Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Bush and Ethics watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    fine :rolleyes:
    but facts are based on opinions!
    a fact either exists or it does not. it is a fact that france is bigger in land mass than england. how is that based on opinion? it is based on the real, the actual. its an empirical statement not a judgement of reason
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    a fact either exists or it does not. it is a fact that france is bigger in land mass than england. how is that based on opinion? it is based on the real, the actual. its an empirical statement not a judgement of reason
    lets go back a bit... arent the french borders based on opinions? where they are or where they should be etc etc
    facts are still based on opinions!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    lets go back a bit... arent the french borders based on opinions? where they are or where they should be etc etc
    facts are still based on opinions!
    where the french border is, according officially to the French government is one fact
    where the border is according to another source is another fact.

    the opinion is which of these facts you choose to apply to your argument or to be most suitable in your eyes.

    it is a fact that i exist. no amount of opinion can pre-define that. opinion only applies to how you define my existence, define me in terms of facts.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    where the french border is, according officially to the French government is one fact
    where the border is according to another source is another fact.

    the opinion is which of these facts you choose to apply to your argument or in to be most accurate in your eyes.

    it is a fact that i exist. no amount of opinion can pre-define that. opinion only applies to how you define my existence, define me in terms of facts.
    actually to me u dont really exist
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    actually to me u dont really exist
    thus your reference, "you", makes little sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    thus your reference, "you", makes little sense.
    some people will choose to agree u exist others wont...
    why are u getting so frustrated anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    some people will choose to agree u exist others wont...
    but that does not mean the 'fact' that i exist is based on their opinion. merely that one person is wrong and the other right.

    why are u getting so frustrated anyway?
    hehe, what gave you that impression? i enjoy this!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but that does not mean the 'fact' that i exist is based on their opinion. merely that one person is wrong and the other right.



    hehe, what gave you that impression? i enjoy this!
    you seem to take verything so seriously!
    we are just discussing something very pathetic!
    i believe that all facts are based on opinions
    you believe otherwise!
    both opinions, none are facts!
    i gotta go have lunch! cya round! :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kriztinae)
    you seem to take verything so seriously!
    we are just discussing something very pathetic!
    why bother if thats how u feel?

    i believe that all facts are based on opinions
    unless you are talking about a disbelief in materialism, this is a thoroughly disagreeable statement. but if you want that as ur opinion fine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna you've got to stop tearing peoples arguments apart....it makes us too scared to post
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Vienna you've got to stop tearing peoples arguments apart....it makes us too scared to post
    but i love you guys!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I spent about half an hour the other day coming up with a really clever argument bout something (think it was bout Bush and the war on terror and you tore it apart with one sentence....i cried myself to sleep!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    I spent about half an hour the other day coming up with a really clever argument bout something (think it was bout Bush and the war on terror and you tore it apart with one sentence....i cried myself to sleep!!!
    that is so sweet and very funny
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    The very act of mentioning Hussein, after Stalin and Hitler (although making reference to a watershed) invites comparison.
    not particuarly. the statement reads "since Hitler and Stalin", implying they were more evil and thus defining the time period.

    Did I not make it clear, by reference to the perpetrators (note the plural) of the Rwandan genocide, that no single person was 'to blame'? Indeed, in terms of genocide and the like, in virtually all instances, responsibility cannot be pinned on the head of one person. It would be ridiculous to think that Stalin and Hitler were single handedly responsible for such largescale programmes of torture and butchery.
    precisely. the nature of the Rwandan conflict was far different, fought on a footing of tribal warfare and not the result of a single political mastermind.

    Milosevic was merely a reference point and although his crimes were against peoples extraneous to Serbia, you cannot dispute the fact that the bloodshed which he instituted was on a much greater scale than in Iraq.
    i disagree. Milosevic's alleged war crimes were committed over a 3-4 month period in a war zone. i find it hard to see how bloodshed directly attributable to him during this period(bearing in mind there are dozens more of his subordinates also indicted for war crimes that he was not responsible for) can be compared to a decade long regime of continual brutality.

    Saddam may come to be remembered in history for many things, but being a prolific abuser and killer of men should not be one of them.
    should not!!!??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    I spent about half an hour the other day coming up with a really clever argument bout something (think it was bout Bush and the war on terror and you tore it apart with one sentence....i cried myself to sleep!!!
    im deeply moved..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    May I ask you something vienna?
    What do you believe was the greatest factor in deciding to go to war with Iraq?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    May I ask you something vienna?
    What do you believe was the greatest factor in deciding to go to war with Iraq?
    the threat provided by terrorists who acquire a source of nuclear, biological or nuclear weaponry.

    and more so in the case of Bush, to treat terrorism at its source.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    that is so sweet and very funny
    thanx...you've made me smile through the flood of tears
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the threat provided by terrorists who acquire a source of nuclear, biological or nuclear weaponry.

    and more so in the case of Bush, to treat terrorism at its source.
    the terrorists are far more likely to aquire weapons from countires like pakistan/north korea and former soviet bloc countries than they ever were from Iraq

    and the Bush would be better for invading Saudia Arabia or Iran or Pakistan if he wanted to stop terror at its source so i find this line reasoning rather strange
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    the terrorists are far more likely to aquire weapons from countires like pakistan/north korea and former soviet bloc countries than they ever were from Iraq

    and the Bush would be better for invading Saudia Arabia or Iran or Pakistan if he wanted to stop terror at its source so i find this line reasoning rather strange
    which is why North Korea was also on the axis of evil. i also disagree that North Korea and Pakistan would more likely to trade. Pakistan has greater accountability for its weapons program and had been cooperating with the US since 9/11. it and North Korea were entirely different ball games. bearing in mind UN intellgence showed his nuclear capabilities to be both developed and unaccounted for, there was a need to act in this case to enforce the number of resolutions against Iraq in this sense. Saddam had by far the most contact with Al-Qaeda cells, although Pakistan in my mind is far more of a problem in terms of the terrorist threat alone, to which you allude.

    the reason to invade Iraq was, however, a combination of factors. the primary threat as outlined above, that Iraq also shared with neighbouring countries, but uniquely the ease at which Saddam could be removed and a moderate democracy created that would marginalise fanatical terror. this is the long-term vision of Bush, whereby a democratic and progressive middle-east will stem the appeal of terrorism. Iraq was ideal in every sense, not least politically.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.