And if a large percentage of the American population was watching the DNC speeches then I believe he could have dealt a fatal body blow to the Bush campaign. (I have no idea why I'm speaking in wrestling terms. :P )
Clinton's speeches always move me. I cried when he gave his last State of the Union address. :erm
I also enjoyed Al Gore's speech although some of his statements were pretty corny. Jimmy Carter's speech was okay. He had some strong points against the Republican dichotomization of the nation with the rest of the world.

Anyone else watch the speeches?

Originally posted by spa ced


clinton was goddamn perfect

i wish he were running for president

Originally posted by mpp


clinton was goddamn perfect

i wish he were running for president

i totally agree.

:( i also loved the fact that he was very open with Colombia and helped our country out a lot. Kerry isn't going to do shit with that.

Someone find his speech and post it.
I searched google to no avail.

Thank you. I am honored to share the podium with my Senator, though I think I should be introducing her. I'm proud of her and so grateful to the people of New York that the best public servant in our family is still on the job and grateful to all of you, especially my friends from Arkansas, for the chance you gave us to serve our country in the White House.

I am also honored to share this night with President Carter, who has inspired the world with his work for peace, democracy, and human rights. And with Al Gore, my friend and partner for eight years, who played such a large role in building the prosperity and progress that brought America into the 21st century, who showed incredible grace and patriotism under pressure, and who is the living embodiment that every vote counts -- and must be counted in every state in America.

Tonight I speak as a citizen, returning to the role I have played for most of my life as a foot soldier in the fight for our future, as we nominate a true New England patriot for president. The state that gave us John Adams and John Kennedy has now given us John Kerry, a good man, a great senator, a visionary leader. We are constantly told America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom, faith, and family. We all honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.

We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment. We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful future. Our differences are in how we can best achieve these things, in a time of unprecedented change. Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people a positive campaign, arguing not who's good and who's bad, but what is the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve.

The 21st century is marked by serious security threats, serious economic challenges, and serious problems like global warming and the AIDS epidemic. But it is also full of enormous opportunities-to create millions of high paying jobs in clean energy, and biotechnology; to restore the manufacturing base and reap the benefits of the global economy through our diversity and our commitment to decent labor and environmental standards everywhere; and to create a world where we can celebrate our religious and racial differences, because our common humanity matters more.

To build that kind of world we must make the right choices; and we must have a president who will lead the way. Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.

We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.

They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror.

Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Now they are working to develop two new nuclear weapons which they say we might use first. At home, the President and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices indeed. For the first time ever when America was on a war footing, there were two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top one percent. I'm in that group now for the first time in my life.

When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note -- until I realized they were sending you the bill.

They protected my tax cuts while:


-- Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving

over 2 million children behind


-- Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training


-- 100,000 working families out of child care assistance


-- 300,000 poor children out of after school programs


-- Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans


-- Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air

and the preservation of our forests.


Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. If you agree with these choices, you should vote to return them to the White House and Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats.

In this year's budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they're taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger.

On Homeland Security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The one billion dollar cost would have been paid for by reducing the tax cut of 200,000 millionaires by five thousand dollars each. Almost all 200,000 of us would have been glad to pay 5,000 dollars to make the nearly 300 million Americans safer-but the measure failed because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided my tax cut was more important -- If you agree with that choice, re-elect them. If not, give John Kerry and John Edwards a chance.

These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left-enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement-into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it's not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they're competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it's good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.

We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action. I think we're right for two reasons: First, America works better when all people have a chance to live their dreams. Second, we live in an interdependent world in which we can't kill, jail, or occupy all our potential adversaries, so we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. We tried it their way for twelve years, our way for eight, and then their way for four more.

By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better-it produced over 22 million good jobs, rising incomes, and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class. It produced more health care, the largest increase in college aid in 50 years, record home ownership, a cleaner environment, three surpluses in a row, a modernized defense force, strong efforts against terror, and an America respected as a world leader for peace, security and prosperity.

More importantly, we have great new champions in John Kerry and John Edwards. Two good men with wonderful wives-Teresa a generous and wise woman who understands the world we are trying to shape. And Elizabeth, a lawyer and mother who understands the lives we are all trying to lift. Here is what I know about John Kerry. During the Vietnam War, many young men -- including the current president, the vice president and me-could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.

