+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Debate tonight (/showthread.php?tid=1099)
- G.Irish - 10-07-2004
I'm glad someone brought up Serbia. The major reason we were drawn into that conflict was that our allies in the region (NATO) didn't want to have to deal with 100's of thousands of refugees overrunning their borders and the resultant destabilization of the region. Had the Serbian conflict occurred in Central Africa you can guarantee there would not have been the same level of response.
As for the reasons for going to war with Iraq? At best the Bush Administration overstated their case at worst they lied. As has been said before, had Bush said from the beginning, "We're going to invade Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy and we want to turn Iraq into a democracy," the war would have never gotten off the ground. Instead Bush founded his case for war on imminent threat, WMD's, and a connection to the 9/11 terrorists. All 3 of those pillars have proven to be straw men at best. And in all three cases there was significant uncertainty, doubt, and outright refutation of the intelligence provided to support these claims. In defense of Bush hindsight always makes bad decisions look worse. The problem I have is that even now his administration has been wont to admit error. Maybe he feels like he must 'stay the course' and never show he's wrong but I think that is most pompous and stupid thing to do now. And the rest of the world certainly doesn't think any more highly of us because of it.
Still, sooner or later Saddam or one of his sons may have become a problem. Perhaps an even bigger problem than the one we have now. But of course the judgement of history will never grant us such leniency.
Ok, even if we ignore the arguments about the case for the war I still don't feel Bush did the best job in conducting it. For one, we ignored a lot of well-established military doctrine in suppressing insurgency by not starting with overwhelming force and nailing down the insurgent situation early in order to help the Iraqi people feel safe.
We left countless ammunition depots unguarded as well as the very facilities that might have provided proof of the WMD's we were looking for. Also, we did not have enough manpower to police the borders the way we should have although in retrospect it would have been difficult to foresee the influx of Al Qaeda fighters after major conflict ended. I don't know if a stronger coalition could have helped provide the manpower we needed but the 'coalition of the tokens' sure didn't help much.
From here on out we have to finish this "war" (we never officially declared war) correctly. I can't say unequivocally that Kerry's plan is the correct one but I cannot say more of Bush and I can clearly see where Bush's people have failed miserably already. The fact that one of the most respected men in the military (Colin Powell) has opted not to continue with the Bush Administration says a lot to me.
Again, in the end for me it is a lesser of two evils thing. Bush did not do everything wrong and ultimately he only does what he thinks is best for the country. But his unwillingness to admit fault is scary, much more so than Kerry's confusing/unclear stances. When someone does not admit their mistakes it is doubtful that they are learning from them and that is something we cannot afford to have in a president during this time period of the War on Terror. We may be looking at several decades fighting this war much the same as the Cold War and we need to have smart(er) people at the helm.
- G.Irish - 10-07-2004
Thinking more about this...
What is really depressing to me is that these are the two best guys from each party. Kerry is not terrible but he certainly is not great. Bush is definitely not the brightest or best the Republicans have to offer. That to me is sad.
What's worse is that we're still pidgeon-holed into this silly 2 party system although some of that is the fault of the other smaller parties who seem to think that the first step to building their party is winning the presidency.
Anyway, as some consolation I hope these guys choose smart cabinets next time. The only person from the Bush camp that I thought was sharp was Powell really. Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and a few of the others need to go if he gets re-elected.
- CaptainHenreh - 10-08-2004
I second G's last remark.
Also, it boggles my mind that Kerry is criticizing the B.A.'s lack of UN Support in light of the damned Oil for Food scandal.
JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE!
Of course the U.N. didn't want to go into Iraq! Saddam made them rich! WITH OUR MONEY!
- G.Irish - 10-08-2004
Something else I thought about today is that really the US intelligence community's incompetence played a large part in 9/11 happening in the first place and when you think about it they're the ones who provided the intel for Bush's case for war. No one has come out and said that it was the CIA's fault we haven't been able to prove any of our pre-war claims but I can't help but to think that they were at least partially responsible. Still, most people are saying the B.A. ignored some of the cautionary advice on the intel they received on Iraq.
In the end the US foreign and domestic intelligence system probably needs a major overhaul. From what I hear it seems like we're still operating much the same way we did during the Cold War.
- JackoliciousLegs - 10-14-2004
early polls indicate that Kerry trounced Bush in the last debate. We'll see what the news is saying tomorrow.
- .RJ - 10-14-2004
I dont see how that happened.
I dont see how all the polls say that Kerry won the debate, he was put on the defensive the whole time and bush countered most of his claims with either kerry's voting record, or his own performance while in office. Even the talking heads after the interview said that.... I guess only public perception is what matters anymore.
