Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Bush & Kerry debate
Thread: Bush & Kerry debate This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · «PREV
bort
bort


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
posted October 07, 2004 07:37 PM
Edited By: bort on 7 Oct 2004

Quote:

Anyway, in the VP debate Cheney won.
I thought it was a pretty powerful statement when Cheney said how often he sits in on the Senate, and he first met Edwards on the stage for the debate.  That was great.


It has been photographically proven that this statement is untrue and that they have met several times before.  So you can pick your choice -- Cheney is a liar, is senile or both.


____________
Drive by posting.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted October 07, 2004 07:39 PM

We posted at the same time it appears...

Quote:
4) without garnering genuine support from the international community.

Isn’t it a little hard to gain support when a country closes itself off to all compromise?  I’m talking about France and Russia or course, who along with Germany lost millions of dollars worth of money from Iraq when we invaded and destroyed their way of illegally benefiting from the failed oil for food program.  It has just recently come out how France, Germany, Russia and others were illegally working with Saddam to gain from this program while looking the other way as Saddam broke 12 years worth of UN resolutions.  It’s ridiculous that this is even an issue really.  When countries go out of their way to ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people to make a buck, which is what these countries did.  It’s no wonder these countries didn’t even consider hurting Saddam when in turn it would hurt them.  

Quote:
As for his initial support for invading Iraq, Kerry was told the same lies as the rest of us were.

These lies that you speak of, they weren’t at the time.  Every Western European country had the same intelligence we had.  The exact same thing, but they chose to ignore it, and in essence turn a blind eye to the 12 years worth of Un resolutions that Saddam had broken.  

Quote:
In essence, Bush appears to know nothing about diplomacy.

I’m sure Kerry just knows all about diplomacy.  Learned a few pointers from the North Vietnamese in Paris in the 70’s, I’m sure.

Anyway, to the debate.
Kerry:
Quote:
Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.

Since when is it the president of the United State’s job to clean up the former Soviet Union’s problems?  Sounds like a Russian domestic issue to me.  Most of it’s probably sold to other countries anyway like all the other great Soviet technologies.  That is what has propped up their economy.

Bush:
Quote:
What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?
You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.
Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve.
So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"

This was a very powerful point I think.  
I’ll post more later…

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted October 07, 2004 08:09 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 7 Oct 2004

Hey Wolf!  What are you doing at home???

Anyway, in addition to conceding to the first two points you made in the above post (I think those are much stronger arguments than the other flip-flop arguments I addressed) on the additional points you just made:

Quote:
We posted at the same time it appears...

Quote:
4) without garnering genuine support from the international community.

Isn’t it a little hard to gain support when a country closes itself off to all compromise?  I’m talking about France and Russia or course, who along with Germany lost millions of dollars worth of money from Iraq when we invaded and destroyed their way of illegally benefiting from the failed oil for food program.  It has just recently come out how France, Germany, Russia and others were illegally working with Saddam to gain from this program while looking the other way as Saddam broke 12 years worth of UN resolutions.  It’s ridiculous that this is even an issue really.  When countries go out of their way to ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people to make a buck, which is what these countries did.  It’s no wonder these countries didn’t even consider hurting Saddam when in turn it would hurt them.


I think this is a perfectly salient argument, that France, Russia and Germany had self-interests in turning a blind eye on Iraq.  I never have disagreed.  However, two points in reply.  First, that's what diplomacy is all about:  convincing other powers, whose support you need, that acting in contradiction to their past actions is in their best interests as well.  This, I submit, is what Powell probably could have done, if Bush had gotten out of his way and let him do it.  

Second, these aren't the only other three countries in the world.  While they could have (and did) veto the Security Council's action in supporting the U.S., if we were going to build a more credible alternate coalition (not the 90/10 split we did and only then after arrogantly alienating the rest of the world, which made much more of a coalition practically impossible), then we should have taken the time to do that instead of rushing ahead like we did.

Quote:
Quote:
As for his initial support for invading Iraq, Kerry was told the same lies as the rest of us were.

These lies that you speak of, they weren’t at the time.  Every Western European country had the same intelligence we had.  The exact same thing, but they chose to ignore it, and in essence turn a blind eye to the 12 years worth of Un resolutions that Saddam had broken.
 

