|
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BourneNOIR
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 113
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ClarissaMach wrote: |
| BourneNoir, thanks for the correct data. |
Sure, no problem. Just being a myth buster
| Manuel wrote: |
| Constitution IS the highest law of every democratic country, and that�s why I got shocked when I read this article. I�m happy that it turned out to be incorrect. |
Glad to make at least someone happy... in a good way.
| Manuel wrote: |
| I think that every country should follow a common interest. Or in the worst case, every country should follow their interests in a way which doesn�t affect other nations. |
That's a very good (and optimistic) way of looking at things. However, the first is extremely difficult, and the second is downright impossible. Having a common interest does not mean there won't be a conflict of interest. As long as there is a conflict of interest, there will be tensions. Democratic and rational countries will work things out via negotiations and treaties. Irrational countries that have limited public opinions (e.g. Saddam's Iraq, Castro's Cuba, Kim's DPRK, etc.) tend to be more aggressive since only one man is running the show. Terrorists, who have no morals, will just go around and blow things up whenever and where ever they want in hopes that people will meet their demands to satisfy their interests.
We don't live in a closed society anymore. There are poor nations, rich nations, and nations in between. As long as there's international trade, there will be an imbalance. Some countries advance faster than others because they have the resource and the correct policy while other countries need outside aid. What you suggest is basically a world 1000 years ago, when all nations live in a world of their own (even then there's still war - but not on a global scale). The only way to follow interests without affecting other nations is for the human civilization to move backwards, unfortunately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manuel
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I�m sorry if you thought that I use that kind of logic. I�ll be clearer in the future for you to understand. I�ts probably my poor English what made you think that.
Let�s see. Supposing that GWB (as you like to call him) didn�t start a war for oil but for the existance of biological weapons in Iraq. What right does he have to do this when America has a bigger number of biological weapons?
To resume: I said that America tried to get oil from Iraq by making a war. You said that that was one of the many reasons (which, by the way, is a criminal reason, stealing oil), but not the most important. I said that the democracy in Iraq wasn�t a true democracy because they follow orders from the USA. You said that I was anti-democracy. Now I say that biological weapons were the excuse for the war. You�ll probably say it isn�t.
So, from what I see, the logic that you accuse me of having used is the one that YOU use. Until this moment, you haven�t given any evidence to support your arguments, or you have tried to deflect this discussion to another subjects as the Falklands war, the victimization of America, the invasion of South America,etc.,etc.,etc.
All what I have said is supported by the news we get from the diverse media. You have followed the official story without being critic, and treating my replies as insignificant, or simply irrelevant.
I have got to an agreement with you that a world full of democracies would be the idoneous place for peace. But you keep defending the use of force to get to this utopic world. I think that there are other ways of reaching peace. You can call me a dreamer, but democracy without violence is factible. Difficult, but factible.
I didn�t get your point about Falklands. I invite you to continue our dicusion in the correct board.
And let�s keep this discusion calm, please.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manuel
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, Bourne Noir. I hadn�t read your reply before posting mine.
I know that my ideas sound anachronic and irrealistic. But believe me, I know (or I think so) what I�m saying: organizations such as UN should be more active in the affairs that we are treating. For example, it would be possible to arrange a plan wich involves all the nations in the world with the obligation of fulfilling certain long-term conditions.
We are used to see the good and the bad side of the world, but we should be more concious that certain reactions such as dictatorships are only responses to a pressure from another country (I won�t give any example).
So, if a fairer attitud started emanating from powerful countries, it would be possible to smaller countries to get settled an contribute to the world with peace.
I don�t know if you understand, but my idea depends mostly of a change of attitude which will bring benefits by leaving aside underestimations, discriminations, bad distribution of the world markets, interests which can do harm to other countries, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BourneNOIR
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manuel wrote: |
| We are used to see the good and the bad side of the world, but we should be more concious that certain reactions such as dictatorships are only responses to a pressure from another country (I won�t give any example). |
"dictatorships are only responses to a pressure from another country"? That definitely does not make sense to me without examples... and I have a feeling other people might also be curious how you came to that conclusion. You mean North Korean dictatorship was only a response to a pressure from another country?
| Manuel wrote: |
| So, if a fairer attitud started emanating from powerful countries, it would be possible to smaller countries to get settled an contribute to the world with peace. |
Well, like I said, there are poor countries and rich countries in the world, just like poor people and rich people in a country. The views will always be different. It's not like the US is not contributing to help the underdeveloped countries, it's just when the US makes an error a deluge of blame comes crashing down on it. It's kinda like a giant trying to move around without breaking things, and when it does it is blamed for being big and clumsy.
| Manuel wrote: |
| I don�t know if you understand, but my idea depends mostly of a change of attitude which will bring benefits by leaving aside underestimations, discriminations, bad distribution of the world markets, interests which can do harm to other countries, etc. |
I think I kind of understand what you're saying, but if you want to be fair, then BOTH sides should have a change of attitude. Some countries should stop thinking that the bigger nations are out there to crush them and are responsible for all the troubles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ieltsinsider
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: what? |
|
|
Lots of points raised by Manuel.
