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

Since the trend is for quoting, don't let me alter the course of events

I like it, it helps people keep track of the 'discussion' so that they don't have to scroll back and forth.

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.

And yet John Kerry voted against the money needed for giving our troops body armor.

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.

I know it doesn't, but I'm not the one who said it was a bad word. I don't think it's a bad word either, it is simply a generalization to show on which side of the fence you stand. If you don't fit in the category, you don't fit in the category. But what I was asking, is that if being a Liberal is not a bad thing, why is John Kerry denying it, when his voting record clearly shows that he is? (And our American political definitions of Liberal and Conservative don't necessarily fit into the dictionary definitions of either word).

How many do you have?

A whole assload.

but the question as to why is open to debate also

N. Korea told us exactly why they asked the inspectors to leave, see quote from Ri Je Son, the director general of North Korea's atomic energy agency:

we will resume once-suspended construction of the atomic energy power plants and will embark on preparation to operate the radiochemical laboratory as a preparatory step to secure safe storage of large quantity of spent fuel rods that would come out once these power plants are in operation

To deny that N. Korea is restarting nuclear experimentation and using their technical capability for anything other than political gain I think is preposterous. I really do not believe that they simply have plans to take over the world, I think that it is their way of threatening us to get what they want (yes, for political gain).

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.

The reason I quoted as it was, is because you made an absolute statement, and followed it with a statement questioning your absolute statement. You said: "They won't be cowtowed through anything but sanctions", and followed with, in parenthesis: "(and even that's not a sure thing)". If you did not want me to assume that you mean "anything but sanctions" then you should not have said "anything but sanctions". If you did not want me to construe what you said exactly as you typed it, then you should not have typed it like you did.

Sorry for repeating myself, but when doing this online, I still remember old college debate tactics like stating the same thing twice in a row, just using different words. Just note, that you said it as I quoted it, you simply backed off your statement in the following words.

Your 1st amendment is not enshrined, you can change it

I wasn't going to respond to your statements directed at atrox, but I saw this. Let's save the anti-gun talk for another argument. Start a new thread, and we can talk about that in there.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]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.

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.

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?[/QUOTE]

No I’m actually referring to a specific terrorist organization who funded and organized the attack and where specifically the majority of them are located.

My point from the begging was Al Qaeda who attacked us in the first place, their main base of operation wasn’t in Iraq. So to say we decided to invade Iraq as oppose to Afghanistan is like saying it’s ok to jump in and remove the IRA because their terrorists there too.

Iraq wasn’t the only one who has threatened us. It’s more like if 5 people threatened my wife I’d first take out the one most likely to do it. Iraq wasn’t the biggest threat.

My point from the begging was Al Qaeda who attacked us in the first place, their main base of operation wasn’t in Iraq. So to say we decided to invade Iraq as oppose to Afghanistan is like saying it’s ok to jump in and remove the IRA because their terrorists there too.

Nobody ever said that their main base of operations was in Iraq. And we didn't invade Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan long before going into Iraq. And since you obviously did not read my post thoroughly, I stated that the IRA is irrelevant, because they are not making threats to Americans.

Iraq wasn’t the only one who has threatened us.

Of course not, and Iraq will not be the last thing we go after.

It’s more like if 5 people threatened my wife I’d first take out the one most likely to do it.

Right, and you would just ignore the remaining 4? You yourself claim that these are all separate groups, so what would make you think that the other 4 would stop when you killed the first? Keep in mind, that we did go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan first. I desire to see how you change your argument after I pointed that out.

Iraq wasn’t the biggest threat

Again, keep in mind, that we did go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan long before going into Iraq. And also again, I desire to see how you change your argument now that presented with the correct facts, rather than your assumptions.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]What are those plans that bother you so much?

And how is America an enemy to you?[/quote]

[quote=Isil]There is another enemy. Although not really an enemy it's certainly a great power in this world: America. Ofcourse the U.S. haven't got plans to attack us with suicide commando's and bomb squads[/quote]

I'm sorry? Did I say enemy, I don't think so. "A great power". "There is another enemy" <-- not saying the U.S. is a real enemy, please read my post properly before shouting things at me :>

[quote=Mattboy_slim]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.[/quote]

Adapt to the rest of the world, is it your world? From what I know this world hasn't got a little label saying "owned by the U.S." on it. And going to war with other countries in this world concerns us all so yes I reckon it's quite a good idea to discuss plans with the world, see what the rest of the world (including us Euro Trash, thanks :>) thinks of these plans and don't ignore them.

[quote=Mattboy_slim]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.[/quote]

I'm interested in Politics, read a lot of papers, magazines, articles about it you see.

Ofcourse you can't predict every detail in battle, you can at least prepare properly. Now I'm no expert (neither are you) but I strongly feel something's going wrong in Iraq.

[quote=Atrox'>atrox]_______________________________

Are you completely and totally ignorant.



