If Bush wins...

[KiNG]

well it wouldnt be the end of the world. it wouldnt be much different than it is now, its not like we have that much influence on the damn conceited british so i dont know why they bitch so much.

edit: wow m16 fellow, u got a large sig there...on the home campaign trail are we. i hope kerry wins just for u.

 

[M16 Grenadier]

Bush WILL win. End of story.


I'd laugh me ass off if Kerry got elected.

 

[Neutrino]

He was'nt discussing my topic. That, six months, was mine. Although, I have to question you on your past threads. Once again, your not very nuetral in political debates.

Sorry for the confusion. Yes I was actually referring to your statement about six months. I just quoted seinfeld as he had the quote I wanted to use.

Question me on my past threads? If you want to bring up specific things I have said, then feel free. Not neutral in political debates? Yes, I disagree with most of Bush's policies and support many of Kerry's policies. So? Of course I'm going to mostly argue for Kerry. Obviously you are not neutral either. Not very many people are neutral in politics. I don't see your point.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

They're rebels!!1 Using our own rights, to voice their opinions!! Ooo! Grr! Yea, thats what keeps me up at night./sarcasm

Its just they're excited about whats going on in the world. They're little feelers are going off because this is exactly what they've prepared in school for.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Sorry for the confusion. Yes I was actually referring to your statement about six months. I just quoted seinfeld as he had the quote I wanted to use.

How to you respond to the 'significant' reduction over 6 months?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Question me on my past threads? If you want to bring up specific things I have said, then feel free. Not neutral in political debates? Yes, I disagree with most of Bush's policies and support many of Kerry's policies. So? Of course I'm going to mostly argue for Kerry. Obviously you are not neutral either. Not very many people are neutral in politics. I don't see your point.

I was'nt going to arrest you.

My point was, is that you've stated previously your nuetral in Politics, so I was abit confused on your exact position. Now you've admitted your for Kerry. Im glad that you told me this.

Why am I happy? Because I know where you are coming from.

 

[Neutrino]

I was'nt going to arrest you.

My point was, is that you've stated previously your nuetral in Politics, so I was abit confused on your exact position. Now you've admitted your for Kerry. Im glad that you told me this.

Why am I happy? Because I know where you are coming from.

Whoa! When did I ever state I was neutral in politics? I thought pretty much everyone here knew my position and that I was pro Kerry.

 

[Joeslucky22]

Whoa! When did I ever state I was neutral in politics? I thought pretty much everyone here knew my position.

well, I sure do!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Whoa! When did I ever state I was neutral in politics? I thought pretty much everyone here knew my position and that I was pro Kerry.

Nope, I sure did'nt. But I was told you were...nuetral. Go figure.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Am I the only one who thinks someone might try an assassination attempt?

no

10char

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I've always thought that. But I'll assure you, the gunmen would come from the "Anybody but Bush" crowd.

 

[Joeslucky22]

unless it'll be like a.. JFK assasionation and the government kills him.

But if he were ever to get assasinated, it would definetaly be from a "Anybody but bush" group .... or a Micheal Moore fan club.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Course, on Bill Mahr, he expressed that he did not hate the man personally. Just the politics.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

John Stewart 04

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Bush WILL win. End of story.


I'd laugh me ass off if Kerry got elected.

your signiture is so huge... so much so it's caused me great distress and a fair amount of laughing... 3 lines dude 3 lines.

 

[Neutrino]

How to you respond to the 'significant' reduction over 6 months?

Fair question.

Ok, first let's look at all the relevant quotes in that article that was quoted:

Kerry and Rubin also are detailing a new Iraq policy to "significantly" reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during the first six months of a Kerry administration. In an NPR interview Friday, Kerry said: "I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan." His comments took several aides by surprise. Until the interview, Kerry's stated policy was to significantly reduce troops by the end of his first term.

Rubin said Kerry could accomplish the new goal "because of the new credibility we would bring to the White House, because leaders would see cooperation with the United States as a plus rather than a minus. . . . We will be in a better position to get help in terms of troops and money."

