Tonight\'s Presidential Debate (Reactions)

Originally posted by GigaShadow
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.

And of course such a trivial mistake (which actually sounded like there should have been a period after United States) is so incredibly laughable, let alone any kind of point.  :rolleyes:

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.

Your hypothetical situation will never happen. If it did occour, there would be no seek of UN approval.

Kerry has only said that Bush went about Iraq in the wrong way, Kerry is not saying we should not target threats to the US, he is saying Iraq was not a threat to the US.

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.

What would the world consider imminent?  I am not willing to put that decision in a governing world body\'s hand.  With allies like France who needs enemies?  We haven\'t been close to France since the the 80\'s when they wouldn\'t allow us to use their airspace so Reagan could attack Libya for sponsoring terrorism.  

France only cares about France in case you haven\'t heard.  It does not matter in least who is president.  Your version of the truth is simply flat out wrong.  We should never have to ask anyone\'s permission to defend ourselves however we feel necessary.  You hint that our country has become less safe... prove it.  Have we been attacked since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?  Do you honestly think if we would have not retaliated that everything would be A-OK as far as our enemies are concerned?

Also, everyone saying Bush won on substance.

I think you mean he won on his lack of substance, because less substance is more focused.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Your hypothetical situation will never happen. If it did occour, there would be no seek of UN approval.

Kerry has only said that Bush went about Iraq in the wrong way, Kerry is not saying we should not target threats to the US, he is saying Iraq was not a threat to the US.

Newsflash - N. Korea already has a missle capable of hitting the western US.  

Secondly, Kerry\'s assertion that we must pass a global test debunks your entire second paragraph.  He also did think that Iraq was a threat to the US and repeatedly stated so up until Democratic primaries started.  Only until he saw Howard Dean\'s popularity rise by being anti war did he jump on the anti war bandwagon.

Kerry has only said that Bush went about Iraq in the wrong way, Kerry is not saying we should not target threats to the US, he is saying Iraq was not a threat to the US.

Iraq not a threat??? I dont think he said that at all. That would be a stupid assumption. I think he meant that we could have kept inspectors in there longer and not place 100% focus on iraq so quickly.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Also, everyone saying Bush won on substance.

I think you mean he won on his lack of substance, because less substance is more focused.

Did your mother drop you on your head?

sub•stance

Pronunciation: (sub\'stuns), [key]
—n.
1. the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc.
2. the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing.

What I meant was, Iraq had not directly threatened the US like Gigas hypothetical NK situation.

I know what the word means, you are obviously missing my point.

The general population will side with Bush on this debate because his material was not as wide-spread.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
What I meant was, Iraq had not directly threatened the US like Gigas hypothetical NK situation.

Threats come in many different varieties.  Go back up and read my post about Iraqi intelligence from the UK, Russia and CIA and couple that with how Saddam felt about the US and how he was sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel.  It doesn\'t take a rocket scientist to see that Saddam was a credible threat to the US.

I don\'t think attacking a country because the leader may have weapons and doesn\'t like you is a good enough reason.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
I know what the word means, you are obviously missing my point.

The general population will side with Bush on this debate because his material was not as wide-spread.

You make even less sense than Kerry.  WTF are you talking about?  Your interpretation of the word substance was completely wrong.

Listen carefully.

He had less information and less points to argue then Kerry.

So he then seemed more direct and focused.

And that appeals to the American people.

Although in reality he didn\'t say as much about the issues as Kerry.

Therefore his actual LACK of substance may end up helping him.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
I don\'t think attacking a country because the leader may have weapons and doesn\'t like you is a good enough reason.

Way to use that September 10th 2001 mentality.  Did you miss the part where he was paying suicide bombers to attack Israel?  What would have eventually stopped him from paying some all too willing fanatic a king\'s ransom to bring a WMD over here and set it off?

Inspectors?  

or better yet maybe a summit! :rolleyes:

Sorry, I wouldn\'t send our troops into battle because of a "What if"