Debate threadFollow

The only thinking you do Gbaji, is to justify your loyalty to an evil empire.

The facts are that everything has gotten worse in the US since he took power, and maybe it wasn't his fault. Never the less, he didn't stop it from happening, and just in case, I think it is time to try something new. Bush's policies for the most part, have shown nothing positive. Lets give Kerry a try to see if he can do better, what have you got to lose, if Kerry sucks, you can boot his *** in 4 years.

So your choice is to go with the proven loser, or try the unknown with new ideas and a chance to bring respectability back to the US on the international scene. Bush has no chance.

Or are you agreeing with Bush that you don't need anyone, and will go it all by yourself, because your massive cowboy ego will not let you be part of a community of nations.

Remember there are no nations in this world, only people, and these people that guide or nations have all the flaws that every person does. I would never want someone that would let his ego, go ahead of the good of the nation.

Kerry has already defined himself as a team player, and I think the international community would welcome him, and the US back into the fold. NATO, the UN would once again be in control, and internationally, your actions would be part of a collective, lessoning you responsibility for their outcome, and downplaying the image of an imperialistic America.

For these reasons and more, I think Kerry has to win.

Because Kerry used it in context in the debate to imply exactly what it seems many other people mistake that statement for: That Bush isn't concerned *at all* about Bin Laden, and is somehow ignoring the threat of terrorism by reallocating troops to Iraq instead of using them to hunt through the hills for Bin Laden.


In that quote you originally posted, Bush was replying to the context of the conversation, by stating that the implication that he was ignoring Bin Laden or not concerned with him at all was an exaggeration of what he really said.


And that is and was a completely true statement. Implying that Bush is ignoring Bin Laden, or isn't concerned about him at all (as Kerry was doing) *is* an exageration of what Bush actually said.


Hence the reaction from me and others on this issue. It's doubly silly to me when Bush makes what to me is a very obvious and clear statement about how others exagerated his earlier comments about Bin Laden, and people (like the site Pickle linked) then contrast that statement to their own exageration and conclude that Bush is lying.

I'm sorry, but that's total absurdity.

Isn't it time to turn you over and begin a fresh round of abrading those open sores? My ointment stock slipped three cents today...

/hands the beefy male nurse a nice and coarse 80 grit sandpaper

Totem

NO HE DIDN'T. NO HE DIDN'T. KERRY DID NOT IMPLY THAT.


YOU MADE THAT ASSUMPTION GBAJI, YOU MADE IT.






Edited, Thu Oct 14 20:26:07 2004 by trickybeck

Hmmm, sticking to your scraps eh? Frozen on the spot?

SpellingSpelling

Edited, Thu Oct 14 20:19:51 2004 by SmashingJroc

Pure rhetoric.



Really? Look. Just because 4 years ago you were ignorant of the danger of terrorism to you does not mean you were "safer" or better off then. You were just more ignorant. Some of us are ok with not having a security blanket covering our eyes.



What new ideas does Kerry have? He wants to turn back the clock on international relations to where we were before 9/11. That's ok with you? You want an ineffective UN running the show? You want a government that will sit back and let terrorists plot for decades until they finally get a successful attack off on US soil? You want us to go back to trying to talk nicely to people who want to kill us on the off chance that even though it didn't work the last 50 times we tried it, maybe it'll work this time?

You are far more of an optimist then I am then. I'm a realist. The reality is that the methods that Kerry wants to use are the exact methods we've been using for the last 50 years, and that have made the situation we are now in. More of that is not what we need.



What kind of leftist crap is that? Of course there are nations. And they affect a whole lot of what goes on in the world. It's been ignoring the nations involved that got us into this mess. Assuming that "the people" are inherently good, and that somehow we can appeal to them to ignore their own national interests is wishful thinking at best. The real world simply doesn't work that way. It never has.




You are out of touch aren't you? There is no "fold". There's a collection of nations that all want what is in their best interests. The UN *could* be a useful tool for managing that, but it has failed repeatedly to make hard decisions when it really matters. I'm all for the UN running things. But not if it continues to do things the way it has. That's the problem. Terrorism today is a problem that has to be dealt with internationally, and the obvious body to take on that responsiblity is the UN, but it *wont* do it. And no amount of Kerry bleating his heart will change that. The UN has to be dragged kicking and screaming into assuming a role of authority over international law, or it will steadily lose power and usefulness. Republicans understand that. Democrats think that if we just give it more time, maybe somehow the magic UN fairy will come along and make everything better.


The correct action is to take action, show the UN what it *should* be doing, and then give it the opportunity to step to the plate. Do that enough times, and eventually it will. If we just sit back and talk about doing something, nothing will ever get done. Yeah. It's a hard road, but that's what has to be done. The UN *should* have taken action against Afghanistand and the Taliban. It *should* have taken action against Iraq. It *should* be more actively dealing with the genocides going on in North Africa. But instead, it sits back, afraid to violate anyone's sovrenity, while the world spins slowly into chaos.


And that's what you want?

Cat got your tounge totem? Not feeling so well now?

Sure thing:





Then came Bush's opening statement.


Then:



The fact that he said "DEADLY focused" shows that he believes "not THAT concerned" is not conerned enough.

Would some one care to inform the rest of us what the "Real War on Terror" is according to JFK II?

I really didn't believe that the Democrats where in capable of understanding multi-tasking, however it becomes clearer everyday that they can handle only one thing at a time.

I imagine that if Gbaji asks a girl out and she says "Maybe for a million bucks", Gbaji declares that to means that she really does like him because if she would date him for a million bucks instead of not at all, she must be a somewhat interested.

And this is exactly the point I was trying to make 3 pages ago.


The Dem position is that Iraq is not a legitimate part of the war on terror, and use the fact that we've not captured Bin Laden as evidence of this. My position (and that of most Reps) is that capturing one man is not nearly as important as working to prevent the conditions that allowed him to do what he did in the first place.

Kerry was simply repeating that position, and very clearly indicating that by not chasing Bin Laden to the exclusion of everything else (Iraq), Bush was "failing" the war on terror. He's essentially saying that "capuring bin laden" is winning, and not capturing him is losing. That's not even remotely close to the reality though.


Kerry and the Dems are the ones bringing an "all or nothing" attitude into the issue. Bush is saying that it's a matter of degrees. You can scrutinize his switch of phrase from what Kerry quoted him to what he responded to (not that concerned to not worried) all you want, but what he's doing is addressing the real difference in opinion going on. The Dems seem to argue that we should chase bin laden to the exclusion of everything else, so Bush is replying to that absolutism. It's actually a pretty clever turn of phrase since it correctly nails Kerry on what Kerry so obviously would *like* to have quoted Bush as saying if only Bush had ever actually said it. At the same time, it highlights the difference in approach between the two.


Um. But however you interpret that change, Bush at no time is lying or being inconsistent. His response is certainly a bit strawmanish, but not terribly so, since he was being attacked on the issue of not ignoring Iraq to go after Bin Laden. He doesn't respond directly to the statements made by Kerry, but he does respond correct to the accusation behind the statements.

Again this proves my point, the UN is not made up of Nations, it is made up of people. People create scandal, not nations. With the right people in power these things wouldn't happen, and if those people are found to be guilty, they should be prosecuted and held accountable.

If I were the States, or even as a Canadian, I would be screaming for accountability.

It will be interesting to see how this develops if there is proof of corruption in the UN, it may lead to massive reform within the UN, which may be the best thing that could happen.

The way forward is to hold the people in charge, leaders of nations, accountable for their actions, without it, our little planet is most definately headed for chaos.

When your finished, let me know.