What does the intelligence of other countries have to do with what our own cabinet was telling our own senate?  Do you expect each senator to independently investigate foreign intelligence, or that they would have the access to do such a thing?  Isn't that what our own intelligence agencies are for, to do our own research and make recommendations to our own government?  Or are you suggesting that our Congress rely on the intelligence of other countries, whose self-interest, as you have pointed out, may fracture and contaminate their information?  Finally, since our own intelligence did not support a war based on WMD's, perhaps, if the European nations had the same intelligence as you suggest, this was one of the reasons they chose not to support us in the invasion. See,http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf


Also, I will need some more concrete examples of what intelligence you believe other countries possessed, with the exception of what Powell presented to the U.N.  

Quote:
Quote:
In essence, Bush appears to know nothing about diplomacy.

I’m sure Kerry just knows all about diplomacy.  Learned a few pointers from the North Vietnamese in Paris in the 70’s, I’m sure.


Actually, I think Kerry's lack of diplomacy was much better demonstrated in recent comments such as:  calling Allawi a "puppet" of the American administration, and calling the existing coalition that of the "bribed and coerced."  While I might or might not agree with both of these allegations, it was decidedly undiplomatic for Kerry to say them out loud like he did.

Quote:
Anyway, to the debate.
Kerry:
Quote:
Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.

Since when is it the president of the United State’s job to clean up the former Soviet Union’s problems?  Sounds like a Russian domestic issue to me.  Most of it’s probably sold to other countries anyway like all the other great Soviet technologies.  That is what has propped up their economy.


The reason it is critical for us to step up the nuclear containment in Russia is because it is the most likely source of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists, who will then use them on us.  It is in our self interest to contain these materials as quickly as possible.  Remember? We're supposed to "go it alone" in the "war on terror" if nobody's going to help us.  If we don't contain these materials then none of the rest of it will likely make comparatively much difference.

Quote:
Bush:
Quote:
What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland?
You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.
Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve.

This was a very powerful point I think.

Agreed.  See my comment above. However:

Quote:
So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"

A new face in front of the international community can more credibly state, "We made a mistake, and now we know it.  I will do things differently.  I will work with you, not despite you.  It is in all our interests to join together to stabilize Iraq as quickly as possible and the U.S. acknowledges its need for your help.  The Iraqui people deserve your help, and stabilizing the country and the region as soon as possible benefits your self interests as well as those of the Iraqui people.  A stable Iraq will decrease the global tensions against the West, reduce further openings for insurgencies and fundamentalist rebellions in other countries, and make the whole world safer for us all.  On the other hand, if the U.S. is left to its own devices, the continued destabilization of Iraq will linger on much longer, further destabilizing the entire Middle Eastern region, thus in turn increasing the likelihood of growing terrorist activities there and throughout the world.  If we all work together, much of this trend can be forestalled.  But only if we work together.  Now, can we count on your meaningful participation?"

(It's called diplomacy, man.)

In general, I am still waiting to hear a clear argument on Kerry's alleged habit of flip flopping.  One changed vote (which he has alleged to be a protest vote) does not a pattern of flip flopping make.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted October 07, 2004 08:31 PM
Edited By: privatehudson on 7 Oct 2004

Quote:
These lies that you speak of, they weren’t at the time. Every Western European country had the same intelligence we had. The exact same thing, but they chose to ignore it, and in essence turn a blind eye to the 12 years worth of Un resolutions that Saddam had broken.


Intelligence like that which Rumsfeld recently flip-flopped on? Intelligence like the Niger document which no reasonably sane intelligence agency would have used but the British one did and the US used it in their case for war? Intelligence like that gathered by the British government that's proved about as real as flying pigs? Evidence that Blair has since half-heartedly admitted wasn't very concrete at all? I'd like to know how, if there has been absolutely no WMDs found in nearly 500 days, anyone can claim that Bush and Blair weren't either incompetent or lying about this reason.

Quote:
Since when is it the president of the United State’s job to clean up the former Soviet Union’s problems? Sounds like a Russian domestic issue to me. Most of it’s probably sold to other countries anyway like all the other great Soviet technologies. That is what has propped up their economy.


It's the presidents job to make the country safer, closing off this avenue is wise, no matter whether there's little left or a lot. Leaving it open is to leave a good posibility that terrorists can get/continue to get  access to dangerous weapons. Funny how some will support an invasion partly because they feel it will keep WMDs out of the hands of extremists, but won't spend cash on a peaceful method because it's "not our problem".

