Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Padfoot, what does that article have to do with lying? Saying that some of information may have been wrong and lying are two different things.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    This is going to be a close election. According to an Associated Press analysis of state polls, John Kerry is trailing Bush in electoral votes.
    There are three months left and it looks like Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia for 193 electoral votes. Bush has 25 states, equalling 217 votes
    Whoever wins 270 votes first wins the election because that gives a candidate the majority. There are 11 toss-up states, worth 128 electoral votes, so anything is possible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna.

    Firslty, I do not believe it has been proven that the vast majority of Iraqis want this 'war of freedom', definitely not with the pain and suffering that has been caused.

    Secondly, I believe it is highly ironic that you question my ability to discuss and reason, when all you seem to do is come back with holier than thou, and personal responses, in some childish attempt to make yourself seem superior.

    I don't give a damn if you have a billion posts, or if you are older than I am, it makes you no more politically aware, proven by your ignorant allegiance to failing American Republicanism.

    Please stop insulting those who have opposite views, I find it most immature. If anyone gives you negative rep, whatever that matters, you probably do deserve it. If I knew how to, I would give you some for your unfair comments to me.

    Check yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    Secondly, I believe it is highly ironic that you question my ability to discuss and reason, when all you seem to do is come back with holier than thou, and personal responses, in some childish attempt to make yourself seem superior.
    hehe, on the contrary, i pointed out the irony that you should preach about real political debate and sensible comments and yet make the following 'points',

    "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."

    "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... "

    if you care to illustrate the sensible, poltical comments there.

    I don't give a damn if you have a billion posts, or if you are older than I am, it makes you no more politically aware, proven by your ignorant allegiance to failing American Republicanism.
    an interesting and highly subjective assertion. none of which can be remotely or coherently linked to my person.

    Please stop insulting those who have opposite views, I find it most immature. If anyone gives you negative rep, whatever that matters, you probably do deserve it. If I knew how to, I would give you some for your unfair comments to me.

    Check yourself.
    id be interested to see the evidence from which you claim that i insulted fellow members.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    that is an opinion based on circumstance. i dont believe you can substantiate that link.

    Blair is known to be the one who was more determined of mind to pursue Iraq. if anything, he convinced Bush.

    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

    what is "such force"? why is it dangerous on such an issue? and do you believe pacifism is equally productive?

    im not sure what "ways" you are talking about since this is a topic that you are just introducing into our discussion.

    well, for the good of the Iraqis, but yes it was a secondary objective. US National Interest was and should be the primary.

    naturally. there are many differing political orientations.

    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.

    may I have some examples here? on both counts.

    thats what he's doing. i objected to ur perception of his policies in the Middle
    East as being of "brute force"
    http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...ush.speech.ap/

    The president offered a broad new defense of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq three days after the release of a Senate report that harshly criticized unsubstantiated intelligence cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq, a crucial battle in the war on terrorism.
    Iraq and the war on terror are inseparable. It's now known that intelligence services were far from a consensus of opinion on the threat Iraq posed. The Bush administration cherry picked what intelligence suited them and forgot to take the pinch of salt that's always needed when the information may not be entirely reliable. Bush rejected multilateralism when he refused to wait, Blair may have been a staunch supporter of removing Saddam but if he had been running the show then he would have waited longer. I know that the majority of Americans supported the war, along with a much smaller majority of the British, but that support was based on half-truths.

    If you object to my interpretation of an invasion and the subsequent occupation as brute force then I apologise, but that's how I see it. Considering the rising death tolls that seem unlikely to abate any time soon I fail to see how you can come to any other conclusion. It was wrong to invade in the interests of the US, any invasion should have been primarily for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If you accept acting in the interests of the US as a primary motive, one which justifies actions, then you are rejecting a moral base for decision making.

    Again, let me reiterate one point. No one is disagreeing with the idea that terrorism is bad, nor is anyone saying Saddam was a fantastic guy. The issue is how Bush does things.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT.../24/poll.iraq/

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to that country.

    Fifty-four percent of those polled said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, compared with 41 percent who expressed that sentiment in early June.

    Most respondents to the poll, 55 percent, also said they don't believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism -- rejecting an argument that President Bush has repeatedly advanced in his rationale for the war.
    It seems the American people are agreeing with me, the 'anyone but Bush' vote will spell victory for Kerry. The American people don't want a reckless president anymore.