When they sent those swift-boats up the river in Vietnam, and told them their job was to draw hostile fire-to show the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight-John Kerry said, send me. When it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam-and to demand an accounting of the POWs and MIAs we lost there-John Kerry said, send me.

When we needed someone to push the cause of inner-city kids struggling to avoid a life of crime, or to bring the benefits of high technology to ordinary Americans, or to clean the environment in a way that creates jobs, or to give small businesses a better chance to make it, John Kerry said send me.

Tonight my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry's story and promoting his plans. Let every person in this hall and all across America say to him what he has always said to America: Send Me. The bravery that the men who fought by his side saw in battle I've seen in the political arena. When I was President, John Kerry showed courage and conviction on crime, on welfare reform, on balancing the budget at a time when those priorities were not exactly a way to win a popularity contest in our party.

He took tough positions on tough problems. John Kerry knows who he is and where he's going. He has the experience, the character, the ideas and the values to be a great President. In a time of change he has two other important qualities: his insatiable curiosity to understand the forces shaping our lives, and a willingness to hear the views even of those who disagree with him. Therefore his choices will be full of both conviction and common sense.

He proved that when he picked a tremendous partner in John Edwards. Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect, and charisma. The important thing is how he has used his talents to improve the lives of people who -- like John himself -- had to work hard for all they've got. He has always championed the cause of people too often left out or left behind. And that's what he'll do as our Vice President.

Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won't stand up to the terrorists -- don't you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values -- they go hand in hand. John Kerry has both. His first priority will be keeping America safe. Remember the scripture: Be Not Afraid.

John Kerry and John Edwards, have good ideas:


-- To make this economy work again for middle-class Americans


-- To restore fiscal responsibility


-- To save Social Security; to make healthcare more affordable and college

more available


-- To free us from dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in clean

energy


-- To rally the world to win the war on terror and to make more friends

and fewer terrorists.

At every turning point in our history we the people have chosen unity over division, heeding our founders' call to America's eternal mission: to form a more perfect union, to widen the circle of opportunity, deepen the reach of freedom, and strengthen the bonds of community.

It happened because we made the right choices. In the early days of the republic, America was at a crossroads much like it is today, deeply divided over whether or not to build a real nation with a national economy, and a national legal system. We chose a more perfect union.

In the Civil War, America was at a crossroads, divided over whether to save the union and end slavery -- we chose a more perfect union. In the 1960s, America was at a crossroads, divided again over civil rights and women's rights. Again, we chose a more perfect union. As I said in 1992, we're all in this together; we have an obligation both to work hard and to help our fellow citizens, both to fight terror and to build a world with more cooperation and less terror. Now again, it is time to choose.

Since we're all in the same boat, let us chose as the captain of our ship a brave good man who knows how to steer a vessel though troubled waters to the calm seas and clear skies of our more perfect union. We know our mission. Let us join as one and say in a loud, clear voice: Send John Kerry.

Originally posted by Debaser


Thanks dude. Just curious, where are you getting these speeches from?

Originally posted by spa ced


Thanks dude. Just curious, where are you getting these speeches from?

from my memory.







lol.
i just googled "clinton speech" and hit "news results for clinton speech" in the results and it listed several newspapers that printed the speech.

Good speech.

I love how for years he avoided the Vietnam questions and how they weren't relevant that he dodged the draft, and now he says "Hey, I dodged the draft and so did Bush. But Kerry didn't, thus he's the right man for the job."

Clinton's speech was absolutely perfect. The man is a master at what he does.

yeah love him or hate him, that was a exceptionally well put together speech and he delivered it well. clinton always looks the best whenever juxtaposed with bush. i remember during the pre-war build up, at a time when the general climate was against war, he went on letterman and was very, very impressive. after seeing so much of bush go on and on with rhetoric and bullshit, clinton just spoke calmly and intellectually and it was seriously effective. even letterman joked, "4 more years?". love or hate bush, hes totally fucking embarassing in that respect. no grace, no intellect - its ugly

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I love how for years he avoided the Vietnam questions and how they weren't relevant that he dodged the draft, and now he says "Hey, I dodged the draft and so did Bush. But Kerry didn't, thus he's the right man for the job."

i love how you read this speech, nitpick this vietnam thing, ignore the rest of the undeniable damming information and pat yourself on the back as if you made a good point or something--but wait, you didn't make a good point. what you said has nothing to do with anything BECAUSE YOURE A FUCKING MORON.

