posted February 28, 2003 11:05 PM              

Yes, this thread really has run its course. Somebody freeze it, please.

posted March 01, 2003 07:42 PM            

Very well said by the former ambassador..

Hi Queen,
Yes, it was kind of hard for me to swallow about the burying alive of soldiers but it's been documented by many sources.
The number of thousands is cited by sources that would be called 'liberal rags' by some but here's a source that's more moderate.. (the US military says it was only 150 soldiers buried alive)

PBS- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_b.html

quote:

---

NARRATOR: Armored bulldozers and tanks fitted with plows broke through the berm and moved on to the trenches. Eighteen-year-old Joe Queen drove one of the lead bulldozers.

JOE QUEEN: What we did is we just took the dirt that the Iraqi soldiers had dug out_ we just pushed that dirt right back into the trench. You could just look at the man's eyes and see fear. You know, you see him scared. You know, you're looking at a man's_ the whites of his eyes as you're going through in the trench with this bulldozer, covering in the trench.

---

posted March 01, 2003 08:16 PM            

quote:

---

"By historical standards, this is unusual and this is significant," Robert Bruno, labor professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said of Thursday's resolution.

---

posted March 03, 2003 02:37 PM              

"Plus I can't believe you want to leave Saddam in power...? For someone who's advocating human rights... you're sounding a bit hypocritical or simply selective to human rights issues where the US could be looked at as the bad guy." What to do about his human rights violations committed over the last 20+ years that will continue if he remains in power?

posted March 04, 2003 12:43 PM              

Tough job! Can't say I would have taken it!

But either way her performance was less than stellar so she was asked to resign, or be let go.

You have to give Bush credit in the fact he expects accountability from his cabinet.
First, his economic cabinet members were let go, now his foreign propaganda minister.

posted March 04, 2003 10:37 PM              

If he considers the destruction of a handful of missiles "stepped up cooperation" he is obviously ignorant to the massive list of weapons that are still unaccounted for and hidden in Iraq.

Honestly destroying all the Al Samound II missiles would even be the tip of the tip of the iceberg in regards to the weapons that Saddam has hidden.

It's like Bush said, "It's a distraction"
I'm not a avid Bush supporter, but on this one, I believe he is correct.

What happened to the more important chemical weapons that are unaccounted for...

In his report to the UN, Blix notes that Iraq claims the over 1000 canisters of chemical/biological weaponry were destroyed; he notes he has found evidence contradicted Iraq's statement.

Do we have to wait another year until we can find where Saddam hid those, and at the current rate of destruction we'll have to wait another year for Iraq to destroy them all. By that time he won't need them... he'll have nuclear weapons.

Want Proof? Here's Blix's report, raw, without commentary or spin, by his own hand: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/blix.notes/page8.html

This information is from Hans Blix, the liberal-labeled "unbias mediator" actually involved in the day to day issues of Iraq.

You peace advocators should try basing your arguments on FACTS, not opinions or viewpoints that are TOTAL BIASED SPIN-OFFS!

posted March 05, 2003 01:39 AM              

Should I start placing quote's from Rush Limbaugh's website stating them as facts???

posted March 05, 2003 05:45 AM            

quote:

---

"How can the world evolve to enlightenment & eliminate the possibility of WAR, FOREVER, with threats like Saddam and N. Korea... do you really believe they aren't threats to the world... if not now, in ten years when they amassed even more weapons to use as influence?"

---

I am not advocating sitting idle when there are PROVEN threats. There are other ways, besides brute force, of dealing with credible threats.
War will NOT create peace.
That is one of the most obvious lessons of history, from my perspective. You want to talk about evolution, well, the only way for us to evolve on a large scale is to step out of this cycle of war that only serves to perpetuate itself. You mentioned an interest in the occult on another thread, I would recommend you read Starhawk's Truth or Dare for more about the cycles of war it's self-perpetrating nature.
Hmm. I'm pretty sure I've already said something to that effect... You've accused me of not listening and only lecturing but I have felt much of the same from you and some others that have a differring viewpoint. (Have you read George Orwell's 1984, Lost Leo? "WAR IS PEACE" was a favorite slogan of Big Brother. If you haven't then I HIGHLY suggest you do.)
The only instances I can see where force may be justified is in self-defense. And in some cases it may be questionable.

quote:

---

"Plus I can't believe you want to leave Saddam in power...? For someone who's advocating human rights... you're sounding a bit hypocritical or simply selective to human rights issues where the US could be looked at as the bad guy." What to do about his human rights violations committed over the last 20+ years that will continue if he remains in power?

---

I want to repost a quote that perhaps got overlooked..
"It's quite true that, like any other dictator, Saddam treats his political opponents harshly, but it's also true that if you stay out of politics, you could live as freely in Baghdad as you can in New York City. Unlike a communist-style dictator, Saddam doesn't give a damn what Iraqis think or do unless it involves a threat to his hold on power. There are two categories of dictators: totalitarians who want to control every aspect of a person's life, and gangsters who just want to stay in power. Saddam is in the gangster category. Iraqi women, for example, are entitled to free education, just the same as men, and are free to choose any vocation they wish. Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had one of the largest middle classes in the Middle East, one of the best education systems and one of the best health care systems. We, not Saddam, have destroyed all three with the war and economic sanctions."

You want to talk about turning a blind eye..
When Saddam slaughtered the Kurds the UN did not speak out against these atrocities then. Only now when it serves the interest of the US is this being revisited. Talk about selective, to use your own term.

Look, I'm not saying that I'm cool with ignoring massive death, destruction and oppression but I don't see how creating more of the same solves anything. The only way we can create a world of peace is to recreate the world into one of shared abundance and justice.
You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb the world to Peace
It's not just a catchy phrase but a crucial point to consider.

Americans are afraid of terrorists and it can't be ingnored that by attacking Iraq will certainly give rise to more anti-Americanism and more attacks would likely be forthcoming.
There is profound truth in this statement -
If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Romans 12:20

posted March 05, 2003 07:01 PM              

1) Albeit (in my opinion only) somewhat hard to believe we can find enough qualified experts with which to "flood" Iraq to be effective.

2) Saddam would kill an innocent child for opposing him, it's a bit naive to think he'll actually allow an Opposition Party (threat to his gangster power) to establish a foothold within his party

3) I guarantee (in my opinion only) that there isn't one opponent of Saddam THAT WOULD DARE step foot in Iraq with Saddam still in power. If they were asked to, they'd look at us and in a very somber tone, ask, "Are you crazy?"

Yesterday in my globalization class we covered texts & media regarding activists & how they the protest, starting with the '99 WTO & moving up thru today's anti-war demonstrations.

Most authors' criticized the activists early on stating the stereotype "liberals simply point to problems while conservatives solve them." But then these authors recanted their statements saying as time has gone by, activists have started to actually be part of the solution, not just criticizing everyone without any productive input.
In 2002 & 2003 activists have slowly started to submit feasible solutions & work WITH gov't actors to overcome these conflicts.

So I give you credit, we're thinking forward now, not pointing fingers, thinking solutions not problems. Maybe you and StarHawk have got something going there about the cycle of war, that sounds to have some merit to me.