![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 67. Go back in thread:
Posted by verne on March 28, 2006, at 20:52:43
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 19:03:50
I, too, am against war. But when the war is between terrorists and a free Iraq, I'll choose to help the Iraqis.
Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
God Bless America!
Posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 21:01:14
In reply to Re: I support his stance. » Declan, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:40:15
From what I know the USA is much more confident in accepting immigrants than Australia has been. The size and dryness of the landmass here, the fewer numbers of people, the unease about colonisation (and the right to be here), and racial anxieties (becoming less important over time, perhaps) have made this a sensitive point for Australia.
It has been the subject of bitter political division since Howard won the election before last by (in many people's minds) manipulating the unauthorized arrival of the Tampa into an election winning issue viz 'we decide who comes here, and when', and generally abandoning a consensus of generosity.
There was a vessel called in our Parliament SIEVX, and it sunk with the loss of 300 or so lives. Questions were raised in Parliament about whether Australian security people in Indonesia sabotaged the boat in order to discourage illegal immigration. (The latte drinking chattering classes grind their teeth.)
I've seen a National Geographic with grandmothers patrolling the Mexican border by night.
Declan
Posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 21:06:16
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by verne on March 28, 2006, at 20:52:43
> I, too, am against war. But when the war is between terrorists and a free Iraq, I'll choose to help the Iraqis.
>
> Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
>
> God Bless America!Yes but verne the whole aim wasnt to free Iraq was it? The idea was to protect us from saddam and his weapons of mass destruction......an aim which has been conveniently forgotten since we found nothing!
Also its been conveniently forgotten that one way or another both the US and UK governements (not to mention a few other european governments) actively supported saddam whilst he was 'kicking *ss' over in iran.
Seems to me that history shows both the UK and US as being the biggest EVER state sponsors of terrorism. Sad but true!
Really is time for my bed now.
TJ
Posted by verne on March 28, 2006, at 21:12:04
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 21:06:16
Sure we are all against the reasons for this war. I'm not voting republican next time around if you get my drift. But we are there, the Iraqi's are there, and now it's a fight for their survival.
What's the solution? Leave Iraq to Al-Queda and the terrorists?
Imagine if we did nothing in 1939?
Verne
Posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 21:18:11
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by verne on March 28, 2006, at 21:12:04
IMO
If the USA wants to save the situation it must have the will to flood Iraq with troops (McCain?). Otherwise it's a choice between theocracy and civil war. It's hard to imagine a decent outcome now; the moment of opportunity has been missed. The pity of it is that those wanting a lawbased western style government are likey to be the main losers.
Declan
Posted by wildcard11 on March 28, 2006, at 21:33:36
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by verne on March 28, 2006, at 20:52:43
***Thank God for the USA ~ YES!!!! i'm w/ ya 100%
@$$ and President Bush ~ gotta disagree w/ ya on that one...now i am leaving and stopping notifications of this..lol i just cannot muster anything civil to say re: GWB
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 21:45:16
In reply to What's the solution?, posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 21:18:11
I hope you don't mind, but I really hope you're wrong. :(
I hate no win situations.
Posted by verne on March 28, 2006, at 22:08:26
In reply to What's the solution?, posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 21:18:11
I wish we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place. When they caught Saddam I was hoping they would put him back in power and leave. Seriously.
Verne
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2006, at 23:09:15
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 21:06:16
> Seems to me that history shows both the UK and US as being the biggest EVER state sponsors of terrorism.
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. The last time you were blocked it was for 2 weeks, so this time I'm making it for 4.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
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
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.
--
> Its my opinion that Bobs philosphy is actually detrimental to the healing of the individual. I come here and I'm so scared of upsetting someone else that it actually dents MY self confidence and self image!
Depending on what someone's self-confidence and self-image are based on, I agree, they may be dented here.
> I still feel Dr Bob skews his feelings in favour of the recipient of a post rather than the poster
Well, there are lots of recipients, but there's only one poster...
Bob
Posted by special_k on March 28, 2006, at 23:21:32
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » teejay, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2006, at 23:09:15
I'm sorry you are blocked :-(
I hope you are feeling okay...
