Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

for Pala: some sites I found for you

Posted by Suzanne D on 2/09/03 at 15:36 (108599)

Dear Paula,

I was thinking about what you wrote recently concerning how you loved gardening and hope to be able to manage with your wheelchair to do some this spring/summer. Here are some sites I found that I hope you might enjoy! I haven't checked them all out, but I do hope you find something useful.

Suzanne :-)

Gardening from a Wheelchair - Suite101.comGardening with the after effects of polio.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/enabling_garden/9786

wheelchair gardeningI volunteer at a Nursing Home and would like ideas for people in a wheelchair to be able to do some kind of gardening. RE: wheelchair gardening Posted by: Linda M, MN (My Page) on Mon, May 25, 98 at 16:12
http://www.gardenweb.com/forums/load/teach/msg0513173723616.html

Gardening for disabled, horticulture therapyGardening Products for disabled or physical limitations or for horticulture therapy programs
http://www.achievableconcepts.com.au/garden.htm

Infinitec - Play - GardeningGreat gardening ideas enabling wheelchair and blind or visually impaired gardeners to enjoy the beauty of fragrances, textures, sounds, birds, butterflies, and colors of nature. A smorgasbord of elements to appeal to all five senses.
http://www.infinitec.org/play/gardening/accessibleenvironments.htm

Gardening as Therapynew garden plants, new plants, hardy garden plants, new varieties, plant breeders, new shrubs, master gardeners, botanic gardens, gardens, gardening, gardener, patio plants, hanging basket, perennials, plant farm, perennial garden plants, dangerous ...
home.cfl.rr.com/folden/therapy.htm

My Gardening Friend Emily - ArticleArticle about gardening with disabilities
http://www.gardening-guy.com/articles/emily.html

Arthritis Research Campaign (PIPE) Gardening with ArthritisLooking after your garden can be a problem if you have arthritis or rheumatism. Whether your whole body is affected or just one joint, you may find bending difficult or that you cannot get around too well or just suffer from general pain and stiffne
http://www.arc.org.uk/about_arth/booklets/6014/6014.htm

BUPA, Gardening, Mobility for Over 50s & SeniorsGardening for mobility sufferers, health, BUPA, Health, Wellbeing for Over 50s & Seniors,
http://www.cennet.co.uk/BUPA_gardening_mobility.html

Gardening Society (Yateley & District)Cousin Homepage - Cousin is Hampshire County Council's directory of community organisations.
hampshire.gov.uk/istcclr/cch05700.html

enjoy gardening even with mobility difficultieslaterlife.com interest section. 50+ UK site aimed at making life more enjoyable and fun for those of us over 50. Wealth of lifestyle and lifetime information: ideas on planning your wedding anniversary, enjoying leisure time, practical information ...
http://www.laterlife.com/laterlife-mobility-gardening.htm

Gardening - Gardening at Suite101The biggest gardening search engine and directory. Tens of thousands of articles in hundreds of topics. Plants, Landscaping, Horticulture, Lawn Care, Books and Tools. Your complete guide to everything about Gardening.
http://www.growinglifestyle.com/h124and15/garden/page13.html

Accessible Gardening. Handicapped and Elderly gardeningElderly gardener, Aged gardening, Handicapped gardens, Simple Gardens, gardening supplies, accessible gardening, garden accessories, plant containers, raised bed garden, Handicapped accessible planter, container garden, raised container, raised ...
http://www.simplegardens.com/Garden.html

Gardening for disabled, horticulture therapy.USAGardening Products for disabled or physical limitations or for horticulture therapy programs
http://www.achievableconcepts.com/usa_garden.htm

Handicap Accessible GardeningInfo about handicap accessible gardening.
http://www.inthecountrygardenandgifts.com/jspece/gardening/accessible.html

Gardening for The Disabled - Yes the joy of African violets is a passion of mine. - Personal - http://www.happymspage.coGardening is fun and don't give it up because you are disabl
http://www.happymspage.com/happymspage/Gardening_for_the_disabled

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

nancy s. on 2/09/03 at 16:30 (108612)

wow, suzanne, what an extra nice thing for you to do! just wanted to tell you that. my heart is warmed for the rest of the day.

nancy
.

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

pala on 2/09/03 at 17:43 (108618)

hey suzanne, after i post all my cynical postings you go and do something so nice for me. i added all those sites to my favorites. they are very helpful. i guess i'll have to give up cynical bitterness for the evening. so in a rare warm fuzzy moment , thanks so much. you are very kind. reading those sites give me inspiration. if other disabled folks can garden, so can i. you must be quite a teacher and a gift to your students.

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

Suzanne D on 2/09/03 at 19:00 (108628)

It is you two, Nancy and Paula, who have warmed my heart tonight! Thank you both. I am just glad you liked the sites, Paula! It will give me pleasure to think of you working in your garden this summer. Perhaps you can post a photo of yourself with your beautiful flowers surrounding you.

Suzanne :-)

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

marie on 2/10/03 at 14:27 (108704)

Oh Suzanne those sites you found for paula are wonderful. My biggest worry was that I wouldn't be able to garden again but I have found so many ideas on the internet...most of them have really helped. Paula I hope you do a little gardening. You have a nice long growing season in GA. What a wonderful place to live especially for gardeners.

marie

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

nancy s. on 2/10/03 at 15:49 (108716)

how are you today, paula? i just sewed three buttons on my winter coat for our trip tomorrow. i haven't sewn anything in a century. it took 20 minutes to thread the needle (WITH magnifying glasses and blazing lights), and my fingers are full of needle holes. did you read that rumsfeld is furious with france and germany for trying to come up with more diplomatic possibilities because it will just delay the war?? we just got channel 13 by trying out a rabbit-ears tv antenna that came in one of my more mundane auction box lots. we don't know whether to be happy about this or horrified. (channel 13 is CBS.)

well, we're about to travel into another world, of fundamentalist baptist weddings in neatnikville. i'm afraid i'll end up the token bag lady, but i AM making an effort to dress it up out of respect. and, fortunately, they will all be kind, as they always have been.

nancy
.

