Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    are you referring to the american way of life or the american foreign policy?
    americas foreign policy in respect of the UN and states with WMD capabilities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    i did point that out however the willing did also cover some very small countries.
    Very ashamed that australia went to war bloody howard
    why? howard could have played the french card and become popular with the australians for at least 5mins. he followed his convictions when he could have just taken advantage of the fact that australia faces no real or illusory threat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna: We're in agreement that removing Saddam was a positive step in the WoT, that prevention is the best defence against terror, and that the situation in Afghanistan has improved. However, our disagreement stems from your justification for what I perceive as an overcommitment to Iraq by arguing Bush intends to use it to promote democracy within the Middle East and thus cut terrorism at source. I do not accept this. For one thing, I've seen little out of the Bush camp suggesting a commitment to such a grand project. What is more I don't think he has a mandate to commit his nation to suchu a huge enterprise - it was in none of his manifestos, nor did it stand before Congress or the Senate either as justification for the Iraq invasion or otherwise. Even if Bush was attempting such a project, however, I'd still consider it a mistake. At present, the US is clearly overstreched. The huge momentum generated in Afghanistan has been lost to a significant extent: the elections have been delayed for a second time, and chaos reigns beyond Kabul because there are simply nowhere near enough boots on the ground. Bin Laden continues to remain a figurehead for extremism; perhaps this could have been avoided had some of the special forces committed to Iraq been posted in Afghanistan. The Iran situation threatens to become the greatest destablising influence in the Middle East since Khomeini took over, and again this has been partially abetted by a feeling the US is too tied up to resist Iran with the vigour which could otherwise have been expected. I would also add into consideration that the American intelligence gathering structure remains a mess while the Homeland Security Agency is very far indeed from 100% effectiveness, and that both these major tools in the War on Terror could do with some of the $200b already spent on Iraq. Thus I feel that not only is your explanation for the investment in Iraq unproven, it is fundamentally flawed: the US does not yet have the luxury of such grandiose projects.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which ones? France and Germany could and did alienate themselves.


    no, he didnt.



    jumped? or acted in response to an attack on the US, went to the UN twice for international support, built a broad coalition of willing and participating nations and acheived what he set out to do in the country. the funniest thing is knowing that had he been planning this for years, you would use that against him aswell.


    its on course in terms of timetable, comparably very few american casualties and the principle objectives acheived. but youre entitled to your opinion of war. how many have you had experience of?
    So where are the WMD's then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Vienna: We're in agreement that removing Saddam was a positive step in the WoT, that prevention is the best defence against terror, and that the situation in Afghanistan has improved. However, our disagreement stems from your justification for what I perceive as an overcommitment to Iraq by arguing Bush intends to use it to promote democracy within the Middle East and thus cut terrorism at source. I do not accept this.
    his intention? or the fact that the intention exists?

    For one thing, I've seen little out of the Bush camp suggesting a commitment to such a grand project. What is more I don't think he has a mandate to commit his nation to suchu a huge enterprise - it was in none of his manifestos

    , nor did it stand before Congress or the Senate either as justification for the Iraq invasion or otherwise.
    ill do my best to find some appropriate material, perhaps what I can provide from my own resource will be sufficient. The problem is the obvious and flawed comparisons that one would draw with the idea of the Crusades. the Bush administration doesnt intend to remove and install a new regime in every single country, rather to provide a spark of democracy, to knock over the first domino in the hope that the region will follow suit of its own accord. the political danger in announcing such hope, is the public and international perception of Bush's moralistic orientation around religion, as opposed to the real clash of civilisations that it is. bearing in mind the benefits of a democratic and moderate middle east, the modest resource of the Iraq and Afghani conflict seems good value.

    Bush publicly outlined his vision of the Middle East, and the US role in acheiving that...an example.

    "The outcome of the war on terror depends on our ability to see danger and to answer it with strength and purpose. This war also is a conflict of visions. In their worship of power, their deep hatreds, their blindness to innocence, the terrorists are successors to the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. And we are the heirs of the tradition of liberty, defenders of the freedom, the conscience and the dignity of every person.

