Bush vs. Kerry? - Page 2

DracIV · 07-8-2004, 12:45 PM

A recent report: as of Wednesday, 867 American soldiers have died during the entire time from the start of the war to now. The number of enemies killed was not reported, but it is very high. One squadron even has a record of 83 kills per soldier.

jewpinthethird · 07-8-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DracIV

A recent report: as of Wednesday, 867 American soldiers have died during the entire time from the start of the war to now. The number of enemies killed was not reported, but it is very high. One squadron even has a record of 83 kills per soldier.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

DracIV · 07-8-2004, 06:42 PM

I intended it as neither good nor bad, but such information as that does matter for a debate about Bush (Iraq War is big part of political debate today)

Thingy · 07-8-2004, 09:05 PM

Jewpin, would you rather it be 83 deaths to 1 kill?

**talisman** · 07-8-2004, 09:42 PM

Well, if the soldiers hadn't been sent into war at all there wouldn't be any deaths...

Wars should only be fought for defensive purposes, and until someone can actually show me physical evidence that Iraq possessed WMD and intended to use them in a way that would be specifically detrimental to the US or its allies or had any sort of connection with Al-Qaeda which they intended to use to attack the US or its allies will I even pause to consider whether or not this current war was justified.

It is not the right of the US to attack and infringe upon one nation's sovereignty in order to depose of a dictator, regardless of how evil that dictator might be, unless that dictator shows every indication of a desire to specifically cause harm to the US, and that's the bottom line. Pre-emption is a risky policy based on potential futures and possible scenarios, not fact. Bush's reliance on this as a foreign policy in Iraq violated the trust of the nation in a much more disturbingly profound way than the shallow nature of the Clinton scandals did.

But that's just my opinion, and I doubt it will change any of yours...

ToshX · 07-8-2004, 10:43 PM

Oh shut it people I wont bother to read your posts flaming me about not explaining. The answer is, Bush sucks, therefore Kerry rules.

flypie743 · 07-8-2004, 11:03 PM

I am now sided with the Republicans...go Bush!

GuidoHunter · 07-8-2004, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talisman

Well, if the soldiers hadn't been sent into war at all there wouldn't be any deaths...

Wars should only be fought for defensive purposes, and until someone can actually show me physical evidence that Iraq possessed WMD and intended to use them in a way that would be specifically detrimental to the US or its allies or had any sort of connection with Al-Qaeda which they intended to use to attack the US or its allies will I even pause to consider whether or not this current war was justified.

It is not the right of the US to attack and infringe upon one nation's sovereignty in order to depose of a dictator, regardless of how evil that dictator might be, unless that dictator shows every indication of a desire to specifically cause harm to the US, and that's the bottom line. Pre-emption is a risky policy based on potential futures and possible scenarios, not fact. Bush's reliance on this as a foreign policy in Iraq violated the trust of the nation in a much more disturbingly profound way than the shallow nature of the Clinton scandals did.

But that's just my opinion, and I doubt it will change any of yours...

Well, in the past couple of weeks Polish troops found a store of cyclosarin warheads and got intelligence that Iraq was planning to sell them to terrorists soon before we invaded. As for the (well-documented) WMD's that were there beforehand, they were definitely there. Whether or not Iraq was planning to unleash them on the US is debatable, but I don't like to hear people completely deny their existence.

I don't have much of a problem with preemption, and I think your thoughts on it would be quite dangerous. If you have too high standards, it's much easier for other countries to get by and plan for surprise attacks. Plus, I'd rather lose a handful of soldiers' lives than thousands or millions of citizens'.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

jewpinthethird · 07-9-2004, 02:47 AM

There is only one way to solve this....DEATHMATCH!!!

lildevilterpbaby · 07-9-2004, 05:07 AM

i couldn't agree with guidohunter more. The point of the matter is that yes we did find substancial evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The loss of a few hundred soldiers is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who more than likely would have dies if we had just sat here and done nothing.

Even if you are anit-Bush or for Kerry (yea they're two different things) a small part of you has to admit that it would be better for Bush to finish what he started. If Kerry wins he'll not have as much knowledge on the current situation in the Middle East which could prove bad for us. I mean FDR served four terms so he could finish what he started and the nation was much better after his time.

And also I know this is stupid but does it bother anyone else that Kerry and Edwards both are named John and have last names that can be first names????

DracIV · 07-9-2004, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talisman

Well, if the soldiers hadn't been sent into war at all there wouldn't be any deaths...