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

pala on 2/10/03 at 17:41 (108727)

thanks marie, i will try. yes georgia is paradise for gardeners. as long as the bugs don't carry away the garden. i do it organically so i share a lot of produce with them. it is nice to be writing about this as if it is going to happen.....

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

pala on 2/10/03 at 17:46 (108730)

yeah heard the news. have you missed the logical arguments?. since nothing was found it is obvious that something is being hidden, i heard that one on the radio the other day. good luck with the fundamentalists. that should be fun. have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says 'god, please save me from your followers'

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

Suzanne D on 2/10/03 at 21:22 (108755)

I'm so glad that the sites were helpful to you, too, Marie!

Suzanne :-)

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/11/03 at 03:28 (108777)

Paula, but isn't it obvious that 'something is being hidden'? Iraq is a huge country. Saddam has been building up his weapons stores since the Gulf War. If the inspectors can't find any needles in that haystack it isn't surprising, and if those Iraqis who are in the know aren't telling them where to look, what other conclusion can be drawn?

I'm familiar with the arguments against the war, but I think some of them are knee-jerk arguments - like 'we sold the weapons to them in the first place' and 'it's all about oil'. The first, while true, is irrelevant now, and the second is - I would guess - only part of the story. The fact is that Saddam Hussein is a brutal, mad dictator who has murdered his own people, picked fights with his neighbours, and is -clearly - a danger to the world.

Diplomacy? What hope is there for it? Hitler signed all the agreements, talked nicely to all the envoys, and marched into Poland all the same.

I hate war, and am terrified at the prospect. I'm even more worried about what is likely to happen after the war than about the war itself: I don't see a democratic Iraq happening quickly, and terrorism will surely increase as people in the poor countries of the world get angrier. I live in slim hopes that Saddam will be ousted by his own people without the help of the US and Britain, or that he will go into exile at the eleventh hour. But I don't think either of those things will happen.

Sorry everyone. I can't think about much else these days.

Re: Saddam's weapons

nancy s. on 2/11/03 at 06:47 (108780)

julie, all you say about saddam is certainly true. it's in many ways true of other past and present leaders of other nations, too. but i see only a worsening of everything -- here, there, and in many other countries -- if this thing is pushed this quickly on a world that still wants to look for a better solution. the iraqi army is hardly in a position to rise up and blow up the world. we could squash them in a minute. i don't understand the hurry, when the almost certain result will be thousands (maybe ultimately millions?) of lives lost, more broken countries like afghanistan full of mostly innocent citizens and little infrastructure left, other iraqi leaders maybe even worse than saddam to take his place, and a huge rise in terrorism here and in other parts of the world -- not to mention the possible use of nuclear weapons, which some in the administration here have eagerly pointed out our willingness to use.

if at some point i too felt that some kind of war invasion was needed, i would surely wish, fervently, that it be led by someone much more level-headed (a george mitchell might have me hoping for a better outcome, for example). it scares the life out of me that this administration sees other people and other countries who still want to try other measures as basically party poopers.

no one around here can think about much else these days, either. i'm sure most of us can agree that any way you look at it it's a sad and terrifying situation.

nancy
.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/11/03 at 08:46 (108787)

Nancy, I agree with just about everything you say, and just in case I didn't make it clear before, I feel as desperate as you do about the possible outcomes of a war (which I see as you do) whenever/if ever it takes place. I don't know what the answer is, but I wasn't issuing a call to arms. And, I don't think anyone anywhere, except for those directly involved, knows what is really going on. And I'm not going to second-guess the US/UK governments because I don't KNOW how urgent the matter is; nor am I going to be an apologist for the argument that we'd better get him before he gets us. There's only one thing I am fairly sure of (but I could be wrong) and that is that Saddam Hussein is a cruel, crazy dictator and needs to be taken out. How? On the BBC radio news an hour ago there was a reference to 'resolving the conflict'. What conflict? How can 'diplomacy' get us out of this? I wouldn't put much store by what Germany and France are doing right now: France, certainly, is motivated almost entirely by self-interest and the juvenile need to distance itself as much as possible from the US and Britain. I don't think that what they've proposed has anything much to do with the situation, and I suspect 'party-poopers' is a pretty accurate description of them.

The one thing that might work - possibly - is if the entire world said, with one voice, 'Go'. I still hope that will happen. But that doesn't look any more likely than Saddam's exile.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/11/03 at 09:25 (108790)

i hope before anyone, let alone the whole world, says 'go' to war before all possible alternatives are explored, they will do one thing: visit a veteran's hospital, see the conditions maimed soldiers spend their lives in, look at the voting record of politicians who push this war on funding veteran's hospitals and then say to yourself 'what the hell could i be thinking'.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/11/03 at 09:29 (108791)

yes julie, it is obvious that something is being hidden by every country in the world. ask yourself, since brutal insane dictators abound as world leaders and korea is a much bigger threat, why iraq? then dig a little deeper than the mainstream news 'all the news that's safe for big corporations to print', then never ever say our leaders know best. the minute deep questioning and dialogue end, that is the minute democracy is over. (our current leaders know best about oil profit, i'll give you that much)

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/11/03 at 10:39 (108800)

hey julie, just reread my paragraph about what the hell could you be thinking and realized it seems like i am addressing this strong language directly to you. so i thought i'd qualify it and say altho your post inspired it, it is directed to the millions of people 'buying' the idea that this war is needed now. i just wanted to diffuse the target of my strong emotions and spread it a lot thinner. . i appreciate your sharing your opinions here and don't want to attack anyone doing so. since i'm the biggest self rightous lecturer on that issue. what the hell could i be thinking?

Re: Saddam's weapons

Nancy N on 2/11/03 at 12:45 (108808)

I don't know if diplomacy can solve the problem or not, but I know there are military measures we can try before we go for all-out war. I don't think anyone can deny that the man is a madman and has no business running a household, much less a country--and especially not one in such a volatile part of the world.

Oprah hosted two shows last week asking if we should go to war, and while I only saw the last half-hour of the second show, I was impressed with what I saw. People who walked in thinking they knew what they thought were presented with enough other points to consider that they weren't so sure anymore by the time they left--and I think this happened to folks on both sides of the argument.

