Jump to content
270soft Forum

Vice Presidential Debate


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OH, OK, well since we do not have a moderator I will ask a fairly unbiased question, Was it right to invade Iraq, and did President Bush mislead the American people? Sorry if it seems biased best I can do.

That is not the least bit unbiased. The question must be totally non partisan and it must be asked by someone who has nothing to lose or gain from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Will polygamists demand the right to marry multiple partners because they truly love them?  Will pedophiles demand the right to marry children for the same reason?

That was in the question you asked me. By that question you obviously see homosexuality not as a sexual orientation, but just another group. Much like as you say, Polygamists, and Pedophiles. If you did not mean that, you should not have used the analogy, or made the connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Will polygamists demand the right to marry multiple partners because they truly love them?  Will pedophiles demand the right to marry children for the same reason?

That was in the question you asked me. By that question you obviously see homosexuality not as a sexual orientation, but just another group. Much like as you say, Polygamists, and Pedophiles. If you did not mean that, you should not have used the analogy, or made the connection.

First of all JoSpiv, get with the program - we are moving onto a new topic. Second of all, that question DOES NOT MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN GAYS AND PEDOPHILES. IT DOES NOT LINK GAYS AND PEDOPHILES EITHER. That question is precisely what I said it was. You are simply playing dirty politics and continuing to spread that puerile lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a little better....

With regards to Iraq the war was justified. Saddam Hussein, with or without WMDs was a threat. He was a murderer. He was a brutal tryrant. He was a thief and he was a maniac. The world is a far better place without him in power. Coalition forces did a fantasit job of routing the Iraqi army and suffered a minimum number of casualties in winning the war.

The problem is that they have failed to win the peace. Strong action needs to be taken now to secure Iraq. We need to send in more troops and we need to encourage more international partners to come on board. We cannot simply pickup and leave right now. We will have left the job only half finished.

To win the peace, we need to stop playing footsie with the terrorists. We need to take the gloves off, bite the bullet and get the job done. We need to launch all out assaults on terrorist strongholds and we need to stop negotiating with the likes of Sadr. We simply need to crush the terrorists. Then and only then can we begin in earnest the process of rebuilding Iraq as a peacful and democratic country.

Debating the validity or the reasons for going to war is a pointless exercise in futility. The fact is that we are at war and we need to focus our energies on winning the peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In invading Iraq we have created a breading ground for terror. It is fast becoming a new Afgahnistan, a breading ground but also a rallying cry for all muslim fundamentalists. If yo justify the invasion on the premise that it was a danger than we should also invade Suadi Arabia, Lybia, Iran, Syria and others. I am proud of the way our troops have preformed and I have a family member surving in Iraq rught now, so I feel that altough it was a bad idea we must continue. Now that Iraq is a mess we need to clean it up. The fact is America created the problem and now we need to fix it, the way to do this, for once I agree wit Mantis, is to bring in the rest of the world and to step up on training the Iraqi army, as it is a bit slow. We also need to give the troops the righjt supplys so they can fight without as much fear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage has been for thousands of years, an act based on procreation between a man and a woman. The Keyes/Roger Winchestor campaign proudly stands by this assertion. We will recognize that marriage is a sacred institution between a willing man and his partner while we also will grant homosexuals equal, but not special rights.

Those that accuse this campaign of "homophobia" only shows voters how baseless their arguments are that they must resort to hysterical one-world insults.

With regards to the War in Iraq: Since 9-11, America and the rest of the free world for that matter, has been in a War against Terror. Saddam Hussein was a known terrorist, a brutal dictator, a murderer, someone that has threatened the lives of Americans, and someone who has needlessly butchered his own people.

While there may very well be a moral claim for removing Saddam Hussein as it is truly in the best interests of the Iraqi people and the world, it also was vital for US security. There is no doubt that if left unchecked, Saddam would have restarted his WMD program, would have launched into operations that tried to harm Americans, and would have been an important ally of al-Queda and other terrorist organizations, if he was not so already.

Having a free, democratic Iraq in the center of the Middle East will serve as a powerful example of what a free and liberated people can do.

The Keyes/Roger Winchestor campaign would also like to take this opportunity to give our wholehearted thanks and appreciation to the brave the men and women who serve and defend this great nation. Thank you to all the coalition members who have put forth troops and helped liberate Iraq from the forces of repression. Thank you and God Bless you for all your heroic work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"but not special rights." the basic right to marry the person u love is not special

and would have been an important ally of al-Queda and other terrorist organizations, if he was not so already.

and what proof do u have to back this up?

Saddam Hussein was a known terrorist, a brutal dictator, a murderer, someone that has threatened the lives of Americans, and someone who has needlessly butchered his own people.

so has a dozen of other dictators are we suppose to get them all

Link to post
Share on other sites

For mantis and roger. The reason the nation accepted was not because "Saddam was a bad man". It was because Cheney said, "Don't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud". We were lied to. The war was wrong.

