Bush -Kerry 2nd debate (spin).

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Evil Baby, For me it is more of an issue of accountiability. I'm sure the U.S. wouldn't have had a problem in taking out Saddam had they used the right reasons for invading, but if they had used those reasons they would have to invade hundreds of other countries, something I don't think they are prepared to do. This is the most powerful man in the world and he was allowed to get away with dragging a Nation into war on faulty intellegence. Come on, somebody has to be held responsible, and the President has got to be more accountiable for he actions.

I understand your concern and I like the way you put the question of accountability for invading Iraq.

What might help you to understand the issue of Accounability is that John Kerry has stated he supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Knowing what he does now, Kerry said he would support the invasion again, but do it differently.

Saddam is accountable for violating U.N. Security council sanctions, bribing Western Nations to lift sanctions and bringing the wrath of coalition forces down on his head for many reasons.

Don't forget that we gave Saddam warning to get out of town. The invasion was not a surprise. All Saddam had to do is make it perfectly clear to U.N. inspectors that his door was open to total scrutiny, like Qadaffi did. For some unknown reason, Saddam simply would not do it. It was cat and mouse. Now that we know there were no stockpiles of WMDs (supposedly) it further complicates the reason for Saddam's actions.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Sonart, Well, if this isn't defending war crimes, I'm hard pressed to imagine what is. --"Most crucially, the US and UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council."-- --"A statement in March 1986 recognised that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces". This statement was opposed by the US, the only country to vote against it in the Security Council . The UK abstained."--

Speaking of selective memory.

What was our relations with Iran then? Who was President? How does this veto prove we defend war crimes?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by macnpat,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (macnpat,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sonart, Well, if this isn't defending war crimes, I'm hard pressed to imagine what is. --"Most crucially, the US and UK blocked condemnation  of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council."-- --"A statement in March 1986 recognised that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces". This statement was opposed by the US, the only country to vote against it in the Security Council . The UK abstained."--

Speaking of selective memory.

What was our relations with Iran then? Who was President? How does this veto prove we defend war crimes?[/b][/quote]

The point is that instead of correctly condemning Iran AND Iraq, we implicitly said it was OK. That's proof enough for me.

As for who was president, what does THAT matter at all? Are you saying that because any previous president screwed up then it's alright for Bush to do it too? Because Clinton did something stupid then Bush automatically gets a "F**K SOMETHING UP FREE" card?

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, The point is that instead of correctly condemning Iran AND Iraq, we implicitly said it was OK. That's proof enough for me. As for who was president, what does THAT matter at all? Are you saying that because any previous president screwed up then it's alright for Bush to do it too? Because Clinton did something stupid then Bush automatically gets a "F**K SOMETHING UP FREE" card?

Well, damn, you are getting cranky now.

We didn't screw up. We did what was in our interest. This is why we are involved in any World policy..............for our interest.

Why are we "spreading Democracy"? Because we are a Nation of Saints? No, because it is in our Nations' interests.

Our interests are what drives our political policy at all times. And, sometimes it ain't pretty, but don't blame us for what Saddam did.

[Sonart]

What was our relations with Iran then? Who was President? How does this veto prove we defend war crimes?

1 - Poor. So? That makes Iraq's use of chemical weapons ok?

2 - That would be Saint Ronald of Reagan. Does that matter? You said... let me quote here... "The U.S. has never defended war crimes."

3 - Let's see. UN votes to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons - a war crime. We block it. Is there some confusion ?

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Sonart, 1 - Poor. So? That makes Iraq's use of chemical weapons ok? 2 - That would be Saint Ronald of Reagan. Does that matter? You said... let me quote here... "The U.S. has never defended war crimes." 3 - Let's see. UN votes to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons - a war crime. We block it. Is there some confusion ?

There is definitely confusion. The U.S. does nothing to assist Iran. Why? Because Iran was our enemy and had declared us the great Satan by the Ayatollah Komeini.

Let me clue you in on something else. If any country gassed the shit out of the Al Qaida with WMD's, I am sure we would confiscate those WMDs, but not before the Al Qaida was dead and cold in the ground.

This is the reality and has nothing to do with Kerry voting to invade Iraq after he saw the same intelligence Bush did.

[Sonart]

There is definitely confusion. The U.S. does nothing to assist Iran. Why? Because Iran was our enemy and had declared us the great Satan by the Ayatollah Komeini.

So what? We're not talking about whether we like Iran or not, we're talking about helping Iraq to use chemical weapons.

If any country gassed the shit out of the Al Qaida with WMD's, I am sure we would confiscate those WMDs, but not before the Al Qaida was dead and cold in the ground.

And after the local wildlife had nibblied on the bodies abit. However, all Iran did to us was overthrow the Shah in their own rebellion and hold on to our embassy staff for a year. They weren't al-Qaeda.

