USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[Kate]

A good reply from Kerry:

Bush on Wednesday accused Kerry of opportunism, saying: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as commander in chief ... that is part of a pattern of a candidate who will say anything to get elected."

Kerry threw the words back at the president 24 hours later, announcing he was going "to apply the Bush standard" and declaring: "Mr. President, I agree with you."

"George Bush jumped to conclusions about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," he said. "George Bush jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction and he rushed to war without a plan for the peace. George Bush jumped to conclusions about how the Iraqi people would receive our troops. He not only jumped to conclusions, he ignored the facts he was given."

More...

I just love Kerry's replies... If only I can argue in style like he does. He's my American Idol.

[Kate]

Sorry for triple posting. But I found an interesting website that allows people to vote from all over the world, and sorts the results by country. I'd say Kerry is on the safe side with 88% of the vore.

http://www.betavote.com

Results:

http://www.betavote.com/results/

Have fun.

By the way, a quote that kinda made sense and made me think: "At least half Kerry's constituency thinks that once he wins we'll be out of Iraq in three months. This isn't going to happen. When all the electoral balloons have floated away, Kerry will face the same dilemma George Bush now faces -- a hostile Middle East, an indifferent Europe, a fragile democracy in Iraq, and a world where rogue nations are acquiring nuclear weapons as fast as possible." Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7314

[spyretto]

On a more serious note, Kerry is catching up.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

I far as I know, the head of the CIA on wmd was fired.

No, he resigned.

Originally Posted by spyretto

What is your take on the subject anyway, do you maintain Saddam should have stayed in power?

Wow, nice attempt at dodging the issue. It alk about failure of intelligence and original reasons to invade Iraq, you start talking about soemthing else. Nice.

Originally Posted by spyretto

No, they didn't attack anybody but declaring themselves as enemies of the West and collaborating directly with terrorist groups must mean something, don't you think?

So? They didn't attack anybody, even you admit so. As for terrorism, Iraq did same. I still fail to see how Iran was 10x more of a threat than Iraq.

Originally Posted by spyretto

South Korea has been named part of the "axis of evil" by GW Bush ( along with Iran and Syria ).

North Korea

Originally Posted by spyretto

I don't think the US can open another front now that the Iraqui conflict has not been resolved yet. As I said, North Korea does not pose a direct threat for the time-being.

They pose bigger threat than Iraq did in March 2003. Due to bigger WMD arsenal, means to deliver them and regime's threats to use them.

Originally Posted by spyretto

I think they did publicly condemn the use of CW and suspended diplomatic relations with Iraq as a result of it

Nope. actually quite the opposite. Diplomatic relations were restored in mid 1980s and US prevented UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW. they did everything possible to protect Iraq.

Originally Posted by spyretto

but if you expected them to have taken a more active role in supporting Iran in the the conflict, no that did not happen. So? The reason that Iraq ceased to be an ally to the US was the use of CW against the Kurds and the situation escalated until the invasion of Saddam in Kuwait.

Wrong again. after Kurds were gassed in Halabya US doubled agricultural aid to Iraq.

And relations deteriorated because of invasion of Kuwait, not because Saddam was "bad".

[thegurgi]

I'm restating my stance on the war, i've decided that the way i put things don't really reflect how i feel about it, so:

I believe and know that nearly everything we've done in Iraq was completely wrong and perpetuated by the selfishness of the current establishment. However, i do support the reformation of the Middle East and the end of instability in the world's countries. I hope, that in the end of our involvement that this can become a reality that maybe there will be peace and i don't care how long that takes. Call me niave and optimistic, but i just want the end of suffering.

The instability of this region isn't just our fault remember, if we look back to the end of World War 1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the region was controlled by the British, French, Russians and others. They created borders for themselves but not the people who actually lived there, boundaries between peoples and such. As such the middle east has been sectored off not by themselves, but by those in power. Maybe if these nations had treated this area better and sectored everything to have made more sense, a united area with stronger support, rather than how it's still treated. But it's just so unstable, they have more civil wars than any other region in the world. The palestinians want a country, the kurds want a country, but the turks don't want to lose territory, the iranians don't want to lose territory, the israeli's especially don't. This could all be ended with a pencil on the map... well not all of it. Iraq is just one of the problems, but i do understand part of the problem.

