Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Fair question. What's Bush's?

you first

Spliffdaddy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by MindFad:
So you didn't watch the debate or listen to anything Kerry has said since the beginning of his campaign, huh?

Are you serious?

Of course I've been listening to Kerry.

That's precisely why I don't have a clue what his position is.

spacefreak · Oct 1, 2004, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So just after Kerry called the war "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" he's gonna ask other countries for help?

I'm sure they'll trip over themselves in an effort to help.

Not to mention the continued support of our current coalition partners, or as Kerry calls them - "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed".

itai195 · Oct 1, 2004, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Oh, I see.

So just after Kerry called the war "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" he's gonna ask other countries for help?

I'm sure they'll trip over themselves in an effort to help.

The funny thing is, those countries sure seemed to agree with that sentiment two years ago. So maybe it's not such a problem, and maybe all we need is 'a new credibility and a fresh start' after all

Of course, thank God Poland has been by our side all along.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 1, 2004, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Two weeks ago you called Bush an incompetent liar. He must be a character flip-flopper.

Go through my archived posts to the date, 9/21/04 to see a timeline which lists the causes which compelled me to flip-flop.

Jansar · Oct 1, 2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by MindFad:
So you didn't watch the debate or listen to anything Kerry has said since the beginning of his campaign, huh?

Are you serious?

Well, we better be careful before assuming, because as we all know, he changes his position on every issue.

Kerry is entering into a debate that deals with issues that are way over his head.

spacefreak · Oct 1, 2004, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Fair question. What's Bush's?

Same as it's always been. US forces will remain in Iraq to provide security and training as needed and requested by the Iraqi government until Iraq's security forces are ready to take over the bulk of duties.

We stay until the job's done. If it takes 6 months, great. If it takes longer, then so be it.

itai195 · Oct 1, 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Fair question. What's Bush's?

Plan? He said the mission was accomplished a year and a half ago, or has he flip flopped?

aberdeenwriter · Oct 1, 2004, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure, if you want... if who won the debate is that important to you.

I'd prefer to meet the day after election day, however.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Jansar · Oct 1, 2004, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
you first

I can answer it for him.

Kerry will make famous either the "duck and cover" solution or "run for your life" solution.

But, in all seriousness, he'll try diplomacy and find out very quick that - hey - Bush was right...IT WON'T WORK, and he'll pull the troops away from there, totally screwing up our flow for capturing terrorists and keeping our nation safe.

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Same as it's always been. US forces will remain in Iraq to provide security and training as needed and requested by the Iraqi government until Iraq's security forces are ready to take over the bulk of duties.

We stay until the job's done. If it takes 6 months, great. If it takes longer, then so be it.

By the looks of the number of attacks on civilians in Iraq the US isn't providing security for anyone but themselves.

zigzag · Oct 1, 2004, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
you first

Actually, the situation is such that most of what either candidate says is wishful thinking. But Bush is President, got us into the mess, and doesn't appear to have any more idea of what to do about it than Kerry. If he did, it wouldn't have reached this point in the first place.

Kerry's described his plan often enough, and you can read it on his website, not that I put much stock in it.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 1, 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by itai195:
Plan? He said the mission was accomplished a year and a half ago, or has he flip flopped?

The mission he referred to that of Saddam's regime being toppled?

No flip flop there.

icruise · Oct 1, 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure, if you want... if who won the debate is that important to you.

I see. So who won the debate means nothing to you. I guess your multiple, impassioned posts about it misled me...

I'd prefer to meet the day after election day, however.

We will.

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
The mission he referred to that of Saddam's regime being toppled?

No flip flop there.

Dude he said that major combat was over and the US had won (prevailed was the exact word he used) so I guess it isn't a flip flop but he was wrong instead.

Jansar · Oct 1, 2004, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, the situation is such that most of what either candidate says is wishful thinking. But Bush is President, got us into the mess, and doesn't appear to have any more idea of what to do about it than Kerry. If he did, it wouldn't have reached this point in the first place.

Kerry's described his plan often enough, and you can read it on his website, not that I put much stock in it.

Yes, that's lovely, but you didn't quite answer his question.

Jansar · Oct 1, 2004, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Dude he said that major combat was over and the US had won (prevailed was the exact word he used) so I guess it isn't a flip flop but he was wrong instead.

