Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    i believe it is

    "http://www.IbelieveEverythingIReadHearO rSee.com/AsLongAsImNotTheOneBeingKilledID ontGiveAShit/IAmLivingProofThatPropogandaAndC ensorshipWork/"
    i have no idea what you are talking about.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i have no idea what you are talking about.
    thats the link he gave you when he said that "dont you write for this?"

    But he fked up the posting
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok I've edited the formatting of the whole post now. Sorry about the delay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    --------- I didn't say it shouldn't affect foreign policy. If Bin Laden was responsible for it, I haven't got a problem with Bush trying to find him and his followers.
    but you do have a problem with Bush watching states and groups that openly threaten the US and are known to have links to terrorist cells?

    "dictators like Saddam were entertaining the very same terrorists who drove planes into the twin towers" -- Wrong.. (proof that propoganda works)
    propaganda? how about some more....

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103176,00.html
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...4/wterr114.xml
    you clearly arent keeping up with developments.

    --------If the reason for invading Iraq and killing many innocent people was to "stabilise..." I put it to you that Bush has made things HIGHLY UN-stable by invading Iraq. I'd say the chances of a repeat of Sep 11th have probably trebled because of it. Also, there are much worse dictatorships in this world so why didn't Bush eliminate those before Iraq's?
    I suppose Iraq was just nearer ay? Or maybe it was the oil....
    no one, even the most harden liberal or democrat raises the oil issue because there clearly isnt one. and if there was, so what.
    theres nothing unstable about shutting down vast parts of a terrorist network that has threatened similar attacks and acheived nothing in those states that have taken action. its a typical 'European' response to believe that if we ignore it, it'll all go away. not in our back yard, please.


    "as did the French, Germans, Russians, the Chinese."

    --------------Whats your point? They're guilty to.

    "they were fighting the small matter of the Cold War. you may not have been aware of this mainly because the US was protecting our and the rest of Europes asses. it was commonplace to aid opposition leaders who were willing to fight against communist states. "

    -------------Rape is commonplace but it doesn't make it right.

    whats your point?
    rape is morally and legally wrong. protecting your country, allies and civilisation is the primary objective of any head of state. theyre unequatable, for me at least..


    --My point is that America gave Bin Laden and Saddam W.O.M.D and then went to war with Saddam because they thought he "might" have W.O.M.D. Even though it turns out that there aren't any. Doh!
    i dont think you have to be too sharp to work out that it wasnt the material issue of ownership...

    "are they the same 40% of the country that were against the war? of which a considerable number actively protested?"

    -----------No it's the other 60% (majority) *rolls eyes...*
    im sorry, your point(if it indeed was one) just disappeared into obscurity.

    get away with what? capturing Saddam? bringing freedom to Iraq? protecting his country? protecting jobs?

    """enjoying economic growth of over 7%? it is no coincedence that he will be re-elected in 2004."""

    ----------economic growth exactly. You've just defeated your own argument. Actually it's not your argument. It's the views you've been spoonfed by Bush..
    you said "I think Bush could do just about whatever he wanted and as long as he made it sound like a speech from the movies and Pro-American he'd get away with it"

    i stated that it was more to do with the fact that Americans appreciate his policies and his actions. or are you saying that the US did not forecast 7.2% annual GDP?

    "let me guess these american friends agree with you? slightly arrogant, no?"

    ------------I haven't asked them. What is slightly arrogant?
    if someone disagrees with you theyre wrong.

    "and on what grand and trusted grounds do you judge a nations intelligence?"

    -------------I read between the lines.
    I watch video footage of a propoganda speech from Bush and his supporters and see the truths behind it all. I listen to comments of American people about these wars. "We've got him..." "we're gonna flush him out.." "no-body hurts the U.S.A and gets away with it."
    I see facts like only 40% of the USA were against the war.
    "we've got him". thats because they did. "we're gonna flush him out", because they did. only around 40% of this country was against the war.
    the truths??
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    now thats what I like about vienna, she always answers every question. nothing is missed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    now thats what I like about vienna, she always answers every question. nothing is missed
    if he was right then i wouldnt need to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok Vienna I could argue back at your last response and it would go on all night but I doubt we'd reach any agreement. Your for the war, I'm against it. I respect your opinion, though I don't agree with it. I simply posted my views on this topic and am glad other people can read them.