    (Original post by vienna95)
    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.
    Eh? Nothing to do with me. You're not obtuse anyhow, just wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what is this supposed to be in relation to? all the points i make in that quote?


    Iraq and the war on terror are inseparable. It's now known that intelligence services were far from a consensus of opinion on the threat Iraq posed. The Bush administration cherry picked what intelligence suited them and forgot to take the pinch of salt that's always needed when the information may not be entirely reliable. Bush rejected multilateralism when he refused to wait,
    Bush went to the UN twice, but would not sacrifice America's right to act for the national interest of other nations. he also built a coalition of some 30+ countries. this is multilateralism at its most feasible.

    Blair may have been a staunch supporter of removing Saddam but if he had been running the show then he would have waited longer.
    why? his convictions were built around the importance of the UN, twice he tried to make agreement with the opposing nations in order to secure a second resolution. Blair was the one who assured Bush that the UN route was 'dead' when the french went back on the 'agreement' made to Powell and Straw.

    I know that the majority of Americans supported the war, along with a much smaller majority of the British, but that support was based on half-truths.
    you just keep moving the goalposts. the majority of americans supported the war, contrary to your original assertion that the War on terror was a fiercely contentious issue.

    If you object to my interpretation of an invasion and the subsequent occupation as brute force then I apologise, but that's how I see it.
    i dont, but our scope was the Middle East, not just Iraq. would you assert that brute force was order of the day in the Palestine-Israel conflict? in Saudi Arabia? in Pakistan? in Libya? in Iran?

    Considering the rising death tolls that seem unlikely to abate any time soon I fail to see how you can come to any other conclusion. It was wrong to invade in the interests of the US, any invasion should have been primarily for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If you accept acting in the interests of the US as a primary motive, one which justifies actions, then you are rejecting a moral base for decision making.

    bearing in mind you recognise that the 'Iraq and the war on terror are inseparable', the war on terror must therefore be wrong as it puts the interests of the american people before all other.

    there is a moral consideration in the protection of american lives. the emphasis on morality should be tempered with political considerations and responsibility to which a President is elected.


    Again, let me reiterate one point. No one is disagreeing with the idea that terrorism is bad, nor is anyone saying Saddam was a fantastic guy. The issue is how Bush does things.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT.../24/poll.iraq/
    but you havent actually demonstrated what exactly about the way he does things is a) bad b) wrong c) which way he does them.

    It seems the American people are agreeing with me, the 'anyone but Bush' vote will spell victory for Kerry. The American people don't want a reckless president anymore.
    we'll see, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck so i dont see it as clear cut and certainly not a situation from which i should begin to ask questions of my own rationality and the standpoint to which i have reached.

    You're not obtuse anyhow, just wrong.
    yet unsubstantiated judgement of that standpoint continues unabated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by v for vendetta)
    what is this supposed to be in relation to? all the points i make in that quote?

    Bush went to the UN twice, but would not sacrifice America's right to act for the national interest of other nations. he also built a coalition of some 30+ countries. this is multilateralism at its most feasible.

    why? his convictions were built around the importance of the UN, twice he tried to make agreement with the opposing nations in order to secure a second resolution. Blair was the one who assured Bush that the UN route was 'dead' when the french went back on the 'agreement' made to Powell and Straw.

    you just keep moving the goalposts. the majority of americans supported the war, contrary to your original assertion that the War on terror was a fiercely contentious issue.

    i dont, but our scope was the Middle East, not just Iraq. would you assert that brute force was order of the day in the Palestine-Israel conflict? in Saudi Arabia? in Pakistan? in Libya? in Iran?

    there is a moral consideration in the protection of american lives. the emphasis on morality should be tempered with political considerations and responsibility to which a President is elected.

    but you havent actually demonstrated what exactly about the way he does things is a) bad b) wrong c) which way he does them.

    we'll see, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Bush and Kerry are neck and neck so i dont see it as clear cut and certainly not a situation from which i should begin to ask questions of my own rationality and the standpoint to which i have reached.

    yet unsubstantiated judgement of that standpoint continues unabated.
    Bush went to the UN, and when it didn't roll over he did it his way. That's not an act which values the importance of the UN. The opposing nations wanted more time before an invasion was launched, there was no need to invade as soon as they did. I'm not moving the goal posts, you're just misreading my posts. For much of the world the war in Iraq was a controversial issue. Now it's controversial in the US aswell, in fact, the majority of Americans now think it was a bad idea.