He never EVER said that they were done over there. They had prevailed on many missions, including the capture of over three quarters of major terrorist leaders in the Middle East. There's nothing wrong there...you just misunderstood.

zigzag · Oct 1, 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Same as it's always been. US forces will remain in Iraq to provide security and training as needed and requested by the Iraqi government until Iraq's security forces are ready to take over the bulk of duties.

We stay until the job's done. If it takes 6 months, great. If it takes longer, then so be it.

That's a more specific plan that Kerry's?

The fact is that Bush has lost control of the situation and all he can do is make vague (and recently misleading) statements about training Iraqis. Which is pretty much all Kerry can do. But Bush has already demonstrated that he can't do the job well, so I'll take my chances on Kerry.

itai195 · Oct 1, 2004, 01:32 AM

Actually aberdeen, this is what he said:

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Doesn't seem to it like me, 17 months later, when there are no-go zones and we've lost control of several cities.

spacefreak · Oct 1, 2004, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

aberdeenwriter - delete some of your PMs... your box is full.

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Jansar:
He never EVER said that they were done over there. They had prevailed on many missions, including the capture of over three quarters of major terrorist leaders in the Middle East. There's nothing wrong there...you just misunderstood.

I didn't say he said they were done over there land they were going home but he did say:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

Considering the situation on the ground today he couldn't be more wrong. Monthly US military deaths for perspective.

Mithras · Oct 1, 2004, 01:39 AM

One last note -- I came into the debate a reluctant Kerry supporter. See my sig.
I don't like GWB or his policies. But I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries, and wasn't very excited about him. I bought the lines that he was inconsistent and a little weak.
I came out of the debate a proud and firm Kerry supporter. He came across strong, firm, and like a President. I'd be happy to see this guy running the country. He seems thoughtful and capable.

smacintush · Oct 1, 2004, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Considering the situation on the ground today he couldn't be more wrong.

He also admitted that he was wrong about that, but we need to keep at it until we prevail.

smacintush · Oct 1, 2004, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Mithras:
One last note -- I came into the debate a reluctant Kerry supporter. See my sig.
I don't like GWB or his policies. But I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries, and wasn't very excited about him. I bought the lines that he was inconsistent and a little weak.
I came out of the debate a proud and firm Kerry supporter. He came across strong, firm, and like a President. I'd be happy to see this guy running the country. He seems thoughtful and capable.

I think Kerry is completely naive and full of sh*t, but he can SOUND knowledgeable and came across well in the debate compared to Bush. Then again, I thought Bush sucked in the debates against Gore too, and I was wrong about that.

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by smacintush:
He also admitted that he was wrong about that, but we need to keep at it until we prevail.

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from an television interview released on Sunday.

When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

zigzag · Oct 1, 2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Jansar:
Yes, that's lovely, but you didn't quite answer his question.

That's because I'm honest enough to admit that under the present circumstances, anyone who claims to have a concrete plan is engaging in wishful thinking. Neither candidate can honestly say where things are going to go from here, and because of the poor judgments made by this administration, either candidate will be hamstrung for years to come. However, I believe that the person who has already mismanaged things should be held responsible, as would occur in any other context.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 1, 2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
I didn't say he said they were done over there land they were going home but he did say:

Considering the situation on the ground today he couldn't be more wrong. Monthly US military deaths for perspective.

We prevailed over Saddams organized forces to maintain the Hussein regime. No more. No less.

itai195 · Oct 1, 2004, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by smacintush:
I think Kerry is completely naive and full of sh*t, but he can SOUND knowledgeable and came across well in the debate compared to Bush.

We'll have to put that down to political differences between ourselves, but then neither of us are swing voters.

Then again, I thought Bush sucked in the debates against Gore too, and I was wrong about that.

I thought the same. But the 2000 campaign was pretty similar to this one -- Gore was labeled and didn't fight back until it was too late.

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We prevailed over Saddams organized forces to maintain the Hussein regime. No more. No less.

If you say so.

spacefreak · Oct 1, 2004, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by zigzag:
The fact is that Bush has lost control of the situation and all he can do is make vague (and recently misleading) statements about training Iraqis. Which is pretty much all Kerry can do. But Bush has already demonstrated that he can't do the job well, so I'll take my chances on Kerry.

Rebuilding a nation takes time. This is not like a microwave meal. Let's see how the January elections go in Iraq, and take it from there.

