Debate Questions We All Deserved To Hear Answers To

[NATO AIR]

at least IMO

for Sen. Kerry

(1) Next year the Iranian government is growing dangerously close to possessing nuclear arms. Your administration consults with the "allies", gathers intelligence on suspected iranian sites and activities and utilizes the diplomatic process (threaten with a huge stick and a sizeable carrot) to try to bring the iranians back from the brink. The Iranians refuse to hand over their nuclear materials and are days away from having the bomb. You go to the UNSC, but China (and perhaps Russia and France) veto your resolution to take military action to prevent Iran's nuclear upgrade.

What do you do? Would you bomb them anyway? Would you stand by and let them get the nukes? Will you wait for a global approval plan or do it with a coalition of the willing?

(2) Will you coddle the Chinese as Pres. Bush and Clinton did in the past 12 years?

for Pres. Bush

(1) in all fairness Mr. President, for a nation with elections less than 100 days away, (not even considering the horrific security situation right now), Iraq seems terribly behind in setting them up. Who are the candidates? What are the parties? To what extent will people get to vote (local, mid-level, national)? Why isn't anyone campaigning or trying to make changes? What's going on, and how do you plan to help the Iraqis and the UN make this happen by January?

(2) Are you willing to put boots on the ground in Iran to stop them from gaining nuclear arms?/Will you allow the Israelis to launch a preemptive strike, and how will you handle the regional/global firestorm sure to erupt as a result?

for both:

(1) By how much and around when will you upgrade the Army to repair the damage done to it by Iraq and the high operational tempo the WOT has created?

 

[Comrade]

at least IMO

for Sen. Kerry

(1) Next year the Iranian government is growing dangerously close to possessing nuclear arms. Your administration consults with the "allies", gathers intelligence on suspected iranian sites and activities and utilizes the diplomatic process (threaten with a huge stick and a sizeable carrot) to try to bring the iranians back from the brink. The Iranians refuse to hand over their nuclear materials and are days away from having the bomb. You go to the UNSC, but China (and perhaps Russia and France) veto your resolution to take military action to prevent Iran's nuclear upgrade.

Kerry said he would have given Iran nuclear fuel.

What do you do? Would you bomb them anyway? Would you stand by and let them get the nukes? Will you wait for a global approval plan or do it with a coalition of the willing?
[/QUOTE]

He's let it pass something like the 'global test'.

(2) Will you coddle the Chinese as Pres. Bush and Clinton did in the past 12 years?

He'd cut them out of N.K. talks, apparently. To return to Clintonesque 'bilateral' discussions.

for Pres. Bush

(1) in all fairness Mr. President, for a nation with elections less than 100 days away, (not even considering the horrific security situation right now), Iraq seems terribly behind in setting them up. Who are the candidates? What are the parties? To what extent will people get to vote (local, mid-level, national)? Why isn't anyone campaigning or trying to make changes? What's going on, and how do you plan to help the Iraqis and the UN make this happen by January?

In all fairness, I'm sure the candidates on all sides will be either listed or available for write-in votes.

Basically, the rough nature of the process will be to get people to register, try to monitor votes on the basis of one-person one-vote, count them up, declare winners based on the count, and run with it. I mean waiting until it's all 100% approved (by who) and legally irrefutable would be far too high of a standard on the first iteration for such a state.

(2) Are you willing to put boots on the ground in Iran to stop them from gaining nuclear arms?/Will you allow the Israelis to launch a preemptive strike, and how will you handle the regional/global firestorm sure to erupt as a result?

He said yes, a few days back, when offered the same question by O'Reilly.

(1) By how much and around when will you upgrade the Army to repair the damage done to it by Iraq and the high operational tempo the WOT has created?

If there is one thing about our military post Iraq and Afganistan, it's that it's not by any means 'damaged'.

The vast majority of our armed forces now consist of troops with geniune combat experience. Our soldiers are far more capable and elite as a result of their actitivities of late than US troops have been in decades, perhaps even since WWII. The force multiplier among those now considered veteran soldiers is an immense advantage the US can use to demonstrate the effectiveness of our current military.

 

[NATO AIR]

Kerry said he would have given Iran nuclear fuel.
He's let it pass something like the 'global test'.

ouch what a fantastic answer for the senator

He'd cut them out of N.K. talks, apparently. To return to Clintonesque 'bilateral' discussions.

actually, that's what all the other nations desire most of all... this six nation business isn't cutting it much better than the clinton and bush I era negotiations.