[bishop]

Saudi Arabia has long before 9/11 exiled Osama and has detained Al Qaida operatives since. Iran has helped us capture Al Qaida operatives, and Qaddafi has opened his borders to inspection. All of this because the U.S. trounced on Saddam's head and invaded Afghanistan. Saddam outwitted the U.N. declared war on the U.S. blah blah blah...read my other posts. And on top of all that, Putin said in a recent book that Russia had intelligence that Saddam was also planning a sneak attack on U.S. interests.

saudi arabia continued to aid islamic terrorism after 9/11. exhibit a: the palestinian telethon. (you cite allying ourselves with israel as a big deal because they're fighting islamic terrorism - to overlook the saudis would be the height of hypocrisy)

libya disclosed its nuke project after we caught them red handed. what if they didn't own up to their project? are we in any position to invade and occupy another country? no.. qaddafi owned up because he saw a pragmatic reason to - we'll give him economic aid, not because he was afraid of us.

as for iran.. we are hardly even communicating with them. and what little help they provided us was done BEFORE we invaded iraq. now, they've been sending in agents helping fuel the quagmire that bush created. and like i said, and how you conveniently ignored, they fund hezbollah and arm other palestianian militant groups against your precious israel.

funny how you hold up israel while ignoring both the saudis and iranians who are much more active in fighting against them.


to what extent did saddam outwit us? we had him surrounded and we had inspectors on the ground. another fact that you ignore - there was never a single instance where we faced the threat of an imminent (or even potentially imminent) attack from iraq.

and putin's new book... you won't believe one dictator in iraq, but you'll believe another dictator in russia. who incidentally is helping iran develop nuclear weapons.

what incoherent logic you have.

[Sonart]

There is definitely confusion. The U.S. does nothing to assist Iran. Why? Because Iran was our enemy and had declared us the great Satan by the Ayatollah Komeini.

So what? We're not talking about whether we like Iran or not, we're talking about helping Iraq to use chemical weapons.

If any country gassed the shit out of the Al Qaida with WMD's, I am sure we would confiscate those WMDs, but not before the Al Qaida was dead and cold in the ground.

And after the local wildlife had nibblied on the bodies abit. However, all Iran did to us was overthrow the Shah in their own rebellion and hold on to our embassy staff for a year. They weren't al-Qaeda.

This is the reality and has nothing to do with Kerry voting to invade Iraq after he saw the same intelligence Bush did.

Which is exactly the problem. It was the intelligence BUSH saw, not necessarily all the intel that was available. We've discussed this .

[bishop]

Don't forget that we gave Saddam warning to get out of town. The invasion was not a surprise.

and that legitimizes the invasion?!?

All Saddam had to do is make it perfectly clear to U.N. inspectors that his door was open to total scrutiny, like Qadaffi did.

qadaffi didn't have inspectors in his country, he was caught red handed and then agreed to it. you're comparing apples to oranges now.

For some unknown reason, Saddam simply would not do it. It was cat and mouse. Now that we know there were no stockpiles of WMDs (supposedly) it further complicates the reason for Saddam's actions.

we also played the cat and mouse game with inspectors. we'd pretend to know about wmd in a particular location, we'd tell them, then they wouldn't find shit. time and time again we did this - all the while we claimed that they weren't there because of saddam. how about this one - maybe we didn't know where they were and we were simply giving the inspectors the run-around? in hindsight, that perspective is much more believable since we haven't found anything that remotely vindicates all of the pre-war bullshit bush and co. spewed.

rather than admitting that we were wrong, instead it's a matter of "further complication"... i've read a couple worldnetdaily articles postulating where the wmd's went.. they're about as credible as saying that the spacemen stole them.

[bishop]

This is the reality and has nothing to do with Kerry voting to invade Iraq after he saw the same intelligence Bush did.

i always love this line of b.s... every person like you is a flat out liar, deceiving the public just as bush has done.

the presidential war powers act was not a vote to invade iraq. it was a vote to give the president the power to invade if it was necessary.

what evidence has been produced showing that it was necessary to invade???

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by macnpat,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (macnpat,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1, The point is that instead of correctly condemning Iran AND Iraq, we implicitly said it was OK.  That's proof enough for me. As for who was president, what does THAT matter at all?  Are you saying that because any previous president screwed up then it's alright for Bush to do it too?  Because Clinton did something stupid then Bush automatically gets a "F**K SOMETHING UP FREE" card?

Well, damn, you are getting cranky now.

We didn't screw up. We did what was in our interest. This is why we are involved in any World policy..............for our interest.

Why are we "spreading Democracy"? Because we are a Nation of Saints? No, because it is in our Nations' interests.

Our interests are what drives our political policy at all times. And, sometimes it ain't pretty, but don't blame us for what Saddam did.[/b][/quote]

Not cranky at all, Pat. You've never SEEN me cranky! :)

You keep going back to the same false argument every time, but change it slightly. Invading Iraq was NOT in our interest. No WMD's, no capability, especially when we were there for 10 years, no direct threat other than a vague reference to Hussein POSSIBLY giving WMD's to our enemies elsewhere.

Crystal ball? We might be TRYING to spread democracy, but it hasn't taken hold over there as yet. You can't argue against the here and now with what MIGHT happen in the future. You have no proof that, even if Iraq becomes a democracy it will stay that way.

Third point: Again we have YET to spread democracy. The rest however, I do agree with. We are not a nation of saints. Not really a great way to convince people OUR way of life is better than theirs, though.

