power and he gave no indication of how he would do it with 4 more years other than "I will continue doing what I have done" which is basically one screw-up after the next...

I don't put much faith in the polls... the election is going to be tight and its going to probably come down to one or two states (ie florida), however all the polls seem to show the same thing... kerry won...

about their credibility... both of them stretched things, it was obvious last night... but IMO bush took far more liberties with his numbers, comments and assertions... heck his choice ally, allawi, has himself contradicted bush's numbers...
 
Iraq was a very religious country with saddam attacking his own people that weren't a part of his own religion that oppossed him before we were even in there. Also there was intelligence whether it be right or wrong saying that saddam had nuclear weapons...Just recently a saddam aide said he was responsible for removing them when inspectors came and when the united states had plans on going to war...the only problem was that it was a blip on cnn and then put under the rug because no where in the media would allow a news article that supported what is going on in iraq to benefit the current president.

Also when the plans were being made to go into iraq and the supposed proof was laid out the congress voted to support it. Had they not which might have been a good idea we would have never been in there but nobody knew that the intelligence was flawed. hindsight is great to go on when you oppose what has happened but if you looking back is only going to find 95 % of the government including Kerry supported it.

We are in there and have to what we can to make the best of it. That's why we need to stay and clean things up. Will kerry do a better job? No. I think he would have done the same job as Bush did. Maybe he would have done things differently but the outcome would not have been any different.

The brunt of the problem is with past presidents going to back to Bush Sr and Clinton and probably longer down the road who ruined our intelligence agencies and Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden after the USS Cole was sabotaged but decided against it.

The only way we could do anything to benefit our country is to have just rooted out terrorist and not whole countries themselves and quit butting our noses into the rest of world's business. In the world we will NEVER be liked. If we don't help we are hated and if we do help we are hated. I wonder what other countries would have done if the atrocities that happened on sept 11th would have happened to them. Nothing. They would have come to us to help them. Had things occured in SPain and Germany or France we would have been looked at to help them. Just like we have done before and will do for a long time. When we needed them in afghanistan we got very little help and no one on this earth had a problem with that but we received next to no help.

A masterplan being in Iraq no. But once we were there and saw what was going on when the terrorists started to attack in Iraq we couldn't leave and had to show them we wouldn't budge until things got handled. That's when the idea was brought up that we need to stay and show we are strong instead of run from the terrorists like had ahppened under clinton's stay in the office in Mogadishu. We were annihilated there and should have never stuck our noses in there in the first place.

also with this statement "the only armies we have faced in iraq have been iraqi armies led by anti-saddam loyalists who are opposed to the US presence" if that were 100% true they should be working with us because we got rid of what they wanted but never could have gotten ridden of...Why not help us keep the streets safe so we can help get the country going right and we can get out of there.

Best case scenario we never go into another country and start worrying about our own damn country and let everyone else take care of themselves...Most do don't get me wrong but when attrocities in Sarijavo and Mogadishu happen we shouldnt get involved because we are supposed to take action with those and not others. It gets tough for americans and the government.

I would just like to have bush finish what he has started because to me he is the lesser of two evils.

They are both under qualified to run this country just like Gore would have been, Bush is and Kerry will be. We need strong leaders and that we won't have for a long time

To me it is a grim time to be an american
 
tuffgong said:
saddam attacking his own people that weren't a part of his own religion

Ha Hussain was no more than a drunken thug. He had no religion he uses the 'Islamic' stuff to stir up faeces (put polite).

This war was all about a job not done by Bush's father and oil, nothing more nothing less.
 
Tuffgong4 the problem is you have not seen Kerry in action and you have seen Bush so why do you think that Bush would do a better job? How can you think that is a better thing to ask you. There is no way to know who is better because we have seen only Bush in action and a majority of people think Bush is one of the worst presidents in decades so why do people think Kerry would be worse? He won this debate which means that at least he is better at getting across his views. That is crucial I think if your job is to run a nation and be diplomatic. The flip flop argument has been overused and is the only attack that Bush can think up. So because Kerry actually has the balls to say he made a mistake that makes him a weaker leader then a guy who ****s up and everyone knows ****ed up yet he still sticks with it.
 
if I had a choice neither of them would be in power...I don't like bush and I don't like kerry...the state of america is not good with the morons that both parties are pushing. I would just like to have Bush keep going because his hands are are deep in the job already and if we put kerry in he has to get caught up to speed.

As for the debate last night the cnn, usa today, gallup poll said Kerry won, but after the debate the same cnn, usa today, gallup poll that asked who would handle iraq better? the poll said before debate Bush 54% Kerry 40% after debate Bush 54 % and Kerry 43%...the only thing that was talked about last night was the war and yes kerry gained 3 points but bush is still well in the lead for this poll.

this debate in this thread will never stop because just as many articles Sazar or tweak can pull up for one side I can pull up for the other side and we will run circles...

the only thing I have to say is I'm not Pro Bush I just want this stuff done with and he already has a head start...

If right now Gore were in power and some republican was fighting I wouldn't feel right taking a president out of power in the middle of a war because th next pres needs time to get caught up to speed
 
I completely agree with you. Both of them are sketchy characters who have hidden agendas but I think what differs people this election is some are willing to risk putting Kerry in office because they are naturally bigger risk takers because they know it could get worse but it also could get better. If your an unsure person and don't like to lay it on the line at all then you might pick Bush because you believe that it could get worse and just don't want that to happen.

