Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:

    The same applies to Kennedy, yet no-one seems to have a problem with him.
    Well Kennedy isn't currently affecting my life so i don't really care.

    he wanted to provoke the reaction you are displaying now: Blame the Saudi Royal family.
    I'm not blaming Saudi Royal family, i just wanted the FBI to get the time they wanted questioning people, as opposed to having them flown away by order of Bush.

    Bin Laden is not part of the Saudi Royal family.
    Oops.. slip of the mind... i was tired.

    Granted. His spin-campaign was dishonest. But then again, this does not make him any different from other US presidents.
    Ok, spin: fine, but out right lying (e.g. asserting "We Know this man has ties to Al-Qaeda") is NOT fine. That is a lie. Just like All the WMD lies.

    You don't know the actual reason for going to war. You only know what he said the reason was.
    By the above do you mean that it is ok for a democraticly elected leader to go to war on a "personal" or "private" motive?

    He said weapons. He must stick to weapons. (though he’s done splendidly changing it to "liberating the people of iraq")

    The fact that he went to war without public backing (if what you say is true; I'd like to see some sources) is, if anything, a sign of brave leadership.
    Ok well I read it briefly and what I stated was a minor twist and applies to Kansas:

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/kansascitystar/5361557.htm

    AND it also applies to the nation if Bush does not seek a final Security Council vote: 47% support

    Even the 54% support with out UN backing isn’t good:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm



    Yep, that's true. But again, that's the kind of thing any US president (indeed any politician who wants to survive) does, when it turns out he was wrong.

    What's wrong with that? Would you like Reagan to have attacked the USSR??
    (Original post by Me)
    And if the ruling monster has been US backed, then f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed.

    What exactly are you referring to here? May I remind you that Saddam was initially US-backed, yet eventually, the US did not say: "f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed."
    Well I wasn’t refering to Saddam there. But may I point out that the USA was looking for a reason to attack Saddam ever since he really p*ssed them off by invading Kuwait (= threat to US oil in a general way) resulting in US Troops in Saudi Arabia and walking on Holy land as such. Which is what Osama disliked rather a lot also.

    Up till then you were quite happy to supply him with Anthrax and botulonium (it’s a nice healthy military style read, but the proof is there.)

    http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/report/report_toc.htm

    The monsters I was reffering to would include Pol Pot:

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/polpot.htm



    And here’s a good allround article about the US "liberating" other nations. Take note it’s amazing 20% success rate at installing democracy:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p01s03-usmi.html



    (Original post by Me)
    f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed.
    BTW, doesn't the attitude you're describing here, apply better to the French (Bush-bashers-in-chief)?
    Err.. you heard of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Well, to me that seems a lot like "f*ck freedom and liberty" An act you can’t even read without every other law made at hand is bad enough. But from various decypherings I’ve come across, it essentially empowers Aschcroft and bush to just do whatever they want by mentioning the words "Terrorism" and "Suspected" (Oh, except look into your gun purchasing records… a terrorist is still entitled to a gun:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D11F63E580C 758CDDAB0994D9404482 )



    Oh and while you visit all these links why not check out how awful the french are by reminding yourself of how the USA was founded:

    http://www.time.com/time/2003/franklin/bffrance.html


    True, the oil is a nice side-effect for the US now the war is over, but you can't seriously pretend that it was the reason to go to war in the first place.
    Should I laugh or cry… I don’t know. Even if the war is officially over and it’s a peace keeping mission now, are you telling me these people are liberated? (I’ll laugh if you do, really) Iraq could carry on fighting within it’s self for the next 50 years god knows… that’s not liberty.

    Oil is not a side effect… the US should get no oil whatsoever from iraq, and US companies should not get 60%+ of the contracts for rebuilding and oil related things… but they will, ofcourse… even if it’s not very obvious.

