![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 55 to 79 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:48:07
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:46:04
all that money that went on a war that is even just 'possibly' unjustified...
could have given fresh drinking water to third world countries.
could have provided everyone with hiv appropriate drugs.
could have... rebuilt new orleans.
i feel so very sad :_(
and now i have to go to work
:0(
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:21:40
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:50:35
> the kurds... are willing to talk oil dealing with the us... does that factor into the sympathy vote?
>
> how much does it cost to convert a tank to run on peanut oil?
>
> how many lives have been lost?
>The sympathy vote? Are you calling moral opposition to what happened to the Kurds and what could easily happen again a sympathy vote? Or self interest in the name of oil? You know, at this point I'm just going to have to withdraw from this conversation. Sorry.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:35:48
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:21:40
> The sympathy vote? Are you calling moral opposition to what happened to the Kurds and what could easily happen again a sympathy vote?
I'm not so clear on what happened to the Kurds...
Er... What happened to the Kurds?
(I"m serious)
I guess I distinguish between moral opposition
(And indignation and so forth)
And... Bringing in the troops...
Just like I distinguish between moral opposition
(And indignation and so forth)
And... A punch in the head...
(But we aren't of course opposed to what happened to the Kurds if that involved some group of people doing something to the Kurds 'cause then those people might feel put down by our opposition)
The above paragraph was a joke... Kinda.
I guess I am thinking that probably comperable things happen to other minority groups...
But the US doesn't bring in the troops for them.
Hence... There must be some further motivation.
That is my thinking.
But... I could be way off because I still don't know what happened to the Kurds :-(
Just the general gist...
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:43:48
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:35:48
I'd still rather withdraw from this conversation.
But you might find it useful to discover what happened to the Kurds.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:43:48
i can't imagine it would be worse than what has happened to other groups around the world...
so...
why the concern with the kurds?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:49:21
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:53:08
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
This is what I found from the second link to the GPF site when I was trying to find out about the Kurds:
British Colonialism and the Kurds
British politicians idealized the Kurds as a persecuted minority, but British records show that oil riches, not concerns for minority rights, drove official policy. Kurdish opposition to British colonialism, combined with the threat of a Turkish takeover in the north, further complicated imperial policy.
So thats about all i know...
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:57:47
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:53:08
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:06:43
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:41:48
I do understand that sometimes the gut reaction, and what seems to be the right thing to do, has unintended consequences.
And that the unintended consequences are what lead reasonable people to differ in these matters.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:10:16
In reply to re unconscionable, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:06:43
That led me to speak in such strong terms.
I apologize if I was overcome.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 23, 2006, at 18:25:39
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
That's just a sample, but I like that it's from a medical group...something different as a source
If you google Kurds poison gas, etc.,
or just the village names of Birjinni and Halabja, you will find a lot more (many more villages were attacked with chemical weapons, but these are the two most publicized/biggest, in the center, if I recall)
I have a certain link that I hesitiate to post here...it's very thorough, detailed, very real as it contains first-hand accounts of those attacks, but it is EXTREMELY graphic and contains many heartbreaking photos of dead bodies, including many children, etc.
I'm not sure it's be okay here or wise. But I could Babblemail it to anyone interested.
I wrote a short paper on these attacks for a class, back around 1997 or so, but hadn't thought about it (except maybe during the inital invasion in 2003) for a while. Probably blocked it out :-(
I'm glad the topic came up here. We musn't forget these sorts of tragedies. I mean, the entire region is complex and reasons for taking or not taking actions keep changing (eg, I remember finding that the US and others probably supplied helicopters, military intelligence, etc., intended to support Iraq in the war with Iran, but those ultimately were used also to plan and execute the attacks on unprotected civilians - which, to the regime in power *was* a necessary part of their war effort as Iranian forces were in and around the villages. )
<sigh> A lot of horrific suffering all around.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:38:39
In reply to re unconscionable, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:06:43
er i'm a bit lost. are you okay? i'm sorry if i've done something / said something... i really was joking with my comment... really... it wasn't getting at you... if it was getting at anyone it was probably dr bob... sorry bob :-( but i was just kinda kidding. sorry if that comment had something to do with it.
and the new orleans bit... i'm really sorry. i think now... now... i feel like that comment was a bit below the belt and i'm really very sorry. i didn't mean for it to be. i'm sorry.