Originally posted by Debaser


i love how you read this speech, nitpick this vietnam thing, ignore the rest of the undeniable damming information and pat yourself on the back as if you made a good point or something--but wait, you didn't make a good point. what you said has nothing to do with anything BECAUSE YOURE A FUCKING MORON. Haha, typical Debaser again - avoids the issues and either brings up something irrelevant or makes a personal attack.

Actually, the reason I brought that part up is because all of the news clips seem to focus on that and the "nice Republicans since I left office" bit.

My point was I find it very hypocritical of Clinton to bring up the fact that Bush is less qualified for office since he avoided Vietnam when Clinton himself said numerous times he didn't dodge and that it didn't matter anyway.

his point was more about how kerry didnt/doesnt dodge than about how bush did. he didnt present it as dodging, he said they were in a position to choose, and so was kerry, but kerry chose to go.

and besides, debaser is right. very few people on this board, left or right, are nearly as one-sided and fallacious as you. really, put aside the shit jokes and devils advocate schtick for a second and be honest. its much more useful to discussion

Originally posted by sleeper
his point was more about how kerry didnt/doesnt dodge than about how bush did. he didnt present it as dodging, he said they were in a position to choose, and so was kerry, but kerry chose to go.

and besides, debaser is right. very few people on this board, left or right, are nearly as one-sided and fallacious as you. really, put aside the shit jokes and devils advocate schtick for a second and be honest. its much more useful to discussion Soo.. I was being dishonest in asking why Clinton chose to raise an issue that he just spent 8 years avoiding?

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Haha, typical Debaser again - avoids the issues and either brings up something irrelevant or makes a personal attack.

Actually, the reason I brought that part up is because all of the news clips seem to focus on that and the "nice Republicans since I left office" bit.

My point was I find it very hypocritical of Clinton to bring up the fact that Bush is less qualified for office since he avoided Vietnam when Clinton himself said numerous times he didn't dodge and that it didn't matter anyway.

Clinton didn't send over 900 soldiers to die for weapons of mass destruction that were no longer there. idiot.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Soo.. I was being dishonest in asking why Clinton chose to raise an issue that he just spent 8 years avoiding?

no that's not the point, my friend. you weren't being dishonest. JUST STUPID.

Originally posted by Debaser


Clinton didn't send over 900 soldiers to die for weapons of mass destruction that were no longer there. idiot. WTF? WMD? You seem to have serious problems in staying on a fucking topic.

Nimrod's Son, I agree, it's weird to hear him mention that again, but, as I am trying to thoughtfully argue because I respect your posts, why wouldn't he? He had to defend himself against that, the pot debacle, and Whitewater gate (on which a 6 year investigation found him innocent, not guilty) so he earned the right to say that while he didn't serve, and the cocaine dui (and admit it, he never faced a firing sqad on these issues) guy didn't serve, only one of them sent people to war without a clear just cause. No matter which reason du jour he uses - it's all coming up crap. He brings this up to address the hypocrisy Hannity displays by being against "Clinton the deserter" and against "Kerry the decorated ACTUAL combat soldier". Hannity cannot have it both ways. Both guys cannot be bad. He's either for the troops or against 'em, unless, I suppose, some of the troops are democrats. The GOP discounts their service. That's the nuance gift that Clinton possesses. Though I reckon it don't hold a candle to speeches including "The person who runs FEMA is someone who must have the trust of the president. Because the person who runs FEMA is the first voice, often times, of someone whose life has been turned upside down hears from."

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Oh the DNC was last night? I meant to watch it.</font>

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I love how for years he avoided the Vietnam questions and how they weren't relevant that he dodged the draft, and now he says "Hey, I dodged the draft and so did Bush. But Kerry didn't, thus he's the right man for the job." God, shut the fuck up.

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
God, shut the fuck up. I do so love how much you contribute. Way to have a debate on a subject.

You really should stick to the General Chat boards. Your only responses here are to tell someone to "shut up" when you disagree with them.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros
<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">Oh the DNC was last night? I meant to watch it.</font>

It lasts all week long. Edwards is slated to give his speech tonight and Kerry will speak tomorrow.

Originally posted by Debaser


Clinton didn't send over 900 soldiers to die for weapons of mass destruction that were no longer there. idiot.

900 soldiers in a fucking year, and you're getting your panties in a twist?