There are 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but Kerry is not setting any firm targets for the proposed reduction. The reduction would be possible by encouraging other nations to participate more in Iraq and by training more Iraqi forces to take over for American troops, Rubin said.

First, the words "significantly reduce" really don't tell us all that much. If you look at the definition as Joey was so kind to provide:

sig·nif·i·cant

adj.
1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.
3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important: a significant change in the tax laws.
4. Fairly large in amount or quantity: significant casualties; no significant opposition.

Alright, so what exactly does "significant" reduction mean? It is "meaningful", it is "important", it is "fairily large". These are all subjective terms and can have many varied meaning depending on the situation. It seems to me that he is using the term "significant" just to mean that the reduction wouldn't be meaningless or not important. This combined with the fact that the article goes on to say: "Kerry is not setting any firm targets for the proposed reduction." tells me that it is a goal he has to try to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq in six months. That's it. I think the quote means he would like to reduce the number of American soldiers on the ground in Iraq as soon as possible. This does not mean he is planning on "pulling out" abandoning Iraq by any means. That is jumping to false conclusions in my opinion.

Furthermore, we must look at how he might plan to bring about any reduction in troops. As is mentioned in this article and in other places on his position on Iraq he would like to try to bring in more international support as well as training more Iraqi police then are currently being trained. So in effect he is not proposing to lessen the number of peace keepers in Iraq, he is proposing to lessen the burden on American troops by calling on support from other areas to replace some of those troops.

There are of course different positions you can take on this. Like I said, "significant" is purely a subjective word. However, I think it would be wrong to jump to any conclusions about him pulling out of Iraq. I think he is quite well aware of the situation there and he would not just abandon the Iraqi people. He has always maintained that he would not.

Nope, I sure did'nt. But I was told you were...nuetral. Go figure.

Well, I am of course for Kerry and against Bush. However, I do still try to remain neutral in politics as much as I can. Not neutral in my opinions at all, but neutral in the way I view words and actions by the candidates. Of course this is sometimes quite difficult to do. It's almost impossible to be completely unbiased when watching things like debates or speeches. I do try to be though. I'll admit though that the fact that I strongly disagree with most of Bush's policies obviously puts me at odds with him and can influence the way I judge his actions or words. So in the end, of course I am somewhat biased just like most people, though I try to make a conscious effort not to be.

 

[CptStern]

So they hit the USS Cole because of Bush? They bombed embassies in Africa because of Bush? They shot down/hijacked however many planes because of Bush? They commited 9/11 because of Bush? Wait- all those things happened or were being planned before Bush took office. That is such a ridiculous point you are making. The anti-Americanism was being spread long before Bush took office.
.

what does this have to do with Iraq?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Kerry is not setting any firm targets for the proposed reduction.

Kerry and Rubin also are detailing a new Iraq policy to "significantly" reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during the first six months of a Kerry administration.

Whoa my head is spinning. He says 'no firm target' but goes onto say 'during the first six months', a concrete deadline.

try to bring in more international support

I know at least the French and Germans have said they would not go into Iraq, no matter who was President. The Russians have their own terrorism problems and the Chinese wouldnt help us if we were drowning.

 

[seinfeldrules]

what does this have to do with Iraq?

I dunno, it was in response to sprafa who was bringing up the point that people hate Americans only because of Bush- if I remember correctly.

 

[CptStern]

for the last time people hate american foreign policy NOT americans

 

[KidRock]

for the last time people hate american foreign policy NOT americans

for the last time.. I get the assumption that people hate AMERICANS because I see people say.. I HATE AMERICANS or "heh typical american"

 

[seinfeldrules]

for the last time people hate american foreign policy NOT americans

He didnt say our foreign policy, he said Americans. Go reread it.