____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
privatehudson
privatehudson


Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
posted October 07, 2004 08:38 PM

Quote:
Quote:

Anyway, in the VP debate Cheney won.
I thought it was a pretty powerful statement when Cheney said how often he sits in on the Senate, and he first met Edwards on the stage for the debate.  That was great.


It has been photographically proven that this statement is untrue and that they have met several times before.  So you can pick your choice -- Cheney is a liar, is senile or both.




It's a liberal media lie! They doctored that picture to besmirch the good name of the VP!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bjorn190
bjorn190


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
posted October 07, 2004 08:38 PM

Wolfman you don't seem to know how much fun people in Europe are making of USA because of Bush. He has changed our image of America from a country we used to look up to four years ago to a joke. I don't know if americans care much what europeans think, but you'd be stronger with our support. Especially financially. The USA used to represent freedom, success and high ideals, but not anymore. I'm surprised the people that claim to be patriots aren't upset about that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted October 07, 2004 08:49 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 7 Oct 2004

bjorn, Bush supporters do not seem to get it how important it is what other countries -- especially our allies -- think of the U.S.  They mockingly liken creating multilateral efforts to "passing a global test" as though this is some idiotic, hairbrained notion of  the Kerry campaign despite that THIS HAS BEEN THE MOST POWEFUL TOOL THE U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE FORGED IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS. The effectiveness of this little bit of rhetoric among the Bush camp is a truly shocking and horrifying expose' of how utterly uneducated and gullible much of the Bush camp really must be with respect to international history and affairs.

These people do not seem to be aware that our own U.S. presidents spawned the Leage of Nations, NATO, and the U.N., and that despite the apparently recent crumbling of the validity of the U.N. itself (which we only furthered by our own actions) the stabilization of the internatonal community would not have been possible without mutilateral entities working together through such institutions.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted October 07, 2004 11:33 PM

I wasn’t home, I was at school when I wrote that.

Quote:
That's what diplomacy is all about: convincing other powers, whose support you need, that acting in contradiction to their past actions is in their best interests as well. This, I submit, is what Powell probably could have done, if Bush had gotten out of his way and let him do it.

How do you think he would have convinced France, who said they didn’t care what the evidence was.  They said they wouldn’t support us no matter what, they said they would veto anything we tried to put through the UN.  How do you work with someone like that?

Quote:
Actually, I think Kerry's lack of diplomacy was much better demonstrated in recent comments such as: calling Allawi a "puppet" of the American administration, and calling the existing coalition that of the "bribed and coerced." While I might or might not agree with both of these allegations, it was decidedly undiplomatic for Kerry to say them out loud like he did.

That’s true too.  I was just adding a sarcastic jab.

Quote:
The reason it is critical for us to step up the nuclear containment in Russia is because it is the most likely source of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists, who will then use them on us. It is in our self interest to contain these materials as quickly as possible. Remember? We're supposed to "go it alone" in the "war on terror" if nobody's going to help us. If we don't contain these materials then none of the rest of it will likely make comparatively much difference.

Ok, shoe on the other foot.  If “going it alone” is so bad, why would Kerry bring this up?  He said he would get it done in four years…yeah right.

Quote:
Wolfman you don't seem to know how much fun people in Europe are making of USA because of Bush. He has changed our image of America from a country we used to look up to four years ago to a joke.

I do know.  In the last four years my views of Europe have changed quite the same way.  Europe and the UN, biggest jokes of the world.  Israel puts a missile through a Hamas leader’s chest.  European/UN response: “That was bad”, they held a special meeting and that was their finding.  Yeah you must be right, the US is the joke.

I do understand what a multilateral force is and how much allies are important, but when countries refuse to even consider the other side how can I ignore that?  
Quote:
These people do not seem to be aware that our own U.S. presidents spawned the League of Nations, NATO, and the U.N., and that despite the apparently recent crumbling of the validity of the U.N. itself (which we only furthered by our own actions) the stabilization of the international community would not have been possible without multilateral entities working together through such institutions.

I do know the history of these organizations, but it’s irrelevant.  The crumbling of the UN is not our doing.  When the UN is too weak to stand up for it’s own resolutions, I’m talking about 12 years worth of them, that’s what makes it crumble.  When they organize a large meeting of the Security Council to tell Israel that killing that Hamas leader was bad, that’s what makes it crumble.  It’s a joke.

