Need......DEBATing

Anything you want to debate about do it in here folks.Im not gonna post a bunch of rules to make this thread sound official you already know all of them.First peerson to post gets to determine the debating for the next......4 pages.

Ehm, debating what? Really, it helps to actually ask a question and put up your thoughts on it when you create a thread. You can't just make a universal debating thread; the scope is much, much too broad. Try coming up with an actual argument if you want to debate. I'm going to lock this if you can't actually come up with any ideas yourself.

Okay....


Savage was talking about this last night.

Who is worse George W. or John Kerry?

George W., i'm purely Repub. but John Kerry hasn't seemed too bad of a guy, at least he hasn't given out an eerie screech.

George W. is seeming less and less of a candidate since hes not standing up for much of the republicans.But I think Kerry would be worse.

I dont like either of them. Hell, I dont like anyone running for president right now. I would jsut say let Bush stay in office so there wont be a possibly rough transition during the time that we would probably be pulling out of Iraq.

Kerry served bravely in the Vietnam War (good). He came back and was an idiot. He was part of VAVW (Veterans against the Vietnam War). He threw away his medal.... but he actually threw away someone else's medal. He associated with people such as Jane Fonda who was vehemently against the US and pulled stunts like going to Hanoi. He marched under Communist and Viet Cong Flags in protests.

His record in the senate is bad. He supported things like Nuclear freeze and wanted to cut billions from defense. More currently he has flip-flopped on many issues. He claims to be against special interests, but has the highest amount of money from special interests in the senate. His wife "Heinz" has plenty of money. He voted for the Iraq war, and now is against it.

Bush served his time in the National Guard, that is a non-issue. He exhibited strong leadership following the 9/11 attacks and has cracked down on terrorism. His strategy of taking the fight to the terrorists has worked very well and there have been no further attacks on US soil. Also, in the area of 3/4 of Al Qaeda leaders have been taken out.
He has gotten in hot water over the Iraq war, but I am inclined to believe Kay and the Hutton report which state that the governments (Bush and Blair) did not twist the evidence.
Bush, however, is not fiscally conservative enough. He is "spending like a drunken sailor". He needs to stop spending. Principled conservatives know the outcome they want- less government. He may face a revolt if he doesn't use the red ink.

Be thankful to Bobslob, I would have locked this if it wasn't for the time he spent on it Wouldn't want to rob him of his replies.

Next time, Ansem, don't do this If people want to debate something, they'll make a thread about it. If they don't... then they don't. Making a thread like this is just spam.

Vehemently against the US, you say? Bah. Opposed to another unjust war, yes. That Kerry went to 'fight for his country' and the came back and publicly demonstrated that the whole thing was a waste of time, money and lives... well, I'd say he's one of the few qualified to make such a statement, having been there. Marching under an opposing ideology's flag in protest is not the same as accepting Communism as the way of things - an act of protest needs to articulate a point concisely and dramatically, which Kerry did.

And Bush's time served is currently under scrutiny. His 'war on terrorism' took advantage of America's troubled mind following 9/11 - I argue that there were no further attacks on US soil because the attacks of September 11th were an isolated incident, not meant to hearld a new reign of terror in the States. Sure, you can say his irresponsible raping of American liberty stopped further attacks from happening. You can, but I won't.

Bush served his time in the National Guard, that is a non-issue.

One day in the army he just went out for a walk... for nine months. He has been a dropout of almost every school he been to. He lies constantly and expresses himself as vague as "The axis of evil has moved, we must strike back" (at Iraq that haven't moved in ten years).

He exhibited strong leadership following the 9/11 attacks and has cracked down on terrorism.

By exebiting strong leadership, you must mean the very interesting fact that he bombed Afghanistan despite 15 of the 19 hijackers being saudi-arabian? :rolleyes:

His strategy of taking the fight to the terrorists has worked very well and there have been no further attacks on US soil.

Worked very well? It's a goddamn DISASTER. US have killed far far far many more innocent civilians for nothing than they lost themselves. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean you're right.

