Tonight\'s Presidential Debate (Reactions)

How many times do we have to go over this:

Iraq was not a threat to the United States.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
How many times do we have to go over this:

Iraq was not a threat to the United States.

I don\'t think I mentioned Iraq in my answer.

Thank you, Ace.

So what\'s wrong with that especially given the situation.  Saddam was NOT an immediate threat and there is no evidence of WMD.  

Getting rid of the long term threat of Saddam sounds good but going in with guns blazing was not the way to do it.  More support and an understanding this is everyone\'s war on terror might have had things turn out differently.  I guess we\'ll never know.

Not a problem, in my mind, in building a coalition. I would not, however, make it the be all and end all test before we take action to protect our country.

I don\'t think I mentioned Iraq in my answer.

 

Yes but your discussing Kerry\'s comment about a Global test which was in refrence to Iraq.

Originally posted by Ace
Not a problem, in my mind, in building a coalition. I would not, however, make it the be all and end all test before we take action to protect our country.

True, I\'d rather see us defended in times of imminent need however that\'s not the case with the war declared on Iraq.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Yes but your discussing Kerry\'s comment about a Global test which was in refrence to Iraq.

Iraq for now but who knows who might be next.

If the US is in direct danger from a specific country, Kerry will not hesitate.  On the other hand Bush is very clear that his war was based on what might happen, not what was actually happening.

What is with young people and multilateralism?  eMpTyV must be the cause. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I can\'t believe some of you think it is ok that Kerry would seek approval for attacking a country that is a threat to US.  

Hypothetical situation:

North Korea has nukes capable of hitting the west coast and is threatening to use them if we don\'t give in to so unreasonable demand.  John Kerry decides to go to the UN to seek a preemptive strike on North Korea for the safety of the US.  France veto\'s the action in the Security Council because it does not feel North Korea to be a significant threat to the US.  The US doesn\'t give in to N Korea\'s demands and they launch a missle and take out San Francisco (I could only wish).  All because of John Kerry\'s indecisiveness and unwillingness to act unilaterally.

Now I know that is extreme and highly unlikely scenerio, but is that the kind of leader you feel safe having?  

Since I know DH is obsessed with Iraq - I will discuss it.  George Bush post 9/11 felt Iraq was a threat to the security of this country from the intelligence he had received from Great Britain, Russia and our own intelligence that all pointed to him having WMD\'s.  What other country besides Iraq had the biggest grudge against the US in that area of the world?  Not one.  

Now imagine 17 UN Resolutions that have been ignored by Iraq, failed inspections dating back almost 10 years and combine that with the intelligence you have been receiving.  What would stop Iraq from aiding terrorists in attacking the US?  After all, Iraq was sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel.  Is it so far fetched that Iraq was seen as a legitimate threat?

I back Bush\'s decision 100 percent in launching a preemptive strike on Iraq.  Even if all the intelligence was wrong, I am glad we had a leader who wasn\'t willing to take that chance.  We should never put our right to self defense in the hands of some corrupt international body like the United Nations.

[Titan]

Anyone notice that Kerry contradicted himself a few times? My favorite was when he said that there should be global involvement in talks with potentially threatening countries. He then said later in the night that the talks in N. Korea should be just the US and NK. Yeah, real stable guy.

^^^ he wants to be multilateral in Iraq and Iran and bilateral in North Korea.  That makes no sense and is inconsistant.  

He wants to continue Clintons policy of appeasement.

How did I miss this Kerry gaff from last night?  Is Kerry really Kopking in disguise?

It was principally the United States, the America and Great Britain and one or two others. That\'s it." - John Kerry 9/30/04


Amazing Bush convinced both the United States and America to participate.

What makes you think that the world at large would not approve of a pre-emptive strike on an imminent threat? Key word "imminent".

The world did not agree that Iraq was an imminent threat so they did not support military action. We are not on an island in this world. The more we push our allies away the LESS safe our country becomes. Why is that so hard to understand. We cause more damage to ourselves by pursuing this go it alone, your with us or against us, cowboy routine. There is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise because that is the absolute truth.

Ok i wanted to stay out of this at first but i see no point in not being involved. If this seems misinformed then tell me because i have yet to read the whole thread.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Since when is PBS neutral?  John Kerry was getting cream puff questions all night long.  It still doesn\'t change the fact that he is wrong on serveral key issues:

What do the questions have to do with PBS? This is only a first debate, and both sides were given a fair amount of time to rebut the others comments and speak a bit about their own agenda. I dont know what the questions asked to Kerry have anything to do with anything.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
4.  Again I ask what is this "global test" Kerry was referring to?

Now i cant say that im completely sure on what was meant here either, but i got the impression that this so called "global test" was more or less a challenge in order to test our global credibility and just how we handle everything in terms of Iraq etc. Kerry made it a point that he strongly believes in the war but not in the way its being handled. Of course there are you/people/w.e that couldnt care less about "appeasement" as you say, or a strong understanding with other nations in terms of our actions as so called "world police."

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Bush was very clear on where he stands on foreign policy.  Kerry stated he would train more Iraqi\'s faster - Bush is already doing that.  Kerry gave some ridiculous time table on withdrawal from Iraq.  He is under the false impression that other countries are going to come in and take the place of American troops.

Ok yes, Kerry stated that he could see American troops out within 6 months (minimum), but he did go ahead to say that it could take longer due to whatever complications or if something else arose that needed attention.

You are also right in the fact that Iraqi troops would be trained to replace our troops but Bush was saying the exact same thing. Thats why he said it himself except there was one difference. Bush gave out the number of something like 100,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and an extra 25,000 will be trained by the end of the year to replace american troops. The number was actually somewhere around 50,000 currently - discovered by sources to i think it was NBC. So theres always a credibility issue here but even so, its not like you could take the 100,000 to heart either. So if anything i think both would be under false impressions or giving out false information.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Lastly, Kerry may have sounded "stately", but listening to CNN, Fox and ABC this morning on XM radio most of the experts agree, on substance Bush won.  Overall they all agreed, the debate was a draw with neither side hitting a "home run" so to speak.

Didnt listen this morning. From polls it seems that Kerry won by a not so huge margin overall from what i saw on the different networks but im not posting any sources right now so dont take it to strongly.

Originally posted by Black Samurai
What makes you think that the world at large would not approve of a pre-emptive strike on an imminent threat? Key word "imminent".

The world did not agree that Iraq was an imminent threat so they did not support military action. We are not on an island in this world. The more we push our allies away the LESS safe our country becomes. Why is that so hard to understand. We cause more damage to ourselves by pursuing this go it alone, your with us or against us, cowboy routine. There is nothing you can say that would prove otherwise because that is the absolute truth.

Question:

You are the prez. You are being fed intel that tells you a threat is gathering. Members of congress agree with you that the threat is there. You have leaders of other countries concurring. You think back to one of the worst terrorist attacks that this country has ever been witness to. You have a decision to make to attack this gathering threat.

What do you do?