    OK I ADMIT ITS NOT JUST OIL IT’S ALL ABOUT CHENEYS PNAC (Project for a new American Century)

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

    P.s. The chimp analogy was funny, when I hadn't heard it a million times already.
    ^^ I’ve got some brilliant photo comparisons they’re so amazing and life like



    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spring_Ryder)
    Oh, gosh, I have now sparked off the birth of a political novel.
    Yes, yes you have, i've added my second installment.

    It's simple, a lot of people are feeling that same unease towards the US at the moment, they are worried about what is going to happen.

    Fine it may just all pass. But the US is a very young country it needs time to mature and has not been through the typical "Empire Stage". Most of the world has been there at one time or another, but unfortunatly no country learns from the failures of the empires of the past. So there is certain cause for concern especially when bearing in mind Cheney and PNAC.

    No i'm not saying that the US public wants anything like this. They are a generally pleasant and nice lot (judging by ones i've met) but there are people with power who do want such things. They have the universal reason: "terrorism" and they have already started using that to tear freedom and rights away from people (e.g. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act)

    Rights are never taken all at once, they get dissolved over time, and then there you are. F*cked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spc_K)
    Fine it may just all pass. But the US is a very young country it needs time to mature and has not been through the typical "Empire Stage".
    As Oscar Wilde put it, 'America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, spin: fine, but out right lying (e.g. asserting "We Know this man has ties to Al-Qaeda") is NOT fine. That is a lie. Just like All the WMD lies.
    When did he say that? Source?

    If I am not mistaken (but I'm not too sure about this), he never actually said there were ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. His spin-machine only tried (successfully) to give that impression. So, it was not outright lying, but mere spin-doctoring.

    By the above do you mean that it is ok for a democraticly elected leader to go to war on a "personal" or "private" motive?

    He said weapons. He must stick to weapons. (though he’s done splendidly changing it to "liberating the people of iraq")
    No.

    You pretended you knew the actual reasons he had for going to war. I corrected you. That does not mean I approve of these reasons if indeed they were not made public.

    However, they may be legitimate. For example, it is possible that the main reason for going to war was an ambition to reshape the Middle-East in a democratic fashion by creating a democratic model in Iraq.
    Now, that would have been difficult to sell to the population, because it is based on rather abstract geostrategic thinking.

    Yet, although it would have been difficult to sell, it is not NECESSARILY unjustified.

    BTW, a leader can do something without publically giving the real reason, without that motive being "private" or "personal".

    Ok well I read it briefly and what I stated was a minor twist and applies to Kansas:

    [/size][/font]http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/kansascitystar/5361557.htm

    AND it also applies to the nation if Bush does not seek a final Security Council vote: 47% support

    Even the 54% support with out UN backing isn’t good:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

    "About two-thirds say U.N. support is desirable but not necessary if the United States has the support of other countries such as Australia, Britain and Spain, according to an ABC poll."

    Your Kansas Star poll is not really a good indicator. All the figures that apply solely to Kansas obviously bear very little relevance to the issue at hand, and the national figures are challenged by other polls, as the article itself indicates.

    The ABC poll would suggest that he DID have public support for his actions. Don't forget, the US did not go it alone.


    Yep, that's true. But again, that's the kind of thing any US president (indeed any politician who wants to survive) does, when it turns out he was wrong.

    Well I wasn’t refering to Saddam there. But may I point out that the USA was looking for a reason to attack Saddam ever since he really p*ssed them off by invading Kuwait (= threat to US oil in a general way) resulting in US Troops in Saudi Arabia and walking on Holy land as such. Which is what Osama disliked rather a lot also.

    Up till then you were quite happy to supply him with Anthrax and botulonium (it’s a nice healthy military style read, but the proof is there.)
    http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/report/report_toc.htm

    The monsters I was reffering to would include Pol Pot:

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/polpot.htm



    And here’s a good allround article about the US "liberating" other nations. Take note it’s amazing 20% success rate at installing democracy:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p01s03-usmi.html
    You're off topic here. I merely tried to refute some of your attacks on Bush. You respond by an all-round attack on the US. You're blurring the lines here.