On another note, I was channel flipping after the debate, and Michael Moore was on whatever show Bill Maher has on HBO - and claimed "before 9/11 there were only a few al quaeda, and after there were thousands!!! We're less safe today than before bush took office!"
Ugh. I'm tired of the bullshit generator implanted in his mouth. And Jesse Jackson was on CNN still spouting off his "republicans steal votes from blacks" conspiracy theory. After that I turned it to cartoon network and watched sealab.
- Mike - 10-14-2004
i think the debate was fairly even... if anything kerry won by a tiny bit, as his facts were on point. latest polls show the prez race is dead even. i got a big kick out of bush making a fool out of himself on multiple occasions... having an idea but nowhere to go with it, so he just stops and laughs it off... lol then he said "buggy and horse days" hehehe
- Mike - 10-14-2004
hot man pirates
- damnit458 - 10-14-2004
.RJ Wrote:I dont see how that happened.
I dont see how all the polls say that Kerry won the debate, he was put on the defensive the whole time and bush countered most of his claims with either kerry's voting record, or his own performance while in office. Even the talking heads after the interview said that.... I guess only public perception is what matters anymore.
On another note, I was channel flipping after the debate, and Michael Moore was on whatever show Bill Maher has on HBO - and claimed "before 9/11 there were only a few al quaeda, and after there were thousands!!! We're less safe today than before bush took office!"
Ugh. I'm tired of the bullshit generator implanted in his mouth. And Jesse Jackson was on CNN still spouting off his "republicans steal votes from blacks" conspiracy theory. After that I turned it to cartoon network and watched sealab.
what channel did you watch the debate on? If it was a fox network you hafta realize that they are blantantly biased towards bush. But anyway I thought Kerry made more actual points than bush. Bush just seemed to laugh everything off. If you ask me Kerry came out looking more like president material than our current president did.
go ahead, vote democrat! - BLINGMW - 10-14-2004
Aparently, this is being distributed from a campaign headquarters in Tennessee supporting a house of reps candidate and Kerry:
![[Image: wNjAyNTA3NnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg]](http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wNjAyNTA3NnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg)
Full story:
http://miva.jacksonsun.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?NEWS/news_storyV2.mv+link=200410146588785
:lol: It's funny to me... but I'm twisted. It's still wrong! :?
- G.Irish - 10-14-2004
I don't think there was a clear winner in this last debate. Bush had some strong counters as did Kerry. It will come down to these last weeks of campaigning now and I don't think either candidate really has an ace in the hole except that there is an anti-Kerry documentary due to air soon.
- Mike - 10-14-2004
hot man pirates
- .RJ - 10-14-2004
damnit458 Wrote:But anyway I thought Kerry made more actual points than bush. Bush just seemed to laugh everything off. If you ask me Kerry came out looking more like president material than our current president did.
No, Kerry made his factually inaccurate points with more confidence and better poise than bush. So he came across with a better presentation, and "winning" the question. I dont really look at their public speaking abilities, I look at the facts presented.
- Dragon - 10-14-2004
.RJ Wrote:I dont really look at their public speaking abilitiesJust out of curiousity, you don't think as the leader of our nation, our #1 visible public figure, that public speaking abilities aren't important. Not saying that they're the #1 thing to focus on, but they do factor into the equation.
- CaptainHenreh - 10-14-2004
Dragon Wrote:.RJ Wrote:I dont really look at their public speaking abilitiesJust out of curiousity, you don't think as the leader of our nation, our #1 visible public figure, that public speaking abilities aren't important. Not saying that they're the #1 thing to focus on, but they do factor into the equation.
Historically, the worst public speakers have been generally regarded as the "best" presidents.
- Dragon - 10-14-2004
For example?
- .RJ - 10-14-2004
Dragon Wrote:Just out of curiousity, you don't think as the leader of our nation, our #1 visible public figure, that public speaking abilities aren't important.
No, not really.
- CaptainHenreh - 10-14-2004
Dragon Wrote:For example?
Thomas Jefferson, who was such a poor public speaker that he couldn't deliver a state of the union address to congress.
Just as an example.
- .RJ - 10-14-2004
And today's media circus puts everything in the spotlight, like a bunch of fuking vultures.
Even 10 or 20 years ago, this would be a complete non-issue.
- Dragon - 10-14-2004
Ok that works, just don't like to hear blatant statements without something backing it up.
Unless it's about .RJ being a bonesmuggling pillow biter, those sort of blatant statements are always welcome.