    The tradition of liberty has advocates in every culture and in every religion. Our great challenges support the momentum of freedom in the greater Middle East. The stakes could not be higher. As long as that region is a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce men and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends. We seek the advance of democracy for the most practical of reasons: because democracies do not support terrorists or threaten the world with weapons of mass murder.

    True democratic reform must come from within. And across the Middle East, reformers are pushing for change. From Morocco, to Jordan, to Qatar, we're seeing elections and new protections for women and the stirring of political pluralism. When the leaders of reform ask for our help, America will give it.

    I've asked the Congress to double the budget for the National Endowment for Democracy, raising its annual total to $80 million. We will focus its new work on bringing free elections and free markets and free press and free speech and free labor unions to the Middle East."

    where back in November 2003, he addressed the same issue.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031106-2.html

    on the relevance of Iraq to freedom in the middle east,

    "Freedom still has enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the Baathists and Taliban and terrorists know that if democracy were to be, it would undermine violence -- their hope for violence and innocent death. They understand that if democracy were to be undermined, then the hopes for change throughout the Middle East would be set back. That's what they know. That's what they think. We know that the success of freedom in these nations would be a landmark event in the history of the Middle East, and the history of the world. Across the region, people would see that freedom is the path to progress and national dignity. A thousand lies would stand refuted, falsehoods about the incompatibility of democratic values in Middle Eastern cultures. And all would see, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the success of free institutions at the heart of the greater Middle East."

    "Achieving this vision will be the work of many nations over time, requiring the same strength of will and confidence of purpose that propelled freedom to victory in the defining struggles of the last century. Today, we're at a point of testing, when people and nations show what they're made out of. America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. We will do what it takes. We will not leave until the job is done"


    and here he again addresses the nation with similar overtones, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030907-1.html

    in presenting the National Security Strategy to Congress a year after 9/11 he highlighted that,

    The principle of freedom should be advanced around the world. America’s security is directly related to political and economic freedom around the world. From the beginning of the document, the new National Security Strategy draws on America’s responsibility to promote global freedom. It does so, however, not as an unattainable ideal but as part of a comprehensive national security strategy. The United States will seek opportunities to expand freedom and expend resources on those opportunities. The NSS also makes clear that nations unwilling to help themselves will not receive support from the United States. And foreign aid will be grounded in those principles.


    Even if Bush was attempting such a project, however, I'd still consider it a mistake. At present, the US is clearly overstreched. The huge momentum generated in Afghanistan has been lost to a significant extent: the elections have been delayed for a second time, and chaos reigns beyond Kabul because there are simply nowhere near enough boots on the ground. Bin Laden continues to remain a figurehead for extremism;
    where? in Afghanistan?

    perhaps this could have been avoided had some of the special forces committed to Iraq been posted in Afghanistan. The Iran situation threatens to become the greatest destablising influence in the Middle East since Khomeini took over, and again this has been partially abetted by a feeling the US is too tied up to resist Iran with the vigour which could otherwise have been expected.
    i think the Iranian problem will be dealt with, but i dont think it is such an imminent threat that other avenues cannot be explored before military action is required. i agree that Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are big obstacles in the region, and will be approached in a variety of ways. im assuming that you believe the US should not have gone into Iraq before Iran, i understand this view. but consider the political, financial, ideological and material resource "challenges" that have surfaced as a result of removing one of the worst regimes in the middle east with 12 years of UN resolutions against its name and a comparatively weak defence force, and then consider the political capital required to take on Iran. in essence, this strengthens my suggestion that succesful democratic reform in the middle east is the long term strategy of the White House. the risk to US interests, the chances of success in Iraq and therefore in the first step of this vision, were far higher than trying to turn Iran or Saudi Arabia upside down unilaterally.