    You introduced the paragrah with the "f*ck freedom etc."-claim by saying that you "don't approve of Bush's war". So, it is reasonable to assume that your paragraph was meant to specifically talk about Bush. If your reference was not to Saddam and the second Gulf War, than the paragraph becomes non-sense.
    It is illogical to justify having a problem with "Bush's War" by evoking past alleged mistakes of different US administration in dealing with enemy regimes.



    Err.. you heard of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Well, to me that seems a lot like "f*ck freedom and liberty" An act you can’t even read without every other law made at hand is bad enough. But from various decypherings I’ve come across, it essentially empowers Aschcroft and bush to just do whatever they want by mentioning the words "Terrorism" and "Suspected" (Oh, except look into your gun purchasing records… a terrorist is still entitled to a gun:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D11F63E580C 758CDDAB0994D9404482 )

    The "f*ck freedom"-claim was directed at foreign populations, so mentioning the Patriot Act is irrelevant here.

    The original phrase you used was "And if the ruling monster has been US backed, then f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed." Quite clearly that can't be talking about the US and hence US domestic legislation is irrelevant in this context.

    Oh and while you visit all these links why not check out how awful the french are by reminding yourself of how the USA was founded:
    Yeah right, cos the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI was such an admiralbe regime...

    Should I laugh or cry… I don’t know. Even if the war is officially over and it’s a peace keeping mission now, are you telling me these people are liberated (I’ll laugh if you do, really) Iraq could carry on fighting within it’s self for the next 50 years god knows… that’s not liberty.
    Where do you get that from, where did I actually say or indicate this??
    Again, you're totally beside the point. You're not addressing what I say. You're just inventing things, say I said them and than answer your own inventions!!

    Oil is not a side effect… the US should get no oil whatsoever from iraq, and US companies should not get 60%+ of the contracts for rebuilding and oil related things… but they will, ofcourse… even if it’s not very obvious.

    OK I ADMIT ITS NOT JUST OIL IT’S ALL ABOUT CHENEYS PNAC (Project for a new American Century)
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html


    ^^ I’ve got some brilliant photo comparisons they’re so amazing and life like



    Apart from your reactions in relation to
    -Kennedy
    -to the members of the Saudi royal families that should have been questioned by the FBI
    -public support for the war in the US (a point that I refuted)

    your whole posts is filled with:
    - irrelevant, off-topic remarks, that are not at all dealing with my points
    - attacks against past US-administrations, that are irrelevant to a discussion about Bush.

    Your passionate views about Bush seem to blur your abilities for rational debate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The question in relation to Bush is more of a general dislike towards realpolitk at its worse. Bush is little different to any President in the past in America with relation to foreign policy, Reagan - with Iran and the Contra's, Johnson - Vietnam and even Theodore Roosevelt - Panama, Cuba and SA all show similar sorts of imperialistic policy.

    This policy i think is bad for the world, however all countries in the world would persue the same policy if they were as rich as America, one that is to do only thing and everything for your national interests.

    This has many sadderning effects, as we see it lead to resentment in cultures whose views clash with the western capitalist views of America, eg. USSR and commmunism and now some of Islamistic people of the world. In this respect the US seems unable to accept belief systems that differ from their own.

    I think there are a number of things that all 1st world nations do that are wrong:
    -debts and trading rules
    -not considering the moral implications of the situations sometimes, an example of this would be Vietnam, was dropping so many bombs on the country really good in helping save the country?
    -being generally arrogant
    -neglect of multinational organisations such as the UN and abuse of others like the use of the IMF in places like Indonesia, this kinda in with the first one
    -the fact that the worlds media is being increasingly dominated by a few groups with quite narrow interests
    -military spending

    To me the fact that even a 20% cut in military spending could wip out the povertry which is killing millions all over the world instead of being used to bomb and kill people is extremely sadderning. More people have died through starvation than will ever be killed by terrorism. Surely cutting grievences is the way to achieve peace rather than starting more wars.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    your whole posts is filled with:
    - irrelevant, off-topic remarks, that are not at all dealing with my points
    - attacks against past US-administrations, that are irrelevant to a discussion about Bush.