Here's a wake up call: soldier's die. If you send your boys off to a war, that's what's going to happen. Considering that, and consider what Iraq has been, 900 is an extremely impressive number.

That number is the equivalent to how many American soldiers died in the first hour of D-Day. One hour compared to one year.

Nine hundred people died in Iraq in one year. How many people do you think died in car accidents? I don't see you holding up a candle for them or their families...

900 people most likely died from cancer. Or aids. Or God knows what else. There is so much shit happening in this world, that it hardly seems logical for someone to say that these 900 lives were worth more because they died for a cause that you might not particularly believe in.

To be honest, I usually tend to side with the liberals. But that won't stop me from voting conservative.

But, just imagine if everybody would've shit themselves like they're doing now during the opening days of the American offensive in WWII. Germany would probably still own Europe...

Just because it's a slow news-day on CNN and they throw around the word "hero" like it's honeyed milk, about some guy that caught a bullet in the ass, is no reason to pretend that you even care.

Originally posted by Sapphire


900 soldiers in a fucking year, and you're getting your panties in a twist?

Here's a wake up call: soldier's die. If you send your boys off to a war, that's what's going to happen. Considering that, and consider what Iraq has been, 900 is an extremely impressive number.

That number is the equivalent to how many American soldiers died in the first hour of D-Day. One hour compared to one year.

Nine hundred people died in Iraq in one year. How many people do you think died in car accidents? I don't see you holding up a candle for them or their families...

900 people most likely died from cancer. Or aids. Or God knows what else. There is so much shit happening in this world, that it hardly seems logical for someone to say that these 900 lives were worth more because they died for a cause that you might not particularly believe in.

To be honest, I usually tend to side with the liberals. But that won't stop me from voting conservative.

But, just imagine if everybody would've shit themselves like they're doing now during the opening days of the American offensive in WWII. Germany would probably still own Europe...

Just because it's a slow news-day on CNN and they throw around the word "hero" like it's honeyed milk, about some guy that caught a bullet in the ass, is no reason to pretend that you even care.


So the reason for dying shouldn't matter? They signed up for it, so their lives are meaningless and can be scarificed for nothing? If we had done nothing in Iraq, a case can be made that we would have been better off, there's no way you could say the same about WWII. Dont even try and compare the two.

I'm not saying that if you're in the army your life should just be thrown away (be it poor decisions, equipment, or whatever). However, if your nation decides to go to war, the fact that soldiers die shouldn't be brought upon as a total shock.

If we had done nothing in Iraq, a case could be made that we would have been better off? Yes, please, I would love to hear the scenario in which leaving the Western-Civilization hating dictator who oppressed his own people in the most horrid ways possible in power is a good thing.

Was Iraq a haven for terrorists? Of course not! Why would Western hating terrorists find any refuge in Iraq? Ludacris!

Did Iraq have any WMD? Of course not! Why else wouldn't they let inspectors through their door?

And yes, WWII and Iraq war share many similarities.

Like it or not, the people we are fighting absolutely abhor our way of life. Nothing would please them more than to see our civilization destroyed. I would say the same could be said about the Third Reich.

To destroy our civilization, you need not to destroy every building we have built, only the most important ones. A lesson which they found out very early as they launched the US into the brink of a depression by knocking down but two buildings.

Sometimes it no longer becomes a question of morality, but the simple terms of "us or them." And "them" right now is the Middle East. They do not like us, and anyone is a fool to think that the Twin Towers are the last we're going to hear from them.

The quicker we get our influence into the land, the quicker we educate their people, is the quicker these problems can be put behind us. There lie many obstacles in the path, and there will be many tough decisions ahead, but 900 people dying in one year to secure land near where the people who nearly managed to take down our political, economical, and military symbols in a single hour is in my book a fair trade.

Originally posted by Sapphire
Like it or not, the people we are fighting absolutely abhor our way of life. Nothing would please them more than to see our civilization destroyed. I would say the same could be said about the Third Reich.


false.

wow, you are pretty brainwashed, you know that?

Originally posted by Debaser


false.

Wow, I guess that pretty much settles it. :erm

"If we had done nothing in Iraq, a case could be made that we would have been better off? Yes, please, I would love to hear the scenario in which leaving the Western-Civilization hating dictator who oppressed his own people in the most horrid ways possible in power is a good thing."