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted October 08, 2004 06:49 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 8 Oct 2004

Wolf --

Quote:
How do you think he would have convinced France, who said they didn’t care what the evidence was. They said they wouldn’t support us no matter what, they said they would veto anything we tried to put through the UN. How do you work with someone like that?


First of all, you don't act insulting arrogant and childish toward the world community, completely sabotaging your chances at getting them to cooperate with you when you really need them.  Second of all, I don't think there's anything one could say to France to get it to be reasonable.  France is only one country though.  And it is the worst offender regarding your allegations.

Quote:
Ok, shoe on the other foot. If “going it alone” is so bad, why would Kerry bring this up? He said he would get it done in four years…yeah right.

Frankly I don't know what all is involved and have no idea whether that promise is keepable or not.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point about "going it alone" is.  Far as I know, this is a joint effort.  The whole point is we're helping Russia with a huge problem that it is having trouble managing on its own, so they don't have to "go it alone."  You mean others should be involed in this too?  Well if that's your point then I definitely agree.  This task needs accomplished as quickely as possible.  I'm not sure others are not already involved, however.
Quote:
I do know the history of these organizations, but it’s irrelevant. The crumbling of the UN is not our doing. When the UN is too weak to stand up for it’s own resolutions, I’m talking about 12 years worth of them, that’s what makes it crumble. When they organize a large meeting of the Security Council to tell Israel that killing that Hamas leader was bad, that’s what makes it crumble. It’s a joke.
Agreed, except the existence of the failing U.N. does NOT limit us to unilateral hegemony.  The real question here is what to replace the U.N. with.  IMHO multilateral cooperation has never been more important than it is now.  In this case we attampted to replace it with an ad hoc coalition.  However, again, Bush's arrogant behavior had already so soured the international community that the participation levels of the states is a fraction of what it was during  the Gulf War, for instance.  We are not left holding 90% of the bag because of bad diplomacy.

I've missed sparring with you, man!  Good seeing you again!

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?021014fa_fact
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4711931/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068616/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4933882/

 Check the source.  Fareed Zakaria is a conservative. He is one of the most highly, universally respected international specialists on earth at the moment.  There is talk about him being our Secretary of State before the decade is out. (Just for the record, I haven't just been parroting this guy all this time.  I only found these articles a week ago.  Boy, did I feel vindicated!)






 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bjorn190
bjorn190


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
posted October 08, 2004 07:02 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Wolfman you don't seem to know how much fun people in Europe are making of USA because of Bush. He has changed our image of America from a country we used to look up to four years ago to a joke.

I do know.  In the last four years my views of Europe have changed quite the same way.  Europe and the UN, biggest jokes of the world.  Israel puts a missile through a Hamas leader’s chest.  European/UN response: “That was bad”, they held a special meeting and that was their finding.  Yeah you must be right, the US is the joke.



In a way, Bush played right into the hands of the terrorists. Passing the patriot act, reforming the CIA into the "old" CIA, and alienating the outside world..  all these together has caused the USA and the western world severe damage well beyond anything 2 airplanes can cause.

Effects:
* International relations damaged weakens the western world and the peaceful world as a whole.
* Patriot act revokes very important freedoms from US citizens.
* Old CIA increases ill repute of US (political assasinations etc.)

The worst part about the terrorists is not that they kill people, but that they infect us with fear. That fear in the hands of Bush leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.. and hate is the path to the dark side.

I know that it's hard not to hate people that kill your friends, but revenge doesn't work. The ultimate result of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is 2 blind toothless old men. There has to be a peaceful way, or at least a rational way. I don't think anyone can deny that part of Bush´s agenda is to score phat contracts for his friends and allies in the carlyle group and halliburton. There's no room for that kind of stuff in such serious matters. The result of the operation must be prioritized before the lewt.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfman
Wolfman


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
posted October 08, 2004 10:37 PM

Of course revenge works.  This reminds me of a quote by Stalin: "Death cures every problem, no man, no problem."

I'd like to know how you'd plan on negotiating with terrorists.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Dingo
Dingo


Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
posted October 09, 2004 05:58 AM

Quote:
Got Wood?

____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · «PREV
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0957 seconds