He has gotten in hot water over the Iraq war, but I am inclined to believe Kay and the Hutton report which state that the governments (Bush and Blair) did not twist the evidence.

LOL! With Powels saying that the Iraquians hide "mobile devices for production of biological weapons under the palms", there is no credibility what so ever in the face of Bush. :rolleyes:

Not to mention his constant claims of affilation between the Iraq goverment and Al Quaida before the war. It was later revealed that they actually hate each other, but the matter was swiftly put under the rug, just as all the WoMD Iraq was almost crawling of.

Bush, however, is not fiscally conservative enough. He is "spending like a drunken sailor". He needs to stop spending. Principled conservatives know the outcome they want- less government. He may face a revolt if he doesn't use the red ink.

Blair is a socialist, friend. He is just defying everything that his party stands for by allying himself with Bush.

"One day in the army he just went out for a walk... for nine months."
Bush served in the National Guard. And those claims (the AWOL) were unsubstantiated. He did his time, as the records he released showed he did.

"By exebiting strong leadership, you must mean the very interesting fact that he bombed Afghanistan despite 15 of the 19 hijackers being saudi-arabian?"
Taliban is- excuse me- was the stronghold of Al Qaeda. As for Saudi Arabia, good idea, lets nuke it.

"Worked very well? It's a goddamn DISASTER. US have killed far far far many more innocent civilians for nothing than they lost themselves. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean you're right."
Since the idea is that the terrorists, or Saddam and the Baathist regime were in the wrong, the blood of innocents in on their hands. The idea isn't to be proportional, the idea is to fix the problem. Going, oh we lost 3,000 people, lets kill 3,000 people to make it even doesn't solve any problems. Removing regimes that support terrorism does.

"LOL! With Powels saying that the Iraquians hide "mobile devices for production of biological weapons under the palms", there is no credibility what so ever in the face of Bush.

Not to mention his constant claims of affilation between the Iraq goverment and Al Quaida before the war. It was later revealed that they actually hate each other, but the matter was swiftly put under the rug, just as all the WoMD Iraq was almost crawling of."
The intelligence Powell used was in line with the evidence that the British had and in line with the evidence that many other intelligence agencies had. The intelligence agencies were wrong. Bush- and any other leader- can only act on the intelligence they have. These two links, one and two touch on Iraqi ties to terrorism. War on- emphasis- terrorism. Not just Al-Qaeda. The idea that Iraq and Osama would not like to work together works in theory, but falls apart under the realization of a common enemy. I'm a mets fan, but I cheer the Red Sox on . Each side had something the other wanted- they bore no special love for each other- but that wouldn't stop them.

"Blair is a socialist, friend. He is just defying everything that his party stands for by allying himself with Bush."
Certaintly, Blair is, but how does that relate to that quote?

Taliban is- excuse me- was the stronghold of Al Qaeda. As for Saudi Arabia, good idea, lets nuke it.

Talibans were put in charge by America with American weapons. Funny that the oil wells were secured first.

So, about the hijackers... No US won't ever invade Saudi Arabia because Bush is on personal levels with their prince. The prince is also a great investor in Bush's oil company, just like the Osama family. Your president is friend with your foes and the people that lose are innocent. Bush set them in power, then bombed them.

If you want, I have plenty plenty of material here showing that among other things, a private Jet was the only flying (non-military) aircraft and it went back and forth across the country, picking up Saudi royals and sending them home without any question. No one have questioned the obvious involvement of Saudi goverment, even less to take any action. Instead, the world's richest country went and bombed their former friends in one of the poorest countries in the world. The bombs landed in residential areas, in hospitals, in the fabric that makes medecine for half of the country, on weddings, on lone shepheards, on various places in neighbouring countries. You killed almost 5000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan and somehow you still considered yourself to have done the right thing. I mean first to set the talibans in charge, indirectly killing tens of thousands and then actually bomb them because you don't like them anymore and kill even more people. If there are any terrorists in this world, US it is.

