Debate tonight

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Debate tonight
303
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 11:58am
I thought that we went into other countries when they needed our help either with aid such as food and medicine or training. NATO usually plays a large part in these efforts along with other humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross. Any military support that we give is usually given because its been asked for. Are you ok with genocide? I know that I'm not. In case you haven't noticed we tend to assist people of many cultures and religions because they ask us to. Because we have the assistance, skills, and resources to give. You ask where we get "these troops" well the troops that you are referring to are Americans who VOLUNTEER to serve their country. They know what the risks are going into service and they take those risks willingly and with pride. My husband was one of those troops in the Air Force during the first Gulf War.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:01pm
See, there you go again, how did you get so confused? Was it all of the effort you put into trying to focus on what Kerry was trying to say. I mean it did change several times. Bush was the one who said that it was essential to keep China in the mix. Kerry thinks he can have a sit down one on one with Korea and make them change their minds. How pompous!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:05pm
-- Oh I see, you are a trickle down theorist, which didn't work when Reagan did it and isn't working this time either.

It actually did work under Reagan, and is working under Bush which is why the economy and the markets have regained much of their losses as a result of the recession and then 9/11 and the corporate scandals. Just because you trend towards the liberal way of thinking does not mean that something (which most economists agree worked BOTH times) didnt work.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:06pm
>>The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces.<<

Interesting figures.

So Bush41 had 500,000 US forces to invade and stabilize tiny Kuwait compared to the 130,000 Bush43 decided could invade and stabilize the much bigger Iraq.

The other coalition members in the Gulf War had 160,000 troops, also exceeding the number of US troops Bush43 committed to Iraq.

Makes me wonder how different events in Iraq could be right now if Bush had kept his promises to build a large coalition, go to the UN for a second vote, and only use war as a last resort.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:06pm
China is a communist country, yes, I'm aware of that. However, it is the largest country in the world and one of the most powerful. France has proven that they a fair-weather friend who will love us when we are bailing them out and hate us as soon as they can forget how many Americans died saving their butts. Do you remember D-Day? My grandfather was there on the beach in Normandy. I resent that the French only remember what we sacrificed to save them one day a year. At least with China we know who we are dealing with. The Chinese are pretty up front about where they stand on things and they won't blow smoke up dark and dirty places.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:07pm
Definition of bi-lateral talks....one on one.....no other countries involved.

Or dont you understand that.

The best way to handle North Korea is to let those closest to the situation and those that can exert the most influence on them do so.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:08pm
Bi-lateral talks are inclusive.....if you are a Kerry supporter.

I love how Kerry made it seem like he could convince France and Germany to send troops into Iraq too, even after both countries said last week, that under no circumstances would they do so. I guess he didnt read the papers.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:10pm
France, Germany and Russia matter because Kerry would not have done anything without their blessing, along with the UN (which was never going to happen, as they didnt enforce the prior 16 resolutions which had been violated by Iraq time and time again over a 12 year span). The UN thought that by passing the 17th resolution, put forth by the US and Great Britain, they would be buying more time to do nothing, and hope that Hussein would cooperate, which again, he did not.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:11pm
Number one, no life has been lost in vain. Our troops know the risks that they take. Their families know the risks that they take. You can't tell me that any soldier leaves for active duty and doesn't consider that this may be the last time that they kiss their wife/husband/child/sister/brother/mother/father. They VOLUNTEER for duty with pride and honor. To say that their efforts could have been better used elsewhere is to tarnish their memory and their efforts. I agree that no life should be squandered and that the lives of many wounded will never be the same. But you have to remember that this is what they train for. This is the life that they have chosen. They are proud of what they do and how much they sacrifice. God bless them.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:12pm
I suppose Bush would have preferred Lehrer sign a loyalty oath like the patsies who ask questions at Bush/Cheney rallies.

Did you hear the comments Bush made to Lehrer at the end saying he wished he had him for all the debates?

Pages