Will You Watch the Debate?

nimn, you are one of my favorite posters here on A2K. I don't respond much to threads but I follow them religiously.

I certainly will vote Green on your behalf.

. . . one shouldn't really ever ask anyone to cast his vote your way.

OK, guys...
Posted 10:25 p.m. ET

Now they're complimenting one another on how great a father the other one is. Um, guys? Get a room.

nimh wrote:

. . . one shouldn't really ever ask anyone to cast his vote your way.

That's exactly what Kerry and Bush just did tonight.

Well nimh, like I said, my vote will be in vain. I'm so flippant about that fact that I'm considering voting for myself.

But then Joe brings up hope through miracles, and now I've got three candidates to choose between.

hiya nimh, you're up early/late!

Oh ya. And another thing... why doesn't anyone care that neither of these men, nor the UN seem to care about the Sudan genocide? How does that slip between the cracks?

Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action.

I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold.

Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today.

I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended.

Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing.

So this is the way the president has overextended the United States.

That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.

But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.

It's the moral responsibility for us and the world.

In terms of Darfur, I agree it's genocide. And Colin Powell so stated.

We have committed $200 million worth of aid. We're the leading donor in the world to help the suffering people there. We will commit more over time to help.

We were very much involved at the U.N. on the sanction policy of the Bashir government in the Sudan. Prior to Darfur, Ambassador Jack Danforth had been negotiating a north-south agreement that we would have hoped would have brought peace to the Sudan.

[nimh: The north-south agreement had nothing to do with Darfur, whatsoever. It aimed to resolve a long-standing civil war between the government and a rebel force in the south of the country - far away from and unconnected to the violence in Darfur]

I agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be committing troops.

[nimh: Note that Kerry just said that he would be willing to commit tropps if that's what "it took".]

We ought to be working with the African Union to do so -- precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved them out.

My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there.

[nimh: Focusing merely on providing aid is exactly what Kerry was criticising when he pointed out that all Bush did was send "humanitarian support". The killing is done by troops and government-affiliated vigilantes. Food aid won't stop it. Nor will the end of the rainy season - that will probably actually lead to an escalation of violence, since the thugs will be moving around more freely again.]

That don't cut it dude. Every Senator, every congressman, every leader in the free world should have already been screaming for action long ago. "could never allow another Rwanda"? What better description is there for what's already taking place?

" . . . every leader in the free world should have already been screaming for action long ago."

Both answers were identical in my book. BS lip service. Some sh!t just shouldn't be tolerated, ever.

Well, for what its worth the Question of the Day on msnbc.com is "Who won the debate?", and the score right now is 72% Kerry, 28% Bush, with 155,000 answers in. And before you go, well, its MSNBC, yesterday I clicked on an online MSNBC poll on "who are you goinbg to vote for" and it had 57% Bush.

Bush talks about a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq as being vital to the security of the US, but it is the US that is the biggest violator of Afghani and Iraqi freedom. The US is occupying both counties, and is attempting to impose what it believes is the best political/economic system for them, and is operating through puppet governmets in both countries. That's freedom?