One of the panelists on the show I saw was Thomas Friedman, who writes a column for the New York Times. I find his columns invaluable to understanding what's going on in the Arab world, because I don't have much background in that area, so regular news reports don't always mean much to me. He is for a war, but only under certain circumstances and if it is handled in a certain way, which he's outlined in his columns. (Somehow I doubt that the administration is paying attention to his ideas, sadly.) He recently wrote a series of three columns about the prospects of a war, and two of those were addressed to opposite ends of the spectrum, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in both the liberal and conservative viewpoints.

I don't know the name of the woman who was on the show, but she was the one who pointed out that there are military measures short of war, and that those measures should be tried first. I certainly agree that, with the financial and human cost of war, we should do everything we can to avoid it. If it comes to the point where war is the only remaining option, then so be it.

My problem with all-out war comes from the fact that nobody in the current administration has made a case for war to my satisfaction, or, apparently, that of many of my fellow Americans. Especially in light of the fact that I, for one, am quite sure that terrorist attacks will increase if we attack Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally. And many of us are young enough that we don't have any first-hand experience with what war is really like. My generation certainly has no clue. On top of that, the government is treating the notion of war much like it treats terror alerts--'We're raising the alert level!!! But go about your business, no worries.' People seem to think a war could go on in the background of our lives and have no tangible impact, but I doubt that's true. And I doubt that it should be true, because if it were, it would give the whole idea of going to war even less impact than it has now. That doesn't seem right to me--it's like '1984,' as Paula mentioned already.

Anyway, just my random thoughts on the matter... I'm sure there's more where that came from ;)

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/11/03 at 16:51 (108836)

Paula, I didn't mean the whole world should say 'Go' to war. I meant 'Go' to Saddam Hussein.

Whether there is a war or not, there are going to be plenty of casualties. And consequences. I am - mostly - a pacifist, but pacifism seems to me as inappropriate in the extremely serious situation we are in today as it was just before the second world war (which I am old enough to remember). I am just trying to think clearly about what could and should be done. And I find it very difficult to avoid the cliches - on both sides. And I repeat: there is SO much we do not know, that it is almost impossible to know what to think - unless, of course, one just blindly takes sides one way or the other based on what one has always thought. I have never found it harder to know what to think.

Nancy, Thomas Friedman really does seem to have an intelligent handle on it. One of his NYTimes articles was reprinted in the Guardian yesterday - it was thought-provoking and helpful.

Re: Saddam's weapons

JudyS on 2/11/03 at 20:54 (108883)

Julie, over the last two years your words here have been thoughtful and treasured - but, to me, never as much as they are today with your thoughts about an impending war. Your perspective, even in light of your admitted pacivism, seems to be quite well thought out and quite balanced. From one who craves continuing education on both sides, thank you.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/12/03 at 04:10 (108902)

Thank you, Judy. I don't feel well thought out and balanced at all, though. Like you, I crave education on both sides, and it's bloody difficult to get. I know that what I said yesterday would surprise almost everyone who knows me, and it surprises me, too. But there it is - it's where I'm at right now in the attempt to think things through.

My age has got something to do with my bellicose inclinations, if that's what they are. I remember the second world war. I believe that if Hitler, who after all came to power in 1933 and made his intentions perfectly clear, had not been appeased for so long, but stopped before he invaded Poland, there might not have been a world war. I know there are differences, but I don't believe they are significant. What is significant are the consequences of not acting now (the question of course is HOW to act, as Nancy N pointed out yesterday).

Co-incidentally, I read a post this morning on another board I visit. It begins with a quote from Hegel:

******

'What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learnt anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.'

...and the poster continued:

Although Hegel died in 1831 - 172 years ago, his words ring true today.

It is only 70 years since the 'appeasement' of one inhuman dictator led ultimately to the deaths of more than 50 million men, women and children. That happened in my lifetime - but maybe not in yours; to you it may just be 'history'.

When will we ever learn?

*****

Alas, we don't seem to learn - as Hegel observed.

My education continues.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/12/03 at 21:27 (108967)

Julie:

You are a repository of wisdom and clear thinking! Your observations on issues ranging from medical care to world politics demonstrate an exceptional knowledge base and intuition.
Regards,
Ed

Re: Saddam's weapons

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/12/03 at 21:38 (108968)

Nancy:

The human costs of war are enormous but there are times that military action can forestall or prevent catastrophies of much larger proportions.
We have been using diplomacy for over 10 years with minimal results so our action now can hardly be considered a 'rush' to war. It is hard to see what can be further negotiated at this time. We can negotiate with parties that have a legitimate desire for peace and progress -- Saddam is not one of those.

Saddam has produced weapons of mass destruction in considerable quantities. He has used them on dissenters, Iranian war prisoners and ethnic minorities such as the Kurds. What he lacks are effective delivery systems. North Korea has been supplying missle technology to Saddam and other countries in the area so it will not take very long before Iraqs' ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction is enhanced.

France and Germany have entered into a dangerous policy of appeasement. That policy may take them off the prime terrorist target list for now. History has told us time and again that appeasement of tyrants is a bad policy and invariably fails. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that this time is different.
Ed

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/13/03 at 02:11 (108987)

Ed, thank you.

I don't know - sometimes I think I'm just very old!

But - thank you! I appreciate what you say very much.

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

nancy s. on 2/09/03 at 16:30 (108612)

wow, suzanne, what an extra nice thing for you to do! just wanted to tell you that. my heart is warmed for the rest of the day.

nancy
.

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

pala on 2/09/03 at 17:43 (108618)

hey suzanne, after i post all my cynical postings you go and do something so nice for me. i added all those sites to my favorites. they are very helpful. i guess i'll have to give up cynical bitterness for the evening. so in a rare warm fuzzy moment , thanks so much. you are very kind. reading those sites give me inspiration. if other disabled folks can garden, so can i. you must be quite a teacher and a gift to your students.

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

Suzanne D on 2/09/03 at 19:00 (108628)

It is you two, Nancy and Paula, who have warmed my heart tonight! Thank you both. I am just glad you liked the sites, Paula! It will give me pleasure to think of you working in your garden this summer. Perhaps you can post a photo of yourself with your beautiful flowers surrounding you.