Since the idea is that the terrorists, or Saddam and the Baathist regime were in the wrong, the blood of innocents in on their hands. The idea isn't to be proportional, the idea is to fix the problem. Going, oh we lost 3,000 people, lets kill 3,000 people to make it even doesn't solve any problems. Removing regimes that support terrorism does.

You haven't removed any terrorists. If anything, you have just strenghtened them. Sure you poffed some guys with turbans and daggers, but thinking that any single one of them is competent enough to drive a car, fly a plane or plant a nuclear device somewhere is no more than pure ridiculous. The whole Afghanistan thing was a diversion to lay hands on the oil and pretend that you are coming somewhere with the terrorism. You forget that the real terrorists are in my country, in my neighboring country, in your country. The fellas that hit the towers had studied their whole life, graduated, taking professional education in flight training, mastered the skills of piloting and finally got out hijacked some planes. Through this whole time, they weren't drinking tea on some plains in Teheran or in a Mountanous passage somewhere in Iraq, they were living in your country. If you want to bomb the terrorists, you could start with yourself. But yeah, if you keep telling yourself that you are winning, you'd probably beleive it after a while.

The intelligence Powell used was in line with the evidence that the British had and in line with the evidence that many other intelligence agencies had. The intelligence agencies were wrong. Bush- and any other leader- can only act on the intelligence they have.

You can't blame your acts on intelligence, doing so, I can invade another country for no reason and then claim it was bad intelligence reading. It's just plain foolish. Every child could see the obvious flaws in the "proof" those political leaders presented and bashed into our heads. World media (not US media, though) spotted this, even the ordinary people that don't care about politics looked on them and laughed. US invaded, destroyed, ravaged a country, killed people, killed each other, killed some brits too, just for the sake of it because of a LIE. What CREDIBILITY is there LEFT?

Clinton lied that he had sex with a woman, Bush's lies led to a WAR and people including you think that this is anywhere near NORMAL? :eek:

These two links, one and two touch on Iraqi ties to terrorism. War on- emphasis- terrorism. Not just Al-Qaeda. The idea that Iraq and Osama would not like to work together works in theory, but falls apart under the realization of a common enemy.

There is a non-agression pact and people know it. Is there anything actually revealing in the article? I don't really like reading propaganda-filled crap.

Certaintly, Blair is, but how does that relate to that quote?

You said he wasn't conservative enough, duh. :rolleyes:

Bush served in the National Guard. And those claims (the AWOL) were unsubstantiated. He did his time, as the records he released showed he did.

http://www.floridatoday.com/news/loc...110500pols.htm

The Nebraska senator and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, both wounded in Vietnam, contended it's also a matter of character that Bush avoided duty oversees by joining the Texas Air National Guard. No documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama in 1972.

"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said Kerry.

You were saying? :rolleyes:

Sorry for my error though. By saying "one day", I might have given you the impression that he already had enlisted by then.

"Talibans were put in charge by America with American weapons. Funny that the oil wells were secured first."
And, your point is? The Russians were a far greater enemy. Oil wells need to be secured to make sure their future is bright. They don't have much else other than that. Does it coincide with US interests? Yes. That doesn't mean it was the reason to go in there.

"Instead, the world's richest country went and bombed their former friends in one of the poorest countries in the world."
"Former" is the key word.

"The bombs landed in residential areas, in hospitals, in the fabric that makes medecine for half of the country, on weddings, on lone shepheards, on various places in neighbouring countries. You killed almost 5000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan and somehow you still considered yourself to have done the right thing. I mean first to set the talibans in charge, indirectly killing tens of thousands and then actually bomb them because you don't like them anymore and kill even more people. If there are any terrorists in this world, US it is."
Oh no! Not the innocents! Give it a break. Al Qaeda struck us, and struck us hard. We responded by knocking the Taliban out of commission. The blood is on Al Qaeda's hands. We got the Taliban in charge because letting the Soviets be in charge would be far worse. The Taliban might have killed thousands, but the Soviet Union killed millions. Selective memory about the evils of the USSR?