I'm a risk taker in this case cause the odds of it getting worse are lower then the odds of it getting better but I acknowledge that I might guess wrong here and it could cost us but its something that I have to accept just like the possibility that the world could flip over on its axis and kill us all.

So just to be clear I am not against those who hold their position and try to stay strong I just think that when everyone knows your wrong you need to remain strong but admit that your administration made a few mistakes but that there was no way to prevent it and you stick by the fact that you did what you did and something had to happen :)
 
good post tweak...I mean that as well that was not sarcasm...you understand well!

also think it's great that a person in the middle of a political debate has a huge pot leaf right next to his name...go tweak...rep points a coming!
 
Tuffgong4 said:
this debate in this thread will never stop because just as many articles Sazar or tweak can pull up for one side I can pull up for the other side and we will run circles...

i havent pulled up any articles in this thread :)

the only thing I have to say is I'm not Pro Bush I just want this stuff done with and he already has a head start...

and I am not pro-kerry... in fact i am voting for a republican in november :)

however bush hasn't done anything yet to instill any form of confidence that he can rectify the mess with the rhetoric he espouses...

it is one thing to talk the talk, but he has not walked the walk...

he has had 4 years in power.. about 2 odd years to deal with afghanistan and about a year odd to deal with iraq... he never finished the job in afghanistan before sending troops into iraq...

I have no problems with the fact that both situations take time... thats a given... however if the manner in which the situation was being handled was wrong and showed little chance of change, it is better to change the leadership and go in a different direction that shows more promise...
 
Bush Or Kerry

I watched the debate with a lot of interest with my wife last night, and I wanted to be sure not to draw my opinion till the debate was over. I clearly thought that Kerry did a great job with his answers and leadership styles, which made me think about who the right candidate should be in November. I'm also convinced that Bush started something like the war in Iraq and does not want to be a sore loser by admitting any guilt or wrong doing and seek alternatives to this mess. I was totally opposed to the war from the beginning, because we did jump into it too quickly without the support of our allies, and the results from the inspectors. Kerry clearly stated about getting more invloved with other countries and allies to make this a unify campaign. We shall Kerry this country and not beat around the Bush! :D
 
sazar I agree 100% with what you said about going to iraq too early we should have finished with one job before going at two at the same time

also I find it very difficult for any person to be a president at our time...to have an economy crashing from an artificial high to an attack on our homeland worse than anything we have seen before any pres will have a hard time...those occured when bush was only in office a couple of months and he had to react quickly

but also we have been in the middle east, an area that is more secured in the way it does things than any other place besides asia and we plan on putting democracy in place in a year in Iraq(not likely) and in afghanistan in 2 years ( also not likely)

you show me the man that could do that quickly and I'll show you a liar...
 
I wish people would realize that 1) Saddam had 10 years to comply with UN sanctions and did not. 2) France, Germany, and Russia were getting hundreds of billions through the oil-for-food UN program. They would have never joined us, no matter how long we wasted time allowing Saddam to give Bin Laden more money.
 
I wish you would realize j79zr that there is a right time and a wrong time to mount an offensive

this nation was in the process of defending itself against terrorism

this president was informed by his most trusted advisor's that an action in Iraq WOULD EXACERBATE, not facilitate the fight against terrorism.

this is not hind sight, he was full well advised and informed that this would be the offensive in Iraq

he took our resources, which were already engaged beyond capacity, and decided it was a good idea to divert those forces, and begin a front that would only, (according to his own aids) hurt the fight against terrorism

a man with "wisdom" like this, and "for sight" like this can not be in charge of the United States of America
 
Kermit_The_Frog said:
if we rolled back time and Kerry was at the helm at the time, he would have gotten the same information that both Bush and Blair got. He most likley would have done the same thing
not a chance...this president was told their was NO threat in iraq, NO weapons of mass destruction

we were engaged in a front defending this nation against a country that atacked us...there is no chance kerry would have started a second front...simple war 101...YOU DO NOT VOLUNTARILY ENGAGE YOUR FORCES ON TWO FRONTS....this president thought voluntarily engaging war on two fronts is grand military strategy

saddam has been an obsession with this president since before he came to office...saddam was impotent, this president knew from his own aids that the saddam "threat" was the least threat it had ever been

this president admits that he actually tried to attack iraq INSTEAD of afghanistan, though he was implored to take immediate action against the tali ban

not a chance on this planet kerry would have taken our boys and our girls out and away from the defense of this nation, and not a chance he would have started a front that was unasociated to the attack against this land

when at the time everyone knew something had to be done.
what needed to be done was that our country needed to deal with terrorists and terrorism...what we needed to NOT do was engage a war of personal obsdession, divert resources from the defense of this nation.

I dont think there is a real difference overall be it Kerry or Bush ,.
it's huge

I get the feeling Kerry is just doing what they all do is play on the weakness after the fact , but I really think if he was in the drivers seat he would not be able to control the wheel , he swerves to much , he will end up in a ditch.
of the two men we are talking about, the person that has waffled and flipflopped the more is the man that's in office

however, the marketing of the republican party has this country beleiving otherwise
 

Members online

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,620
Latest member
alexexists11
Back