Turn on thread page Beta

Bush and Ethics watch

Announcements
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    perhaps youd be kind enough to point them out to me.



    im proud, but dont believe that effects the quality of the debate.
    a) you are anti palestine
    and b) do not consider other peoples views abt that situation, it is im right and your wrong.

    and i think it does affect the quality of the debate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    a) you are anti palestine
    im unaware of a situation where i have abused, derogatory, prejudicial, or been inaccurate in the case of the Palestinian people. my views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are strictly political and id like to see any one of my posts that contradicts this.

    and b) do not consider other peoples views abt that situation, it is im right and your wrong.
    hehe, examples? i think you mean, im willing to debate my point until i have exhausted my arguments. i dont find anything wrong with that on a debate forum. i also beg you to find any post where i openly assert that someone elses views are plain wrong, i challenge argument based on fact.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    a) you are anti palestine
    and b) do not consider other peoples views abt that situation, it is im right and your wrong.

    and i think it does affect the quality of the debate
    Oh dear, someone telling Vienna she is wrong. That'll be the day.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    im unaware of a situation where i have abused, derogatory, prejudicial, or been inaccurate in the case of the Palestinian people. my views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are strictly political and id like to see any one of my posts that contradicts this.



    hehe, examples? i think you mean, im willing to debate my point until i have exhausted my arguments. i dont find anything wrong with that on a debate forum. i also beg you to find any post where i openly assert that i someone elses views are wrong, i challenge argument based on fact.
    i believe u once said... i have seen both sides and i do not see how the palestinians want peace!
    i assure you BOTH sides want peace but it is the israeli politicians and the suicide bombers who dont.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    Oh dear, someone telling Vienna she is wrong. That'll be the day.
    oh dear why? is she never wrong?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    oh dear why? is she never wrong?
    Ill leave that up to you. not that we dont treasure Vienna's opinion, its what makes the debate forum interesting. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i.m still undecided about WMD's. Taking a historical example, i think im correct in saying that if you look at post world war one germany, the treaty of versaille imposed strict limits on the German army, navy and developing 'air power' capabilities. when germany did begin to secretly re-arm (date anyone, ive forgotten) years went by with western inspections finding nothing! and this refers to artillery, tanks, and other such weaponry...not biological or chemical weapons which are significantly smaller by comparison.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    Ill leave that up to you. not that we dont treasure Vienna's opinion, its what makes the debate forum interesting. :rolleyes:
    i think its more like vienna thinks shes always right. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    i believe u once said... i have seen both sides and i do not see how the palestinians want peace!
    i assure you BOTH sides want peace but it is the israeli politicians and the suicide bombers who dont.
    if you could quote me that piece, perhaps i could put some context to it. i believe that most palestinian people want peace. that view has never altered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    i think its more like vienna thinks shes always right. :rolleyes:
    i always believe in my arguments.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i always believe in my arguments.
    and so you should... but you should also remain open minded to anyone elses views and take them into consideration
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    and so you should... but you should also remain open minded to anyone elses views and take them into consideration
    i do.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i do.
    no you dont
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I asked for a CREDIBLE source, not some clown that decided to put up a website and make up some numbers. By credible, I mean a respected source. Even the left-leaning CNN or BBC is fine.

    Bush didn't ban the federal funding of stem-cell research. Bush decided to not allow federally funded destruction of embryos to produce stem cells, but instead to allot federal funds for research carried out on the already existing stem cell lines obtained from embryos who had previously been destroyed by the private research sector.
    erm do you know anything about methodolgy? if so i suggest you go back to that site and read how they worked out those numbers instead of relying on propaganda in the US press.

    BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2923203.stm
    read this article and you will notice that the BBC quote the website that zizero stated as an independant source so you might want to apologies to zizero for questioning his source.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    how was he wrong about WMDs?
    well considering the Head of the CIA George Tenet has resigned, the fact that the UN were shown pretty picutures of where the US were hiding its weapons and the fact they still haven't found any would suggest someone was wrong somewhere and Ultimately Bush has got to take some level of repsonsibity for this mistake
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    no you dont
    since im in the ideal position to judge whether in fact i assess each opinion on its merits, and by default this would have to be assumed, it is for you to prove otherwise. i appreciate your opinion, but in this case i believe it to be unfounded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    well considering the Head of the CIA George Tenet has resigned, the fact that the UN were shown pretty picutures of where the US were hiding its weapons and the fact they still haven't found any would suggest someone was wrong somewhere and Ultimately Bush has got to take some level of repsonsibity for this mistake
    why? george bush is not in charge of intelligence. he accepts the advice and information that intelligence agencies provide him with and makes a judgement based on that and a number of other factors. that judgement, to go to war in iraq, has yet to be proved wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    since im in the ideal position to judge whether in fact i assess each opinion on its merits, and by default this would have to be assumed, it is for you to prove otherwise. i appreciate your opinion, but in this case i believe it to be unfounded.
    many people disagree with ur views. one day u might just realise and understand why!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    why? george bush is not in charge of intelligence. he accepts the advice and information that intelligence agencies provide him with and makes a judgement based on that and a number of other factors. that judgement, to go to war in iraq, has yet to be proved wrong.
    but then again saddam is innocent until proven guilty.
    no WMD.... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    why? george bush is not in charge of intelligence. he accepts the advice and information that intelligence agencies provide him with and makes a judgement based on that and a number of other factors. that judgement, to go to war in iraq, has yet to be proved wrong.
    hm i think you can anylsis whether it was wrong on two levels, as a politic one and as a moral/legal decision.

    politically if Bush loses the election then it will of been the wrong decision

    Yes he accepts the intelligence and makes decisions on it however I think the whole administration was a little to keen to believe what they wanted to hear was right and then seriously question what they didnt want to hear. I know you are going to ask for some evidence for this view and in truth I cannot give a single source, i will look for one for a bit if it helps however its just an impression I have got from readind the press talking about the intelligence before the war.

    I think he does have some responsiblity, say the war was illegal i dont think that you can place that blame totally at the door of the intelliigence community. In the same way if a child behaves badly its mother is at fault too, I think the same is prehaps true where. I am not saying Bush is solely to blame or should resign or anything like that, just that some of the blame for going to war on the belief that there were WMD's there is his.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.