If Bush wins...

[Korgoth]

Maybe he means we didn't have enough troops initially (thus all the looting, chaos, robbed banks/museums). Now he might have a plan to speed the process up, thus getting our guys home in a timely fashion, and actually giving control over to the iraqi's.

 

[Korgoth]

Also, whatI think is contradictory is obvious different form what you think is, seinfeldrules. I think a contradiction is continually saying that things are good in iraq, when in fact its obvious they aren't (cia says, it'll stay just as bad, beheadings, street fights, or it will get worse, civil war.)

I also think a contradiction, is saying your strong for the economy, when the facts point to you coming into a surplus and ending up with a deficit, super high unemployment rates, thousands of lost jobs etc. etc.

Or maybe contradiction is when you claim your opponent contradicts himself by flip flopping, when you claim to leave no child left behind then don't fund the bill and go as far as to majorly cut education spending. Or say your opponent doesn't support the troops, when you in fact sent 40,000 of our troops to iraq unprepared, without proper armor and un-armored humvees, and then go as far as to cut combat pay, vet benefits etc. etc.

Or maybe a contradiction is to claim during a debate that your opponent is misleading the audience with falsehoods, when you in fact claim 100,000 thousand trained iraqi's when infact the number is closer to 50,000. Or when you insist on iraqs wmd even though the cia just released its findings claim 0 weapons, degrading weapons programs, and that the regime had given up its hopes for wmd in 98, like they claimed.

I dunno, thats what i see as contradictory.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Maybe he means we didn't have enough troops initially (thus all the looting, chaos, robbed banks/museums). Now he might have a plan to speed the process up, thus getting our guys home in a timely fashion, and actually giving control over to the iraqi's.

I missed this part...who are you accusing of looting?

Also, whatI think is contradictory is obvious different form what you think is, seinfeldrules. I think a contradiction is continually saying that things are good in iraq, when in fact its obvious they aren't (cia says, it'll stay just as bad, beheadings, street fights, or it will get worse, civil war.)

Well, this is just proof nobody knows the real situation over there. Though, for the choice, we are left to speculate. Is there a report released by the CIA that cites this as being true?

If so, I'd like a source.

Or maybe contradiction is when you claim your opponent contradicts himself by flip flopping, when you claim to leave no child left behind then don't fund the bill and go as far as to majorly cut education spending. Or say your opponent doesn't support the troops, when you in fact sent 40,000 of our troops to iraq unprepared, without proper armor and un-armored humvees, and then go as far as to cut combat pay, vet benefits etc. etc.

Who are you for again? I think you missed the point Bush made about Kerry, in that Kerry, sent those 40,000 troops to Iraq unprepared because of the bills he voted for.

Of course its inconsistent, but this is Bush's big spin. I also dont think Seinfeld is the Commander and Chief, so how you can associate Bush's "evil" with him, is well beyond me.

Or maybe a contradiction is to claim during a debate that your opponent is misleading the audience with falsehoods, when you in fact claim 100,000 thousand trained iraqi's when infact the number is closer to 50,000.

This is again, proof, noone knows whats going on. I've heard sources of 100,000 to only 20,000 (CBS). Thats to say, no hard facts will come out until we get the real information doctrinated. I dont think a media's interpretation of reports will go over.

Or when you insist on iraqs wmd even though the cia just released its findings claim 0 weapons, degrading weapons programs, and that the regime had given up its hopes for wmd in 98, like they claimed.

I dont think his point was on Nukes, or biological weapons. I think his comment was on Kerries debate stance that, "wmds are coming into Iraqs borders everyday".

So, I dont his argueing on some other moot points.

 

[CptStern]

I missed this part...who are you accusing of looting?

while the ministry of oil was being guarded, hospitals, universities, and museums were looted.

"The idea that US forces did not guard the museum because they were guarding the Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior is apparently true. According to U.S. officials the "reality of the situation on the ground" was that hospitals, water plants, and ministries with vital intelligence needed security more than other sites. There were only enough US troops on the ground to guard a certain number of the many sites that ideally needed protection, and so some "hard choices" were made."

I guess guarding the ministry of oil was a "hard choice"


source

Well, this is just proof nobody knows the real situation over there. Though, for the choice, we are left to speculate. Is there a report released by the CIA that cites this as being true?

