Kerry Wins First Debate
He didn't flip-flop, he didn't get too complicated, he stayed on message. Kerry landed some haymakers, and Bush repeated more of the same "we will win!" without explaining how. Kerry laid out his plan: Adding more troops, involving allies, and isolating terrorists, not letting the terrorists isolate us.
Bush implied that Iraq attacked the U.S., offered no solution for Sudan, Iran, or North Korea, and (best of all) praised Vladimir Putin!
He also spent a good five minutes on Poland: He mispronounced Kwasniewski, implied that Poland is heavily involved when they have less than 1000 troops, and seemed to forget that the Polish people (while supporting the war) oppose Polish troops in Iraq. Let's also not forget that Poland's tour in Iraq is being paid for by NATO (i.e. the U.S.).
Here are some questions to ponder:
1. Should we leave open the possibility of bilateral talks with North Korea, or should we exclude them from the get-go?
2. Kerry says that he can bring allies into Iraq. France and Germany have said that they won't commit any troops there, no matter what. Does that mean that Kerry is talking nonsense? Are France and Germany the only ones who can help us out?
3. We can all see that President Bush has belief and conviction. Is that enough? Or do those beliefs and convictions also need to be right?
4. I'm watching the post-debate coverage now. On CNN Karen Hughes' voice was clear and crisp. Then they cut to Mike McCurry, and his audio was almost inaudible. Is CNN biased towards Bush? Were the questions biased toward Kerry?
5. Who do you think won?
my feed
8 Comments:
Joseph Biden very astutely has reminded everyone that all of the other members of the 6-country talks with North Korea have asked the U.S. to engage in bilateral talks. China would continue to pressure North Korea.
David Gergen, Editor in Chief of "U.S. World Report," Professor at Harvard's JFK School of Government, and advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton has said: "Kerry is back in this." Kerry is getting very positive reviews in the media-- looks good.
Sorry Andrew, I live in a glass house on spelling issues, and will give you plenty of opportunities to cram that one back at me.
Actually I agree with you guys on this point. In my opinion only Britain and Australia are with us in Iraq due to their own values aligning with ours. All others are there simply for the benefits associated with being a "Friend of America" in the 21st Century.
But on the issue of Bi-lateral Talks: The last time a Democratic President had Bi-Lateral talks with NK, we agreed to send them free food, and build them a nuke power plant, if they agreed not to enrich uranium...how did that work out for us. Kerry would do, exactly what Clinton did, and thats demonstrate a lack of courage to deal with the problem and pay tribute to put the problem off until a later braver Republican can fix it.
There are only two ways to solve this problem:
A. Preemptive Nuclear saturation ground bursts against ALL suspected military / industrial sites.
B. Convince China that if they want to keep selling their products in American markets, they will have to help us destroy the regime by allowing its xenophobic citizens to starve and freeze to death.
C: Withdraw from the peninsula, and let them be re-united under the oppressive rule of Kim. Then park a fleet of Aegis Cruisers to the East, so the only direction they can launch is towards China / Russia.
You guys have formed a partially incorrect opinion of me, if you think I am a staunch conservative. I piss off conservatives as much as y'all do, and I am as scared as you of letting them make domestic policy. I just KNOW that Bush will protect my children, and Kerry don't have the necessary courage to deal with our ideological enemies. He is a wimp that will turn a blind eye to our enemies technological weapons upgrades, and wont deal with them, if the international community don't give us permission.
I quess there are 3 ways...not just 2.
Redneck:
Don't worry what we think of you. Keep writing what you think, 'cause I agree with you on point B. I also agree that Clinton got duped by N.K. Unfortunately, the 6 way talks aren't going anywhere, and as Joe Biden said, all the others have asked us to really negotiate bilaterally with Kim. I think Kerry knows very well what happened to Clinton, and would insist on verifications this time. Any agreement Bush comes to would have the same vulnerabilities as the Clinton agreement. The only promise Bush gives then, is of not coming to any agreement, which in my view would be even more dangerous. Remember: Bush cut off all communication whatsoever with N.K., and that's when they started to get scared. When we're negotiating, they're not making nukes, when we're not, they are. In my opinion, that means keep the negotiations going as long as possible until we find a way to get rid of Kim-- draw out the process, make it longer. I don't like the idea of negotiating with a fucker like Kim, but the price of not negotiating, is N.K. becoming a nuclear power faster. I'm not so sure about Bush keeping your kids safer either. I want your kids to be safe too, but I think that Bush's "war here, war there" mentality creates more terrorists than it stops.