> I do understand that sometimes the gut reaction, and what seems to be the right thing to do, has unintended consequences.
yes.
i agree.you know... i bemoan the theory... but a lot of philoosphers think that emotions are a really important part of morality.. of a moral sense. of a sense of what is the right or wrong thing to do.
eg.
if you don't feel fear... then you can't exhibit the virtue of courage. because courage seems to be... somthing to do with doing something you believe to be right in the face of fear. without fear... there can't be any courage. and that seems right enough.
and some people say that in a way... the function of emotions is that... well they think emotions are perceptions. we perceive features of the world that have some significance for well being. and perciving those features... is an important part of morality. so... feeling disgust when we perceive people to be treated unfairly etc. without emotions... we wouldn't feel upset at injustices. without feeling upset at injustices. we wouldnt' notice injustices. without noticing injustices... we woudn't do anything to remidy them...
> And that the unintended consequences are what lead reasonable people to differ in these matters.
yes.
yes.
yes.i firmly believe this. really truely. that is what i believe :-)
that is why i think people do tend to converge after... they converge on a DESCRIPTION of the situation and a description of the consequences.
so the process goes someting like this...
different people describe the way the situation seems to them...
then... you try and converge on a description.
then you consider the consequences of doing this...
and the consequences of doing that...and people just throw up ideas and considerations...
then you weigh those things...
and people point out other considerations... people point out where maybe reasoning has gone wrong too (happens to everybody sometimes cause we aren't ideal reasoners)
and then... convergence.
:-)
unintended consequences... yup.
i mean...
consider intellectual copyright laws.
consider a 'pro' description:something along the lines of... it is important to research to discover things to prevent these diseases and / or cure these diseases. people won't / can't do that research without some kind of funding. the govt. only has so much of that... the drug companies have much more available... but... they can't throw money into research unless they can recoup some of that later. if there are intellectual property laws patient laws etc then the drug companies can make their investment back. for every product they get up off the ground there is a lot of money spent on products that didn't get up off the ground. on reesarch projects that didn't eventuate in anything. of dead ends etc. that costs a lot. when they get a patient it might sound lik ethey make a lot but they have to recuperate the costs of the dead ends too. they wouldn't have an incentive to invest in research if they didnt' make it back. they probably couldn't afford to invest in research if they didn't make it back. if they don't invest in research tehn ... we won't discover preventions / cures. currently... not all can access them. but some can. and some are better than none. adn eventually... the patents will expire anyways.
sounds reasonable to me...
then consider the description from the other camp:
drug companies make back far more than they invest. they withhold lifesaving medication from pepole because they are greedy for profits. kind of like... the case over on social that legwarmers posted about... we should abolish the copyright thingimie and the drug companies have a moral obligation to provide their product at cost so that many lives are saved (peoples lives over profits)
and there is some truth to both sides...currently... i know a guy who is working on coming up with a fairer patent system. one that provides an incentive for companies to invest... and one that makes it feasible for everyone to have the medication they need.
comprimise.. but working out the details are very tricky and hard.
but i think...
both sides can converge.
have to believe that or there isn't any hope :-(
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:51:22
In reply to what happend to the Kurds *poss. trigger* » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on March 23, 2006, at 18:25:39
thanks i didnt' know about that at all.
so... there was talk of genocide...
i still think it should be up to the UN.
becasue they are the most global organisation there is and if it is up to the UN then it is a more united effort than the US taking things upon itself.
i think the people responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of law. yup.
but then... US use of white phosphorous in Iraq... should be similarly prosecuted to the full extent of law. yup. there are photos of civilians suffereing the effects of that too...