    I would also add into consideration that the American intelligence gathering structure remains a mess while the Homeland Security Agency is very far indeed from 100% effectiveness, and that both these major tools in the War on Terror could do with some of the $200b already spent on Iraq.
    The DHS was conceived under the Bush administration.
    Intelligence failures did not begin under the Bush administration.

    while it is a clear Democrat point of campaign, from what basis do you claim that with a Homeland Security is under-funded? bearing in mind the Bush administration has increased projected DHS spending to $40billion.

    Thus I feel that not only is your explanation for the investment in Iraq unproven, it is fundamentally flawed: the US does not yet have the luxury of such grandiose projects.
    i hoped i have shown in it to be quite legitimate.
    the security of the US, and of the western world in general, should not ,was not, is not and will not be considered a luxury.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    So where are the WMD's then?
    the question is in response to what?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the question is in response to what?
    That he lied to the american public.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The weapons of mass destruction, for the most part, are in America. How about America disarm before they force countries with more outdated weapons and less strategic advantages disarm.

    I always felt that Bush was more dangerous than Saddam anyway, because at least Saddam wouldn't hit the proverbial button due to how shiny it was. No offense to anyone who has family out there, but I'm quite pleased the Iraqi people are fighting back, I just wish it was Bush being killed everytime someone lost their life. Possibly **** Cheney, as well. Oh, and Donald Rumsfeld, he is quite possibly the biggest fool in the world. Then again, he only has a few months left in him anyway, before he's hung for war-crimes, if they still prosecute rich people in America...

    The Patriot act, the War on Terror, its also unnecessary. So is this damned war.

    And to whoever said their signature illustrated Kerry's inability to take office, he wasn't the one that fell off of a segway in public. Either way, nothing you mention has anything to do with real politics, so unless you are going to make sensible comments, as Vienna, and several others are, I suggest you don't bother.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is generally aimed at vienna95, but everyone join in, eh!

    Regardless of the aims (or purported aims) of the Bush administration, a more pertinent issue is whether or not the methods of achieving these aims are effective. I would concentrate on arguing that Bushes foreign policy methodology is defective, for the reason it is after all hard pure conjecture that Bush wants anything other than peace in the middle east. Bush has succeeded in not only turning much of the world into vehement opponents of any idea he puts forward, but half the US population itself. He has a polarising effect that is unhelpful at best, this manifests itself through his "you're either with us or against us" attitude. Kerry offers a 'clean slate' for the US on the world stage. The international community will be far more receptive to an idea he puts forward than one Bush would. Four more years of Bush will leave the US isolated, only fuelling anti-American sentiment throughout the world - especially in the middl east.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    That he lied to the american public.
    firstly, the Bush administration outlined a number of intelligence-backed beliefs that Saddam had ongoing and existing WMD knowledge, programs, weaponry, components and resource for their development, quantities of chemical and biological material, laboratories and testing capabilities, not to mention the possibility of nuclear proficiency.

    the UN inspectors and Iraq Survey Group found substantial material evidence to prove some of these claims to be justified, evidence that found Saddam to further in material breach of Resolution 1441.

    secondly, at the present time, the remaining claims of the US/UK appear to be merely that and questions are being asked of the intelligence evidence that they drew belief from. and that is the crucial difference. to lie is to make a claim based on knowledge and belief that runs contrary to your assertion. if i assert to the rest of the forum, to the best of my knowlege, that you are male and this is later revealed as being false, no one would charge me with having 'lied', rather i was mistaken and the grounds for my assertion insufficient. on the other hand, if you tell me you are male, knowing full well that you are not, it would be later revealed that you had lied to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    firstly, the Bush administration outlined a number of intelligence-backed beliefs that Saddam had ongoing and existing WMD knowledge, programs, weaponry, components and resource for their development, quantities of chemical and biological material, laboratories and testing capabilities, not to mention the possibility of nuclear proficiency.

    the UN inspectors and Iraq Survey Group found substantial material evidence to prove some of these claims to be justified, evidence that found Saddam to further in material breach of Resolution 1441.

