Debate tonight
Find a Conversation
Debate tonight
| Thu, 09-30-2004 - 10:54pm |
So, what did everybody think? This debate was my first (missed last yr's) and I enjoyed it. I liked how they were both respectful to each other and professional. No sighing, making facial expressions, slouching etc. I can't wait for the vp debates. :) XOXO.

Pages
>>I wonder though if it makes any difference that this time we are saving a country from itself instead of a country from another country<<
If that were a key difference then an even larger force would be necessary in Iraq.
Kuwait was occupied.
The citizens would naturally be expected to want to have foreign forces that invaded and seized control removed.
A tyrant ruled Iraq, but foreign troops did not occupy the country prior to Bush43's invasion.
Also, Iraq is a much larger and more ethnically diverse country than Kuwait.
Bush43 ignored advice from the Army chief of staff that a much larger force was needed (400,000 - 500,000) prior to invading Iraq.
>>We could put more soldiers over there considering how many there is now compared to how many we actually have in the military, but I think it would cost too much, and we cannot financially afford it.<<
War is incredibly expensive.
4 billion US a month is being spent in Iraq currently.
That's why a larger international coalition was necessary to spread the burden IMO.
Incidentally, what happened to the administration promise that Iraqi oil would pay for reconstruction and security?
>>It is too bad that France and Germany will not step-up, swallow their pride, and help the Iraqi people.<<
If you consider a little bit of world history, it might help to shed some light on things.
France was occupied during WW II and Germany was the occupier. It was a very bloody and painful affair. Understandably, the majority of citizens in both countries are reluctant to become involved in an occupation again, especially one outside of UN authorization.
The UN was set up in large part to help avoid WWII atrocities in the future.
WWII in Europe began in 1939. The US did not enter the war until 1941.
Similar arguments made against NATO allies for not joining Bush's invasion could also be made against the US at that time for not joining the fight against the Axis Powers until WWII had been raging for two years.
In fact it could be argued that the stakes at that time were much, much higher.
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't know you were expecting! That is such WONDERFUL news!
The fight for freedom is ALWAYS a worthy cause. Unfortunately, liberals don't feel the same way, beginning with Viet Nam. And thanks to sKerry (who has a place of honor in the Vietnamese capital and mention of thanks in their history books) and his ilk, he has introduced the concept that some segment of our global society is undeserving of said freedoms. BTW, did you know sKerry was in Viet Nam?
You assumed I should post to explain, refute, defend (or what ever) a post I didn't write.
I assumed you were out of line for suggesting that.
And it escalted from there on both our parts.
Let's drop it shall we?
I'm weary of writing sharp posts and I'm weary of reading insults.
<>
I am not sure that I agree here.
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
The Clinton foreign policy allowed NK to have the capability to produce nukes. Now they are a threat. sKerry's plan to allow Iran to have nuclear facilities and to trust them to NOT make weapons is an extension of the Clinton policy. Under one administration a communist government (with an unstable dictator) was given the capabality to produce nukes and now is capable of decimating nations. Under a sKerry campaign, a muslim nation hostile to the US will be given the capability to produce nukes, thereby arming them to decimate non-muslim nations. Does anyone else find this scary?
sKerry is waiting for the latest poll.
Nice of you to determine that the rest of the country does not deserve freedom because others died in the fight FOR freedom. Obviously, you want their deaths to be in vain. It's clear you have not heard of the many positive things happening in the REST of Iraq, not just the cities occupied by 'insurgents' (aka terrorists). A little research on your part would let you know that these 'insurgents' (aka as terrorists) have been importing other terrorists to do the damage that the mainstream media love to report while ignoring all the good.
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Pages