The debate

[Drumstix]

From what I saw, Kerry definitely won.

[cystic crypt]

not a big fan of this columnist, but i thought this kind of funny . . .

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/10/02/652445.html

[Lizardbaby]

Wargamming,
CC is correct. Sadam did give us documentation that he said proved he disarmed. The US did take it and refused to share it until we had a chance to view it. The UN was not pleased by this. We decided that it proved nuthing and attacked. Now I have not seen the docs, from what I gather not many people have. Those that did see it said it was junk. Maybe it was. That was my point. If Sadam had a good Accountant, we would not have invaded. He failed to PROVE he disarmed. He did disarm.
The history books will show we invaded because Sadam failed to prove to our satisfaction that he had indeed disarmed. So we get to look… steadfast and resolute.

"That would send a great message to the world; “it’s ok folks, neither the UN nor us mean what we say the first time, and we’ll give you several chances after the first ultimatum. Take your time.”

I would prefer that to sending the message that America will attack you no matter what the truth might be. Personally I am shocked that Bush did not plant some WMD after the war. Poor planning is all I can think. It’s certainly not that he minds manufactoring evidence.

[Janus1]

how do YOU know that he disarmed, if he couldnt prove so to the US and the UN, or whoever else saw the documents?

[Yanny]

how do YOU know that he disarmed, if he couldnt prove so to the US and the UN, or whoever else saw the documents?

How do you know he didn’t disarm.

Remember this arguement?

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3619

Now your flip flopping ;)

[cystic crypt]

@Janus1:

how do YOU know that he disarmed, if he couldnt prove so to the US and the UN, or whoever else saw the documents?

that’s just the thing. To the rest of the world, it looks like Saddam DID disarm, but the US needed the WMD argument in order to invade with ANY support.
So they concocted (forged) evidence, and hid evidence of dis-armament. The US did not let anyone else see the evidence/documents (which was puzzling to me as if it was useless information/incriminating, then the rest of the world should have found out and Bush may well have had more support. If the docs said that Saddam did disarm, then why did the US invade?)

[Janus1]

How do you know he didn’t disarm.

i dont. i was responding to LB, who claimed, with no basis, that he did disarm, and just couldnt prove it. i want to know why he is so sure.

Now your flip flopping

i dont think so, and even if i am, i do it as the exception, rather than the rule. :wink:

[Guest]

Kerry won, solidly, but it won’t affect the election just yet.

Have you seen the polls lately. Kerry has definately recieved momentum. The polls prior to the debate had Kerry trailing, but now he is winning? This tells me that the American voters want to see more of Kerry acting Presidental, and the more debates they have the more likely this is to happen. Conversely, Bush going out and attacking Kerry after losing an election looks dishonest. Sort of like saying “I couldn’t say this to your face, but when your not around I can” Not very presidential if you ask me.

[Yanny]

He may have a temporary bounce now, but we’ll see if it lasts the weekend. It may, but it also may not.

[MuthaRussia]

Did you people know that Bush wanted to be at least 10 feet from Kerry so he didn’t look like a shrimp? Thought that was rather humorous… :lol:

[Guest]

dont blame him, i wouldnt wanna be close to that guy any way!

[Linkon]

The disarm documents provided by Saddam are based on his account.

Would any enemy of Saddam accept documents that he provides as flat truth? His 2 sons in law believed Saddam would grant clemency when they returned w/their wives to Iraq. Saddam had them killed. His intel minister was on TV speaking of many phony victories when our soldiers were systematically wiping the resistance off the map. This same ministry hushed up the gas attacks against the Kurdish minorities. The schools in Iraq have taught 2 decades worth of hatred and lies to the citizenry.

It should not surprize anyone that bad and evil people will present untruths, even in document form, if it provides an advantage.

[Linkon]

There were so many reasons to go after Saddam. My personal thoughts are that WMD was a lame reason. Kinda like getting Capone on taxes.

Such was my analysis way before the war declaration. However, it (WMD) did get some UN support.

[Guest]

He may have a temporary bounce now, but we’ll see if it lasts the weekend. It may, but it also may not.

But what has been forgotten since the RNC is that Kerry held an edge over Bush for a very long time up until then. That he has now regained this edge only affirms what has been known by pollsters for a year, and that is Bushs approval is low while his disapproval is high. The bigger question is whether Kerrys poll numbers can translate into votes and wins. Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. It is therefore incumbent upon Kerry to win Ohio, Penn and Florida or some of the smaller states like Iowa, Wisc, Nevada etc.

[Guest]

Ohio and Pa are very key this year, no republican has ever won without ohio, and if PA is a battleground state, and its one of the more liberal states, then kerry should be worried.

[Lizardbaby]

Janus,
How do I know he disarmed? Well, my assumption is that he did have WMD at some point. They are not there now, so…

[Guest]

PA is a battleground state, and its one of the more liberal states, then kerry should be worried.

I don’t think so. Penn while it has pockets of liberalism is very conservative in the Western part of the state. Like most states the urban areas tend to be the most liberal. So Philly which is really big tends to distort how leftist the state by in large is.

[Guest]

with big cities like pittsburgh and philly, the liberals usually have tight control.

[Janus1]

Lizard: the fact that they arent there now doesnt mean he disarmed. he could have hid them better than we counted on, or moved them out of the country. whether or not saddam still had them in his possession doesnt mean the weapons still arent in the wrong hands.
now im not sure exactly what the resolutions stipulated as fulfilling the disarmament demands, but i think that giving them to a fellow loose cannon wouldnt count. do i know he did this? no. but i find it more likely that this happened then that he actually disarmed.

[Lizardbaby]

Janus,
I understand your position. If I did not know Sadam’s history in the region I might agree. The truth is Sadam was… shall we say a pretty bad neighbor. In Desert Storm we where given a nod by all the surrounding Arab nations because everyone knew Sadam would have hit them next (if he had not alread, ie Iran, Kwait). Finding a buddy to give em too would have been hard in other words. A quote comes to mind. “The only men that keep secrets are dead men.” Had they been given to someone, we would know now. Heck, I am 100% sure they would be using them on our soldiers, if they had em.
In the final analysis, Sadam wanted to stay in power. He was willing to do anything to stay in power. Certainly destroy the weapons.