Thousands of civilian deaths and injuries would not have happened. Hundereds of American soldiers lives would not have been lost. We wouldnt be viewed world wide as a bunch of bullies doing whatever the hell we want. We would probably still have large amount of support towards our "War on Terror". We might actually have done something worthwhile and captured Osama, you know, the person THAT ACTUALLY ATTACKED US! Terrorist wouldnt have been given some of the greatest recruitment propaganda they could have possibly hoped for (prison abuse, and not to mention occupying a god damn Arab country). Hate can't bombs us. They could have held a national "US Hate Day!" they weren't a threat.
We weren't told we were going in to save the Iraq people, we were told it was to protect us. Then once we were caught with our pants down, all of a sudden it was "Well, HE WAS EVIL!"


"Was Iraq a haven for terrorists? Of course not! Why would Western hating terrorists find any refuge in Iraq? Ludacris!"


Pre-emptively attacking a country because they're giving us the stink eye isn't justifyable.


"Did Iraq have any WMD? Of course not! Why else wouldn't they let inspectors through their door?"

Yes they had endless stockpiles of the stuff...we'll find it any day now. Nevermind the fact that we didnt find anything when we we're controlling the damn place, they're just really good at hiding it, it must be under all the sand.


"Like it or not, the people we are fighting absolutely abhor our way of life. Nothing would please them more than to see our civilization destroyed. I would say the same could be said about the Third Reich."

I would give you the " Sticks and stones..." argument but it might be a bit too advanced for you if you honestly think they're "hate" justifies any of this.


"To destroy our civilization, you need not to destroy every building we have built, only the most important ones. A lesson which they found out very early as they launched the US into the brink of a depression by knocking down but two buildings."

If 9/11 showed us anything it was that we as a country are more than symbols and institutions. The American spirit was far from destroyed that day.


"Sometimes it no longer becomes a question of morality, but the simple terms of "us or them." And "them" right now is the Middle East. They do not like us, and anyone is a fool to think that the Twin Towers are the last we're going to hear from them."

Morality isn't a matter of convenience or timing. It isn't checked at the door.


"The quicker we get our influence into the land, the quicker we educate their people, is the quicker these problems can be put behind us. There lie many obstacles in the path, and there will be many tough decisions ahead, but 900 people dying in one year to secure land near where the people who nearly managed to take down our political, economical, and military symbols in a single hour is in my book a fair trade. "


“What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.” — John F. Kennedy


It isn't our world to rule or control.

Originally posted by Future Boy

We wouldnt be viewed world wide as a bunch of bullies doing whatever the hell we want. We would probably still have large amount of support towards our "War on Terror".
The fickleness of our so-called allies is out of our hands. If given the choice between stablilizing the middle east, or keeping Europe happy with us; I'd choose stabilizing the middle east any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If the war does what it aims to, and stabilizes the region, the lives it saves here in the US and abroad will be worth the petty indignation of other countries.

Terrorist wouldnt have been given some of the greatest recruitment propaganda they could have possibly hoped for (prison abuse, and not to mention occupying a god damn Arab country).
As though terrorists need good reasons to join up? These are people who killed 3000 people here just because they didn't like our general policy towards the middle east. It doubt these reasons really do much more to inflame them. Besides, to suggest otherwise is almost tantamount to saying "We've got it coming now" in regards to future terror attacks. There are no good reasons or justifications for terrorism. Not then. Not now.


It isn't our world to rule or control.

True enough. But we've gotta do what we can to keep the rest of the world's problems off our porch. If that means trying to speed some progress along over there, then so be it. Its better than sitting around over here and hoping no one attacks us again before they get it straightened out. I don't know personally if the war in Iraq will do what its meant to, but it at leasts shows that the people in charge know that the problem with terrorism goes a lot deeper than terrorists, and that they're at least trying to do something to fix the disease rather than just the symptoms.

Originally posted by Sapphire


Did Iraq have any WMD? Of course not! Why else wouldn't they let inspectors through their door?


Excellent. I only needed this one line from you and then I can dispose of you like every other idiot war supporter.

Do you know what was happening in Iraq just days before the US started the war?

Think...........

OH YEAH!!! UN weapons inspectors were bulldozing Al-Samoud missles! Shit, how the hell did they sneak into Iraq, hijack a bulldozer and start busting into the munitions depots in Baghdad?

Sneaky bastards!