If so, I'd like a source.

ok: source

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes."

 

[Korgoth]

I missed this part...who are you accusing of looting?



Well, this is just proof nobody knows the real situation over there. Though, for the choice, we are left to speculate. Is there a report released by the CIA that cites this as being true?

If so, I'd like a source.



Who are you for again? I think you missed the point Bush made about Kerry, in that Kerry, sent those 40,000 troops to Iraq unprepared because of the bills he voted for.

Of course its inconsistent, but this is Bush's big spin. I also dont think Seinfeld is the Commander and Chief, so how you can associate Bush's "evil" with him, is well beyond me.

cpstern provided the cia links, and here is the source. Fact is, kerry voting against the 87 billion, true, be bush didn't send enough armor and supplies for at least 40,000 troops in the first place.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=155.html

so whos got the moot point now?

EDIT: and where the hell did i compare seinfeld to bush? I never did that... You have a hard time keeping to the issues at hand don't you kerberos.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'd rather have a flip-flop than blindly continuing down the same straight downhill path.

After the 9/11 attacks, Bush made various references to Saddam's threatening ways. As a result, something like 70% of americans believed that Saddam had masterminded the attacks.
Now Bush pretty clearly had plans to attack Iraq eventually, but I'd bet that when he heard those numbers, he suddenly thought "Hey, people really hate this Saddam guy now. If I win a war against him now, in the name of democracy, I'll be the best president ever!"

So the accusations started up, even though one year earlier, Bush said something to the effect of "Saddam has no weapons of Mass destruction" evidence, on the other hand, was more tricky:

First, Saddam had WMDs and was planning to attack America.

Then he maybe had WMDs, and maybe was planning to attack. (This is around the point where Bush invaded.)

Then Saddam maybe had WMDs that could possibly be used in a theoretical attack.

Then he wanted to get WMDs that could possibly be used in a theoretical attack.

Then he maybe wanted to get WMDs that could possibly be used in a theoretical attack.

Now, Saddam had no WMDs since 1991, he didn't want to get new WMDs and had the intention to improve relations with the US, but he might have eventually changed his mind.

At this rate, it'll soon be revealed that Saddam was a radical anti-WMD protester and a strong supporter of the Bush-Cheney campaign.
And Bush will still declare that Saddam might have been a pro-america anti-war hippy for now, but he was going to theoretically buy WMDs sometime in 2025.

So, Bush essentially declared war on a sovereign nation because they didn't do anything. But he's still certain that Saddam was a threat, and he's going to keep riding that claim 'till it falls over dead.

Yup, the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion is in no way flawed.
So what if we basically forgot about fighting Al Queda's confirmed activity in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, and spent something like 10 times more than Afghanistan for a war that is actually creating terrorists by pissing off civilians for pretty much no reason?

Saddam was a bad guy, but he was by no means the worst dictator out there. So why did he get priority over everything else, including Osama bin Laden, when it came to being a target?
It certainly wasn't because of the dated evidence the CIA brought up (vintage mid-1990's). It must not have been Al-Queda ties, since far bigger ties existing in at least three other countries made iraq's insignificant in comparison.

So, I have to conclude that Iraq was a rushed out to make the War on Terror look like it was kicking ass and taking names. Even though Saddam wasn't the worst enemy out there and wasn't connected to terror, he was the most well-known to the American people after the Gulf War ended. Visions of "Saddam Captured" headlines danced through Bush's head, I'm sure.
Too bad people soon realised that even though Saddam was really not very popular, he still hadn't done any of the things Bush said he had.

But this is about the point where I get confused. Bush still has 48% support or something like that? Huh? Around 40% of people still think Iraq was a good idea? What?

It's not like Kerry's much better than Bush, since his important policies are pretty much just kinda better versions of Bush policies...

Kerry: I will never rewrite the constitution to discriminate against gays.
Me: Yay! That's sensible!
Kerry: But I will let each individual state rewrite their constitutions to discriminate gays all they want.
Me: What? That's only slightly less worse! Most leftist candidate my ass.

...but the Iraq war is so wrong in every respect that I can hardly comprehend why Kerry hasn't already won purely by virtue of not having caused it.

So I guess my reaction to a Bush win would be: Common sense is dead. Long live the king!