    secondly, at the present time, the remaining claims of the US/UK appear to be merely that and questions are being asked of the intelligence evidence that they drew belief from. and that is the crucial difference. to lie is to make a claim based on knowledge and belief that runs contrary to your assertion. if i assert to the rest of the forum, to the best of my knowlege, that you are male and this is later revealed as being false, no one would charge me with having 'lied', rather i was mistaken and the grounds for my assertion insufficient. on the other hand, if you tell me you are male, knowing full well that you are not, it would be later revealed that you had lied to me.
    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0518-03.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    This is generally aimed at vienna95, but everyone join in, eh!
    Regardless of the aims (or purported aims) of the Bush administration, a more pertinent issue is whether or not the methods of achieving these aims are effective. I would concentrate on arguing that Bushes foreign policy methodology is defective, for the reason it is after all hard pure conjecture that Bush wants anything other than peace in the middle east.
    conjecture that Bush doesnt want peace in the middle east? from who?

    Bush has succeeded in not only turning much of the world into vehement opponents of any idea he puts forward, but half the US population itself.
    any idea? or specific ideas of combatting that idea? that islamic terrorism exists? that the middle east is wildly lacking in freedom, that Mugabe would be the most democratically legitimate man at an Arab League summit? that international terrorism threatens us all? or that we should go about removing a dictator in a manner suitable to the nations who then oppose his unwillingness to do so?

    He has a polarising effect that is unhelpful at best, this manifests itself through his "you're either with us or against us" attitude.
    i cant view the fight against terrorism in any other way. to ignore terrorism is to appease it. to aid terrorism by not confronting it, is to support it. to not recognise its threat is to allow that threat to grow. even political opponents to the war know which side they are on.

    Kerry offers a 'clean slate' for the US on the world stage. The international community will be far more receptive to an idea he puts forward than one Bush would.
    thats generally acceptable if the US public want to be loved by those who seek to generate a foreign policy around the premise that US power be countered. its mildly tertiary if the US public want a president who considers the overwhelming threat to his nations security, that listening to a specific portion of foreign voices creates.

    Four more years of Bush will leave the US isolated, only fuelling anti-American sentiment throughout the world - especially in the middl east.
    Four more years of Bush will leave the US strengthened by a clear and effective foreign policy rid of the shackles of UN inaction, one dimensional french diplomacy and the most brutal and fantatical regimes in the world being given an international status and authority far beyond the respect that there incompetance and human rights records deserve.

    the same anti-american sentiment that is conveniently applicable to the rest of the infidel world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    this doesnt contradict what i said.

    "Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community."

    "Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    The weapons of mass destruction, for the most part, are in America.
    erm no. America has the largest holding of any single country, but the next 4 countries could double the US stockpile. incidentally, at the turn of millenium, Iraq is on record as having a larger weapons cache than any european country.

    How about America disarm before they force countries with more outdated weapons and less strategic advantages disarm.
    because that would be plain stupidity.

    I always felt that Bush was more dangerous than Saddam anyway, because at least Saddam wouldn't hit the proverbial button due to how shiny it was.
    no idea what you are talking about.

    No offense to anyone who has family out there, but I'm quite pleased the Iraqi people are fighting back, I just wish it was Bush being killed everytime someone lost their life.
    so like Tariq Ali(chair of the Stop The War Coalition) youre pleased coalition troops are dying at the hands of a comparative 'handful' of thugs, while fighting for what the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens want?

    Possibly **** Cheney, as well. Oh, and Donald Rumsfeld, he is quite possibly the biggest fool in the world. Then again, he only has a few months left in him anyway, before he's hung for war-crimes, if they still prosecute rich people in America...
    i can obviously see you take a 'light-hearted' approach to politics, debate, and reason.