1. Manuel says that if GWB attacked Iraq because Saddam was developing biological weapons, what right did he have to do that when the USA has more biological weapons? That's simply untrue. The USA has virtually no biological weapons - probably just a few tucked away in research labs.
2. The USA has not tried to steal oil from anyone. American companies pay for oil.
3. You say that the democracy in Iraq is not a true democracy because the government follows orders from the USA. Not true. There have been disagreements between the USA and the current Iraqi government. Bear in mind that the Americans favoutire guy didn't win the election! Manuel, you are making a very dangerous statement. You are suggesting that a country is only democratic when it doesn't agree with the USA. So, Britain, Iceland, Norway, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, etc, etc, are not democracies? Er, right ... Would you mind telling us which countries ARE democracies in your humble opinion? Just so we know.
4. So now you're saying the war is not about oil, it's about biological weapons? I refer to my previous post about people viewing this issue too simplisitically. Manuel, you are jumping around from point to point making things very confusing. My point has always been that this issue is not about one thing. YUour point is hat it is only about one thing, then only about another thing, and so on. Very, very, confusing.
5. The evidence that I have presented is far stronger than any you have presented, Manuel. And my argments are consistent.
6. The issue of the victimisation of America is directly relevant to this topic, since it is American policy that you and others are choosing to attack. This is exactly the point of I've been making! You and others believe that it's fine to criticise America, but then you just shout down anyone who disagrees with you, using specious logic and pointless arguments.
7. You claim to be a democrat, but I have demonstrated clearly that you only believe in democracy when it suits you. Sounds like, in your own opinion, you have a lot in common with GWB.
8. What you have said cannot be supported by a wide range of media opinions, because you haven't said anything in favour of the US policy. Some parts of the media still support GWBs policy. My sources of information stretch from The Economist to Al Qaeda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manuel
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bourne Noir:
| Quote: |
| "dictatorships are only responses to a pressure from another country"? That definitely does not make sense to me without examples... and I have a feeling other people might also be curious how you came to that conclusion. You mean North Korean dictatorship was only a response to a pressure from another country? |
I don�t know why I used the word "only". That�s not what I meant. That�s one of the causes, because many of them are inner causes, and much more complicated to solve.
| Quote: |
| Well, like I said, there are poor countries and rich countries in the world, just like poor people and rich people in a country. The views will always be different. It's not like the US is not contributing to help the underdeveloped countries, it's just when the US makes an error a deluge of blame comes crashing down on it. It's kinda like a giant trying to move around without breaking things, and when it does it is blamed for being big and clumsy. |
Well, that�s the main point. Acctions (positive actions) that America has made can be extraordinary. OK, America hasn�t got to be blamed for every little mistake, but we must admit that there aren�t always good purposes coming from that side.
| Quote: |
| I think I kind of understand what you're saying, but if you want to be fair, then BOTH sides should have a change of attitude. Some countries should stop thinking that the bigger nations are out there to crush them and are responsible for all the troubles. |
That�s certainly true. It happens that most little countries feel distrust to the bigger ones.
Ieltsinsider:
| Quote: |
| . Manuel says that if GWB attacked Iraq because Saddam was developing biological weapons, what right did he have to do that when the USA has more biological weapons? That's simply untrue. The USA has virtually no biological weapons - probably just a few tucked away in research labs. |
Provided that what you say is true (because I have seen images of the "few" laboratories), that�s exactly the definition of possesing biological weapons. So, the USA can be forgiven for having those weapons, but other countries don�t? That�s what I call unfair.
| Quote: |
| 2. The USA has not tried to steal oil from anyone. American companies pay for oil. |
But they pay much more less money for that oil that has been taken without giving the country any right to choose. That�s commonly known as "stealing", according to my humble opinion .
| Quote: |
| 3. You say that the democracy in Iraq is not a true democracy because the government follows orders from the USA. Not true. There have been disagreements between the USA and the current Iraqi government. Bear in mind that the Americans favoutire guy didn't win the election! Manuel, you are making a very dangerous statement. You are suggesting that a country is only democratic when it doesn't agree with the USA. So, Britain, Iceland, Norway, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, etc, etc, are not democracies? Er, right ... Would you mind telling us which countries ARE democracies in your humble opinion? Just so we know. |
You are putting words in my mouth. Democracy does not depend in following orders of the USA specificaly. Democracy is not reliable when you follow orders of ANY foreign country. Anyway, as you are the absolute truth, I�d rather don�t mess with you.