The fickleness of our so-called allies is out of our hands. If given the choice between stablilizing the middle east, or keeping Europe happy with us; I'd choose stabilizing the middle east any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If the war does what it aims to, and stabilizes the region, the lives it saves here in the US and abroad will be worth the petty indignation of other countries.

But see, settling the Israel-Palastine situation would go farther towards stabilizing the middle east than hoping Iraq turns out fine. We're hinging things on:

1- That Iraq wont tailspin out of control, and end up with a government that hates the US. If anything, their first government will probably come into power based on some anti-american stance.
2- In the chance that it becomes a "good" (for lack of a better word) democracy, the other arab country's are supposed to go "Hey now, I want me some of that." and spontaneously mellow out.

We could have worked toward stabilizing the middle east and not allienated our allies.

As though terrorists need good reasons to join up? These are people who killed 3000 people here just because they didn't like our general policy towards the middle east. It doubt these reasons really do much more to inflame them. Besides, to suggest otherwise is almost tantamount to saying "We've got it coming now" in regards to future terror attacks. There are no good reasons or justifications for terrorism. Not then. Not now.

I never said they needed much of a reason, I didnt say "we've got it coming" and I sure as hell didn't justify it. There is a difference between a group of retards telling people we're the "great satan" and immoral or whatever else they want to say, and them saying this, and showing people those pictures. We would have been better off not supplying their propaganda for them.


True enough. But we've gotta do what we can to keep the rest of the world's problems off our porch. If that means trying to speed some progress along over there, then so be it. Its better than sitting around over here and hoping no one attacks us again before they get it straightened out. I don't know personally if the war in Iraq will do what its meant to, but it at leasts shows that the people in charge know that the problem with terrorism goes a lot deeper than terrorists, and that they're at least trying to do something to fix the disease rather than just the symptoms.

There were better ways to "speed" things along. This administration was so lost in their belief of us being greeted as saviours and it being a cakewalk that they didn't plan on anything else. But again, the main reason we went in, the only reason the american people were behind this thing was because they were told we were in danger, not to re-make the middle east in our image.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I do so love how much you contribute. Way to have a debate on a subject.

You really should stick to the General Chat boards. Your only responses here are to tell someone to "shut up" when you disagree with them.


<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I disagree. She shouldn't post there, either.</font>

Originally posted by Sapphire


Wow, I guess that pretty much settles it. :erm

do you honestly believe that if you go to the middle east and interview people there, they are gonna say "we want to destroy the american civilization because of their lifestyle"? you can honestly picture somebody saying "we hate american freedom!"?

Suggesting that is just assinine.

Originally posted by Future Boy


I never said they needed much of a reason, I didnt say "we've got it coming" and I sure as hell didn't justify it. There is a difference between a group of retards telling people we're the "great satan" and immoral or whatever else they want to say, and them saying this, and showing people those pictures. We would have been better off not supplying their propaganda for them.
The "retards" were already having plenty of success with the "Great Satan" stuff. If they can make that fly, then anything extra to help their case is just that, extra. The prison abuse photos were not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, but they're not the catch-all terrorist recruiting tool they're made out to be.


There were better ways to "speed" things along. This administration was so lost in their belief of us being greeted as saviours and it being a cakewalk that they didn't plan on anything else. But again, the main reason we went in, the only reason the american people were behind this thing was because they were told we were in danger, not to re-make the middle east in our image.
I think you brought up what my main issue with the war is: the fact that they thought it would be easy. I think that alone is the only thing that has given me pause about the planning and subsequent execution of the war. It was almost as though we were trying to cut corners to get the middle east stabilized. Rather than do things the hard way (ie fixing the Palestinian/Israel problem) we tried to take the easy way out by liberating a country that we believed was frothing at the mouth to be free. Of course, that might have been the case back in 1991...but we left them in the lurch. We should have known that probably didn't make us too popular with those folks anymore.

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros



<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I disagree. She shouldn't post there, either.</font>

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I do so love how much you contribute. Way to have a debate on a subject.

You really should stick to the General Chat boards. Your only responses here are to tell someone to "shut up" when you disagree with them. I'm almost positive that's the only time I've done that on this board... I generally don't throw that out without something behind it, but I didn't really feel like it was needed as I've made my Clinton point many times before.

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
I'm almost positive that's the only time I've done that on this board... I generally don't throw that out without something behind it, but I didn't really feel like it was needed as I've made my Clinton point many times before. Ok then, so sorry to put down your great contribution to this thread!