Suzanne :-)

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

marie on 2/10/03 at 14:27 (108704)

Oh Suzanne those sites you found for paula are wonderful. My biggest worry was that I wouldn't be able to garden again but I have found so many ideas on the internet...most of them have really helped. Paula I hope you do a little gardening. You have a nice long growing season in GA. What a wonderful place to live especially for gardeners.

marie

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

nancy s. on 2/10/03 at 15:49 (108716)

how are you today, paula? i just sewed three buttons on my winter coat for our trip tomorrow. i haven't sewn anything in a century. it took 20 minutes to thread the needle (WITH magnifying glasses and blazing lights), and my fingers are full of needle holes. did you read that rumsfeld is furious with france and germany for trying to come up with more diplomatic possibilities because it will just delay the war?? we just got channel 13 by trying out a rabbit-ears tv antenna that came in one of my more mundane auction box lots. we don't know whether to be happy about this or horrified. (channel 13 is CBS.)

well, we're about to travel into another world, of fundamentalist baptist weddings in neatnikville. i'm afraid i'll end up the token bag lady, but i AM making an effort to dress it up out of respect. and, fortunately, they will all be kind, as they always have been.

nancy
.

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

pala on 2/10/03 at 17:41 (108727)

thanks marie, i will try. yes georgia is paradise for gardeners. as long as the bugs don't carry away the garden. i do it organically so i share a lot of produce with them. it is nice to be writing about this as if it is going to happen.....

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

pala on 2/10/03 at 17:46 (108730)

yeah heard the news. have you missed the logical arguments?. since nothing was found it is obvious that something is being hidden, i heard that one on the radio the other day. good luck with the fundamentalists. that should be fun. have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says 'god, please save me from your followers'

Re: for Pala: some sites I found for you / to suzanne

Suzanne D on 2/10/03 at 21:22 (108755)

I'm so glad that the sites were helpful to you, too, Marie!

Suzanne :-)

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/11/03 at 03:28 (108777)

Paula, but isn't it obvious that 'something is being hidden'? Iraq is a huge country. Saddam has been building up his weapons stores since the Gulf War. If the inspectors can't find any needles in that haystack it isn't surprising, and if those Iraqis who are in the know aren't telling them where to look, what other conclusion can be drawn?

I'm familiar with the arguments against the war, but I think some of them are knee-jerk arguments - like 'we sold the weapons to them in the first place' and 'it's all about oil'. The first, while true, is irrelevant now, and the second is - I would guess - only part of the story. The fact is that Saddam Hussein is a brutal, mad dictator who has murdered his own people, picked fights with his neighbours, and is -clearly - a danger to the world.

Diplomacy? What hope is there for it? Hitler signed all the agreements, talked nicely to all the envoys, and marched into Poland all the same.

I hate war, and am terrified at the prospect. I'm even more worried about what is likely to happen after the war than about the war itself: I don't see a democratic Iraq happening quickly, and terrorism will surely increase as people in the poor countries of the world get angrier. I live in slim hopes that Saddam will be ousted by his own people without the help of the US and Britain, or that he will go into exile at the eleventh hour. But I don't think either of those things will happen.

Sorry everyone. I can't think about much else these days.

Re: Saddam's weapons

nancy s. on 2/11/03 at 06:47 (108780)

julie, all you say about saddam is certainly true. it's in many ways true of other past and present leaders of other nations, too. but i see only a worsening of everything -- here, there, and in many other countries -- if this thing is pushed this quickly on a world that still wants to look for a better solution. the iraqi army is hardly in a position to rise up and blow up the world. we could squash them in a minute. i don't understand the hurry, when the almost certain result will be thousands (maybe ultimately millions?) of lives lost, more broken countries like afghanistan full of mostly innocent citizens and little infrastructure left, other iraqi leaders maybe even worse than saddam to take his place, and a huge rise in terrorism here and in other parts of the world -- not to mention the possible use of nuclear weapons, which some in the administration here have eagerly pointed out our willingness to use.

if at some point i too felt that some kind of war invasion was needed, i would surely wish, fervently, that it be led by someone much more level-headed (a george mitchell might have me hoping for a better outcome, for example). it scares the life out of me that this administration sees other people and other countries who still want to try other measures as basically party poopers.

no one around here can think about much else these days, either. i'm sure most of us can agree that any way you look at it it's a sad and terrifying situation.

nancy
.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/11/03 at 08:46 (108787)

Nancy, I agree with just about everything you say, and just in case I didn't make it clear before, I feel as desperate as you do about the possible outcomes of a war (which I see as you do) whenever/if ever it takes place. I don't know what the answer is, but I wasn't issuing a call to arms. And, I don't think anyone anywhere, except for those directly involved, knows what is really going on. And I'm not going to second-guess the US/UK governments because I don't KNOW how urgent the matter is; nor am I going to be an apologist for the argument that we'd better get him before he gets us. There's only one thing I am fairly sure of (but I could be wrong) and that is that Saddam Hussein is a cruel, crazy dictator and needs to be taken out. How? On the BBC radio news an hour ago there was a reference to 'resolving the conflict'. What conflict? How can 'diplomacy' get us out of this? I wouldn't put much store by what Germany and France are doing right now: France, certainly, is motivated almost entirely by self-interest and the juvenile need to distance itself as much as possible from the US and Britain. I don't think that what they've proposed has anything much to do with the situation, and I suspect 'party-poopers' is a pretty accurate description of them.