    Your passionate views about Bush seem to blur your abilities for rational debate.
    and that my friends, is an illustration of the gulf that exists on this forum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spc_K)

    Well Kennedy isn't currently affecting my life so i don't really care.


    you seem to have the same indifference towards reasonable argument.

    Ok, spin: fine, but out right lying (e.g. asserting "We Know this man has ties to Al-Qaeda") is NOT fine. That is a lie. Just like All the WMD lies.
    a lie, the last time i checked the dictionary, would require prior knowledge of the circumstance before intentionally informing differently. to claim that these are lies, is to claim that Bush(or Blair) had prior knowledge of the 'real' WMD situation. this is both a) irrelevant to the question of intelligence. since they stated that it as such, a certain element of error should be expected. that information was prepared by intelligence services to the best of their ability acknowledging that these were not 'facts'. this intelligence was deemed as credible and reiterated by similar suspicions on the part of the intl. community. the debate was not whether Saddam had the ability, but whether we dealt with it now or later. b) no enquiry, credible source or piece of evidence has showed your claims to be anywhere near accurate.


    [QUOTE]
    He said weapons. He must stick to weapons. (though he’s done splendidly changing it to "liberating the people of iraq")



    Err.. you heard of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act? Well, to me that seems a lot like "f*ck freedom and liberty" An act you can’t even read without every other law made at hand is bad enough. But from various decypherings I’ve come across, it essentially empowers Aschcroft and bush to just do whatever they want by mentioning the words "Terrorism" and "Suspected" (Oh, except look into your gun purchasing records… a terrorist is still entitled to a gun:
    so basically you have no idea about how the patriot act was conceived, why it was conceived, the logic behind it, the powers it provides and indeed any of its real shortcomings..

    Oil is not a side effect… the US should get no oil whatsoever from iraq, and US companies should not get 60%+ of the contracts for...oil related things… but they will, ofcourse… even if it’s not very obvious.
    of course? that hunch again? we like to deal in facts here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spc_K)
    btw i expect Vienna to appear any moment and start playing devils advocate as she always does Damn you should get an award girl!
    i did. two in fact.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    IMO we're all a bunch of whingers. No matter who was in power we'd moan about them...truth
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    IMO we're all a bunch of whingers. No matter who was in power we'd moan about them...truth
    hmm, speak for yourself.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hmm, speak for yourself.
    Lol I didn't mean it in an offensive way, but it's kind of true. No matter what happens there will always be people with different views on government. For example, the people that hate Bush are usually quite young, thus due to this they are more adaptable with technology so in turn there is a lot of Anti-Bush feeling within the Internet etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If I am not mistaken (but I'm not too sure about this), he never actually said there were ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. His spin-machine only tried (successfully) to give that impression.
    These below are quotes from a Bush tour promoting republican congressional candidates, while also spreading lies, I'm sure you'll find a list somewhere on the internet.

    "He's a threat to America and he's a threat to our friends. He's even more of a threat now that we've learned that he's anxious to have, once again, to develop a nuclear weapon. He's got connections with al Qaeda"

    -W.B. Denver, Colorado, Oct 28th 2002

    "That's the nature of this man. We know he's got ties with al Qaeda"

    -W.B. Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Nov 1st 2002



    You pretended you knew the actual reasons he had for going to war. I corrected you. That does not mean I approve of these reasons if indeed they were not made public.
    You state that I did not know the actual reasons for going to war. I do know the reasons Bush gave. This means Bush did not tell me these actual reasons. This means the reasons he told myself and everyone else were deceptive and fraudulent. That makes his reasons lies.



    However, they may be legitimate. For example, it is possible that the main reason for going to war was an ambition to reshape the Middle-East in a democratic fashion by creating a democratic model in Iraq.

    Now, that would have been difficult to sell to the population, because it is based on rather abstract geostrategic thinking.
    I'm afraid that "It would have been difficult to sell to the public" just won't cut it with the thousands and thousands of dead. (sorry off topic comment)

    Accepted, the motive does not have to be personal, but without being in the public domain it they ARE private.