    I will never agree on the murder of the innocent civillians. If America can obtain his DNA they should have been able to kill him without invading. I don't agree that their reasons for going to war in the first place were just. I am against Saddam but don't support capital punishment. When I watch Bush I feel as though I'm watching a schoolkid. I can see right through him. I am confident that his actions will sadly come back to haunt Americans over the next ten years.
    I feel anger towards the USA and I'm living in England. I can't imagine how I'd feel if i was living in Iraq and he'd just killed my parents.

    If I thought Bush's reasons for going to war and the capture of Saddam were all going to bring down terorrism I'd be ecstatic. However I believe that the American Government are the worst and most dangerous terrorists in the world. Their apparent but false Righteousness makes them extremely dangerous.

    I predicted those articles you just highlighted ages ago. The link was inevitable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nufctillidie)
    If I thought Bush's reasons for going to war and the capture of Saddam were all going to bring down terorrism I'd be ecstatic. However I believe that the American Government are the worst and most dangerous terrorists in the world. Their apparent but false Righteousness makes them extremely dangerous.

    I predicted those articles you just highlighted ages ago. The link was inevitable.
    dangerous to who? how on earth are the americans dangerous?

    next youll be telling me the soviet cold war threat went away by itself.

    there is a threat and its not going to go away. if i was an American taxpayer i would want to Bush to stop funding a western defence policy while everyone else preaches righteous ******** and reduces military spending. the world may get more dangerous, but you'll never experience it because youve got George to thank.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    if he was right then i wouldnt need to.
    I thought it was arrogant to assume that only your own views are right?
    I am not alone in believing that this war was wrong.
    Ask the Pope.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dangerous because they assume they can do whatever they want.
    They have shown that they will go against the UN and go against the Geneva convention. They have respect for no rules other than their own.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nufctillidie)
    I thought it was arrogant to assume that only your own views are right?
    but questioning others isnt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nufctillidie)
    Dangerous because they assume they can do whatever they want.
    They have shown that they will go against the UN and go against the Geneva convention. They have respect for no rules other than their own.
    and what is the UN and Geneva Convention?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I predicted those articles you just highlighted ages ago. The link was inevitable
    hehe, so why walk yourself into a hole.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Even though to a Bush Loyalist the UN is a waste of time, I'm sure you still know what it is. Check un.org for more details

    The geneva convention, to be precise is an agreement concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. I was referring more specifically to Guantanamo bay. If US soldiers were being treated this way in Britain Bush would be going nuts. Tosser.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, so why walk yourself into a hole.
    By the term link I didn't mean Hyper-link.
    I was referring to the way in which Bush and his propoganda machine would link invading Iraq to Sep 11th in an attempt to justify it.

    The "captured" Saddam could appear on TV tomorrow claiming that he orchestrated the whole thing (sep 11th) and I still wouldn't believe it for the reasons mentioned in my first post.

    So I'm hardly going to believe an article from "Fox" or a British paper...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nufctillidie)
    Even though to a Bush Loyalist the UN is a waste of time, I'm sure you still know what it is. Check un.org for more details

    The geneva convention, to be precise is an agreement concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. I was referring more specifically to Guantanamo bay. If US soldiers were being treated this way in Britain Bush would be going nuts. Tosser.
    i am aware of what they are, i wanted to know what you believed them to be. but since youve descended into mindless abuse ill leave it there..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nufctillidie)
    By the term link I didn't mean Hyper-link.
    I was referring to the way in which Bush and his propoganda machine would link invading Iraq to Sep 11th in an attempt to justify it.

    The "captured" Saddam could appear on TV tomorrow claiming that he orchestrated the whole thing (sep 11th) and I still wouldn't believe it for the reasons mentioned in my first post.

    So I'm hardly going to believe an article from "Fox" or a British paper...
    im aware of what you meant.
    so these reporters fabricated the memo, intelligence and then lied when they said that the US administration were playing down concrete links..?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tosser was directed at Bush.

    I'd love to keep discussing this but I've got to go out to work.
    Thanks for arguing my points I've found it enlightening..
    Maybe try reading this

    http://www.socialjustice.catholic.or...048031242.html

    It's written by people who's only motivation is the sanctity of life and making sure we do the right thing. They have no reason to be biased.

    peace...

 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.