The one thing that might work - possibly - is if the entire world said, with one voice, 'Go'. I still hope that will happen. But that doesn't look any more likely than Saddam's exile.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/11/03 at 09:25 (108790)

i hope before anyone, let alone the whole world, says 'go' to war before all possible alternatives are explored, they will do one thing: visit a veteran's hospital, see the conditions maimed soldiers spend their lives in, look at the voting record of politicians who push this war on funding veteran's hospitals and then say to yourself 'what the hell could i be thinking'.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/11/03 at 09:29 (108791)

yes julie, it is obvious that something is being hidden by every country in the world. ask yourself, since brutal insane dictators abound as world leaders and korea is a much bigger threat, why iraq? then dig a little deeper than the mainstream news 'all the news that's safe for big corporations to print', then never ever say our leaders know best. the minute deep questioning and dialogue end, that is the minute democracy is over. (our current leaders know best about oil profit, i'll give you that much)

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/11/03 at 10:39 (108800)

hey julie, just reread my paragraph about what the hell could you be thinking and realized it seems like i am addressing this strong language directly to you. so i thought i'd qualify it and say altho your post inspired it, it is directed to the millions of people 'buying' the idea that this war is needed now. i just wanted to diffuse the target of my strong emotions and spread it a lot thinner. . i appreciate your sharing your opinions here and don't want to attack anyone doing so. since i'm the biggest self rightous lecturer on that issue. what the hell could i be thinking?

Re: Saddam's weapons

Nancy N on 2/11/03 at 12:45 (108808)

I don't know if diplomacy can solve the problem or not, but I know there are military measures we can try before we go for all-out war. I don't think anyone can deny that the man is a madman and has no business running a household, much less a country--and especially not one in such a volatile part of the world.

Oprah hosted two shows last week asking if we should go to war, and while I only saw the last half-hour of the second show, I was impressed with what I saw. People who walked in thinking they knew what they thought were presented with enough other points to consider that they weren't so sure anymore by the time they left--and I think this happened to folks on both sides of the argument.

One of the panelists on the show I saw was Thomas Friedman, who writes a column for the New York Times. I find his columns invaluable to understanding what's going on in the Arab world, because I don't have much background in that area, so regular news reports don't always mean much to me. He is for a war, but only under certain circumstances and if it is handled in a certain way, which he's outlined in his columns. (Somehow I doubt that the administration is paying attention to his ideas, sadly.) He recently wrote a series of three columns about the prospects of a war, and two of those were addressed to opposite ends of the spectrum, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in both the liberal and conservative viewpoints.

I don't know the name of the woman who was on the show, but she was the one who pointed out that there are military measures short of war, and that those measures should be tried first. I certainly agree that, with the financial and human cost of war, we should do everything we can to avoid it. If it comes to the point where war is the only remaining option, then so be it.

My problem with all-out war comes from the fact that nobody in the current administration has made a case for war to my satisfaction, or, apparently, that of many of my fellow Americans. Especially in light of the fact that I, for one, am quite sure that terrorist attacks will increase if we attack Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally. And many of us are young enough that we don't have any first-hand experience with what war is really like. My generation certainly has no clue. On top of that, the government is treating the notion of war much like it treats terror alerts--'We're raising the alert level!!! But go about your business, no worries.' People seem to think a war could go on in the background of our lives and have no tangible impact, but I doubt that's true. And I doubt that it should be true, because if it were, it would give the whole idea of going to war even less impact than it has now. That doesn't seem right to me--it's like '1984,' as Paula mentioned already.

Anyway, just my random thoughts on the matter... I'm sure there's more where that came from ;)

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/11/03 at 16:51 (108836)

Paula, I didn't mean the whole world should say 'Go' to war. I meant 'Go' to Saddam Hussein.

Whether there is a war or not, there are going to be plenty of casualties. And consequences. I am - mostly - a pacifist, but pacifism seems to me as inappropriate in the extremely serious situation we are in today as it was just before the second world war (which I am old enough to remember). I am just trying to think clearly about what could and should be done. And I find it very difficult to avoid the cliches - on both sides. And I repeat: there is SO much we do not know, that it is almost impossible to know what to think - unless, of course, one just blindly takes sides one way or the other based on what one has always thought. I have never found it harder to know what to think.

Nancy, Thomas Friedman really does seem to have an intelligent handle on it. One of his NYTimes articles was reprinted in the Guardian yesterday - it was thought-provoking and helpful.

Re: Saddam's weapons

JudyS on 2/11/03 at 20:54 (108883)

Julie, over the last two years your words here have been thoughtful and treasured - but, to me, never as much as they are today with your thoughts about an impending war. Your perspective, even in light of your admitted pacivism, seems to be quite well thought out and quite balanced. From one who craves continuing education on both sides, thank you.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/12/03 at 04:10 (108902)

Thank you, Judy. I don't feel well thought out and balanced at all, though. Like you, I crave education on both sides, and it's bloody difficult to get. I know that what I said yesterday would surprise almost everyone who knows me, and it surprises me, too. But there it is - it's where I'm at right now in the attempt to think things through.

My age has got something to do with my bellicose inclinations, if that's what they are. I remember the second world war. I believe that if Hitler, who after all came to power in 1933 and made his intentions perfectly clear, had not been appeased for so long, but stopped before he invaded Poland, there might not have been a world war. I know there are differences, but I don't believe they are significant. What is significant are the consequences of not acting now (the question of course is HOW to act, as Nancy N pointed out yesterday).

Co-incidentally, I read a post this morning on another board I visit. It begins with a quote from Hegel:

******

'What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learnt anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.'

...and the poster continued:

Although Hegel died in 1831 - 172 years ago, his words ring true today.

It is only 70 years since the 'appeasement' of one inhuman dictator led ultimately to the deaths of more than 50 million men, women and children. That happened in my lifetime - but maybe not in yours; to you it may just be 'history'.

When will we ever learn?

*****

Alas, we don't seem to learn - as Hegel observed.

My education continues.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/12/03 at 21:27 (108967)

Julie:

You are a repository of wisdom and clear thinking! Your observations on issues ranging from medical care to world politics demonstrate an exceptional knowledge base and intuition.
Regards,
Ed

Re: Saddam's weapons

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/12/03 at 21:38 (108968)

Nancy:

The human costs of war are enormous but there are times that military action can forestall or prevent catastrophies of much larger proportions.
We have been using diplomacy for over 10 years with minimal results so our action now can hardly be considered a 'rush' to war. It is hard to see what can be further negotiated at this time. We can negotiate with parties that have a legitimate desire for peace and progress -- Saddam is not one of those.