    It is without a doubt unjust to go to war without bringing the reason for the war out into the open to be examined.

    It may or may not have turned out unjustified, but in being undisclosed it was unjust. And seing you are such a fan of "proper" debates, may I remind you such supposition along the lines of 'well he may have had another reason and it may have been a pretty good one' also holds no place in debate.

    Your Kansas Star poll is not really a good indicator.
    I was spinning it hard ,

    The ABC poll would suggest that he DID have public support for his actions. Don't forget, the US did not go it alone.
    But I did include a USA today poll which gave only 54% support if there is no UN backing. That pole conflicts with the ABC one, but whose to say which is more accurate. In my opinion 54% is not very good. (and don't forget they got no UN backing so that 54% stands. Link again:

    www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm
    I am deeply ashamed that one of the countries in which I hold citizenship should chose to partake I this war. Shame on you Blair. Accepted it wasn’t alone, UK and Italy and Australia jumped on. But this multinational coalation of the willing that got publicised and spun a bit (nice large numbers etc) well I can give you a little list of some included countries, with some brilliant statistics about their armies and planes, it’s very amusing.

    You're off topic here. I merely tried to refute some of your attacks on Bush. You respond by an all-round attack on the US. You're blurring the lines here.
    (in reference to all that stuff about my general attack)

    Ok sorry I was having a bit of a go at US past, sorry. Pol Pot was just an example of a monster, shouldn't have been included.

    Seeing you assumed Saddam was the monster I was reffering to (/me So long as the monster is US backed), I wanted to point out what Saddam did to make the US worried about him (Kuwait & Threat to US oil)

    doesn't the attitude you're describing here, apply better to the French (Bush-bashers-in-chief)?
    Given all this talk of bluring lines, what's France doing appearing there? Can you justify your claim that france are the Bush Bashers in chief? Why makes you believe that the french attitude is "F*ck freedom"?

    The "f*ck freedom"-claim was directed at foreign populations, so mentioning the Patriot Act is irrelevant here.
    I said (as you said I said):

    "And if the ruling monster is US backed, then f*ck freedom and liberty, let these people be oppressed"

    That quite clearly refers to the US attitude. And the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is therefore totally relevant being another display of the US attitude. It's also a splendid display of Bush and Ashcroft f*cking freedom and liberty, but I accept that with less than 50% of the vote Bush is not eligible to be classified as US backed monster.

    Yeah right, cos the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI was such an admiralbe regime...
    I didn't mention Lois XVI (I know the article did) nor did I state that he had an admirable regime, that is an irrelevant statement. But just to clarify I was countering the French are US bashers point (also irrelevant), by pointing out that if the French were a load of US bashers, then why the hell did they do so much FOR the US?




    your whole posts is filled with:

    - irrelevant, off-topic remarks, that are not at all dealing with my points

    - attacks against past US-administrations, that are irrelevant to a discussion about Bush.

    Your passionate views about Bush seem to blur your abilities for rational debate.
    your post is filled with:

    -irrelevant, off-topic remarks, that are not at all dealing with my points

    -attacks against past french-administrations, that are irrelevant to a discussion about Bush.

    Yous passionate views about Bush seem to blur your abilities for rational debate

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna i'm just gonna read this stuff properly (i knew you'd come )

    but according to Oxford English dictionary a lie is:

    1. an intentionally false statement
    2. imposture; false belief

    'false belief' seems to justify my usage of the word lie. Although the definition of lie does favour your suggestion, it by no means rules out my usage.

    Ofcourse we don't know what Bush knew anyway, but there was no evidence to support claims that iraq could reach nuclear capability within one year if it obtained enough uranium.

