// Bush v. Kerry | PC v. Mac // Clash of the Titans

[QUOTE=samson]Im voting for no one since I am Canadian. I a confused with who to choose, Bush made a bad decision to go to war with Iraq without UN backing. Kerry will get rid of outsourcing IT, my primary source of income. :([/QUOTE]


Bush couldnt have gone to war with the UN's backing. The Un was'nt doing anything about the situation, and hadent in the past. Bush made a hard decision by himself and his administration to goto war. Wether it was with UN backing or not, it was still the morally correct thing to do. Just like helping other countrys and stoping terrorists is the moral thing to do.

Conservatives have plans which bother me

What are those plans that bother you so much?

There is another enemy. Although not really an enemy it's certainly a great power in this world: America

And how is America an enemy to you?

a decent leader who tries to adapt the U.S. to the rest of the world

Why should we adapt to the rest of the world? I think that is a rather unfair thing to say, that America should be like everyone else. We pride ourselves in being different, and are known as being the largest melting pot in the world, why in the world would we want to be like 'the rest of the world'. We see how the 'rest of the world' acts and lives, and I highly doubt that you would find many Americans who want to be like the rest of the world.

without having a decent plan

Like atrox said, how would you even begin to know what our plan, or lack of a plan is? How would you, as a foreigner, have more insight into the plans of the President than I, who have lived here in the U.S. for his entire Presidency? Nobody can predict the outcome of war, nor can you predict every facet of every battle, or every thought of every combatant. Are we expected to hire a psychic, who can see the outcome of every day before we ever go to war? If you can predict every facet of the war, then I hereby call you out and to tell me what will happen tomorrow to whom.

evidence: turn the news channel on, wait for the messages of today's murdered soldiers

Again, back to hiring a psychic. So we should hire a psychic, and that psychic will tell the soldiers not to drive their Hummer down Baghdad Avenue today, as there will be a roadside bomb. Right. If we could effectively prevent even one American soldier's death, you can bet your ass that we would do whatever we could.

=============================

[QUOTE=thehermit]Why is Liberal a dirty word?[/QUOTE] Ask John Kerry. He is the one who is dening being 'Liberal' and having a 'Liberal' voting record.

it is more likely it will be from within your boundaries

It is not more likely: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

It is especially not more likely since the invasion of Iraq.

By isolating Libya and threatening Iran and Korea they are doing no favours for world security

And what should we have done/should we do about Libya, Iran, and N. Korea? Let them continue what they plan on doing? Should we 'sit down and talk' with them? What should we do? Answer that before deciding what is better for the rest of the world.

What exactly would they do if Korea did want to develop WMD

You are assuming now that N. Korea DOESN'T want to develop WMD. (it's N. Korea specifically, not Korea in general, get your facts straight).

I really would like to see the (ahemm) most powerful nation in the world invade Korea unilaterally.

And if America is not the most powerful nation in the world, you mind telling me who is?

anything but sanctions

N. Korea said if the U.N. were to place sanctions, it would spark a war. N. Korea said that. Sanctions aren't going to stop N. Korea, you need to do some research. And N. Korea refuses to meet with world leaders, so talking isn't helping either. N. Korea wants aid, they want the world to give them money, or they say will launch nuclear missles upon the world. They are acting like kids, kids who need to get their asses whalloped. That kind of threat pisses me off, and hardly makes me feel sorry them at all.

How many offensive and rank comments and generalisations can you make?

Lets not fool ourselves, when anyone is talking about terrorists, its 99% of the time radical Islamic muslims.

“Bush did goto the UN and did ask for help. Britian and some other countrys are allies, helping us out in Iraq, but other countrys in Europe didnt move a finger(cough* The FRENCH * cough, and others), and they are the ones i was refering to as Euro Trash.”

Maybe other European countries didn’t move a finger because:

A: Were fighting in the wrong country.

B: Their going to save our asses when the countries who do pose a threat decide to come out and play.

C: They weren’t convinced like many educated Americans that going to war with Iraq wasn’t of last resort.

D: Iraq had and has no WMD’s.

E: All of the above.

[QUOTE=FlackBait]Maybe other European countries didn’t move a finger because:

A: Were fighting in the wrong country.

B: Their going to save our asses when the countries who do pose a threat decide to come out and play.

C: They weren’t convinced like many educated Americans that going to war with Iraq wasn’t of last resort.

D: Iraq had and has no WMD’s.

E: All of the above.[/QUOTE]

A: Anywhere where they are harboring terrorists, isnt the wrong country

B: i doubt they would move, because if france didnt help this time around after what we did for them in WW2, what would make them help us later.

C: War is always last resort

D: The UN and the world thought they did, so that doesnt support a reason why France for example didnt help us. They might not of had bombs but they certaintly had materials to make them.

A: Anywhere where they are harboring terrorists, isnt the wrong country

Bin Laden and the majority of Al Qaeda were in Iraq? Are you trying to rewrite history? I’m sorry but Iraq wasn’t harboring the most Al Qaeda terrorists.

B: i doubt they would move, because if france didnt help this time around after what we did for them in WW2, what would make them help us later.

France helped in the Gulf War in the 90’s…Why should they get involved in every war were committed to especially if they disagree with it?

C: War is always last resort

It should be. But I’m afraid that wasn’t the case when we invaded Iraq this time around.

D: The UN and the world thought they did, so that doesnt support a reason why France for example didnt help us. They might not of had bombs but they certaintly had materials to make them.

No, the UN and “the world” wanted to find out. They didn't want to go to war and then find out later.