Hahaha, wrong. Did you know that 10,000 people died per month during Saddams reign? If we hadn't invaded the total death count would be over 200,000! Do you think 200k deaths doesn't count as anything? In literal terms, we saved more than 194,000 people!

lildevilterpbaby · 07-9-2004, 08:58 AM

thank you

flypie743 · 07-9-2004, 09:12 AM

Yea, I agree with lildevilterpbaby, drac, and guido...

Jewpin...that pic is awesome!!

**talisman** · 07-9-2004, 10:49 AM

I meant deaths of US soldiers... that should have been obvious. Also, where are your sources that said that 10,00 people died a month? I'd be interested in seeing where you got that information.

Like I said, I can't just blindly trust the current administration, or any administration for that matter. I like to see physical evidence.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein never showed any intentions of wanting to deliberately harm the US. He did want to expand his influence in his own territory, as evidenced by his invasions in Kuwait and hostility towards Iran.

I really highly doubt that there will be any definitive evidence that shows that Iraq wanted to specifically harm the US.

EDIT: I hope you guys watched the evening news today. About the Senate intelligence committee discovering that much of the CIA's intelligence about Iraq was misleading and inconsistent with fact...

jewpinthethird · 07-9-2004, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lildevilterpbaby

i couldn't agree with guidohunter more. The point of the matter is that yes we did find substancial evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The loss of a few hundred soldiers is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who more than likely would have dies if we had just sat here and done nothing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...258055,00.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by lildevilterpbaby

Even if you are anit-Bush or for Kerry (yea they're two different things) a small part of you has to admit that it would be better for Bush to finish what he started. If Kerry wins he'll not have as much knowledge on the current situation in the Middle East which could prove bad for us. I mean FDR served four terms so he could finish what he started and the nation was much better after his time.

Dont compare FDR to Bush. Japan attacked us first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lildevilterpbaby

And also I know this is stupid but does it bother anyone else that Kerry and Edwards both are named John and have last names that can be first names????

It doesnt bother...but I have heard that People with interchangable first and last names were evil....I think my cousin told me that..but my cousin is a moron.

lildevilterpbaby · 07-9-2004, 08:58 PM

we didn't fine actual wmd but we did find plenty of evidence to suggest that they had the capability of making the weapons and personally I would rather not take the chance that they will. And secondly yea Japan attacked us first but um are you forgetting 911? We wouldn't have gone to war if it weren't for that. And the name thing just bothers me.

ddrking133 · 07-9-2004, 09:00 PM

i vote for jesus

**talisman** · 07-9-2004, 09:31 PM

Saddam Hussein was not involved in 911. Refer to the findings of the September 11th commission.

DracIV · 07-9-2004, 10:37 PM

. . . and WHO do you think is to blame for our crippled intelligence devision, crippled military, and crippled foreign strength? Well, which party do you think was CUTTING and DESTROYING those areas for the past 8 years? You want them back again?

Anyway, Talisman, the average for deaths per month during Saddam's reign was 10k. Public information, doesn't count secret murders/executions.

CypherToorima · 07-9-2004, 10:56 PM

So, talisman, the death of anyone who isn't American doesn't mean anything to you? That's what I'm hearing when you say that if we hadn't have invaded, there would be no deaths. The wrongful death of anyone is a bad thing, and in such numbers, is a very very terrible thing. It's when people make death a petty thing that the world goes to hell.

...Go Nader(just kidding)

View Poll Results: Who do you want to win the Election?
Bush	22	41.51%
Kerry	31	58.49%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

07-8-2004, 11:03 PM	#27
flypie743 FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: fairyland Posts: 3,210	I am now sided with the Republicans...go Bush! __________________ IF YOU ARE THE BOMB YOU WILL CLICK THIS and if you dont, you suck.

07-9-2004, 09:12 AM	#33
flypie743 FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: fairyland Posts: 3,210	Yea, I agree with lildevilterpbaby, drac, and guido... Jewpin...that pic is awesome!! __________________ IF YOU ARE THE BOMB YOU WILL CLICK THIS and if you dont, you suck.