Under Bush, we've already restructured Iraq's entire Treasury and banking system. We've restored their schools to a condition unseen in Iraq for decades. More children attend school than ever before (a 95% increase). Their nation's primary export, oil, is being pumped at maximum levels, and that's set to increase dramatically over the next 2 years. Women have rights that they have never imagined. 3.5 million Iraqi children have been immunized. Shipping ports have been restored and modernized. An interim constitution has been signed.

Can't do what job well? Can you be more specific?

goMac · Oct 1, 2004, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Oh, I see.

So just after Kerry called the war "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" he's gonna ask other countries for help?

I'm sure they'll trip over themselves in an effort to help.

PS, maybe you should have paid more attention...because that's not what Kerry said.

Kerry said we have to finish what we start, and if we accept that we were wrong, maybe other countries will help us clean up.

We don't seem to be doing such a good job cleaning up ourselves because Bush refuses to admit he was wrong about the WMD's, or that Iraq was connected to 9/11. That is why no one respects the US.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 1, 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:

MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS have ceased.

goMac · Oct 1, 2004, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Rebuilding a nation takes time. This is not like a microwave meal. Let's see how the January elections go in Iraq, and take it from there.

Under Bush, we've already restructured Iraq's entire Treasury and banking system. We've restored their schools to a condition unseen in Iraq for decades. More children attend school than ever before (a 95% increase). Their nation's primary export, oil, is being pumped at maximum levels, and that's set to increase dramatically over the next 2 years. Women have rights that they have never imagined. 3.5 million Iraqi children have been immunized. Shipping ports have been restored and modernized. An interim constitution has been signed.

Can't do what job well? Can you be more specific?

Terrorists running around through the streets of Iraq killing children is a job well done? No. I don't think so. At least when Saddam was in power there were no terrorists in Iraq.

LoganCharles · Oct 1, 2004, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by smacintush:
I think Kerry is completely naive and full of sh*t, but he can SOUND knowledgeable and came across well in the debate compared to Bush. Then again, I thought Bush sucked in the debates against Gore too, and I was wrong about that.

I just watched the closing remarks. Based after those 90 seconds or so Bush definately came off better than I've been reading. He looked tired though which might account for some of the bewilderment. Kerry on the other hand looked and sounded good but said really nothing except "I believe". I really "believe" the democrates nominated this guy because he has the ability to look presidential. He's kind of like the Ken Doll of Presidential nominees.

smacintush · Oct 1, 2004, 01:53 AM

BBC News
US President George W Bush has acknowledged for the first time that he made a "miscalculation" of what conditions would be in post-war Iraq.

Mr Bush told The New York Times that the error was by by-product of a "swift victory" in the initial conflict.

Saddam Hussein's military disappeared into cities, enabling them to mount a rebellion against US troops much faster than Washington anticipated, he said.

Link

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS have ceased.

Tell that to the guys around Falluja and there will be more of the same.

LoganCharles · Oct 1, 2004, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by goMac:
Terrorists running around through the streets of Iraq killing children is a job well done? No. I don't think so. At least when Saddam was in power there were no terrorists in Iraq.

Really. And where did you gather this information? Dan Rather? Kinkos?

Who is to say that the "terrorists" commiting these current acts were not associated with Hussein originally? He had quite a few thugs working in his goverment and was not afraid to kill his own people.

goMac · Oct 1, 2004, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I just watched the closing remarks. Based after those 90 seconds or so Bush definately came off better than I've been reading. He looked tired though which might account for some of the bewilderment. Kerry on the other hand looked and sounded good but said really nothing except "I believe". I really "believe" the democrates nominated this guy because he has the ability to look presidential. He's kind of like the Ken Doll of Presidential nominees.

You should watch the whole debate. I would assume that the closing remarks where to most practiced and wouldn't say anything about the candidates debate.

smacintush · Oct 1, 2004, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I really "believe" the democrates nominated this guy because he has the ability to look presidential. He's kind of like the Ken Doll of Presidential nominees.

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Really. And where did you gather this information? Dan Rather? Kinkos?

Who is to say that the "terrorists" commiting these current acts were not associated with Hussein originally? He had quite a few thugs working in his goverment and was not afraid to kill his own people.

What the hell difference does that make? The point is the US is not providing security for the civilians of Iraq and isn't that part of their job? If not what the hell are they doing there?

smacintush · Oct 1, 2004, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
The point is the US is not providing security for the civilians of Iraq and isn't that part of their job? If not what the hell are they doing there?