 

[gh0st]

for the last time people hate american foreign policy NOT americans

hahahhahahaha.... yeah, right. i bet the 9/11 terrorists hated our foreign policy but had no problem killing us. people hate americans, thats why they use the burning flag (although barely visable because of poor editing skills) as their avatar. the flag doesnt represent our foreign policy.

and yeah, what seinfeld said.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Thank. You.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Here is the quote Stern. I'm holding my breath for your admitance of being wrong.

People Hate Bush, not americans. But if they see over 50% of americans standing behind Bush, and letting him continue in his ways, then there's going to be hate for the American people too.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Okay, im not quoting it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh and Seinfeld, that quote was from Mechagodzilla I believe.

Yeah my bad. Sorry for the mix up Mech and Sprafa.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No Problem.

 

[Vigilante]

you're kidding right?

fraid not...

 

[seinfeldrules]

Isn't this usually when stern yells at me for not responding? 'Rah rah you were running away', see this is why you need to give people time.

 

[KidRock]

Isn't this usually when stern yells at me for not responding? 'Rah rah you were running away', see this is why you need to give people time.

lol so true.

 

[CptStern]

so what am i supposed to be doing here again? oh ya

seinfeldrules: ....I said people not sprafa

kidrock: "I get the assumption..." - nuff said

Vigilante: provide proof the war in iraq was necessary

K e r b e r o s: so are you saying i hate americans?

gh0st: so are americans who burn the american flag during a protest terrorists?

edit: not one of you have been able to successfully justify the war. I'll take you all on ...Kidrock you want to give it a shot?

 

[Neutrino]

Whoa my head is spinning. He says 'no firm target' but goes onto say 'during the first six months', a concrete deadline.

That's because you misunderstood what was meant. Read the quote again:

There are 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but Kerry is not setting any firm targets for the proposed reduction.

First, it was incorrect to say "He says 'no firm targets'" You were falsely trying to make Kerry appear contridictory, when in fact it was the article that said that, not Kerry.

Second, obviously the article meant there are no firm target for the number of troops that he wants to reduce. It wasn't talking about any deadlines, only troop numbers. See?

I know at least the French and Germans have said they would not go into Iraq, no matter who was President. The Russians have their own terrorism problems and the Chinese wouldnt help us if we were drowning.

Yes, that is true about France and Germany. However, those are only two nations among many. I fully realize that getting international support isn't going to be easy, but atleast Kerry is willing to try.

 

[KidRock]

so what am i supposed to be doing here again? oh ya

seinfeldrules: ....I said people not sprafa

kidrock: "I get the assumption..." - nuff said

Vigilante: provide proof the war in iraq was necessary

K e r b e r o s: so are you saying i hate americans?

gh0st: so are americans who burn the american flag during a protest terrorists?

edit: not one of you have been able to successfully justify the war. I'll take you all on ...Kidrock you want to give it a shot?

Why should I give it a shot? what are you gonna do? insult my spelling?! you put up such good arguements sterny boy.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No stern you are supposed to admit you were wrong about the American people comment. Nobody was talking about Iraq with you.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Yes, that is true about France and Germany. However, those are only two nations among many. I fully realize that getting international support isn't going to be easy, but atleast Kerry is willing to try.
__________________

Who else is there?

PS a significant reduction is at least 1/3 of the troops.

 

[Neutrino]

Who else is there?

Here's a list of the member countries of the UN:
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html

List of members of NATO:
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqznato.htm

Kerry's position:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html#1

# Persuade NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq.
# Convene a summit of the world's major powers as well as states in the region, and key Arab and Muslim nations, followed by a standing Contact Group to consult on the way forward, and press them to make good on the steps called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1546: providing troops; providing trainers for Iraq's security forces; providing a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission; and providing more financial assistance and real debt relief. Offer potential troop contributors specific and relatively low-risk but critical roles, such as training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders.
# Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

Like I said, I do not know how successful a bid for international support will be, no one does right now. But I for one am in support of atleast trying it.

PS a significant reduction is at least 1/3 of the troops.

