Too bad it is all one person with different logons, but I guess Rubi gets bored.
Here is another death toll figure from the Guardian Unlimited:
"As the US prepares to spend some $12bn a month on bombing the Iraqis, it has so far offered only $65m to provide them with food, water, sanitation, shelter and treatment for the injuries they are likely to receive. A confidential UN contingency plan for Iraq, which was leaked in January, suggests that the war could expose around one million children to "risk of death from malnutrition". It warns that "the collapse of essential services in Iraq could lead to a humanitarian emergency of proportions well beyond the capacity of UN agencies and other aid organizations". Around 60% of the population is entirely dependent on the oil for food programme, administered by the Iraqi government. This scheme was suspended by the UN yesterday, leaving the Iraqis reliant on foreign aid. The money pledged so far is enough to sustain them for less than a fortnight. "
"I've never researched the term "post-modernist" although I've heard it."
I found it a most frustrating subject to pinpoint...a simple definition is non existent--but you grasped the gist!
...and Dingo...Ead is plenty plucky, and we do seem to have some similar views--but she is not I. Anyone who's been here a while could tell you that. She's younger, lives in the East, and has a background from big pharma. I'm from the South--but I normally wear shoes.
For over a year I have thought you were plucky. No two people could write the same and have exact beliefs in everything no matter what the topic. And, plucky only comes out when you are on the ropes. So, stop hyping yourself. I was not going to say anything, but . . . The post was OK but failed in logic because (once gain) historical facts where ignored.
I'll revise this statement if Budd says he disagrees. At least the part about you not being the same. The arguement still lacked, but was better than most. I'll give you that, ead.
That was truly an excellent and completely fabulous post. I was truly awestruck reading it. Not that you could write it, of course, but it's pure and simple and truth.
I've never researched the term "post-modernist" although I've heard it. If that is truly the definition, then I know many people like that. One of them dropped stopped paying taxes, registering his car, renewing his driver's license, etc., etc., all in an effort to stand on "Constitutional Law." He had some very valid points, however, he's since paid his back taxes... hopefully he won't lose his house while he's in rehab. A.A. failed.
OK, let's go with your moral theory. The immoral thing to do is potentially jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousand of people to depose a tyrant through violent means when alternatives exist that could save lives.
It is immoral for this administration to falsify evidence to try and promote violence.
It is immoral to accuse a nation of threatening our safety and then demand no one ask for proof.
It is immoral to place our troops in harms way when there is historical precedence that inspections work.
It is immoral to have sent threatening letters to all nations in the world warning them the US would look unfavorably upon them if they attempted to legally denounce the war in the UN.
It is immoral when the CIA advises (along with many other people and organizations) that a war effort would likely promote terrorist attacks around the world that otherwise would not have occurred.
It is immoral to lie to the US public about installing a democratic government in Iraq when they won't and support one of the most brutal dictatorships there, the Saudis.
There is much more (and most has nothing to do with Iraq) but since you have not listened before there is no need to belabor the point. The bottom line is immoral behavior makes Bush an immoral leader. His lies have been exposed and so has his shameful agenda.
Referencing history shows trends and places current events in a context so that they can be understood. It would be irresponsible not to review the past since it can create motive and understanding.
I am ashamed that I actually supported him for President. And when I speak of Bush I mean his recycled Reganite administration. He is far too dimwitted to run anything. That should be obvious from the way he is isolated from any in-depth discussions with international leaders.
I'll never forget when he met with a South American leader and actually stated, "Oh, you have black people in you country too?"
I'll thank God when he is no longer in a position to destabilize the world.
Time for a few of my thoughts: In my humble opinion, Dingo's view is that of the post modernist. Post modernists review isolated information, immerse themselves in the middle of it, and form their positions as if the information represents a broad reality. What post modernists see may actually be true--but their reference points are so narrow, that there is no validity in extrapolating it to a larger picture. Lots of little fringe pieces do not make a sum total.
What we're looking for at this moment in history is moral clarity, moral clarity, not based on who may have done what in the past, or who will do what in the future, but based on what is the right thing to do in the now. If people have erred in the past, there is no reason that we must continue their patterns. If Prescott Bush (I refer to an earlier post of Dingo's) made some mistakes...that doesn't indict George Bush. Some members of the world may resent the US, but it is certainly because of cumulative actions and behaviors of past administrations, not because of the short tenure of GW.
One of the developed problems with "diplomacy" today comes from the notion that one cannot possibly say--in plain language--what one thinks. One must always be vague. This fashionableness is bull s***! It is exactly the problem! What could be so bad about many people understanding what is said? I assume diplomats, who speak well in gobbly
I love George Bush. He's a decent, plain spoken, honorable man--and the world is going to know that he means what he says--and that means that if anyone messes with us, we WILL go after them. Thank God for George Bush, and may God bless noble people everywhere, whoever they may be.
I honestly do not even know how to respond to that. It is such a general sweeping statement critical thinking invalidates it. Challenge specific points if you doubt them.
You really should be questioning the government that has consistently failed to justify its position and refuses to supply documented evidence to anyone for the rhetoric it produces, and when they do they have been caught falsifying the evidence. Red handed.
On what you just said I do not disagree. My point is the sanctions have limited the ability of these people to gain access for food. I think the program when worked out only allows for $400 of food per person per year.
Anyway, Saddam is a poor leader and evil. He deserves to die. It is the method that concerns me for humanitarian reasons and what the true intentions are of our government given the facts I have been presenting. I know I can't do anything about it. I am not a threat to a war effort. I do want people to give these issues serious thought and not just follow their leaders. That is not in reference to you specifically, but is inclusive of anyone who wishes to engage in this. I learn more each day.