 

[blahblahblah]

How can you people assign blame to one person when both candidates are equally responsible?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How can you people assign blame to one person when both candidates are equally responsible?

I think Jon Stewart best summed this up in this (paraphrased) quote:

"Kerry voted to give the president the power to 'speak softly and carry a big stick', but the Bush took the stick and immediately whacked Saddam upside the head."

 

[Jakeic]

There are a few things that are really messed up with this election.

Does anyone else think it is amazing how a party that claims to believe in the mantra "take responsibility for your own actions", can not see how the current administration brushes off responsibility with a wave of it's hand?

 

[Sprafa]

If Bush wins everyone will die

 

[Jakeic]

How can you people assign blame to one person when both candidates are equally responsible?

How are both candidate equally responsible? One is a senator, who is not the commander and chief, the other is the president who is the commander and chief.

If Bush wins everyone will die

were going to die anyways.

 

[Sprafa]

were going to die anyways.

:|

That's the point :|

 

[blahblahblah]

How are both candidate equally responsible? One is a senator, who is not the commander and chief, the other is the president who is the commander and chief.

A person is murdered.

Person A physically committed the murder. Person B supplied the murder weapon to Person A and did nothing to stop the murder from happening. Person B even witnessed the murder and did nothing about it.

Which person is more guilty?




PS - Somebody looks at my sig! They are funnay.

 

[Jakeic]

A person is murdered.

Person A physically committed the murder. Person B supplied the murder weapon to Person A and did nothing to stop the murder from happening. Person B even witnessed the murder and did nothing about it.

Which person is more guilty?

First of all, this is not the same thing as a murder. Second, there were more than just kerry who voted to give the president authority.

To answer your question, the person who commited the murder is the only guilty party.

 

[CptStern]

A person is murdered.

Person A physically committed the murder. Person B supplied the murder weapon to Person A and did nothing to stop the murder from happening. Person B even witnessed the murder and did nothing about it.

Which person is more guilty?




PS - Somebody looks at my sig! They are funnay.

you forgot:

Person A lies to person B that the person to be murdered is dangerous and will kill them both if person A doesnt kill them first

 

[OCybrManO]

Even if Person B voted against War B it wouldn't have done anything... as the vote didn't come down to one person. Also, as seen many times in the past, Person A probably would have gone into Country B even if the vote for War B failed. Person A would just call it "Police Action B" instead.

 

[blahblahblah]

you forgot:

Person A lies to person B that the person to be murdered is dangerous and will kill them both if he doesnt kill them first

Person B had the same knowledge as Person A.

Kerry had the same intelligence as Kerry.

 

[CptStern]

Person B had the same knowledge as Person A.

Kerry had the same intelligence as Kerry.

person A gave the knowledge to person B

 

[Mechagodzilla]

A person is murdered.

Person A physically committed the murder. Person B supplied the murder weapon to Person A and did nothing to stop the murder from happening. Person B even witnessed the murder and did nothing about it.

Which person is more guilty?

Obviously the guy who actually shot someone is guilty. Guns are sold as tools to be used responsibly. That's why gun stores are legal, but murder isn't.
People generally assume that common sense will be used when they give a person power.

 

[blahblahblah]

First of all, this is not the same thing as a murder. Second, there were more than just kerry who voted to give the president authority.

To answer your question, the person who commited the murder is the only guilty party.

Even though Person B pretty much did the murder? Person B supplied the murder weapon, did nothing to stop it and even witnessed the crime? Yet, Person B is not guilty?

Even if Person B voted against War B it wouldn't have done anything... as the vote didn't come down to one person. Also, as seen many times in the past, Person A probably would have gone into Country B even if the vote for War B failed. Person A would just call it "Police Action B" instead.

Putting this into my analogy.

So, it wouldn't have done anything if Person B refused to give the murder weapon to Person A. It wouldn't have done anything if Person B showed his opposition to the crime. It wouldn't have done anything if Person B refused to witness the crime?

Even if it didn't prevent the murder, it makes Person B innocent.

 

[blahblahblah]

Obviously the guy who actually shot someone is guilty. That's why gun stores are legal, but murder isn't.

Don't you people watch Law and Order! lol

What about good samaritan laws? Or common sense? Or accessory to the murder? The person who assists a murder is just as guilty as committing it.