i guess what i think is that...
peaceful means.
because what we like to think people are learning in their personal lives (that violence doesn't work)
i think that applies between countries too. violence doens't work. war doesn't work. i don't think the us involvement has helped more people live... i dont think the us occupation is helping more people live. but it is creating division. within the us and between the us and the rest of the world.
and the us does have interests in iraq re oil.
and even if that really isnt' a factor in the current situation...
teh rest of the world will be sceptical.
if the un considers it a just war...
if the un considers occupation to be the best bet...
then i think it more helpful if they are seen to be running the show rather than the us becaues i think it is fair to say that there is a general worry (mostly outside the us) that the us is driven by its desire for economic growth than anything else. that might be true it might be false. i don't relaly want to argue that. it would be nice to be charitable. but fact is... i really do think that... that is what pepole outside the us tend to beleive. tend to believe about us motives. so if the us was seen to be supporting the un... then the occupation would be more likely be seen as an attempt to 'help' rather than an attempt to take over. giving control of troops to the un would help that along. because it would be more that the world is united in trying to do something about this terrible situation.the us just kind of making decisions off its own bat...
regarding invasion and trade sanctions etc...
i don't think that helps. i think it tends to escalate the situaiotn.
> <sigh> A lot of horrific suffering all around.
:-(
yes.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 18:59:15
In reply to Re: re unconscionable » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:38:39
I just got a bit concerned about my use of such strong language, and whether that was civil, or even fair. Because the reasons for not getting directly involved in the Sudan also involve concerns for the least amount of harm being caused, and are understandable. The people who believe that are also following their consciences, and are probably more familiar with the dynamics than I am.
Leaving no really good choices. And a heck of a lot of dead people.
Which saddens and frustrates me.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 19:02:31
In reply to what happend to the Kurds *poss. trigger* » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on March 23, 2006, at 18:25:39
Unintended consequences are a b*tch.
I've got a cartoon from years back with Uncle Sam with his arm around a series of people, each with the caption "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And if you look at the series, you really get a good sense of unintended consequences.
Thanks 10der, for the explanation.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 19:15:17
In reply to Re: re unconscionable » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 18:59:15
> I just got a bit concerned about my use of such strong language, and whether that was civil...
((((Dinah)))) I think you are okay. But then you understand the civility rules on this board better than me. But I really think you are okay. And if you get blocked then I'll start an almighty protest over on admin - ok? (though of course you wouldn't you would only get a pbc...) but really. i can't even imagine which of your phrases you might be worried about...
> Because the reasons for not getting directly involved in the Sudan also involve concerns for the least amount of harm being caused, and are understandable.
yep.
both sides are understandable once the views have been articulated (but of course it can be damned hard to articulate them i have sympathy for that oh yes indeed i do) and... i'm not so good at it to be fair :-( when people disagree... i think you need to figure their motivations... and your motivations... and typically what you find (or what my idealism says you will find - dammit!!!!!) is that you both want the same things it is just that you think different acts are more likely to lead to what it is you both want.but then you can turn to analysing which really is most likely to lead to what it is that people most want...
> The people who believe that are also following their consciences, and are probably more familiar with the dynamics than I am.
i don't know sh*t all really.
i guess my natural inclination is to go with... pacifism. or... doing nothing yeah. or... prosecuting but being very very slow to step in with the troops.
and other people... i guess their natural inclination is to go with... it really is a horrible situation and doing nothing is terrible so... we really need to step in and do something.
but which is most likely to help?
hard to say...i guess i think that war tends not to help the same way personal violence tends not to help. i mean... it might help in the we overpowered you so we get our way sense... but it doesn't really do anything to remidy the situation...
> Leaving no really good choices. And a heck of a lot of dead people.> Which saddens and frustrates me.
yep.
still... i had an idea :-)
about the un.
i'm quite fond of my idea :-)it must have occured to some other people out there...
i wonder if it really is feasible...