I'm sorry :-(
People care about you.
You will be missed
((((((teejay))))))
hang in there...
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 23:33:05
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 21:06:16
It felt to me as if we were making inroads to mutual understanding. I'm sorry it ended this way.
Posted by tealady on March 29, 2006, at 0:02:40
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 21:06:16
> > I, too, am against war. But when the war is between terrorists and a free Iraq, I'll choose to help the Iraqis.
> >
> > Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> >
> > God Bless America!
>
Nah, Iraq had to be freed from the Uraq'ies;-) kiddin
May I suggest ya ask anyone citizen of Iraq.Do ya reckon they begged the US to invade Iraq, blow up their buildings, kill a heap of em, imprison some more, maybe scare a few kids a little, and
1. grab most of the oil income (main reason for most wars is economic .. the profit to be made )
2. payback Saddam (remember the old e Bush) .. have to "get" Saddam back. This goes back to before the current Bush was first elected IMO.(and why I was so upset with his election)
back to payback for Saddam..
I thought I heard Bush mutter something along these lines on a late night radio show over here long time ago., but it was late at night and I was in bed half asleep.. (before the war began I think, which made me certain we'd have the war no matter what). It's on the net somewhere still probably, wish I had a tape of it..
3. payback for maybe making US govt. looking a bit like fools re Sept11th etc.. hence a huge show of strength and talk of terrorists
4. redefine what is and is not a war, so you can make your own rules as suits regarding treatment of prisoners, define what is and is not an invasion, define what is reconstruction and what is ripping a country of its income"Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq."
Yeah, did ya see some of the footage of the US liberation of some towns (shot by Hollywood and considered OK for the US censors(most footage was destroyed I think by censors).
Great pictures of before and after liberation of a town in Italy. Looked to me to be completely flattened after liberation. The Italians in that town .. funny I didn't see them jumping up and down and rejoicing, didn't see many wandering about at the end.
Teejay I watched a show in the past week on Egypt and the British PM in the 50's and 60's.. re Suez crisis. Documents been released now officially seem to "prove" it re Eden.
"AS IT HAPPENED - THE OTHER SIDE OF SUEZ
On 26 July 1956, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt made a strategic move that caught the Western world by surprise. He nationalised the Suez Canal Company, precipitating what became known as the Suez Crisis - one of the biggest political stalemates of the century. The Other Side Of The Suez Crisis reveals, for the first time, the complexity of this historic story from the Egyptian and Russian perspective. Many critics believe that Anthony Eden, the British prime minister from 1955 to 1957, deeply resented President Nasser's championing of Egyptian independence. It is believed by some that Eden actively encouraged plots to fabricate dissent, turned a blind eye to several assassination attempts and eventually connived with the French and the Israelis to manufacture a 'war' as an excuse for sending in British troops to 'act as a buffer' between the Egyptians and the Israelis and protect Western interests as represented by the Suez Canal. The film looks at how Eden's actions were received by other countries such as the United States and the Soviet Union. What resulted from the Suez Crisis was a shift in US policy which saw them becoming actively involved in Middle East affairs for the first time"
There ya go, appears to some folk maybe that a PM ,Eden,(Britain) managed to fabricate reasons to invade Egypt (seems like another politicians nose was out of joint and wanted to have this show of strength thingy).But back then re Eden and Suea Crisis it didn't get far, as Russia(Kruschev) threatened a couple of atomic bombs or missiles or something on I think it was London and Paris?
If you want a war badly enough(for gain, payback etc).. its a common thing throughout history (and in prehistoric times too I guess:) You just have to convince your people its the "just" thing to do.
take the invasion of Britain by William the Conqueror (that was profitable and a payback for this nose out of joint phenomena;-)
Question for everyone:
What is your definition of a "just" war. (taking out self defense or defense of own country or defense of freindly country)..ie only the invading side.
Please define a "just" war, in terms of when it's just to invade another country.2nd part of question.. Say you can win a war as you have more power, money , weapons, people than the country you are attacking. If the war is able to defined as "just", how much "strength" is "justified".
eg. is it just to totally blast everyone building , kill every person, destroy the habitat theu chemical or atomic fallout
If not, what level of attack is "just" ?