    As far as i'm concerned, if no evidence supports a statment, then to state it, even while using the word "suspect" or "believe" is a very deceptive act. And to state something as fact "This man has ties to al Qaeda" after reports are around that no such connection exists and the two hate each other, is an unmistakable lie.


    p.s. Vienna were you telling me about Ghostly records and Twine at some point? If you were, then i wish i'd checked out that music earlier... so good.


    edit:

    Patriot act... indeed, i haven't had the time, but from what i've gathered so far it gives the government more power, in particular ashcroft, so i don't like it lol. (It is however on my to do list this summer, read up about and fully understand the patriot act -yes really- but i need to fit in some drum theory and some quantum physics... damn physics is so sensible... -again, yes really-)

    Well, i hope the latest reply fares a little better. I've tried to make a little more effort for tightness this time. But go and pick some holes

    I better go have a beer and sit in the sun and do some chemistry now
    (stupid retakes, i shouldn't have missed the exams.. that was a bad idea.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spc_K)
    [font=Courier New][size=2]These below are quotes from a Bush tour promoting republican congressional candidates, while also spreading lies, I'm sure you'll find a list somewhere on the internet.

    "He's a threat to America and he's a threat to our friends. He's even more of a threat now that we've learned that he's anxious to have, once again, to develop a nuclear weapon. He's got connections with al Qaeda"

    -W.B. Denver, Colorado, Oct 28th 2002

    "That's the nature of this man. We know he's got ties with al Qaeda"

    -W.B. Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Nov 1st 2002
    again, lies?

    he had connections with Al-Qaeda.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bush is clearly stating we "KNOW" he "HAS" ties with al Qaeda.

    He does not "KNOW he has ties with al Qaeda". And he knows he does not know. This knowledge results in a justifiable conclusion that this is a lie, as he is aware of the lack of knowledge and thus it meets your "Lie creiteria" as well as the way the definition can be interpreted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    again, lies?

    he had connections with Al-Qaeda.
    He had connections with the Taliban - members of the group talked to his fathers company about making an oil pipe across afghanistan, but it mysteriously fell through as election time came approaching. His family also has ties with the Bin Laden family, as they contributed to the family business quite substantial sums of money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yea i like that bush taliban thing, very touching. Even better is how the pipeline got built shortly after Afganistan was liberated from the horrid taliban.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How about poke some holes in the other dudes posts or are you really pro bush and not just always playing devils advocate?

    e.g. Suppositions & unfounded assertions an extract

    For example, it is possible that the main reason for going to war was an ambition to reshape the Middle-East in a democratic fashion by creating a democratic model in Iraq.
    Bin Laden's agenda was initially and still is to a large extent, to bring down the Saudi Royal family. The fact that 15 out of 21 of the 911 terrorists were Saudi was a calculated political moves. He could have put people from any nation on that plane, Algerians, Afghans, Iranis, ... even Britons!
    Could i have a source on the below statment:

    By the way, the 15 had largely relatively umimportant positions. The other 6 were all more important for the operation, they had to know how to fly a plane etc.
    Well he didn't did he, and i got out, irrelevant:
    What's wrong with that? Would you like Reagan to have attacked the USSR??
    btw. it would have been nice if the US accepted Gorbachevs offer to start a nuclear disarmamnet program... maybe if they had they'd have had a leg to stand on when they were telling Saddam to give up the biological weapons that US companies sold him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spc_K)
    Bush is clearly stating we "KNOW" he "HAS" ties with al Qaeda.

    He does not "KNOW he has ties with al Qaeda". And he knows he does not know. This knowledge results in a justifiable conclusion that this is a lie, as he is aware of the lack of knowledge and thus it meets your "Lie creiteria" as well as the way the definition can be interpreted.
    it is a fact that Al-Qaeda operatives, including those that carried out 9/11, had connections with Saddam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spc_K)
    How about poke some holes in the other dudes posts or are you really pro bush and not just always playing devils advocate?
    i think most people could answer for me here.

    btw. it would have been nice if the US accepted Gorbachevs offer to start a nuclear disarmamnet program... maybe if they had they'd have had a leg to stand on when they were telling Saddam to give up the biological weapons that US companies sold him.
    it doesnt work like that, and its very naive to believe that to be the case.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 7, 2004

1,116

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.