Saddam has produced weapons of mass destruction in considerable quantities. He has used them on dissenters, Iranian war prisoners and ethnic minorities such as the Kurds. What he lacks are effective delivery systems. North Korea has been supplying missle technology to Saddam and other countries in the area so it will not take very long before Iraqs' ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction is enhanced.

France and Germany have entered into a dangerous policy of appeasement. That policy may take them off the prime terrorist target list for now. History has told us time and again that appeasement of tyrants is a bad policy and invariably fails. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that this time is different.
Ed

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/13/03 at 02:11 (108987)

Ed, thank you.

I don't know - sometimes I think I'm just very old!

But - thank you! I appreciate what you say very much.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/13/03 at 08:06 (109002)

well then let us not delude ourselves on this issue. as i understand it france and russia have a satisfying oil deal with iraq. that is why they are against going to war with them. we don't . that is why we are going to war.

america and england now have an excuse to get iraq oil. and as i said to judy, there's a part of me that wants america to do better econonimically. but in this case it's a pie in the sky.

study history you will see that no country, ever, started a war for any other reason than money, profit, land or power. . there's always reasons to . there's abuses everywhere. there's monster psycho dictators everywhere as well with weopons of mass destruction. as soon as it is profitable to 'liberate' the populace, poof, there's a war and a good reason to go. which is never the real reason.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Nancy N on 2/13/03 at 15:01 (109078)

Ed--

I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree with you. Either I have been unclear, or you've misread me. My point is not that we should leave Saddam be; rather, I'm saying we should exhaust all measures short of war rather than just barrelling in there because we can and blow away everything in our path. I am not just referring to diplomatic negotiations, as you seem to believe.

By 'all measures short of war,' I am including military measures that do not constitute an invasion. The CIA has toppled dictators before--why not now? Or he could go into exile. Or we can launch smaller military operations to do the job--so why not try those first? We can always scale things up if they don't work, but by trying a more level-headed approach first, we do our best both to address the situation and to keep the casualties to a minimum--and we also keep more respect from the world community than we will if we headstrongly rush in like GI Joe--and we need that world community on our side, both in the short- and long-term of any extended military conflict. Without them, we come off (once again) as trying to impose our views on the rest of the globe, which does us no good at all.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/13/03 at 16:00 (109079)

did anyone else read today that rumsfeld said we might use nuclear weopons on iraq? that should liberate the populace from an insane leader.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Carole C in NOLA on 2/13/03 at 16:35 (109080)

I didn't read it. I've been spending most of the day sleeping and not reading much of anything. But, I'm not surprised. The administration is really serious about this. I don't know what is the right thing to do, but I know that just standing around twiddling our thumbs won't hack it. Something has to be done, and soon. Whether we should send in a covert assassination team or begin an all out war, is a military decision. I suspect that decision something the public doesn't have enough information to make, but I'm sure the Pentagon does.

It sounds like Osama plans to die while storming the Pentagon, the Capital, and/or the White House. We can't sit by and do nothing.

Carole C

Re: Saddam's weapons

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/13/03 at 17:53 (109091)

Pala:
Understandably, there are always ulterior motives, often economic in wars.
Do you think the US entered WW2 for economic reasons? If so, what were they?
Ed

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/13/03 at 18:32 (109099)

ed, i'm too lazy to reread my post but i am pretty sure i said no war was ever started for etc etc. . we didn't start ww2. . of course wars are entered into for self defense and that was what we were in ww2 for. it was a morally justified war. unlike the present one. nuclear weopons on these people. now, really, gang.....

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/13/03 at 18:38 (109100)

having inspections go on and acting in unison with u.n. and behaving like a civilized nation with some shred of sanity and morality is not exactly doing nothing. doing nothing is what we are doing in korea where we need to be doing something. have i fallen into a book by kafka?

Re: Saddam's weapons

Dr. Z on 2/13/03 at 18:56 (109102)

We have learned . In less then one month another Hilter will be gone but this time over 20 million humans won't have to be killed along with him
Thank G-D the good old USA is there cause the Europeans that still continue to repeat history. The French have lost their wisdom with age and that is if they ever had it. Maybe too much wine does effect judgement

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/14/03 at 03:56 (109119)

Dr Z, I don't support the line that France is currently taking, as I said earlier (and I believe they will eventually line up for a UN resolution) but there really is no need to rubbish Europe. Please remember that it took rather a long time, and Pearl Harbour, for the good old USA to enter the second world war, and that Britain fought alone during all that time.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 09:09 (109130)

julie, people like to get emotional at times like this. or maybe i should say that we were evolved to do so. i think it is important not to. at any rate , i'd be interested to know the english outlook on the impending war, from your pespective. is there much war resistance being heard? also i just saw on cnn that a quarter of the english army is there. you guys are quite committed. . i think the war will be starting very soon. and i also think france will have to go along. how can they afford not to, oil wise

Re: Saddam's weapons

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/14/03 at 10:03 (109134)

Pala:

We are doing a lot concerning Korea -- not nothing. It is earlier in the stages of that conflict so we are trying to handle that via diplomatic means. The intention is to bring this situation in front of the United Nations since there is more international agreement on how to handle that conflict.

Rumsfeld has stated, recently, the same thing our government has stated for the last 50-something years... that we do not rule out the use of any weapons in a war, including nuclear weapons. This is the same policy that has been around since the Eisenhower administration, despite the 'spin' that some in the media may try to create. He did not state that we were going to use nuclear weapons in Iraq. There is a hint that we would not be first to use weapons of mass destruction but would reply in kind in case they were used against us or our allies.
Ed

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 10:34 (109137)

ed, wasnt the first brilliiant diplomatic effort when bush kicked that hornet's next with his nexus of evil speech? i feel real secure to know the same group is now avoiding disaster there with diplomacy. what spin would that be now ed.? fair and balanced fox station? rabidly right wing talk radio? there was no spin. i just happened to read it (on yahoo news. appropriately. )

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/14/03 at 11:19 (109143)

Paula

There is enormous opposition to the war here - more, I think, than in the States. The latest poll showed that only 9% of the population is in favour, and most people think that Tony Blair has made a big mistake. Whether or not that is true as regards the big issue, it is certainly true as regards his party and his government, which is deeply divided on the issues, and, I think certainly true as regards his own career and reputation. As you may have read or heard he is being referred to, jeeringly, as the Right Honourable Member for North Texas.