Just enough to obtain control and still leaving something to plunder?.. or do you need to have this "show of strength" thingy ..
Is a show of strength a feel-good thing for the invaders?
Or does it hasten the end of the war? Did it?
to repeat "Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> >
> > God Bless America!"Much more pleasant things to think about. Cya everyone.
Posted by Declan on March 29, 2006, at 0:12:06
In reply to Re: Sorry. » teejay, posted by tealady on March 29, 2006, at 0:02:40
Hi Jan
I can tell you what a just war is these days. A just war is one where you are convinced of your virtue. As in Tony Blair's 'you may disagree with me but you may not doubt my virtue'.
Self-regard as the engine of public policy. The themes these days are self regard, shamelessness and humiliation. Leonard Cohen sang a decade ago
'Give me Stalin and St Paul' (Democracy Is Coming To The USA)
and I'm having trouble adjusting to these days too.
Declan
Posted by Declan on March 29, 2006, at 1:48:12
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by Declan on March 29, 2006, at 0:12:06
Hey, I don't want to come across as Zarathustra or anything; I was just upset by TJs block. This must happen all the time after blocks.
Declan
Posted by tealady on March 29, 2006, at 2:19:17
In reply to Re: Sorry. » teejay, posted by tealady on March 29, 2006, at 0:02:40
Pity the blocks here carry across to alter!
I'm just slow at typing. I actually posted..or started to before your block was posted!! so didn't see it until after I hit "submit your post".
Also I don't think I expressed myself clearly, so I tried to add to my post.
One point I was trying to make is that what is now not called a war as such but fighting terrorism, was, in the past, as far as I can make out, was called a war...only this way its convenient as you don't have to follow the Geneva conventions re war prisoners.
Then again, they didn't have the Geneva convention in the past either. Seems a bit of a sad slip back in time maybe?
Countrieds used to invade only parts of other countries..the ones they wanted for payback or becasue they're was something they wanted or someone they wanted to get etc... its HISTORY :-))Also was trying to make a point..badly I think.. that if you have the strong joint motive of payback
or "getting one's nose put out of joint"
together with it's "profitable"AND the strength to carry it off seemingly very easily
most will manage to make a war seem "just" to their people ..and I believe even convince themselves of the "justness".
Should I put forward this new psychological theory on war?
"Payback" alone can convince one of "justness for war"..add "gain" .. together they make a "just" war?
(in the past you can think of "gain" as being things like the rape and plunder of the Vikings, the Roman expansions etc) add payback to gain with strength to carry it off..The extent they actually manage to believe it is "just" is perhaps questionable, but I think they actually do believe in the "justness" .
Take Hitler, Bush, Blair, William the Conqueror, Eden,
.. I'm sure you all could add to the listThat double motive is a very powerful combo..and one I was wary of when Bush was on the election platform..and went into the background as to who was supporting him as well..and what his "training" background had been.
You could see the future unfolding, or I could unfortunately.. not the details.. but the vague outlines. Even the acts of terrorism against the US and supporting countries by those who don't have the strength to fight back adequately.
I spent a long time then trying to make the point..then gave up.> > > I, too, am against war. But when the war is between terrorists and a free Iraq, I'll choose to help the Iraqis.
> > >
> > > Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> > >
> > > God Bless America!
> >
>
>
> Nah, Iraq had to be freed from the Uraq'ies;-) kiddin
> May I suggest ya ask anyone citizen of Iraq.
>
> Do ya reckon they begged the US to invade Iraq, blow up their buildings, kill a heap of em, imprison some more, maybe scare a few kids a little, and
>
> 1. grab most of the oil income (main reason for most wars is economic .. the profit to be made )
>
> 2. payback Saddam (remember the old e Bush) .. have to "get" Saddam back. This goes back to before the current Bush was first elected IMO.(and why I was so upset with his election)
> back to payback for Saddam..
> I thought I heard Bush mutter something along these lines on a late night radio show over here long time ago., but it was late at night and I was in bed half asleep.. (before the war began I think, which made me certain we'd have the war no matter what). It's on the net somewhere still probably, wish I had a tape of it..