| Quote: |
| 4. So now you're saying the war is not about oil, it's about biological weapons? I refer to my previous post about people viewing this issue too simplisitically. Manuel, you are jumping around from point to point making things very confusing. My point has always been that this issue is not about one thing. YUour point is hat it is only about one thing, then only about another thing, and so on. Very, very, confusing. |
The only reason why I mentioned biological weapons is because you said that there were many causes of the war. I�m trying to talk about each one of it. If you find it quite uncomfortable, I won�t do it.
| Quote: |
| 5. The evidence that I have presented is far stronger than any you have presented, Manuel. And my argments are consistent. |
Evidence?... you have evidence?!!! 
| Quote: |
| 6. The issue of the victimisation of America is directly relevant to this topic, since it is American policy that you and others are choosing to attack. This is exactly the point of I've been making! You and others believe that it's fine to criticise America, but then you just shout down anyone who disagrees with you, using specious logic and pointless arguments. |
We attack the American policy. America attacks other countries.
You have agreed indirectly to my "pointless" arguments: oil, biological weapons. But you have treated them as minor causes or insignificant. I see that you are using that so called "logic" that you accuse me of using.
| Quote: |
| 7. You claim to be a democrat, but I have demonstrated clearly that you only believe in democracy when it suits you. Sounds like, in your own opinion, you have a lot in common with GWB. |
See, another contradiction. You used to defend Bush as if he was you father. And now , accusing me of being anti-democratic, you say that I�m the same thing than him. You�re not constant in your thoughts. And that shows that you follow a certain line of reasoning only when it suits you. If you can accuse somebody of something, you don�t care about what you have just said.
And I still can�t see when did I gave you any reasons to say I don�t like democracy. I have agreed with you that a world of democracies would be better. But I don�t think in war as the way of acomplishing it.And that�s what you don�t like.
| Quote: |
| 8. What you have said cannot be supported by a wide range of media opinions, because you haven't said anything in favour of the US policy. Some parts of the media still support GWBs policy. My sources of information stretch from The Economist to Al Qaeda. |
Maybe because the only media that talks good things about the conflict is the official one. I read it, but it doesn�t convince me. And don�t you think that I�m not aware of the bad things that the Iraqui resistance does. I think that that�s terrible too.
I see that we are not getting to any point. I�m sorry of not giving a strong argument to convince you that war is not a solution.
I hope I �ll do better next time.
Bye. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ieltsinsider
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject: utter confusion |
|
|
Manuel, you admit in your reply to BourneNOIR that you shouldn't have used the word 'only'. That has been one of my main points for the last several posts!!! You say that's not what you meant. OK. Fine. But that's what you wrote!!! If you write 'only', I read 'only'!!!
In your reply to BourneNOIR, you say that America hasn't got to blamed for everything. That has been another of my main points for the last several posts!!!
You criticise my point about US possession of biological weapons VERY unfairly. The USA destroyed virtually all of its biological weapons years and years ago. The reason that it keeps a few labs is that it needs to test protective measures against biological weapons. Are you suggesting that the US is not permitted to develop ways of defending itself?
On the biologial weapons issue, you clearly stated that the US had MORE biological weapons than Iraq. Demonstrably untrue - since the US destroyed its stockpiles years and years ago. Do a search for 'United States biological weapons' and check for yourself.
Bear in mind that the US keeps those VERY FEW weapons purely for research. Iraq built up its biological weapons in the early 90s with the clear intention of using them. Totally different!!!
And the reason you mentioned biological weapons in the first place is because you agree that there was more than one cause of the Iraq war. So, in other words, you agree with one of the main points I have been making all along!?
Regarding your argument about oil, you have shifted ground considerably. (See my point about inconsistency!) So now you're saying that the US buys discounted oil without giving the country the right to choose. Back up that accusation.
Democracy in Iraq. You clearly stated "I said that the democracy in Iraq wasn't a true democracy because they follow orders from the USA." Your words, not mine. I didn't put those words in your mouth. Actually, I don't know any democracy that follows the orders of another country. Actually, I don't know ANY country that follows the orders of another country.
Manuel wrote "You have evidence?!" Er ..., yeah. you don't?
My pointless arguments? Manuel, I'm astounded. You have just agreed with the main points I have been making all along!!!