America to you is an enemy....we are not only protecting us by going after TERRORISTS but we are protecting you euro trash at the same time. Do you know anything about what terror is. These terrorists are evil, they will kill(behead even) anyone who gets in thier way, and to consider america a worse enemy is just sickening to me.[/quote]

[quote=Isil]There is another enemy. Although not really an enemy it's certainly a great power in this world: America. Ofcourse the U.S. haven't got plans to attack us with suicide commando's and bomb squads[/quote]

Please read my post properly before shouting things at me. By the way, ofcourse Terrorists are evil, remember, that's exactly why they're called terrorists

[quote=Atrox]This is a WAR, do you understand the concept. Wars are always terrible but in this case the Pros outwayed the cons of going, when this war is over Iraq will be a prospering democracy, the only civilized way to live. I dont know if anyone has told you but tyranty, monarchy and regimes are over.[/quote]

No, I'm from Euro-Trash-Country remember, no one's ever told me tyranies, monarchies and regimes are evil, sorry =/ (btw, why would you consider Monarchies as evil? Most European countries have still got a monarchy and I don't really reckon them evil said:

Your blaming Bush for american deaths in Iraq? How can you even think you know anything about the plans of the most powerful country in the world. You think all you hear on your liberal news channle is our plan, no its not. Currently we are fighting against gurilla(sp?) style terrorist bastards, they suicide bomb and behead innocent civilians for kicks and you think its anyoneother then the terrorists fault for american soldiers dieing.

Uhm, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists afaik =) Ofcourse there were some small muslim extremists in Iraq but they weren't a threat to the U.S. Not at all, now on the other hand, most of the Iraqi people completely hate the U.S. for invading their country, this way, by creating hatred against your own country is quite stupid now isn't it =) But ofcourse the oil is all worth it, :>

[quote=Atrox]Also Isil,stfu[/QUOTE]

<3

Uhm, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists afaik =) Ofcourse there were some small muslim extremists in Iraq but they weren't a threat to the U.S. Not at all, now on the other hand, most of the Iraqi people completely hate the U.S. for invading their country, this way, by creating hatred against your own country is quite stupid now isn't it =) But ofcourse the oil is all worth it, :>

Dude, its ok to turn off your liberal biased media, dont be afraid not to believe everything you watch on tv. liberals go on tv, and they control almost all media and they say nothing of the victories we have made or people we have helped while being down in iraq. All the media wants you weak minded people to see are interviews of the few iraqis that hate us,or movie clips of people firing guns in the street. They want you to believe we have no control down there, and we have done nothing good, basically they are spitting on the sacrifices our military suffered.

The majority of Iraq loves what we have done for them, and how their lives will change. They are holding elections, and once these gurilla, terrorist, cowards are done with Iraq will be a prospering democracy. When this happens, and the media has nothing else to cover up, mabye then you will understand how we made the world safer and helped a country at the same time. Until then, dont go ranting on forums with the latest headlines from cnn, because frankly their headlines dont mean sh!t.

Nobody ever said that their main base of operations was in Iraq. And we didn't invade Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan. We went to Afghanistan long before going into Iraq. And since you obviously did not read my post thoroughly, I stated that the IRA is irrelevant, because they are not making threats to Americans.

Osama Bin Laden was accused of being the mastermind, and he was located in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was first and foremost the main battleground. If you don’t want to call it the main base of operations you can call it whatever you want. My point is, is that Afghanistan was more important and we did nothing there compared to what we did and are doing in Iraq.

Can you honestly say that we took Afghanistan as serious as we did Iraq? :rolleyes:

I know you stated the IRA are irrelevant because their not harming Americans but neither did Iraqi's...See my point? Irelands got some terrorist too. Maybe even from the middle east. ;)

Right, and you would just ignore the remaining 4? You yourself claim that these are all separate groups, so what would make you think that the other 4 would stop when you killed the first? Keep in mind, that we did go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan first. I desire to see how you change your argument after I pointed that out.

Again let me underline my point. The bigger and more dangerous countries are out there while we waste money, soldiers, and time in Iraq. This isn’t some after the fact opinion I have. There’s been plenty of evidence pointing to other countries that would prove to be a bigger threat. Bush made a dumb decision.

I’m not saying the other groups will stop. I’m saying we should hit the most dangerous first. I’m also saying that the most dangerous weren't in Iraq.

Again, keep in mind, that we did go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan long before going into Iraq. And also again, I desire to see how you change your argument now that presented with the correct facts, rather than your assumptions.

Were in my post did you get the impression I wasn't aware that we went to Afghanistan?

Again, can you honestly say that we took Afghanistan as serious as we did Iraq? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=atrox]The majority of Iraq loves what we have done for them, and how their lives will change.[/QUOTE]

Your telling other people not to believe everything they watch on tv yet you made the statement above? Who's watching the news? Maybe you should take your own advice...

Iraqi's "are" happy. Their also terrified, scared ****less and some even liked being under Saddams boot because at least under his boot they had jobs. It's a total mess over there. My cousin Josh was a rocket soldier over there until last month and he told me a lot more than what you've been hearing. The Iraqi's that are happy as can be aren't the majority.

Iraqi's "are" happy. Their also terrified, scared ****less and some even liked being under Saddams boot because at least under his boot they had jobs. It's a total mess over there. My cousin Josh was a rocket soldier over there until last month and he told me a lot more than what you've been hearing. The Iraqi's that are happy as can be aren't the majority.

Once again you're talking about a minority of them. And if I did follow the news like CNN liberals did, I would have said exactly what I just quoted from you. They also have a right to be scared, gurilla terrorists are killing their own people.

You won't understand the necessity to fight all forms of terrorists untill another attack upon the united states. I guess 3000 people jumping off skyscappers, and being burned to death before plumeting hundreds of feet wasnt enough for you to realize that in the time we are living in, its either kill or be killed.