Unfortunately, the 6 way talks aren't going anywhere,The 6 way talks aren't going anywhere because global diplomatic progress comes to a screeching halt every four years, as the rest of world waits to see which ideological direction American foreign policy will be shifting to again. Our divisive election cycle paralyzes us, as both ideologies race to the center in the pursuit of 3 years of power.
and as Joe Biden said, all the others have asked us to really negotiate bilaterally with Kim.Joe Biden is a partisan whore, who would shoot American soldiers in the back if that would give him and his party power. "They want us to negotiate bi-laterally", in international diplomatic terminology that means, they want us to buy off the North Koreans again like we have always done in the past. They are attempting to portray the entire problem as America's problem.
The Korean War was a UN initiated proxy war to stop the global spread of communism. I aint worried about Kim's cult of personality spreading beyond the southern tip of the peninsula anymore. All our UN buddies abandoned us a long time ago, and the only reason the war was a stalemate was China sent more bullet sponges than we had bullets. Its China and Russia's fault THEY have a starving Nuclear Armed megalomaniac on their borders, I fell no responsibility to pay for their mess, when them and Japan are the only ones in his missile's current range.
A large percentage of the younger and thus more liberal South Korean populace wants our "occupying force" to leave the peninsula, and now that those 30 thousand American soldiers are sitting ducks for another NK surprise attack, I agree with them. We should withdraw them from the Theatre now. Any future conflict with NK should be fought without an America boot on Korean soil anyway now that the conflict HAS gone nuclear. It will be a "button war" decided by who can out-range each other.
The South Korean people have prospered under our security umbrella to the extent that they have virtually cornered the global ship building and shipping industries and are getting fat in many other capitalistic endeavors, yet even though 30000 of our soldiers are tied down insuring their security, the SK politicians balked at sending 3000 of their troops to Iraq to assist in our security due to rampant anti-American sentiment in the populace. We dont need friends like that.
Bottom line: Like Sudan, how did this get to be MY problem. I have a missile defense system going in their silos as we speak. Sounds like a regional problem to me now, and thats why Bush is not allowing himself to be blackmailed like other presidents before him.
"The 6 way talks aren't going anywhere because global diplomatic progress comes to a screeching halt every four years, as the rest of world waits to see which ideological direction American foreign policy will be shifting to again. Our divisive election cycle paralyzes us, as both ideologies race to the center in the pursuit of 3 years of power."Wow, I'm surprised Red, I thought the talks had been going on since around October 2002, when N.K. declared that they had weapons. That's way before this election cycle began. But don't worry, I don't want to get rid of them, I just like the idea of dangling the carrot of 2 way talks in front of Kim Jong Il. Kim is convinced that he can't get anywhere with Bush, and I think that makes him more recalcitrant, not more willing to give in. Bush's "determination" on this issue is just stubbornness, and finally Kim will give up and start shooting nuclear weapons. If we keep teasing him along, we've got a chance to settle down the tension, and then get him out of there.
"Joe Biden is a partisan whore, who would shoot American soldiers in the back if that would give him and his party power."
I disagree Red, I like Joe Biden. In any case, he's much better than that partisan whore Tom Delay! Let's make a deal: you put a muzzle on Delay, and I'll put one on Nancy Pelosi, who I'm sure you hate far more than Biden.
"They want us to negotiate bi-laterally", in international diplomatic terminology that means, they want us to buy off the North Koreans again like we have always done in the past. They are attempting to portray the entire problem as America's problem."No Red, I think everybody in the region realizes this is a gigantic problem for all of them. However, unlike some world leaders, they know that N. Korea won't budge unless they feel like they'll get some concessions from the U.S. and regain some "prestige." These don't have to be big concessions, but the possibility of 2 way talks might start some movement. To be honest, they don't have to budge, because they have nuclear weapons now. That was America's position for a long time, and now that the rest of the world is getting weapons, we don't like them pulling the same trick on us. It's time to wake up to reality. If paying off Kim means real, verifiable destruction of his weapons and his plutonium, then I'm ready to give some cream of wheat to some folks there who don't have anything to eat. Of course, I think it's right that you and others are skeptical of such a deal, since it didn't work before (but let's remember it was Bush's stance on N.K. that got the inspectors kicked out, allowing Kim to start putting his bombs together). That's why we have to learn from our mistakes, and make any agreement stronger this time. One thing is for sure: without ANY movement on the American side, there won't be any movement on the N. Korean side. I think you'll agree that the status quo in such a situation is unlikely to hold, which means we're heading for war in the region. With Kim's army of 1 million, 4 to 8 nuclear weapons in his possession, and the possibility of a war in the region spreading to Taiwan, I don't think that America can afford Bush's continuing refusal to negotiate.
"The Korean War was a UN initiated proxy war to stop the global spread of communism."