I've edited this, cause I re-read it and it seemed pretty light.

They all said things that were not true, Bush, Condi Rice, even Colin Powell went to the UN and lied to them. The US has lost all credibility. I've heard the arguement, "He was a terrorist, he helps terrorists". Ok, first, where's that proof. Second, almsotevery leader in teh region helps terrorism. Unless you're all planning on invading Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebbanon, Jordon, etc. Then you're all hypocrits who are jsut two stepping with Bush, and his possie. Also, it now seems that Iraq is the only coutnry in the "Axis of Evil" that acutally posed no threat to us. Why is it not as much a threat that Iran, or North Korea will give WMD to terrorists? It makes no sense to me.

With That Said

Now that we are there, things must be done right. The problem discussing this part of the war here is that George Bush is a main problem. I believe just about anyone else would be better. For this reason, I cannot say that Keyes/Roger, or HRC/Mantis would do worse. That certainly would be near impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JoSpiv, that is all entirely irrelevant. As I said, the war happened and now we have to deal with it. We can go on for years harping on about whether or not the war was justified, but what would be the point? The reality of the situation is this: Regardless of the reasons, Iraq was invaded, Saddam Hussein was removed and now we, the international community need to win the peace. We need to do whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal. Arguing about who did or did not lie is not in the least bit helpful to the situation at hand and is more likely to be counter productive.

By getting Iraq stabalized and ensuring that a peaceful, responsible and democratic government is setup, we will eliminate a very significant source of terrorism and support for terrorists. We will have eliminated a signicant and PROVEN threat not only to the middle east but to the entire world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, can you now respond to me? :rolleyes:

The only additional response that I could give would be to clarify that American did not cause the problem. The problem already existed in the form of Saddam Hussein. When the coalition forces went in, they removed that problem. When they complete their work, they will have fixed the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you wantto "Stay the course"

What coalition? The US, England, and a bunch of countries that don't even have armies?

"He forgot Poland!!" Sorry Mr. President, they pulled out of the coalition.

The world is not safer since the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Also, can some PLEASE answer a question for me. Ok, conservatives keeps saying, "we havn't been attacked since 9/11 that means Bush is doing good" If you don't count the anthrax, I guess that's true.

Well, We weren't attack by int'l terrorists after the '93 bombing until 2001? So shoulding those same conservatives say, "Clinton did sucha good job on terrorism". Tell me the difference. Clinton protected us for 7 1/2 years after that attack. Bush, only 3 so far. Clinton wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well under your system all nations that pose a threat should be invaded, so why not Saudi Arabia, Syrai or Iran?

There you go again with more fraudulent claims - please quote one of my posts where I said that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you wantto "Stay the course"

What coalition? The US, England, and a bunch of countries that don't even have armies?

"He forgot Poland!!" Sorry Mr. President, they pulled out of the coalition.

The world is not safer since the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Also, can some PLEASE answer a question for me. Ok, conservatives keeps saying, "we havn't been attacked since 9/11 that means Bush is doing good" If you don't count the anthrax, I guess that's true.

Well, We weren't attack by int'l terrorists after the '93 bombing until 2001? So shoulding those same conservatives say, "Clinton did sucha good job on terrorism". Tell me the difference. Clinton protected us for 7 1/2 years after that attack. Bush, only 3 so far. Clinton wins.

So you want to cut and run and leave things as they are? Of course we have to complete the work, but we need to start putting more energy into doing it. We need to take the gloves off and stop being "touchy-feely" for the media. Launch all out attacks on terrorist strongholds in places like Faluja.

As far as your slandering of the international coalition goes, it is as pointless as arguing over the causes of the war. The fact is that Iraq will only be secured with the help of the international community. Your slandering of countries that have offered assistance is counterproductive.

With regards to Saddam Hussein, I suspect that people living in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries in the region would strongly disagree with you. I also suspect that most Iraqis who no longer face torture, nerve gas and mass graves would also tend to disagree with you.

As far as 9/11 goes, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Having said that, the government MUST take any and all actions to prevent any future attacks and that CAN include pre-emptive strikes against those who are planning such attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mantis. All it seems you do is call people's posts, fraugelent claims.

You cannot makes statments and think people will not use your statements against you. Instead of calling us liars, maybe it's that we misunderstood you. If someone says you said something you didn't, then correct it. You seem to think everyone is out to get you, we are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"with or without WMDs was a threat" Seems to be an endorsement of taking out all who pose a threat to me.

Only if taken entirely out of context as you just did. For the record, the complete wording was:

With regards to Iraq the war was justified. Saddam Hussein, with or without WMDs was a threat. He was a murderer. He was a brutal tryrant. He was a thief and he was a maniac.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...