Tomorrow there is going to be a big anti-war march, which half a million people from all over the country are expected to join, culminating in a mass assembly in Hyde Park. But the buildup to war has gained so much momentum that it seems bound to happen: it seems there is no going back, unless some miracle (Saddam going into exile?) happens.

It is difficult not to get emotional about it, but I agree with you that it's important not to. I also think it's important not to fall into accepting and repeating the cliches that are abounding on both sides and making judgements on the basis of them. But alas, there is more of cliche than of information.

Today the Guardian devoted the whole of its magazine section to photographs from the Gulf War, most of them never seen before. The accompanying article by Don McCullin made the point that the job of photographers has been made very difficult since the Vietnam War, because the Americans decided that it was the media that lost that war, and it is difficult for them to get to the front.

The photographs were horrendous.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 11:34 (109144)

i'm sure if the american people could see what has been done in our name in the gulf war and what will soon be done in this war, they would put an end to it. have i got my statistics right that a hundred thousand woemn and children were killed the last time. well, we will never see those photos nor will we see any real coverage this time.

there's a lot of anti war sentiment here, but the media doesnt cover it for the same reason. it is disheartening to hear the cliches and pablum spit back by the public after each spoon feeding. they govt.learned their lesson well from vietnam.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 11:37 (109146)

and don't worry about blair's career. hel'll bounce back in a much more lucrative one a few years from now as a consultant to a big oil company in texas, majority shares owned by guess what family. duh.

Re: Saddam's weapons

john h on 2/14/03 at 11:37 (109147)

Actually we sort of went south with North Korea with the Clinton Administration Dr. Ed. We agreed to provide them with oil and billions of dollars of aid if they would shut down their Nuclear Plant. We set a precident and now they want direct talks with the U.S. to get more money and more supplies to continue their mass buildup of weapons. North Korea spends nearlyy 50% of their gross national product on weapons. I am not sure but I think we spend less than 20% on defense. Some of the European countries spend less than 3%. The United Nations Nuclear commission is rather solid against North Korea in that it is violating the non proleferation treaty. We are certainly not alone in opposing the buildup of North Korea's nuclear weapons capability. Most of their income comes from the sell of weapons to other countries.As most of you probably read we intercepted a large boat in he middle east filled with missles which North Korea had sold to one of the mid eastern states. Hopefully the UN will come together on this and persuade the North Koreans to back off. They have stated that if the UN sanctions them they will consider that an act of war. They have a well trained million man army that could overrun South Korea in a couple of days and reportedly a missle capable of reaching our west coast cities with nuclear power. I think we will work ourselves out of this one as they know they could be totally destroyed in one day if they were to launch some sort of nuclear attack. We are bound by treaty to defend Japan and South Korea and both are very worried about the N. Koreans.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Nancy N on 2/14/03 at 11:52 (109149)

I had not got the impression that South Koreans were so worried about North Korea. Granted, it's been a while since I've heard much specifically about them, but the last I heard was that they wanted the US to stay out of it because they're so hopeful about relations between the North and the South. After all, many of them still have relatives in the North and haven't been able to see them since the Korean War. That said, it's got to be scary know that there's a loose cannon across your border.

I saw a show a few weeks ago--on CNN or MSNBC or some such--with a former US ambassador to South Korea and a woman who I think was a doctor from South Korea? I don't remember her background specifically. But they both said that Kim Jong Il is not as psychotic as our press has made him out to be--and that he is working to make life better for North Koreans. I read much the same thing in a news article since then--that when he visits other countries, he wants to know how they have managed to achieve certain goals.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying that the guy is Prince Charming and we should all go give him a hug. Obviously, he still shouldn't be building nuclear weapons. And there's clearly still a lot wrong with North Korea (that same broadcast I saw showed the Korean Peninsula at night--all the bright lights in South Korea, and pitch black in the North--just one rather startling example). But I do wonder how quick we are to believe everything we're told without question. I think it's much healthier to approach with an attitude of question than to just jump on the bandwagon without a thought.

And as for nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, who are we, in the US, to tell others they can't have them, when we have a supply that could wipe out most (if not all) of the globe? I always wonder about that, too--isn't it a bit like telling a kid they can't play with matches while you're doing it yourself?

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 12:05 (109150)

bravo nancy. it is thinking and questioning that democracy needs to carry on without the willingness to look deeper and question, democracy is in danger. that is the great danger i think we are facing now.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/14/03 at 14:01 (109170)

Paula

You asked me a serious question, and I tried to give it a serious, factual answer. You respond with sarcasm. I am not happy with this.

I am not worried about Tony Blair's future.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 15:21 (109182)

julie i answer everything with sarcasm. war, underwear on head, revolutionary cows. but since it upset you, i apologize. i don't kow if i can (or want to )stop, so you may not want to dialogue with me directly. there's a thin line between sarcasm and humor and since i cossed it with you i'm sorry. your answer was very informative and i appreciated it. i am very disgusted right now and did not mean to imply any disrespect towards you tho i see now how you would feel that way .my disgust and sarcasm on this issue is the veil of lies and hypocrisy of a country and a populace i would like to be proud of, and am not at this time. not towards you. . i will be more careful now to try to make more clear what my sarcasm is directed to. where is nancy s to tell me how cynically delightful my humor is?

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 15:28 (109184)

p.s. there is also a fine line between sarcastic, disgusted and deeply disappointed.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/14/03 at 15:41 (109185)

Paula

Please don't worry. I was neither upset nor offended, just a bit annoyed, and that was my limitation, not yours, and there is no need for you to apologise. I'm afraid I don't have much of a sense of humour at the best of times, and I have none at all about this war.
My original post, a couple of days ago, was triggered partly by your flip dismissal of the idea that there were no weapons being hidden (as the inspectors have not found them) and partly by a satirical programme a few nights ago during which we laughed for an hour at Rory Bremner, John Bird and John Fortune poking fun at the whole desperate situation. I was sobered afterwards - how could I have laughed at this stuff! I just don't think there is anything to laugh at. Yes I know..., sarcasm and humour are serious too, and a defense against despair, and I'm not for a moment saying you're not serious: I know you are. But a few hours earlier you were saying that you wanted serious dialogue, and I did want to dialogue with you - and then you responded to me ...well, flippantly. I guess it was that, and your assumption that I might be worried about Tony Blair's future that set me off. I couldn't care less about Tony Blair. As a lifelong socialist I deplore the way he has hijacked the Labour Party and dragged it to the right. Something else to be in despair about.