Oil. one of Bush's agenda's had to be oil, probably his fathers as well. But in the next 40 years the oil is going to be gone. So many scientists believe this and if it proves to be true, this isn't just the State's problem. Oil is an issue, i think we should all agree, and we're all going to be affected by the end of this problem, except countries where they've solved the problem for themselves (like Brazil). But it's the states problem more than any one else just cause we USE more oil than any other countries. It's rather ridiculous, this country is more concerned about the price of oil, and yet they don't think of how to really conserve it. Other countries have, and yet you get a tax cut if you buy an "SUV" (aka, gas guzzler) and not if you by a fuel efficient one, it should totally be the other way around. I think that we should all, (all countries), need to focus on a new system of energy, and i'm sure some are, at least the scientists. and hopefully something renewable.

But, above all this, i still do support a war on militant extremist terrorists and the freedom of all people. I support what my brother's group did and the others he's told me of, i support COMPLETELY what they are doing. I do agree that in the offensive, we definitly need to go about it in a different way, and we need support, and maybe if we did, it WOULD go differently. So this is how i feel, i'm rather indifferent, but i won't take a completely against stance like everyone else, because some good will come out of this, eventually.

This is why i'm voting for Kerry, maybe with him things will go differently. And there's a part of me that really thinks he might win

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by luxxi

No, he resigned.

Yeah he resigned or was resigned. Nothing to do with the fruitless efforts to locate wmd, it was just a coincedence I guess it's like saying that Bin Laden never admitted 9/11 openly, etc. etc.

Wow, nice attempt at dodging the issue. It alk about failure of intelligence and original reasons to invade Iraq, you start talking about soemthing else. Nice.

No, it's obvious I'm not dodging the issue as I'm trying to debate and refute all of your arguments the same way that you try to refute mine. But to say that I'm dodging the issue while you avoid answering at the same time, well it might be taken by some as an attempt to dodge the issue as well.

So? They didn't attack anybody, even you admit so. As for terrorism, Iraq did same. I still fail to see how Iran was 10x more of a threat than Iraq.

" 10 times worse" - was tongue-in-cheek as you very well understood but pretend you didn't. That doesn't mean that at the time, the US-friendly, westernised Saddam regime was seemingly at least - more dangerous than the anti-western, terrorist-friendly islamic fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. The US was not the only western country that decided to back the Saddam regime. Anyway, what is your point in going 20 years back, in the midst of the Cold War to prove what exactly? We have a current situation in Iraq right now, different to what it was 20 years ago. But I suppose if you think that the best solution for the current state of Iraq and the world is to let the insurgents win and withdraw the troops in the midst of chaos and anarchy, well, then I suppose it wasn't.

They pose bigger threat than Iraq did in March 2003. Due to bigger WMD arsenal, means to deliver them and regime's threats to use them.

Do they really have nuclear weapons ready to launch, or do they have a nuclear weapons program? It's a different thing. All they could do would be to launch their missiles against South Korea, and create havoc in the area, and then, naturally, you'd have to blame the United States for their possible involvement.
But allow me to maintain my position that a small isolated communist state is less dangerous than global terrorism.

Nope. actually quite the opposite. Diplomatic relations were restored in mid 1980s and US prevented UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW. they did everything possible to protect Iraq.


Wrong again. after Kurds were gassed in Halabya US doubled agricultural aid to Iraq.

And relations deteriorated because of invasion of Kuwait, not because Saddam was "bad".