[QUOTE=FlackBait]Bin Laden and the majority of Al Qaeda were in Iraq? Are you trying to rewrite history? I’m sorry but Iraq wasn’t harboring the most Al Qaeda terrorists.
[/QUOTE]

Since when is Al Qaeda and Bin Laden the only terrorist group. I was refering to terrorists, not a specific group.

[QUOTE=atrox]Since when is Al Qaeda and Bin Laden the only terrorist group. I was refering to terrorists, not a specific group.[/QUOTE]

Okaaaay...well the majority of terrorist who attacked us weren't in Iraq either. You are trying to justify our invasion of Iraq right? Why didn’t we just invade Ireland and wipe out the IRA. Aren’t they terrorists?

See what you've done is you've taken a specific group called Al Qaeda, and you've generalized what it is to be a terrorist to justify our reasons for invading Iraq and killing anyone who fits our description of a terrorist. A specific group attacked us and instead of wiping them out, we attacked Iraq because they have terrorists... That doesn’t make any sense.

Okaaaay...well the majority of terrorist who attacked us weren't in Iraq either.

OK, your first mistake. The terrorists who attacked us died in the planes....that would make them 'all of the terrorists', not the majority of them.

Why didn’t we just invade Ireland and wipe out the IRA. Aren’t they terrorists?

You can't honestly say that you really thought that he meant 'ALL' terrorists. He was talking about the terrorists that are out to get Americans.

A specific group attacked us and instead of wiping them out, we attacked Iraq because they have terrorists... That doesn’t make any sense

Why does that not make sense? It's called "a pre-emptive strike". If someone is threatening to murder your wife, would you not want that person removed from the picture? Or would you simply let get by, because "they haven't done anything yet". Would you let them get by, because they are just being labeled "a murderer", even though they haven't committed murder? I think terrorism is far far far more serious problem than murdering one person, and most people don't have a problem with someone going to jail for threatening murder. So why is it that when someone threatens to murder 'all Americans' that we should just stand by and pretend that it doesn't matter. Why do you think that peace talks, treaties, and giving them aid will help convince them that murdering Americans isn't right? At what point will the Left see the terrorists as a legitimate threat, instead of a bunch of misunderstood people?

Since the trend is for quoting, don't let me alter the course of events.... Back a few posts to Mattboy's.

If we could effectively prevent even one American soldier's death, you can bet your ass that we would do whatever we could

Perhaps arming Hummer's with adequate armour and protection would be a start, even going as far as giving ALL your frontline troops equipment, perhaps even going as far as body armour.

Why is Liberal a dirty word? -

Ask John Kerry. He is the one who is dening being 'Liberal' and having a 'Liberal' voting record.

It neither answers my question or advances the point. Liberals are found in many more places than America, I wanted to know why liberal values rather than being an American liberal was bad. Liberal in the dictionary has no bad connotations. Whatever Kerry thinks about his being a liberal or not, I don't much care, it's a state of mind not a political tool.

What exactly would they do if Korea did want to develop WMD
You are assuming now that N. Korea DOESN'T want to develop WMD. (it's N. Korea specifically, not Korea in general, get your facts straight).

I don't mind having my quotes ripped apart, but I fall short of misrepresenting what I said. I did in no way assume that they didn't, but unless you know better than the US Security forces... as far as common knowledge they have a handful of nuculear weapons and a few reactors - How many do you have? Granted expelled International Inspectors are not a good move, but the question as to why is open to debate also. Afraid of discovery of a program of WMD? Or a stalling and political move to frustrate and hamper the 'interfering outsiders and make political gain?. I also acknowledged N.Korea in an earlier answer that you must have read to comment thus, so just cheap really

.

Quote:
anything but sanctions

This is not the back of a bestseller or a movie poster, please do not cut my syntax short to again misrepresent my point. I actually added and with good reason "(and even that's not a sure thing)." Making the point that whilst sanctions have been threatened they have been rebutted, that still has to allow for the fact that bluster by the N.Koreans is inevitable.


Oh well onto Atrox again....

I should take it chronologically I suppose.

ou still dont understand, refer to my first post in this thread.

No I don't. How does your first post relate to my not understanding the what is to you oh so obvious? Please explain (genuinely).

Lets not fool ourselves, when anyone is talking about terrorists, its 99% of the time radical Islamic muslims

Terror is not the sole preserve to be concerned about of the American Goverment. You are mere fledgelings in the experience of terror. I am sure the Spanish discusses ETA more than Al Queda, I am confident that Russia talk about the Chechens more than Al Queda, I am also pretty confident that Sri Lanka is more pre-occupied with Tamil TIgers than Al Queda.

World politics and in the US case specifically here, domestic poitics are such a funny beast. Alliances and alliegiances are broken and made at the drop of the hat. Bush Snr. and the US looks the other way whilst Kurds are gassed and only intervene when Saudi and the oil reserves are threatened.

Rwanda. What happened there then? Surely they have some useful resource that could justify you helping out in one of the worst human disasters in recent years. Genocide? Oh well!!

Let's not forget who armed Al Queda when it suited them. Let's not forget who sold and provided the weapons to Iraq. You are so in love with war and weapons and other people other than yourself not being able to get them that it's bound to come back and bite you in the ass sometime.

It's all well and good being the guardian of all that is good and true and being the moral bastion, but if you put yourselves in that role you actually have to do something about it. Picking and choosing your battles based upon ill convieved notions is pretty rank and offensive to what is obviously a large part of the Western world and indeed the Eastern. In fact sort out your own backyard and then preach to the rest of us, you shudder at soldiers dying and think nothing of allowing guns to be freely accesed.... Your 1st amendment is not enshrined, you can change it - Hey how about you ammend it?!?!??!