Forums | MacLife

Back on topic: Does anyone know where I can find a transcript of bin Laden's message?

It seems insane that the administration can point to the quotes we're all seeing in the news and then say, "Look! A link!" So I'm wondering if there are good parts that we're missing.

ShnickyShnack,
I've ignored nothing, odd you somehow come to that conclusion. Because I don't post to every thread doesn't mean I haven't read them or agree with the consensus.
I think you overestimate what can be accomplished with international cooperation that doesn't include war, only talk. I also believe your wrong about the 'old' rules no longer being valid. Basic human emotions and motovations haven't changed since Og walked out the cave and picked up a stick.
I find it very odd that you are quick to question the motivations of the US, but take those currently opposed to us at face value. Because they fit your vision of the way the world should work? Your also quick to point out the numbers of those that disagree with US policy. When did a majority opinion ever automatically become correct? Everything we as Americans hold dear goes against that premise.

He said constitutes. The equalivant of an axis. He did not say they were an axis. I will agree it was a poor choice of words.
You last reply didn't answer anything I asked but tried to misdirect what I said.
You imply that the shear numbers of countries against current policy makes them right. I do not recaal you ever saying that France is right, the US is wrong nor did I say that.

Hello.. can anyone here use a dictionary.  Axis doesnt have to mean alliance.  The only time that definition has been used was when it was applied to Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII.  There are many other definitions of the word Axis, at least nine to be exact.  Bush wasnt necessarily wrong.  It depends on which definition he was using.

Hee hee ... yeah, I guess he was saying they were "a straight line about which a body or geometric object rotates or may be conceived to rotate". Or maybe "The second cervical vertebra on which the head turns", or "One of three or four imaginary lines used to define the faces of a crystal and the position of its atoms."

Kindly find the dictionary definition -- with link -- showing what Bush might have meant that wasn't the same as some form of alliance.

He said constitutes. The equalivant of an axis. He did not say they were an axis.

You sound like Clinton struggling with the definition of "is".

You last reply didn't answer anything I asked but tried to misdirect what I said.
You imply that the shear numbers of countries against current policy makes them right. I do not recaal you ever saying that France is right, the US is wrong nor did I say that.

I never said the sheer numbers makes them right. Again, I never said anybody's right. I'm trying to say the war is wrong. I'll add, in hopes of enhancing understanding, that it's my opinion that a country that calls itself a democracy, embraces democratic values, and trumpets freedom and justice, shouldn't put itself in a position where it's standing alone (or nearly alone) in a hostile world. And, frankly, I don't know why anyone, American or not, would want that.

Hello.. can anyone here use a dictionary.  Axis doesnt have to mean alliance.  The only time that definition has been used was when it was applied to Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII.  There are many other definitions of the word Axis, at least nine to be exact.  Bush wasnt necessarily wrong.  It depends on which definition he was using.

As there are in fact numerous possible definitions to the word "axis" then the use of such a inprecise word is either an dumb error or perhaps a deliberate attempt to paint a picture that these three countries were united against the US (what Joe Average would get and a neat way to scare people) but keeping a handy out with "but that's not THE meaning we wanted to convey". In other words, it was STUPID. Are we to assume that the speechwriters are that glib about choosing the phrases they use? Bush had little to do with that himself, I'd wager. He just reads the words given to him (and when he goes off on his own is where he trips over big words and makes a compelte ass of himself).

Hello.. can anyone here use a dictionary.  Axis doesnt have to mean alliance.  The only time that definition has been used was when it was applied to Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII.  There are many other definitions of the word Axis, at least nine to be exact.  Bush wasnt necessarily wrong.  It depends on which definition he was using.

The word "axis" does have many definitions, but it would not have been chosen by the speechwriters if it didn't carry the strong memory of the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis.  Why else would he have named exactly three countries to the "axis of evil" if not to evoke WWII imagery?

Why would anyone expect us to believe that Iran and Iraq are allied against us? Thats just silly.  Everyone knows they hate each other.  Neither GWB nor his speechwriter would be that uninformed about world history.  Additionally Iraq and NK have no formal relationship to the best of my knowledge.  While there may be some form of collusion between Iran and NK in the way of weapons sales it is certainly not enough to substantiate a claim of alliance.  An individual would have to be extremely limited to expect to sell an alliance of those three nations against anyone.  It seems more likely that the term axis of evil is being misconstrued than that anyone in the Bush administration is trying to sell an alliance between those nations.  It just would never work.

Hello.. can anyone here use a dictionary.  Axis doesnt have to mean alliance.  The only time that definition has been used was when it was applied to Germany, Italy, and Japan during WWII.  There are many other definitions of the word Axis, at least nine to be exact.  Bush wasnt necessarily wrong.  It depends on which definition he was using.

You're not serious, are you.  You pick me out a better definition of the word "axis," the one you think Bush "meant."

I've looked it up several times, and it's fairly clear to me what the statement was based on.

n. pl. ax

---

"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."

                                                                   --Paul Krugman