Posted by zeugma on March 23, 2006, at 19:28:43
In reply to what happend to the Kurds *poss. trigger* » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on March 23, 2006, at 18:25:39
just jumping in, I don't have the heart (no pun intended) to read through this whole thread. But I would think that if we owe something to a group of people whose fates we have involved ourselves with, it's the Kurds. I had thought that in Gulf War I it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power because we encouraged the Kurds to rebel and then watched them become victims (we wanted them to do our dirty work- realpolitik is not the most principled way of conducting foreign policy).
One can only hope for the best, now. It is horrific.
-z
Posted by Declan on March 25, 2006, at 18:42:56
In reply to Re: what happend to the Kurds *poss. trigger* » 10derHeart, posted by zeugma on March 23, 2006, at 19:28:43
I seem to remember that Simon Bolivar said that trying to control Latin America was like ploughing the sea. Even with the experience of eastern Europe behind them, it is still difficult to fathom the optimism of Wolfowitz and whoever else in Iraq. Did I hear that at the time of 9/11 the CIA did not have one fluent Arabic speaker? Can that be right?
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2006, at 23:52:23
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:46:04
> i dont' tihnk the us is helping...
>
> i think the us has too much power politically.
>
> i don't tihnk the us is helping.Keeping in mind that the idea here is to be sensitive to the feelings of others, could you please rephrase that?
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
One possibility is to ask another poster to be your "civility buddy" and preview posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 2:22:47
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » special_k, posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2006, at 23:52:23
sorry. thanks for giving me chance to rephrase...
i think it would be more helpful to turn the control of the troops over to the un.
and if that is out...
i think it would be more helpful for the troops to withdraw.
because while i appreciate that us is trying to help i think more hostility results from foreign occupation than would result from absence of foreign occupation. i mean... civil war and people will die yes, but people are dying now and i think withdrawal would be better.
i think other countries don't have enough power politically BUT i also think that there should be stricter laws on EVERYBODY re not having nuclear weapons and stuff...
i think that if people are using chemical warfare in Iraq then the UN should have some other countries supporting them to take custody of the people alledged to be responsible and try them in a court of law for war crimes. but i think the same should happen regarding the use of white phosophorous by american forces in Iraq.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2006, at 8:34:35
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 2:22:47
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2006, at 9:30:19
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 2:22:47
Thank you for acknowledging that the intent is good.
I don't mind disagreement about methods. I have them inside myself all the time, because it's a complex topic.
While I have doubts that when dealing with people who are killing and or raping, that the best idea is to send in social services without the police being on hand (as a metaphor), I do understand the issues with who the metaphorical police may be.
It occurs to me that the best alternative would be the creation of a pan-ethnic and pan-sectarian all Arab (and all African) peacekeeping force that is neutral on all topics except violence. I wonder if that's a possibility. I know there's an African force available, but I'm not sure how it's working out. And I understand that the goal is to build an Iraqi army that is capable of doing their own peacekeeping, but I hear reports that that isn't going too well.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 27, 2006, at 10:33:55
In reply to Re: what happend to the Kurds *poss. trigger* » 10derHeart, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:51:22
"thanks i didnt' know about that at all.
so... there was talk of genocide..."
Well, only if you call 400,000 dead "talk"
I didn't post the link, but I quoted that same article.
Here is another one I quoted from:
http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn
I don't know what, if any, motives there were by people in our government, but stories like these are why *I* initially supported going into this country.
There is a huge part of me that is ashamed we didn't do more to help sooner.
Of course, I also wish we had done it better. Deposing the government there was easy. There should have been a better plan for rebuilding.
---------------------------------
"i still think it should be up to the UN."So do I - that is if the UN would actually do something.
As it turned out, lots of those who should have been doing something were instead making tons of money off the so-called "oil for food" program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701646.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004801
Posted by AuntieMel on March 27, 2006, at 10:34:52
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by special_k on March 26, 2006, at 2:22:47
I must say - that was an excellent job of rephrasing.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 27, 2006, at 15:22:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 27, 2006, at 10:34:52
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.