Manuel wrote "You used to defend Bush as if he was your father." This relates to another point I have been making. You just throw out accusations without any justification. Check out my other posts.
Is Manuel democratic? Easy way to find out. Manuel, do you think that people all over the world have the right to choose which kind of government they live under, in elections held in a style similar or the same as those held in the USA, Britain, Argentina, Chile, Germany, Japan, etc.? (i.e. as opposed to elections held in a style similar to or the same as those held in North Korea, Iran, China, etc.) Yes or no.
Yes, we do disagree about whether war can achieve democracy. However, I have provided EVIDENCE (remember that word, Manuel!) that war is sometimes necessary to achieve this aim. My clear example was WW2. You are, of course, free to disagree with this example, but I think you'll have a really hard time convincing people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asterix
Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 1654
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you want proof that war can bring democracy in its wake, take a look at Germany and Japan. They are both flourishing democracies today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manuel
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: utter confusion |
|
|
| ieltsinsider wrote: |
Manuel, you admit in your reply to BourneNOIR that you shouldn't have used the word 'only'. That has been one of my main points for the last several posts!!! You say that's not what you meant. OK. Fine. But that's what you wrote!!! If you write 'only', I read 'only'!!!
In your reply to BourneNOIR, you say that America hasn't got to blamed for everything. That has been another of my main points for the last several posts!!!
You criticise my point about US possession of biological weapons VERY unfairly. The USA destroyed virtually all of its biological weapons years and years ago. The reason that it keeps a few labs is that it needs to test protective measures against biological weapons. Are you suggesting that the US is not permitted to develop ways of defending itself?
On the biologial weapons issue, you clearly stated that the US had MORE biological weapons than Iraq. Demonstrably untrue - since the US destroyed its stockpiles years and years ago. Do a search for 'United States biological weapons' and check for yourself.
Bear in mind that the US keeps those VERY FEW weapons purely for research. Iraq built up its biological weapons in the early 90s with the clear intention of using them. Totally different!!!
And the reason you mentioned biological weapons in the first place is because you agree that there was more than one cause of the Iraq war. So, in other words, you agree with one of the main points I have been making all along!?
Regarding your argument about oil, you have shifted ground considerably. (See my point about inconsistency!) So now you're saying that the US buys discounted oil without giving the country the right to choose. Back up that accusation.
Democracy in Iraq. You clearly stated "I said that the democracy in Iraq wasn't a true democracy because they follow orders from the USA." Your words, not mine. I didn't put those words in your mouth. Actually, I don't know any democracy that follows the orders of another country. Actually, I don't know ANY country that follows the orders of another country.
Manuel wrote "You have evidence?!" Er ..., yeah. you don't?
My pointless arguments? Manuel, I'm astounded. You have just agreed with the main points I have been making all along!!!
Manuel wrote "You used to defend Bush as if he was your father." This relates to another point I have been making. You just throw out accusations without any justification. Check out my other posts.
Is Manuel democratic? Easy way to find out. Manuel, do you think that people all over the world have the right to choose which kind of government they live under, in elections held in a style similar or the same as those held in the USA, Britain, Argentina, Chile, Germany, Japan, etc.? (i.e. as opposed to elections held in a style similar to or the same as those held in North Korea, Iran, China, etc.) Yes or no.
Yes, we do disagree about whether war can achieve democracy. However, I have provided EVIDENCE (remember that word, Manuel!) that war is sometimes necessary to achieve this aim. My clear example was WW2. You are, of course, free to disagree with this example, but I think you'll have a really hard time convincing people. |
YOU ARE A GENIOUS. AMERICA IS DOING GREAT IN THE WORLD. AMERICA HAS THE RIGHT TO DESTROY OTHER COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE SAME FAULTS THAT SHE COMMITS. EVERYTHING IS GREAT.WAR IS THE PATH TO DEMOCRACY. YOUR CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS ARE TRULY AMAZING. I WAS JUST WAISTING YOUR TIME. FORGIVE ME.
Let�s talk whenever you feel like opening your mind just a little. I could spend the next days of this month trying to convince you, but I see that even truth is not reliable for you. It�s worthless. I must confess that I had never seen determination just like the one you have. I consider myself defeated by your obstinacy. If only you had a piece of moral... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ieltsinsider
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: whatever ... |
|
|
"You are a genius." Thank you, but do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
"America is doing great in the world." If you think so. I would disagree.
America has the right to destroy other countries ..." If you think so. I would disagree.
"Everything is great." When did you last check the news?
"War is the path to democracy." I think that war CAN be A path to democracy, under certain circumstances. Read Asterix's last post.
"Your circular agruments are truly amazing." Which ones?