Interesting. How did they singlehandedly prevent the UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW exactly? If the US can lobby UNSC like that, then I suppose they would have also authorised the use of force in Iraq? But apart from that, I think that State Department and National Security Council also issued reports that showed Iraq was developing CW, sponsored terrorism and eventually, used prohibited weapons like CW against the Iranians and the Kurds. So basically it was a decision of the Reagan administration to disregard evidence; after all, Iraq was a US ally during the Iran/Iraq war. It was the Cold War, a different ballgame all together. Still, I'm not trying to find excuses for them, cause they don't have any excuses. As all countries do, they placed their own interests above the rest, in what they thought it was right. It was obviously wrong.
On the other hand, while you're so meticulous in pointing out all liabilities on the US part, you should also take the time to investigate the involvement of other suppliers of weapons to Saddam Hussein thoughout the war - how about your beloved Soviet Union, France, and (West) Germany - any particular similarities between those three? Also, the selling of weapons to Saddam from Arab countries like Kuwait. I suppose they sold the weapons and the technology but they wouldn't imagine Saddam might turn them against them, right?...politics, politics.
Yeah I know America is such an easy target and some people can't help it but single out everything that involves them while discarding everything else on their minds. But a better approach would be to try and see things a bit more objectively.
So much about ancient history...

[Kate]

thegurgi, I totally agree with your opinion. Very well written.

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

thegurgi, I totally agree with your opinion. Very well written.

I gather you liked the "I'm voting for Kerry" part, the best. Just kidding

[Kate]

spyretto,

A new Bin Laden tape surfaced recently, here a quote from an article on Yahoo! news.

Originally Posted by Yahoo! News

In the tape, Bin Laden accuses President George W. Bush of "misleading" the American people and of "hiding the real reasons" behind the September 11, 2001 attacks that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any state which does not play havoc with our security would automatically ensure its own security," he said.

More: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1521&ncid=2043

What do y'all think? Is bin Laden trying to influence U.S. elections?

[spyretto]

Actually, I was more interested in some other excerpts from Bin Laden's tape, namely the ones where he presents himself as a freedom fighter in the name of all Islam:

" We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours"..."God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind"...

inspiring stuff, luxxi, innit?

[Kate]

It's amazing that some people, like Osama bin Laden and George W. (and the people behind their decisions) just can't get through their heads that nothing can be solved by hurting and killing others. And both are well-educated men, surprisingly. Stupid idiots.

[goku]

I don't think he's trying to influence the elections, as he said neither Bush nor Kerry can protect their country.

The thing I liked about this tape is what Osama said to the American people. He did not come out and say he hated all Americans, and they're all going to die for being American. He blamed those who were responsible, the leaders of the country, not the average citizens. This sounds crazy, but he had a much more humanistic standpoint in this one; he said he knows people need security, and it's natural to defend it. He also spoke about freedom, and the actions free people take.

I'm definitely not saying I approve of Bin Laden and his actions of violence, but he rang out as less militaristic and more even keel and understanding.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Yeah he resigned or was resigned. Nothing to do with the fruitless efforts to locate wmd, it was just a coincedence I guess it's like saying that Bin Laden never admitted 9/11 openly, etc. etc.

If Bush would blame him he would be fired. Since he wasn't fired obviously Bush didn't find aything wrong with his work.

Originally Posted by spyretto

No, it's obvious I'm not dodging the issue as I'm trying to debate and refute all of your arguments the same way that you try to refute mine. But to say that I'm dodging the issue while you avoid answering at the same time, well it might be taken by some as an attempt to dodge the issue as well.

Adress WMD issue, not "freeing Iraqis". that was reason to go to war in the first place. Only after WMD weren't found it became "liberating Iraqis".

Originally Posted by spyretto

" 10 times worse" - was tongue-in-cheek as you very well understood but pretend you didn't.

When you say 10 tiems worse I thought you ment Iran was 10 times more dangerous. Sorry, I didn't realise you emant something compeltly else.

Originally Posted by spyretto

That doesn't mean that at the time, the US-friendly, westernised Saddam regime was seemingly at least - more dangerous than the anti-western, terrorist-friendly islamic fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.

They were more convenient. It doesn't make them less dangerous.

Originally Posted by spyretto

The US was not the only western country that decided to back the Saddam regime. Anyway, what is your point in going 20 years back, in the midst of the Cold War to prove what exactly?

That US changes it's foreign policy and tries to hide mistakes of the past.

Originally Posted by spyretto

We have a current situation in Iraq right now, different to what it was 20 years ago.