"The whole Afghanistan thing was a diversion to lay hands on the oil and pretend that you are coming somewhere with the terrorism."
And I think you lost some credibility there. We did knock out between 2/3 and 3/4 of Al Qaeda leaders.

"You can't blame your acts on intelligence, doing so, I can invade another country for no reason and then claim it was bad intelligence reading."
There is no way intelligence can be perfect. Contrary to popular belief, we do not use mind-rays on our enemies. If you need to wait until intelligence is perfect, then it would be too late.

"You said he wasn't conservative enough, duh. "
I said Bush wasn't conservative enough.

And lack of records proves nothing. He was released with an honorable discharge. If he really missed it, he wouldn't have gotten it.

I believe that he was a pilot during Rolling Thunder, but I may be mistaken. (in other words, there was a chance he could be called up)

Originally posted by CIVILIZATION
Stormay owned!

Post deleted. You will be banned if you do even one more thing such as that.

again i was acknowledging Stormay argumentative skills!

And, your point is? The Russians were a far greater enemy. Oil wells need to be secured to make sure their future is bright. They don't have much else other than that. Does it coincide with US interests? Yes. That doesn't mean it was the reason to go in there.

And you kept supporting them and not minding their business until one day four out of nineteen hijackers were found to have afghan roots. You didn't care until they struck, you would never ever have cared if they wouldn't, which means that it doesn't matter why they were set in power. They were honed and growed by the US until US one day all of a sudden shifted their minds.

"Former" is the key word.

Yes former. First you give a guy a weapon, some ammo and a thousand bucks, two hours later you beat him to death. "Friend" is the keyword.

Oh no! Not the innocents! Give it a break. Al Qaeda struck us, and struck us hard. We responded by knocking the Taliban out of commission. The blood is on Al Qaeda's hands. We got the Taliban in charge because letting the Soviets be in charge would be far worse. The Taliban might have killed thousands, but the Soviet Union killed millions. Selective memory about the evils of the USSR?

Are you thick or are you just pretending?

I'm talking about the exellent ways of how America wage wars. Last I remember, even Soviet managed to keep their bombs within a country's lenght of the target. :rolleyes:

And I think you lost some credibility there. We did knock out between 2/3 and 3/4 of Al Qaeda leaders.

Again, the leaders that, well... poke around the men in the turbans. The billionaires in from the Osama family that have always economically supported their renegade member have never been suspected or questioned. They continue investing money in both US oil companies and directly fund terrorism. They are left in peace to fiddle with their money, US doesn't seem to care for some strange reason while they brag that they have captured a want-a-be terrorist leader.

There is no way intelligence can be perfect. Contrary to popular belief, we do not use mind-rays on our enemies. If you need to wait until intelligence is perfect, then it would be too late.

Again, read what I type, dammit!!

I know that man over there have stolen my keys, the boy here say so after all. I go kill that man, only to discover he ain't got any keys. In court, I blame flawed intelligence... do you think they let me go?

Would be too late? Are you NUTS? IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, IT IS A COUNTRY, IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE IN THE NEXT TWO HUNDRED YEARS!! What possibly did you have to lose on getting REAL evidence and not the crap you pulled together in the GARAGE? What you would lose was the obvious opportunity to get MORE OIL and you DEFILED the UNITED NATIONS just because you wanted that damn oil SO MUCH.

You wait until the intelligence is CREDIBLE and if you INVADE A COUNTRY because of an obvious LIE, all the credibility YOU EVER HAD is going DOWN THE DRAIN.

And lack of records proves nothing. He was released with an honorable discharge. If he really missed it, he wouldn't have gotten it.

I believe that he was a pilot during Rolling Thunder, but I may be mistaken. (in other words, there was a chance he could be called up)

So you chose to disbeleive the Nebraska senator and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry? You think these men lie?

Oh, look here, more evidence of the slacking of would-be president:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671
http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.or...le.asp?id=1520
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html

ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on Septem