In all fairness, I'm sure the candidates on all sides will be either listed or available for write-in votes.

Basically, the rough nature of the process will be to get people to register, try to monitor votes on the basis of one-person one-vote, count them up, declare winners based on the count, and run with it. I mean waiting until it's all 100% approved (by who) and legally irrefutable would be far too high of a standard on the first iteration for such a state.

you dodge the question.... who are the candidates? who are the parties? how are the iraqi people going to know who is running? hell who is running for that matter? that's my point in asking the question... there is no "opposition" to allawi that i can tell, let alone even a political party or anything close to anything resembling even a reason for elections.

we probably agree that not everybody will get to vote because they live in f'ed up insurgent areas and until everyone behaves, we will be unable to get 100% participation (as rummy has said). that's not the question i'm asking. my question, where is the political process that is normal in every other nation? the parties, the candidates, the opponnents, the coalitions/base, the campaigning... hell afghanistan's election business is booming compared to iraq's right now and its far from fleshed out or even thought through very well (its going to work though hopefully)

He said yes, a few days back, when offered the same question by O'Reilly.

awesome mr. pres

If there is one thing about our military post Iraq and Afganistan, it's that it's not by any means 'damaged'.

The vast majority of our armed forces now consist of troops with geniune combat experience. Our soldiers are far more capable and elite as a result of their actitivities of late than US troops have been in decades, perhaps even since WWII. The force multiplier among those now considered veteran soldiers is an immense advantage the US can use to demonstrate the effectiveness of our current military.

bs on the army not being damaged. there are some serious issues going on for them right now. i have yet to hear a single credible analyst that hasn't said the army hasn't got some real issues to work out in the future. its not a criticism of the men and women fighting, or even the men and women leading. its the men and women out of uniform at the pentagon that are gonna need to figure out where to get the money to pay for more troops, more equipment (and replaced troops and equipment) and how to continue to reform the army out of its cold war era mentality.

 

[Comrade]

actually, that's what all the other nations desire most of all... this six nation business isn't cutting it much better than the clinton and bush I era negotiations.

When it comes to N.K., there is no good solution, of course. But bilateral talks are preferable to the world community only because it places pressure back on the U.S. to solve the crisis, something not necessarily in the U.S. interest.

you dodge the question.... who are the candidates? who are the parties? how are the iraqi people going to know who is running? hell who is running for that matter? that's my point in asking the question... there is no "opposition" to allawi that i can tell, let alone even a political party or anything close to anything resembling even a reason for elections.

I don't honestly know the candidates and specifics. I would imagine a single candidate like Allawi (picked, if we recall, as the interim president against the US wishes in any case), a single choice like him on the ballot (or among unknown candidates) would make a mockery of the election, which is not what the U.S. is setting out to do in this case. Credibility in the upcoming election process is something the U.S. will try to ensure, or else the election would be pointless. If it were a pointless election, neither the world media, the Iraqi people, nor the vast Anti-Bush contingent in America would let it slide.

we probably agree that not everybody will get to vote because they live in f'ed up insurgent areas and until everyone behaves, we will be unable to get 100% participation (as rummy has said). that's not the question i'm asking. my question, where is the political process that is normal in every other nation?

It's constantly under assuault by terrorism. Bush nor Kerry will be able to help that in the short term.


[/Quote]the parties, the candidates, the opponnents, the coalitions/base, the campaigning... hell afghanistan's election business is booming compared to iraq's right now and its far from fleshed out or even thought through very well (its going to work though hopefully)
[/Quote]

That's the right idea! Bush will win because the GOP is optomistic about Iraq's chances and will go the distance to ensure Iraq has the greatest chance to seed Democracy and take root.

bs on the army not being damaged. there are some serious issues going on for them right now. i have yet to hear a single credible analyst that hasn't said the army hasn't got some real issues to work out in the future. its not a criticism of the men and women fighting, or even the men and women leading. its the men and women out of uniform at the pentagon that are gonna need to figure out where to get the money to pay for more troops, more equipment (and replaced troops and equipment) and how to continue to reform the army out of its cold war era mentality.

I'm not trying to B.S. on it, but I do get the general feeling that both funding and enlistment (or re-enlistment) will keep our current military intact and viable.

I don't think our current expenditure on the military (~4% of GNP) is deficient or at risk of insustainability.