07-9-2004, 09:00 PM	#37
ddrking133 FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: dirty south Age: 35 Posts: 584	i vote for jesus __________________ [/center]

07-9-2004, 10:56 PM	#40
CypherToorima Boss of all bosses Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Phone Home! Age: 37 Posts: 2,452	So, talisman, the death of anyone who isn't American doesn't mean anything to you? That's what I'm hearing when you say that if we hadn't have invaded, there would be no deaths. The wrongful death of anyone is a bad thing, and in such numbers, is a very very terrible thing. It's when people make death a petty thing that the world goes to hell. ...Go Nader(just kidding) __________________ I'm a figantic gaggot

07-8-2004, 12:45 PM	#21
DracIV FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 298	A recent report: as of Wednesday, 867 American soldiers have died during the entire time from the start of the war to now. The number of enemies killed was not reported, but it is very high. One squadron even has a record of 83 kills per soldier.

07-8-2004, 06:42 PM	#23
DracIV FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 298	I intended it as neither good nor bad, but such information as that does matter for a debate about Bush (Iraq War is big part of political debate today)

07-8-2004, 09:05 PM	#24
Thingy FFR Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19	Jewpin, would you rather it be 83 deaths to 1 kill?

07-8-2004, 09:42 PM	#25
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 4,598	Well, if the soldiers hadn't been sent into war at all there wouldn't be any deaths... Wars should only be fought for defensive purposes, and until someone can actually show me physical evidence that Iraq possessed WMD and intended to use them in a way that would be specifically detrimental to the US or its allies or had any sort of connection with Al-Qaeda which they intended to use to attack the US or its allies will I even pause to consider whether or not this current war was justified. It is not the right of the US to attack and infringe upon one nation's sovereignty in order to depose of a dictator, regardless of how evil that dictator might be, unless that dictator shows every indication of a desire to specifically cause harm to the US, and that's the bottom line. Pre-emption is a risky policy based on potential futures and possible scenarios, not fact. Bush's reliance on this as a foreign policy in Iraq violated the trust of the nation in a much more disturbingly profound way than the shallow nature of the Clinton scandals did. But that's just my opinion, and I doubt it will change any of yours...

07-8-2004, 10:43 PM	#26
ToshX FFR Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 5,111	Oh shut it people I wont bother to read your posts flaming me about not explaining. The answer is, Bush sucks, therefore Kerry rules.

07-9-2004, 05:07 AM	#30
lildevilterpbaby FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: MD Posts: 29	i couldn't agree with guidohunter more. The point of the matter is that yes we did find substancial evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The loss of a few hundred soldiers is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who more than likely would have dies if we had just sat here and done nothing. Even if you are anit-Bush or for Kerry (yea they're two different things) a small part of you has to admit that it would be better for Bush to finish what he started. If Kerry wins he'll not have as much knowledge on the current situation in the Middle East which could prove bad for us. I mean FDR served four terms so he could finish what he started and the nation was much better after his time. And also I know this is stupid but does it bother anyone else that Kerry and Edwards both are named John and have last names that can be first names????

07-9-2004, 08:58 AM	#32
lildevilterpbaby FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: MD Posts: 29	thank you

07-9-2004, 10:49 AM	#34
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 4,598	I meant deaths of US soldiers... that should have been obvious. Also, where are your sources that said that 10,00 people died a month? I'd be interested in seeing where you got that information. Like I said, I can't just blindly trust the current administration, or any administration for that matter. I like to see physical evidence. The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein never showed any intentions of wanting to deliberately harm the US. He did want to expand his influence in his own territory, as evidenced by his invasions in Kuwait and hostility towards Iran. I really highly doubt that there will be any definitive evidence that shows that Iraq wanted to specifically harm the US. EDIT: I hope you guys watched the evening news today. About the Senate intelligence committee discovering that much of the CIA's intelligence about Iraq was misleading and inconsistent with fact...

07-9-2004, 08:58 PM	#36
lildevilterpbaby FFR Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: MD Posts: 29	we didn't fine actual wmd but we did find plenty of evidence to suggest that they had the capability of making the weapons and personally I would rather not take the chance that they will. And secondly yea Japan attacked us first but um are you forgetting 911? We wouldn't have gone to war if it weren't for that. And the name thing just bothers me.

07-9-2004, 09:31 PM	#38
talisman Resident Penguin Join Date: May 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 4,598	Saddam Hussein was not involved in 911. Refer to the findings of the September 11th commission.

07-9-2004, 10:37 PM	#39
DracIV FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 298	. . . and WHO do you think is to blame for our crippled intelligence devision, crippled military, and crippled foreign strength? Well, which party do you think was CUTTING and DESTROYING those areas for the past 8 years? You want them back again? Anyway, Talisman, the average for deaths per month during Saddam's reign was 10k. Public information, doesn't count secret murders/executions.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)