Point four: I would ask you to show where I EVER said it's our fault for what Hussein (or anybody else) has done. If you are addressing my agreement with Sonart's post, it STILL doesn't say I or anyone else BLAMED us for Saddam Hussein's actions. We simply didn't allow others to condemn Iraq and Iran. So how does that indicate I said we are to blame for Saddam's acts?

[macnpat]

Originally posted by Sonart, However, all Iran did to us was overthrow the Shah in their own rebellion and hold on to our embassy staff for a year. They weren't al-Qaeda.

It was worse than Al Qaida. It was a sovereign Nation holding our Diplomats hostage which is an act of war.

[bishop]

i think we've done the same with british and australian citizens over the past couple years. by your logic, we're committing an act of war against our own allies.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by bishop, i always love this line of b.s... every person like you is a flat out liar, deceiving the public just as bush has done.

You calling me a liar? Does this mean we are taking our gloves off? Cause I can play this too, just don't wish to get banned.

the presidential war powers act was not a vote to invade iraq. it was a vote to give the president the power to invade if it was necessary.

Symantics. They all concluded through global intelligence sources that Iraq was a threat within the political climate of the Middle East.

what evidence has been produced showing that it was necessary to invade???

I see you haven't been reading my posts. Zaraqawi was aided and abetted in a Baghdad hospital after becoming wounded fighting in Afghanistan. Putin's book states that Russian intelligence uncovered a plan by Saddam to attack U.S. interests. U.N. inspectors would not give a satisfactory report on their assessment of Saddam's weapons programs.

Now, about calling me a liar.

I'll admit sometimes I look stupid. But I don't get paid to look stupid. It's all charity work.

[Sean]

Originally posted by bishop, i think we've done the same with british and australian citizens over the past couple years.  by your logic, we're committing an act of war against our own allies.

What kind of reaction is that Bishop?

[bishop]

You calling me a liar? Does this mean we are taking our gloves off? Cause I can play this too, just don't wish to get banned.

yes, i am.. explain to us exactly how the war powers act specifically authorized the invasion. if you cannot show the part of the resolution that specifically authorized the invasion, then yes, you are a liar.

Symantics. They all concluded through global intelligence sources that Iraq was a threat within the political climate of the Middle East.

the existance of a threat does not automatically mean that we need to invade. everyone agreed that saddam posed a threat.. even the french - that's why they voted for 1441. apparently having the country surrounded with inspectors on the ground wasn't sufficient to you.. in fact, if you agree with bush as you clearly do, the threat posed by iraq actually grew after we surrounded it and had inspectors on the ground.

Zaraqawi was aided and abetted in a Baghdad hospital after becoming wounded fighting in Afghanistan.

heh, this is comical.. i'm not sure of the specifics, what was saddam's role in zaraqawi's rehabilitation? did saddam have a role in the uss cole bombing? what about the bombings of our african embassies? what about the first or second wtc attacks? oh yeah, zaraqawi got healthcare (rather than wmd) in iraq... color me impressed.

and as far as putin goes, i don't view him with any credibility. he's a dictator and a slick one at that.

[bishop]

Originally posted by Sean,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sean,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop, i think we've done the same with british and australian citizens over the past couple years. by your logic, we're committing an act of war against our own allies.

What kinda of reaction is that Bishop?[/b][/quote]

we've held british and australian citizens in gitmo against the wishes of their governments. our allies requested they be released to national authorities and we said no. we've done the same with other allies as well.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...14338-1219r.htm

[macnpat]

Originally posted by bishop, we've held british and australian citizens in gitmo against the wishes of their governments. our allies requested they be released to national authorities and we said no. we've done the same with other allies as well. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...14338-1219r.htm

Maybe I should say this different. When you attack a foreign embassy, it is like an attack on the country of that Embassy.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, You can participate in all these polls by starting at this link: Political Strategy * MSNBC Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 78% Bush: 22% * CNN (Scroll Down to 'Quick Vote') Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 83% Bush: 16% * CNN America Votes (This is different from the on above. Vote in both!) Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 89% Bush: 11% * CBS News Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 88% Bush: 11% * Fox News (Scroll Down) Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 70% Bush: 30% * Boston Globe Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 86% Bush: 11% * AOL Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 56% Bush: 44% * Yahoo News Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 66% Bush: 32% * MS. Magazine Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 67% Bush: 33% Online Polls in Swing States (Hit em Hard!) * KOLO TV Reno, NV (Scroll Down) Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 90% Bush: 10% * Asheville Citizen-Times, NC (Scroll Down) Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 87% Bush: 13% * Denver Channel, CO Ongoing Poll Results Kerry: 77% Bush: 23% Touchy-Feely Online Polls * PBS (Qualitative Poll) * BBC (Qualitative Poll) Non-interactive poll results: CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup debate reaction poll (not an online poll) Who won the debate? Kerry: 47% Bush: 45% How many people perceive the following candidate more favorably as a result of the debate? Kerry: 38% Bush: 31%

These results are the answer to : what an average U.S. citizen knows about politics.
People should not complain, then. They have (it) what they deserve (for). The results match their brains.