I think you underestimate the value of a military force which has had the kind of combat experience US forces have attained since 9-11. The original trained recruits were incredibly capable prior to 9-11, and increasingly elite since that time, suffering a level of casualities which does not detract from the overall force multiplier due to such experience.

 

[NATO AIR]

When it comes to N.K., there is no good solution, of course. But bilateral talks are preferable to the world community only because it places pressure back on the U.S. to solve the crisis, something not necessarily in the U.S. interest.

that is quite true :happy2: of course kerry the unilaterialist AND kerry the multilaterialist was quite an interesting position to watch him take.

I don't honestly know the candidates and specifics. I would imagine a single candidate like Allawi (picked, if we recall, as the interim president against the US wishes in any case), a single choice like him on the ballot (or among unknown candidates) would make a mockery of the election, which is not what the U.S. is setting out to do in this case. Credibility in the upcoming election process is something the U.S. will try to ensure, or else the election would be pointless. If it were a pointless election, neither the world media, the Iraqi people, nor the vast Anti-Bush contingent in America would let it slide.

that is my worry, though i hope you are right about us and everyone else not standing for a fraud election. it just appears that way because there is no political process going on right now, aside from allawi running the country and trying to stop the insurgency and the terrorists. these monsters are starting to intentionally target kids, that shows how desperate and sadistic they're getting.

That's the right idea! Bush will win because the GOP is optomistic about Iraq's chances and will go the distance to ensure Iraq has the greatest chance to seed Democracy and take root.

I hope so. I don't think Kerry a totally bad guy or anything, but I really fear he would just pull out if Iraq disintergrated and let it go to hell just to try to save his presidency by "moving on". that's something nixon and ford tried to do (because of the democrat congress at the same time) and it cost them, and the dems got off scot free for forcing the endgame that ended in dishonor.

I'm not trying to B.S. on it, but I do get the general feeling that both funding and enlistment (or re-enlistment) will keep our current military intact and viable.

I don't think our current expenditure on the military (~4% of GNP) is deficient or at risk of insustainability.

I think you underestimate the value of a military force which has had the kind of combat experience US forces have attained since 9-11. The original trained recruits were incredibly capable prior to 9-11, and increasingly elite since that time, suffering a level of casualities which does not detract from the overall force multiplier due to such experience.

I just really feel we need many more troops (about 3-4 more divisions), not only for Iraq but for future problems. And c'mon, folks in the Army are hella talented and brave, but how much longer can they handle getting rotated in and out of iraq in the kind of hellhole it is now without showing some wear and tear. more troops can't do much harm to our nation or our budget that badly can it?

 

[Comrade]

I just really feel we need many more troops (about 3-4 more divisions), not only for Iraq but for future problems. And c'mon, folks in the Army are hella talented and brave, but how much longer can they handle getting rotated in and out of iraq in the kind of hellhole it is now without showing some wear and tear. more troops can't do much harm to our nation or our budget that badly can it?

I don't think it would stress our budget to add such additional divisions to the force structure.

Kerry's stated plan was to double the special forces, at least as expensive as such a propositition.

Obviously you don't just pass a bill to hire a bunch of special forces either... it takes years of training and selective processing to reform the military in such a way.

But I do believe we'll see the end of Iraqi committment responsibility by mid-2005, as new government with their own domestic security foces assume the role. I'm guessing on it but we'll see!

Such optimism I'm going to say I'll bank upon, is going to leave a multitude of elite, combat ready divisions to move on to Iran, Syria, or other remaining state sponsors of terror.

 

[Avatar4321]

that is quite true :happy2: of course kerry the unilaterialist AND kerry the multilaterialist was quite an interesting position to watch him take.

I thought so two. Kerry couldnt even stay consistant for half an hour.

We are supposed to work multinationally with Iraq, yet unilaterally with North Korea (despite the fact that we are working multinationally with both nations)

He is against nuclear proliferation but is willing to give nuclear fuel to Iran if they promise not to create weapons. How does that stop the proliferation of nations going nuclear?

He says our troops are overextended, yet somehow plans to create two whole new divisions of the military, and plans to man them how? If they are overextended then there arent enough men to do this. Only way he can get more men is to draft. something some of his advisors would be more than willing to do.

Those are only a few of the flip flops that happened last night.

Kerry may have had more style last night. he has a right to be proud, im sure thats the first time everyone ever credited him with style. But he was inconsistant, while Bush was very consistant and had substance. I think substance beats style.