    With regards to US policy in the middle east, Iraq was a clear use of brute force. The US provides protection for Israel to carry out it's violent policies (not that the Palestinians have done any better) and it's pretty clear what the US would like to do with Iran.

    Wherever feasible Bush will use force as his method of achieving his goals. He is only restrained by the fact that while the US has a lot of power, its power is not absolute.

    I'm not entirely sure how you think I'm going to demonstrate that Bush is wrong to you, when we seem to have fundamental disagreements over what right and wrong actually are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Bush went to the UN, and when it didn't roll over he did it his way. That's not an act which values the importance of the UN.
    no. but it doesnt suggest he didnt attempt to be multilateral in his actions, which is what you asserted and i contested.

    The opposing nations wanted more time before an invasion was launched,
    the French position was to refuse any resolution where specific action was detailed. Iraq was found to be in material breach of 1441. if the French valued the importance of the UN they would adhere to its will and not reject resolutions based on their interests.

    there was no need to invade as soon as they did. I'm not moving the goal posts, you're just misreading my posts. For much of the world the war in Iraq was a controversial issue. Now it's controversial in the US aswell, in fact, the majority of Americans now think it was a bad idea.
    so when did Bush "not listen" to the american people as you claimed?

    With regards to US policy in the middle east, Iraq was a clear use of brute force. The US provides protection for Israel to carry out it's violent policies (not that the Palestinians have done any better)
    protection? the Bush administration is the most pro-Palestinian, pro-peace US admin that this region has witnessed.

    if diplomatic conditions arent met.

    Wherever feasible Bush will use force as his method of achieving his goals. He is only restrained by the fact that while the US has a lot of power, its power is not absolute.
    you fail to consider the other countries that I cited where US power is being used diplomatically, add to that its involvement in diffusing the tensions amongst the Korean nations and Japan.

    I'm not entirely sure how you think I'm going to demonstrate that Bush is wrong to you, when we seem to have fundamental disagreements over what right and wrong actually are.
    probably.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by v for vendetta)
    no. but it doesnt suggest he didnt attempt to be multilateral in his actions, which is what you asserted and i contested.
    the French position was to refuse any resolution where specific action was detailed. Iraq was found to be in material breach of 1441. if the French valued the importance of the UN they would adhere to its will and not reject resolutions based on their interests.
    so when did Bush "not listen" to the american people as you claimed?
    protection? the Bush administration is the most pro-Palestinian, pro-peace US admin that this region has witnessed.
    if diplomatic conditions arent met.
    you fail to consider the other countries that I cited where US power is being used diplomatically, add to that its involvement in diffusing the tensions amongst the Korean nations and Japan.
    probably.
    is that vienna? if so why did you change?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    is that vienna? if so why did you change?
    see the 'vienna95 account' thread in the About UKL forum. feel free to broadcast this issue around, certain quarters appear intent on slowing its impact.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    oooh that's bad what *******s changing your password...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by v for vendetta)
    see the 'vienna95 account' thread in the About UKL forum. feel free to broadcast this issue around, certain quarters appear intent on slowing its impact.
    What happened?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by v for vendetta)
    see the 'vienna95 account' thread in the About UKL forum. feel free to broadcast this issue around, certain quarters appear intent on slowing its impact.
    Which quarter is that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Do you deny that they ever existed?
    I dont know if they. Bush seemed to think there was plenty of evidence, and now, months later, nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    I dont know if they. Bush seemed to think there was plenty of evidence, and now, months later, nothing.
    Who is "they?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Who is "they?"
    I believe he is referring to the WMDs. He is right, both Bush and Blair stated widely that there were WMDs and that there was a great deal of evidence of them. Now they come up shorthanded.

    Something tells me the coalition was a little hasty. I personally feel they should have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job. How does Bush expect support when his actions are not only unilateral, but unprecedented in their stupidity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Who is "they?"
    Where did i say that? :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    John Kerry sounds like Eeyore out of Winnie the Pooh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    I believe he is referring to the WMDs. He is right, both Bush and Blair stated widely that there were WMDs and that there was a great deal of evidence of them. Now they come up shorthanded.

    Something tells me the coalition was a little hasty. I personally feel they should have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job. How does Bush expect support when his actions are not only unilateral, but unprecedented in their stupidity.
    What are WMDs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    John Kerry sounds like Eeyore out of Winnie the Pooh
    lol, except Eeyore is cute!
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.