Nancy is in Michigan.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/14/03 at 15:52 (109186)

oh, okay. well i know next to nothing about blair and flippant is my middle name. but if blair likes bush and bush likes blair i'm sure i don't like blair. if they attacked atlanta i'm pretty sure i'd get in one more flippant line if i could. and i do take this serously and i enjoy dialogue with you so wiht all that said why don't we just carry on as usual. your a lifelong socialist? don't meet a lot of them outside of berkeley calif.

Re: Saddam's weapons

john h on 2/14/03 at 19:04 (109189)

Nancy: the North Koreans could overrun South Korea in three days even without nuclear weapons. the South Koreans have no nuclear weapons and no army to match the north. the north has a million man well trained army.. we have a very small force of Americans at the DMZ who would be no factor. Actually we probably should pull them out but since we have a treaty with South Korea we must maintain some presence there..North Korea also has Japan very concerned since they recently fired a missile that went over Japan. It should be clearly understood that what keeps the crazies in check in our power. Ultimately that is what brought down the Berlin wall. Teddy Roosevelt had it right when he said 'walk softly and carry a big stick'.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/15/03 at 03:22 (109200)

Paula, I got my political orientation in the slums of the South Bronx in the 1940s. It developed through a couple of years of involvement in youthful left-wing Zionism and continued through a high school and college education that were more than liberal (at Music & Art and Antioch). 50 years or so on and in the face of repeated disappointments I have not abandoned my belief that human beings can learn to organise their affairs under some kind of system that is not based on profit for the few and drudgery for the many, and I hope that one day they will, though I'm sure I won't see it. (I am probably just stubborn, and naive - if not retarded.) I have never been politically active, though. My energy goes into opening individuals to a way of transforming their lives through yoga. I think that there is where the possibility for change lies.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/15/03 at 09:41 (109229)

julie, socialism seems to work to some extent in europe,no?. the best we can hope for here is a democrat gets in from time to time and builds up a surplus for the next republican to hand to the billionaires and then needs a war to plunder the squandered resources.

nice to see millions mached against the war. stuck here in georgia, and also dialogueing on this board about it, i started thinking there weren't four people in the world who thought like me. so i'll take a small comfort in that.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Ed Davis, DPM on 2/15/03 at 09:54 (109232)

John:

In the most tense period of the Cold War, the US and USSR both respected the the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons. The thing that worries me most about North Korea is their willingness to sell weapons to anyone for the right price. They are providing tyrants in the Middle East with missle technology -- the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
Ed

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/15/03 at 11:20 (109251)

i have a crush on rumsfeld. he's so cute!

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/15/03 at 11:50 (109255)

I don't know about that, Paula. It has never really been tried, as far as I'm aware. In Britain we once had something that was called socialised medicine, but it's pretty well in tatters now (and being slowly privatised like everything else). But it's still a beautiful idea and I love it.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/15/03 at 11:57 (109257)

Paula, you're a soul-sister of Tex Barb who used to come around here a lot. She had a crush on Dick Cheney.

Does anyone know how Barb is?

Re: Saddam's weapons

JudyS on 2/15/03 at 13:19 (109272)

Ah - I was hoping someone would remember TexBarb's crush on the veep.

Now, shall we talk about her caricature of Dr.......(what was his name?)

Re: Saddam's weapons

Nancy N on 2/15/03 at 13:28 (109274)

Dr Hewi Lewi, DPM! Boy, do I miss her wit!

I spoke with Barb a few months ago and, unfortunately, she was not doing any better than when last we saw her. She had come to the conclusion that she must have a stress fracture, because every doc she saw said the same things and nobody had anything new to offer her. She was still on crutches and dealing with her wrists, which have been problematic because of the crutches. Until she's off the crutches, I suspect she won't be able to heal the wrists. And it sounded like she'd be on the crutches for a while.

She doesn't email much anymore because it's so painful for her to type. When I spoke to her, I offered to post an update on heelspurs, and she asked me not to because she didn't want to be flooded with emails that she couldn't answer. So I would ask that you only email her if you absolutely have to--she's dealing with enough emotional issues as a result of her foot problems, and I'd hate to think that my posting about her now might compound any of that for her.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/15/03 at 13:49 (109277)

lord have mercy, dick cheney? that crush comment was a joke. i'd as soon kiss satan.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Nancy N on 2/15/03 at 13:52 (109279)

Pala, do a search on Dick Cheney and I bet you'll see all her old posts. It was pretty funny. If you haven't ever looked up Dr. Hewi Lewi, you owe it to yourself to see those, too.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/15/03 at 15:06 (109288)

Barb was joking too, Paula. At least I always thought she was.

Re: Saddam's weapons

Julie on 2/15/03 at 15:07 (109289)

Thanks for the report on Barb, Nancy. That's very sad. I was hoping she was better by now - it's been such a long haul for her.

OK, I won't email her! But maybe you'd remember me to her when you speak to her and tell her I asked.

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/15/03 at 15:14 (109290)

thanks nancy, i will

Re: Saddam's weapons

pala on 2/15/03 at 15:23 (109291)

well well well. millions of people agree with me. and larry and i thought we were the only sane people left on earth. here's an idea as an option to war. keep inspecting, get u.n. agreement, take the time necessary to do it, sop up some of the mess in korea, go after bin laden and his merry men, don't try to fix the economic nightmare created by bush administration by invading oil rich countries. and bring back the ammendmets to the constitution this admisnistration trampled on. hello? (and while i;m dreaming, stick that adorable cheney in prison for his role in haliberten fiasco.)