Remember Domino Theory? Remember McCarthy? We were the ones who wanted to stop Communism. UN proxy war my ass.
"I aint worried about Kim's cult of personality spreading beyond the southern tip of the peninsula anymore. All our UN buddies abandoned us a long time ago, and the only reason the war was a stalemate was China sent more bullet sponges than we had bullets. Its China and Russia's fault THEY have a starving Nuclear Armed megalomaniac on their borders."Our UN friends abandoned us when we adopted the arrogant policy of unilateral preemption on a country that didn't directly threaten us. Seeing that above all, the UN's duty is to prevent war (except those fought in self-defence) I find their abandonment appropriate and unsurprising. Thankfully, a Kerry administration would probably bring all of them back on board.
"I [feel] no responsibility to pay for their mess, when them and Japan are the only ones in his missile's current range."No responsibility? When your neighbor's house catches on fire, do you sit there and wait for the flames to blow over to your roof, or do you help them put out the fire? Red, it's our responsibility, 'cause it's in our interest. Otherwise, the nuclear armed megalomaniac might be on our borders. You know, a lot of people said the same thing about Hitler and Poland. "Let them deal with it, it's not our problem. . ." Well, pretty soon it became everybody's problem. Shall we wait for another Pearl Harbor? Another September 11th? Or shall we nip this one in the bud?
--Plus, there are some who think that Kim is very close to a weapon that could hit Alaska. Then again, Alaska is mostly empty, and Republicans don't seem to care very much about Alaska's precious and unique environment anyway. Let them just try, right?
"A large percentage of the younger and thus more liberal South Korean populace wants our "occupying force" to leave the peninsula, and now that those 30 thousand American soldiers are sitting ducks for another NK surprise attack, I agree with them. We should withdraw them from the Theatre now. Any future conflict with NK should be fought without an America boot on Korean soil anyway now that the conflict HAS gone nuclear. It will be a "button war" decided by who can out-range each other."Scary talk Red. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Also, don't forget that a couple American soldiers joyriding around just happened to run over a couple South Korean girls. That might have something to do with it.
"The South Korean people have prospered under our security umbrella to the extent that they have virtually cornered the global ship building and shipping industries and are getting fat in many other capitalistic endeavors, yet even though 30000 of our soldiers are tied down insuring their security, the SK politicians balked at sending 3000 of their troops to Iraq to assist in our security due to rampant anti-American sentiment in the populace. We dont need friends like that."In the War on Terror we need all the help we can get. Otherwise, countries might start saying the same things you are: "Well, it's their arrogance that brought this terrorism on them. They deserve everything they get, because they abandoned us at the UN, and started a war that caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties which brought the whole Muslim World against them. We don't need friends like that."
-- Then where would we be Red? In Michigan we have an expression: "up shit creek without a paddle."
By the way, do you think elected politicians should go around starting wars their populace is against? That's not a very good way to get re-elected. Look at all the problems Bush is having, and a majority of Americans were FOR the war.
"Bottom line: Like Sudan, how did this get to be MY problem. I have a missile defense system going in their silos as we speak. Sounds like a regional problem to me now, and thats why Bush is not allowing himself to be blackmailed like other presidents before him."How did this get to be YOUR problem? Red, you were born on planet Earth, and you live here in the year 2004. To quote Billy Joel: "We didn't start the fire. No, we didn't light it, but we're trying to fight it." To refer to the previous analogy, our neighbors' houses might be the ones on fire, but since we're the ones with the water, we better help out before it spreads.
By the way, it doesn't sound very much like you to trust ANY body other than the U.S.: not the UN, not our allies, not anybody-- MUCH LESS CHINA AND RUSSIA!! Do you mean to tell me that you're willing to leave a maniac like Kim Jung Il up to them? No thanks, I'll vote for the man who's ready to pull out his hose, do the hard work, and fight the fire-- before it gets to us.
Boy, are you going to be disapointed If Kerry Wins.
If you honestly think electing him will fix any of these problems.
two comments:
1) Our UN friends abandoned us when we adopted the arrogant policy of unilateral preemption on a country that didn't directly threaten us. Seeing that above all, the UN's duty is to prevent war (except those fought in self-defence) I find their abandonment appropriate and unsurprising.2)it's our responsibility, 'cause it's in our interest. Otherwise, the nuclear armed megalomaniac might be on our borders. You know, a lot of people said the same thing about Hitler and Poland. "Let them deal with it, it's not our problem. . ." Well, pretty soon it became everybody's problem. Shall we wait for another Pearl Harbor? Another September 11th? Or shall we nip this one in the bud?in consecutive paragraphs no less. you could argue either one on principal, but not both concurrently.
Post a Comment
< Main