Are you sure about that? The fact is that there isn't squat reported of the GOOD being done in Iraq. All anyone wants to hear is the blood and gore, Bush is a failure, etc.

itai195 · Oct 1, 2004, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Jansar:
I don't know word for word, but during the debate, Bush said something along the lines of, "My people know that I'm a good leader and they will support me and vote for me again."

Oh yeah I forgot, that was part of his answer to the question: "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?"

Answer: "No, I don't believe it's going to happen," Bush said -- very clearly referring to a Kerry win in November. "I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead."

Nice dodge.

zigzag · Oct 1, 2004, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Rebuilding a nation takes time. This is not like a microwave meal. Let's see how the January elections go in Iraq, and take it from there.

Under Bush, we've already restructured Iraq's entire Treasury and banking system. We've restored their schools to a condition unseen in Iraq for decades. More children attend school than ever before (a 95% increase). Their nation's primary export, oil, is being pumped at maximum levels, and that's set to increase dramatically over the next 2 years. Women have rights that they have never imagined. 3.5 million Iraqi children have been immunized. Shipping ports have been restored and modernized. An interim constitution has been signed.

Can't do what job well? Can you be more specific?

That's good, and I was in favor of making those things happen; the problem is that by recent accounts, people can no longer walk the streets of Baghdad, reconstruction has come to a virtual halt, etc. I'd post links to accounts of the situation there (and I'm sure you'd provide links to the contrary), and I'd list the administration's various miscalculations - the troop estimates, the costs, the flowers - but we've been through all that. Suffice it to say that, whatever the merits of his larger vision, and acknowledging the fact that these things take time, I don't think the President has done his job well.

Solomon Grundy · Oct 1, 2004, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by smacintush:
Are you sure about that? The fact is that there isn't squat reported of the GOOD being done in Iraq. All anyone wants to hear is the blood and gore, Bush is a failure, etc.

Please provide me with the news of what good is being done and I will gladly rejoice. I don't want to hear about blood and gore, I wish it wasn't happening but it is at a staggering rate so obviously there are some serious security issues that are not being resolved and that should be priority number one. The job is not being done plain and simple regardless of who is in charge.

smacintush · Oct 1, 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by itai195:
Oh yeah I forgot, that was part of his answer to the question: "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?"

Answer: "No, I don't believe it's going to happen," Bush said -- very clearly referring to a Kerry win in November. "I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead."

Nice dodge.

Couldn't have been TOO nice if YOU caught it! HA!

goMac · Oct 1, 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by smacintush:
Are you sure about that? The fact is that there isn't squat reported of the GOOD being done in Iraq. All anyone wants to hear is the blood and gore, Bush is a failure, etc.

Either that or you can listen to Bush, and believe Iraq is now a perfect place. No one dies, except for our troops and terrorists. The Iraqi people are completely happy, and welcome the US with open arms. Not only that, but we have broad international support, from strong allies like Poland.

olePigeon · Oct 1, 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by itai195:
Nice dodge.

Speaking of dodges... did I miss something? Or did Bush even address the situation with North Korea? You know, the country that actually does have nuclear weapons.

icruise · Oct 1, 2004, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
I really "believe" the democrates nominated this guy because he has the ability to look presidential. He's kind of like the Ken Doll of Presidential nominees.

Hmm. I can't keep up. First he was funny looking ("Lurch wants to be president!" "Look at him windsurf and dress up in funny clothes" "He blinked when someone took a picture of him!") and now he's too presidential looking? If i didn't know better, I'd say that was a flip-flop.

smacintush · Oct 1, 2004, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Solomon Grundy:
Please provide me with the news of what good is being done and I will gladly rejoice. I don't want to hear about blood and gore, I wish it wasn't happening but it is at a staggering rate so obviously there are some serious security issues that are not being resolved and that should be priority number one. The job is not being done plain and simple regardless of who is in charge.

The point is that you are so sure that we aren't doing enough when we may be doing all we can and you are just hearing the bad. How many do we save? How many have we protected? No, I can't tell you because I don't know, but to say that we aren't doing enough with out having the FACTS is just as stupid as saying that we ARE doing everything we can.

Just trying to be objective, there are SO many here that are SO SURE that we are just a bunch of bungling f*ck-ups, when NONE of you (or I) really have a friggin' clue beyond the tripe in the press.

itai195 · Oct 1, 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Speaking of dodges... did I miss something? Or did Bush even address the situation with North Korea? You know, the country that actually does have nuclear weapons.

Yeah he addressed it, they talked about North Korea a lot actually.