And today's situation is result of actions taken 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by spyretto

But I suppose if you think that the best solution for the current state of Iraq and the world is to let the insurgents win and withdraw the troops in the midst of chaos and anarchy, well, then I suppose it wasn't.

The best solution would be not to go in in the first place.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Do they really have nuclear weapons ready to launch, or do they have a nuclear weapons program? It's a different thing.

They have 5-10 nukes.

Originally Posted by spyretto

All they could do would be to launch their missiles against South Korea, and create havoc in the area, and then, naturally, you'd have to blame the United States for their possible involvement.

Don't forget missiles capable of reaching US. Which is far, far more than IRaq had. Yet you consider IRaq bigger threat. Interesting.

Originally Posted by spyretto

But allow me to maintain my position that a small isolated communist state is less dangerous than global terrorism.

Is it? Most deadly AQ attack killed 3.000 people. One nuke can kill at least 10 times more.

And what does global terrorism have to do with Iraq? Was there AQ presence in Baghda-controlled areas?

Originally Posted by spyretto

Interesting. How did they singlehandedly prevent the UNSC from passing resolution condemning Iraq for using CW exactly?

By employing veto power that 5 permanent members have.

Originally Posted by spyretto

If the US can lobby UNSC like that, then I suppose they would have also authorised the use of force in Iraq?

No, because other 4 members can use same veto power to block US motions.

Originally Posted by spyretto

But apart from that, I think that State Department and National Security Council also issued reports that showed Iraq was developing CW, sponsored terrorism and eventually, used prohibited weapons like CW against the Iranians and the Kurds. So basically it was a decision of the Reagan administration to disregard evidence; after all, Iraq was a US ally during the Iran/Iraq war.

Exactlly. They knew what was Saddam's true nature yet they supported him anyway.

Originally Posted by spyretto

It was the Cold War, a different ballgame all together. Still, I'm not trying to find excuses for them, cause they don't have any excuses. As all countries do, they placed their own interests above the rest, in what they thought it was right. It was obviously wrong.

Then they should admit it and not try to hide it.

Originally Posted by spyretto

On the other hand, while you're so meticulous in pointing out all liabilities on the US part, you should also take the time to investigate the involvement of other suppliers of weapons to Saddam Hussein thoughout the war - how about your beloved Soviet Union, France, and (West) Germany - any particular similarities between those three? Also, the selling of weapons to Saddam from Arab countries like Kuwait. I suppose they sold the weapons and the technology but they wouldn't imagine Saddam might turn them against them, right?...politics, politics.

Yes, but did they start calling Saddam next Hitler soon after they sold him weapons?

Originally Posted by spyretto

Yeah I know America is such an easy target and some people can't help it but single out everything that involves them while discarding everything else on their minds. But a better approach would be to try and see things a bit more objectively.
So much about ancient history...

While we are at objectivity look at US policy in same light.

[goku]

http://www.votergate.tv/
This is a documentary done on the fallibility of the electronic voting machines in the election. Pretty interesting, seeing as how easily one could change the course of an election.

And spyretto, I agree with what you are saying..

[thegurgi]

those voting booth things are pretty complicated... i'm rather afraid to make a mistake, and i'm going to have my dad run me through the process, hahaha. We'd always get to do a mock election in high school and we'd get to use the real deal machine and i think i always pulled the curtain thing wrongly

[spyretto]

to luxxi:

I'll be back to the debate soon, if you join the Mijahadeen warriors in the meantime please let the forum know.

to all the rest:

One day for junior to come back to power. Some patriotic posters to celebrate the ocassion.

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

to luxxi:

I'll be back to the debate soon, if you join the Mijahadeen warriors in the meantime please let the forum know.

I will. If I can't look for RPG totting guy with Santa hat.

[freddie]

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiative...mommyabort.asp

[haku]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Some patriotic posters to celebrate the ocassion.

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp

Thanks, good stuff there...

I like this one

This one could actually be what's going to happen in the next four years.

[freddie]

Kerry will wait for results in Copley Plaza in Boston. I've been walking through that place every day when I was in Boston. It's kinda surreal that I was walking the same places that the next president of the US is now.