Really? Says who?

 

[Neutrino]

I say ARNOLD SWARTZENEGGER FOR PRESIDENT!

And Jesse Ventura for Vice President right?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Like I said, I do not know how successful a bid for international support will be, no one does right now. But I for one am in support of atleast trying it.

Who are the main powers of NATO? France, Germany, GB, and the US. We already have many members of Eastern Europe on board.

Really? Says who?

A 'significant' amount isnt going to be one or two soldiers.
Significant-
1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.
2. Having or expressing a covert meaning; suggestive
3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important- Fairly large in amount or quantity

1. If you take out a few thousand troops that wont be really meaningful in the overall picture. A meaningful withdrawal would be 10,000+ troops
2. Doesnt apply to this statement unless it is covertly suggesting all troops would be removed.
3. Again, a few thousand troops wouldnt have a major effect. Withdrawing 10,000+ troops would.
The whole word significant is based off of large. He wasnt talking about pulling out 10 troops and calling it a significant withdrawal. Be realistic about this and remember he did change his stance and say it would be 4 years. But you cant do that because you would be going against your old argument that he doesnt flip flop. Its a double edged sword.

And you dodged the 'who else is there?' statement. Tell me the specific countries that you expect John Kerry will get to send serious help to Iraq that are not already involved. How will he mend wounds with the current allies that he called "window dressers", "coerced" and "bribed"?

 

[Neutrino]

Who are the main powers of NATO? France, Germany, GB, and the US. We already have many members of Eastern Europe on board.

Which doesn't mean we can't try to get more support from them or that they're are no other countries we can try to persuade into providing some support.

A 'significant' amount isnt going to be one or two soldiers.

This is of course obvious.

Significant-
1. Having or expressing a meaning; meaningful.
2. Having or expressing a covert meaning; suggestive
3. Having or likely to have a major effect; important- Fairly large in amount or quantity

Again, the definition is completely subjective. It depends on who you ask and more importantly from which viewpoint you are using to examine the numbers.

1. If you take out a few thousand troops that wont be really meaningful in the overall picture. A meaningful withdrawal would be 10,000+ troops

What is meaningful? Meaningful to the fight in Iraq? Meaningful to the soldier that are there? Meaningful to the American public?

Also, 10,000 troops would be 7.2% not 33% as you claimed before.

3. Again, a few thousand troops wouldnt have a major effect. Withdrawing 10,000+ troops would.

"Having or likely to have a major effect; important- Fairly large in amount or quantity"

Major effect on what? Important how and for whom? For the the war, for the soldiers, for the public? Fairly large? All subjective.

Oh, and again 10,000 troops is not 33% as you seem to think.

The whole word significant is based off of large. He wasnt talking about pulling out 10 troops and calling it a significant withdrawal. Be realistic about this and remember he did change his stance and say it would be 4 years. But you cant do that because you would be going against your old argument that he doesnt flip flop. Its a double edged sword.

Based off of large? Large is yet again a subjective word. I'm am being realistic about this. I'm not claiming that he's going to pull out a hundred soldiers and call it significant. That would be absurd. But as for the real number he would like to pull out we have no idea because it is impossible to judge it on one word that can have many meanings. That is my point, that we do not, and cannot have at this time, any idea about the true numbers involved in any such reduction.

Actually he didn't "change his stance and say it would be 4 years." He originally talked about pulling out within 4 years and after that he made this comment about a "significant reduction" within six months. How exactly is this a "flip flop"? You can still have it both ways. You can make a significant reduction in six months and then try to pull out with in 4 years. Please explain where the contridiction is. It was a change in the degree of his position yes, but not a contridiction.

About the "flip flop" issue, I have never claimed he has never changed positions on anything. Both candidates have done so, just like many politicians. My arguments on the matter have been about specific accusations that were not accurate in my opinion. The most notable one being Bush's claims that Kerry has "flip-flopped" on Iraq, which is not an accurate claim. See here: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269