    Either way, nothing you mention has anything to do with real politics, so unless you are going to make sensible comments, as Vienna, and several others are, I suggest you don't bother.
    this doctor would prescribe you the very same medicine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    conjecture that Bush doesnt want peace in the middle east? from who?
    From the plenty of people who accuse Bush of being a bloodthirsty tool of the devil? My point was that it's pointless arguing about his aims, it's how he goes about it that matters.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    any idea? or specific ideas of combatting that idea? that islamic terrorism exists? that the middle east is wildly lacking in freedom, that Mugabe would be the most democratically legitimate man at an Arab League summit? that international terrorism threatens us all? or that we should go about removing a dictator in a manner suitable to the nations who then oppose his unwillingness to do so?
    Any idea. People don't want to work with Bush, he has carried grudges beyond the boundaries of different policy areas and so have his politicial opponents. Some parts of the middle may be "wildly lacking in freedom", but then again, so does some aspects of the US. Especially if Bush is left to persue his illiberal, religiously driven, social agenda.

    It's taken the west hundreds of years to develop socially and politically into the 'free democracies' we have today. Only an idiot would believe they could achieve the same using brute force while severely unpopular in the affected region.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    i cant view the fight against terrorism in any other way. to ignore terrorism is to appease it. to aid terrorism by not confronting it, is to support it. to not recognise its threat is to allow that threat to grow. even political opponents to the war know which side they are on.
    His attitude excludes anyone who wants to deal with terrorism in a different way. The warlike rhetoric lends legitimacy to the terrorists when they seek support. Bush has alienated the world over an issue that should be uniting it, that's a pretty big failure.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    thats generally acceptable if the US public want to be loved by those who seek to generate a foreign policy around the premise that US power be countered. its mildly tertiary if the US public want a president who considers the overwhelming threat to his nations security, that listening to a specific portion of foreign voices creates.
    Countries are only producing foreign policy to counter US power as a reaction to Bush's foreign policy. Recent polls in the US would indeed suggest they would indeed prefer a leader who is willing to co-operate with the international community.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    Four more years of Bush will leave the US strengthened by a clear and effective foreign policy rid of the shackles of UN waffle, one dimensional french diplomacy and the most brutal and fantatical regimes in the world being given an international status and authority far beyond the respect that there incompetance and human rights records deserve.

    the same anti-american sentiment that is conveniently applicable to the rest of the infidel world.
    :rolleyes:

    Four more years of ignoring the complexity of the world we live in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Any idea.
    such as those i suggested, ideas that possibly every nation in the developed world agrees with.

    People don't want to work with Bush, he has carried grudges beyond the boundaries of different policy areas and so have his politicial opponents.
    correction, certain countries in Europe dont like working with Bush. any country in the middle east, the pacific rim, africa, asia, oceania bypasses the EU for the US everytime they need their back scratching.
    indeed, the French are hardly innocent of bearing a grudge or ten.

    It's taken the west hundreds of years to develop socially and politically into the 'free democracies' we have today. Only an idiot would believe they could achieve the same using brute force while severely unpopular in the affected region.
    which is not what he intends to do. or is doing.

    His attitude excludes anyone who wants to deal with terrorism in a different way. The warlike rhetoric lends legitimacy to the terrorists when they seek support.
    no, his attitude excludes anyone who wants the US to deal with terrorism in a different way.

    Bush has alienated the world over an issue that should be uniting it, that's a pretty big failure.
    divided the world over the issue of how to remove Saddam. anti-terrorist cooperation is active and effective.

    Countries are only producing foreign policy to counter US power as a reaction to Bush's foreign policy.
    how clued up are you on late 20th century French foreign policy and post colonial angst?

