Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

 The rivals for the US presidency clashed bitterly in their first presidential debate last night as Barack Obama sought to tie John McCain to the failed policies of the Bush administration at home and abroad.

Mr Obama, seen by voters as weaker on foreign affairs, was judged to have held his own in the debate, while Mr McCain did not manage to expose any major weaknesses in his opponent. But his contempt for his rival was on display throughout, as he could not bring himself to look his opponent directly in the eye during the debate. Read more.

Simple question: Who do you think won the debate?

Edit: The Independent called it a draw


( Comment )
izuko wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2008 04:23 pm (UTC)
I hear that a lot. The problem is, it really wasn't sold as Iraq being involved in 9/11. Yes, the possibility was brought up, but the main questions were humanitarian, and the possibility of Saddam getting hold of WMDs. And, while the effort to obtain WMDs have been proven, we do know that he was unable to obtain them. Frankly, I think it's a good thing we stopped him before he got to that point.

As for stockpiles, while we've found bits and pieces, we haven't found the motherlode. Given the size of Iraq and the possibility of sending them outside, maybe to Syria (I don't think he did, since Syria would have given a few to Hezbollah by now), we can't say whether he had anything significant left over or not. I mean, sure, he had plenty of the weapons, but they weren't exactly full potency anymore.

And, yes, I fully realize where Saddam got the weapons he DID use. That's a sin my country will have to answer for.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Bush declared a war on terror, not a war on Al Queda. Saddam did support terrorists, even if it wasn't AQ. He funded suicide bombers in Israel. Remember that Al Queda was relatively new when 9/11 happened. There were already more than enough terrorist organizations running around, which means it's meaningless to go after only one group.

And let's not forget the bi-monthly acts of war that Saddam committed by firing on coalition aircraft. You can call it a violation of the cease-fire, or an act of war, in its own right. Either way, the effect is the same.

Anyways, I'll go ahead and cede the last word to you. I need to finish up my comments here, and get back to my geotech homework.
allhatnocattle wrote:
Sep. 27th, 2008 05:09 pm (UTC)
The thing is, if Saddam was such a threat, there were options for forcing a regime change that did not have to destroy the entire country. The USA forced the regime change in Chile on Sept 11 1973 without an invasion.

WMD's are weapons of MASS destruction. No bits and pieces were ever found. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. Saddam had zero nuclear capability. That's what Colin Powell had lead us to believe in his address to the UN. It was a lie plain and simple.

Taking over a country in the way the Iraq War went down serves one purpose clearly; economic opportunity.

When looking at the current financial crisis, with banks and mortgage houses collapsing, it was foretold years ago it would eventually have to come down to this. Iraq Oil under American control would have greatly assisted to America's economy. It hasn't.
( Comment )