 

[Jakeic]

Even though Person B pretty much did the murder? Person B supplied the murder weapon, did nothing to stop it and even witnessed the crime? Yet, Person B is not guilty?

Person B did not murder someone, he didn't even come close. There is a difference between NOT doing it, and doing it.

 

[blahblahblah]

person A gave the knowledge to person B

I'm going for a triple post.

The knowledge came from the CIA, FBI and DOD. That means Bush gave the knowledge to Kerry? Wrong.

 

[blahblahblah]

Person B did not murder someone, he didn't even come close. There is a difference between NOT doing it, and doing it.

So the Person B is completely innocent?

 

[Sprafa]

I'm going for a triple post.

The knowledge came from the CIA, FBI and DOD. That means Bush gave the knowledge to Kerry? Wrong.

The Admnistration controls the info that comes out of federal agencies.

 

[Jakeic]

If you loan your car to someone, and they hit another person does that mean you are responsible?

 

[OCybrManO]

Person A physically committed the murder. Person B supplied the murder weapon to Person A and did nothing to stop the murder from happening. Person B even witnessed the murder and did nothing about it.

Which person is more guilty?

Putting this into my analogy.

So, it wouldn't have done anything if Person B refused to give the murder weapon to Person A. It wouldn't have done anything if Person B showed his opposition to the crime. It wouldn't have done anything if Person B refused to witness the crime?

Even if it didn't prevent the murder, it makes Person B innocent.

So, gun shop owners and murder witnesses should be considered guilty, too?

If you still want to follow that analogy... Person B is essentially doing the same thing as turning Person A in to the police (in this case, the voters) by running against him and publicly calling him out on his mistakes. Also, Person B did not give the gun to Person A thinking that it would be used as a murder weapon. Person A was supposed to use the gun for protection... to keep Person C from doing something that would get other people killed. It turns out that Person A had an itchy trigger finger and a grudge against Person C.

 

[Sprafa]

Just for this thread, new avatar !!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Don't you people watch Law and Order! lol

What about good samaritan laws? Or common sense? Or accessory to the murder? The person who assists a murder is just as guilty as committing it.

Well, it worked like this:

Bush: Will you give me a gun so that I can shoot Saddam if he attacks you?

Senate: Ok, I do not like dying. *hands gun over*

Bush: *shoots Saddam*

Senate: Hey, Saddam didn't do anything. We gave you that gun as a precaution, not so you could abuse the privilege.

Bush: Meh, too late now. Now give me fifty bucks so I can wipe up this mess I made. *buys fifty bucks worth of windex and dumps it on the floor*

Kerry: You're not cleaning it well at all, you're only making things worse. Let me clean this up.

Bush: Flip-Flopper!

 

[Jakeic]

Well, it worked like this:

Bush: Will you give me a gun so that I can shoot Saddam if he attacks you?

Senate: Ok, I do not like dying. *hands gun over*

Bush: *shoots Saddam*

Senate: Hey, Saddam didn't do anything. We gave you that gun as a precaution, not so you could abuse the privilege.

Bush: Meh, too late now. Now give me fifty bucks so I can wipe up this mess I made.

We all know Kerry is responsible for the mess in Iraq, just as he is responsible for us not having powerful allies when we went to war, with his comments about them being corearsed and bribed he made during the last debate.

 

[blahblahblah]

I thought I would have time to defend my position, but I have to run. ;(

When I come back tommorow, can I at least here from somebody that Person B is somewhat guilty of a crime?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

We all know Kerry is responsible for the mess in Iraq, just as he is responsible for us not having powerful allies when we went to war, with his comments about them being corearsed and bribed he made during the last debate.

How did Kerry's comment three days ago affect the war that started in 2002? Time travel?

 

[Jakeic]

Simple, Kerry is the devil.

 

[OCybrManO]

I thought I would have time to defend my position, but I have to run. ;(

When I come back tommorow, can I at least here from somebody that Person B is somewhat guilty of a crime?

I never said he was 100% innocent.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Simple, Kerry is the devil.

Vote for Bush because Kerry is a time-travelling Satan with laser eye beams and is a gryphon?

 

[Sprafa]

Vote for Bush because Kerry is a time-travelling Satan with laser eye beams and is a gryphon?

how did you know ?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

how did you know ?

Well, it makes more sense than the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and FOX News combined.

 

[Jakeic]

that would explain a lot.