    Recent polls in the US would indeed suggest they would indeed prefer a leader who is willing to co-operate with the international community.
    all the candidates are. kerry just isnt sure yet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    such as those i suggested, ideas that possibly every nation in the developed world agrees with.

    correction, certain countries in Europe dont like working with Bush. any country in the middle east, the pacific rim, africa, asia, oceania bypasses the EU for the US everytime they need their back scratching.
    indeed, the French are hardly innocent of bearing a grudge or ten.

    which is not what he intends to do. or is doing.

    no, his attitude excludes anyone who wants the US to deal with terrorism in a different way.

    divided the world over the issue of how to remove Saddam. anti-terrorist cooperation is active and effective.

    how clued up are you on late 20th century French foreign policy and post colonial angst?

    all the candidates are. kerry just isnt sure yet.
    Lest you forget, the Bush admninistration did their very best to piggy back the Iraq issue on terrorism fears. Iraq war propaganda mustered up just enough support to make the war politically viable for leaders like Blair, but as the days pass support for the war is dwindling. People were convinced that their leaders were confident about the reasons (i.e. WMD) for going to war, and it turns out they were not justified in their confidence. Bush has shown he's willing to act with such force over an issue he couldn't (or shouldn't) be so certain about, this is a dangerous trait. There was no imminence in the so called Iraqi threat. While removing Saddam is admirable enough, you can't have it both ways. The invasion was primarily to protect US interests, benefitting the Iraqi people was only ever a secondary objective with the aim of appeasing opponents to the war.

    Bush's attitude goes well beyond others opinions on how the US should behave (never mind that he ignores such a sizable proportion of Americans over the issue), but covers how others behave. Unless a country is basically subservient to US foreign policy then Bush considers them "against him." His jingoist rhetoric is what produces such a polarising effect.

    If Bush isn't trying to construct democracy in Iraq, whilst severely unpopular, then what is he trying to do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Lest you forget, the Bush admninistration did their very best to piggy back the Iraq issue on terrorism fears.
    that is an opinion based on circumstance. i dont believe you can substantiate that link.

    Iraq war propaganda mustered up just enough support to make the war politically viable for leaders like Blair,
    Blair is known to be the one who was more determined of mind to pursue Iraq. if anything, he convinced Bush.

    People were convinced that their leaders were confident about the reasons (i.e. WMD) for going to war, and it turns out they were not justified in their confidence.
    this claim wouldnt strengthen your particular criticism of the Bush administration though, that being his political bearing in regard to multilateralism and isolation. in fact, it is a criticism of the intelligence services and those who lent their support to the quality of that evidence

    Bush has shown he's willing to act with such force over an issue he couldn't (or shouldn't) be so certain about, this is a dangerous trait.
    what is "such force"? why is it dangerous on such an issue? and do you believe pacifism is equally productive?

    There was no imminence in the so called Iraqi threat. While removing Saddam is admirable enough, you can't have it both ways.
    im not sure what "ways" you are talking about since this is a topic that you are just introducing into our discussion.

    The invasion was primarily to protect US interests, benefitting the Iraqi people was only ever a secondary objective with the aim of appeasing opponents to the war.
    well, for the good of the Iraqis, but yes it was a secondary objective. US National Interest was and should be the primary.

    Bush's attitude goes well beyond others opinions on how the US should behave
    naturally. there are many differing political orientations.

    (never mind that he ignores such a sizable proportion of Americans over the issue),
    are we talking about US foreign policy again or is this now an WoT specific comment? an overwhelming majority of americans supported the war. i dont believe i will find an american who disagrees with the convictions of Bush on the evils of terrorism, the threat it poses and the devastation it can cause.

    but covers how others behave. Unless a country is basically subservient to US foreign policy then Bush considers them "against him." His jingoist rhetoric is what produces such a polarising effect.
    may I have some examples here? on both counts.

    If Bush isn't trying to construct democracy in Iraq, whilst severely unpopular, then what is he trying to do?
    thats what he's doing. i objected to ur perception of his policies in the Middle East as being of "brute force"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    my apologies in advance if this does not relate to you Llamas, but i assume it does.

    if my comments appear obtuse to the extent that they warrant neg rep, then an examination of the post would show it was in reciprocation. to not highlight the particular comment, leave any kind of identification or address the issue in the forum itself is disappointing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    So where are the WMD's then?
    Do you deny that they ever existed?
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.