"I was just wasting your time." Don't be too hard on yourself.
"Forgive me." Of course.
"Let's talk whenever you feel like opening your mind a little." You haven't been reading my posts.
"Truth is not reliable for you." It certainly isn't. Hundreds of years ago, the truth was that the earth was the centre of the universe. Today it isn't the truth. Truth does change. If Hitler had won WW2, the truth would be that Fascism is wonderful and murdering Jews totally acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BourneNOIR
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: utter confusion |
|
|
| Manuel wrote: |
| AMERICA HAS THE RIGHT TO DESTROY OTHER COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE SAME FAULTS THAT SHE COMMITS. EVERYTHING IS GREAT.WAR IS THE PATH TO DEMOCRACY. |
I know that the U.S. did some countries injustice by butting in other people's affairs, but to say that the U.S. "destroy" other countries is a bit unfair. Destroy is a harsh word synonymous with "obliterate", "to wipe out of existence", etc. similar to what some people in the Middle East wish to do with Israel, and I don' think the U.S. has any policy that comes anywhere close to that. I'm just curious if there are any specific reasons that made you so inclined to claim that the U.S. goes around "destroying" other countries. The only reason that I could think of is the fact that the U.S. went and "destroyed" Saddam Hussein's regime. Yes, it created casualties and instability in the region, but the U.S. is trying to patch things up. The insurgents are the ones making matters worse. The US could pack up and leave, just like the first Gulf War - that didn't make people happy either.
There are Democracies that exist due to wars. It may not be a good path or the only path, but it is a path, a quick and dirty path in case of an emergency.
As I've said on another thread, it is alright for countries to be angry with the U.S. for the mistakes it committed. It is all due to the conflict of interests. But remember, the U.S. pre-WWII tend to leave the world alone. The U.S. entered WWII due to the Pearl Harbor attack, and that's when it stepped onto center stage. Then it became paranoid about Communism. Now it's paranoid about Terrorism, and with good reasons too. It didn't do anything when its embassies were attacked, USS Cole was attacked, etc. only to be further provoked by 9/11. Although I know that many Muslims living in the Middle East are innocent and peaceful, the world tend to associate terrorism with the Middle East, resulting in policies made to conflict with the interests of countries in the region. As a result, creating this cyclic chain-reaction:
terrorists fuel the fire -> people associate terrorism with Middle East -> the US meddles with affairs in the Middle East to protect its own interest -> people in the Middle East get angry with the US -> terrorists take advantage of the anger and continues to attack -> repeat cycle... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manuel
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: whatever ... |
|
|
| ieltsinsider wrote: |
"You are a genius." Thank you, but do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
"America is doing great in the world." If you think so. I would disagree.
America has the right to destroy other countries ..." If you think so. I would disagree.
"Everything is great." When did you last check the news?
"War is the path to democracy." I think that war CAN be A path to democracy, under certain circumstances. Read Asterix's last post.
"Your circular agruments are truly amazing." Which ones?
"I was just wasting your time." Don't be too hard on yourself.
"Forgive me." Of course.
"Let's talk whenever you feel like opening your mind a little." You haven't been reading my posts.
"Truth is not reliable for you." It certainly isn't. Hundreds of years ago, the truth was that the earth was the centre of the universe. Today it isn't the truth. Truth does change. If Hitler had won WW2, the truth would be that Fascism is wonderful and murdering Jews totally acceptable. |
Certainly true what you say. Maybe a little bit of factual truth can be reliable, don�t you think?
You are really funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anuradha Chepur
Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 933
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a lot of debate about Bush going to Iraq for oil. Even if he went for oil, my hunch is it is not greed for oil. The point is terrorists get their strength from oil. So one way to make them weak is to get control on their oil  .
The best way would be to seriously focus on finding alternates for oil, so oil becomes insignificant. Leaders should display managerial skills and intelligence and not just might. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ieltsinsider
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 170
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: truth, etc |
|
|
My point about 'truth' is that it is not always a fixed thing. It often depends on where you stand. I gave two examples to back up my case - one from the world of natural science and one from the world of social science. Disgree if you like, but provide a little evidence to back it up.
I agree with A.C. on expanding or use of alternative sources of energy. As she said "Leaders should display managerial skills and inteligence and not just might." The less we rely on the Middle East, the better. If our leaders started thinking in more creative ways, things would improve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flying_pig319
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 369
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anuradha Chepur wrote: |
| There is a lot of debate about Bush going to Iraq for oil. Even if he went for oil, my hunch is it is not greed for oil.. |
Bush definitely went to Iraq to make himself seem tough. That's all there is to it.
_________________
peace-monger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