> 3. payback for maybe making US govt. looking a bit like fools re Sept11th etc.. hence a huge show of strength and talk of terrorists
> 4. redefine what is and is not a war, so you can make your own rules as suits regarding treatment of prisoners, define what is and is not an invasion, define what is reconstruction and what is ripping a country of its income
>
> "Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq."
>
> Yeah, did ya see some of the footage of the US liberation of some towns (shot by Hollywood and considered OK for the US censors(most footage was destroyed I think by censors).
>
> Great pictures of before and after liberation of a town in Italy. Looked to me to be completely flattened after liberation. The Italians in that town .. funny I didn't see them jumping up and down and rejoicing, didn't see many wandering about at the end.
>
> Teejay I watched a show in the past week on Egypt and the British PM in the 50's and 60's.. re Suez crisis. Documents been released now officially seem to "prove" it re Eden.
> "AS IT HAPPENED - THE OTHER SIDE OF SUEZ
> On 26 July 1956, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt made a strategic move that caught the Western world by surprise. He nationalised the Suez Canal Company, precipitating what became known as the Suez Crisis - one of the biggest political stalemates of the century. The Other Side Of The Suez Crisis reveals, for the first time, the complexity of this historic story from the Egyptian and Russian perspective. Many critics believe that Anthony Eden, the British prime minister from 1955 to 1957, deeply resented President Nasser's championing of Egyptian independence. It is believed by some that Eden actively encouraged plots to fabricate dissent, turned a blind eye to several assassination attempts and eventually connived with the French and the Israelis to manufacture a 'war' as an excuse for sending in British troops to 'act as a buffer' between the Egyptians and the Israelis and protect Western interests as represented by the Suez Canal. The film looks at how Eden's actions were received by other countries such as the United States and the Soviet Union. What resulted from the Suez Crisis was a shift in US policy which saw them becoming actively involved in Middle East affairs for the first time"
>
> There ya go, appears to some folk maybe that a PM ,Eden,(Britain) managed to fabricate reasons to invade Egypt (seems like another politicians nose was out of joint and wanted to have this show of strength thingy).
>
> But back then re Eden and Suez Crisis it didn't get far, as Russia(Kruschev) threatened a couple of atomic bombs or missiles or something on I think it was London and Paris?
>
> If you want a war badly enough(for gain, payback etc).. its a common thing throughout history (and in prehistoric times too I guess:) You just have to convince your people its the "just" thing to do.
>
> take the invasion of Britain by William the Conqueror (that was profitable and a payback for this nose out of joint phenomena;-)
>
>
> Question for everyone:
> What is your definition of a "just" war. (taking out self defense or defense of own country or defense of freindly country)..ie only the invading side.
> Please define a "just" war, in terms of when it's just to invade another country.
>
> 2nd part of question.. Say you can win a war as you have more power, money , weapons, people than the country you are attacking. If the war is able to defined as "just", how much "strength" is "justified".
> eg. is it just to totally blast everyone building , kill every person, destroy the habitat theu chemical or atomic fallout
> If not, what level of attack is "just" ?
> Just enough to obtain control and still leaving something to plunder?.. or do you need to have this "show of strength" thingy ..
> Is a show of strength a feel-good thing for the invaders?
> Or does it hasten the end of the war? Did it?
>
>
> to repeat "Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> > >
> > > God Bless America!"
>
> Much more pleasant things to think about. Cya everyone.
>
Forgot to add.. well the US does have mnost of the WMD and financial and miliary might, so its not good to be offside ecomonically..and hey that's everything as far as being voted back into power as long as the war isnt in our backyard. Besides the srength of the Us is a good backing to have when you are a small population sitting int the middle of large populated countries.
The fact that there is not enough water, and a lot of arable land there is, is turning into saltpans., so ist reducing.
We cant support a vast population even if they want to swarm in . , and with peak oil past we wont be able to transport the food anyway without an alternative transport method hasnt been considered . A lot of the arable land near the big cities has been built on, unlike in UK and Europe, Asia including Japan, which were all smart enough to keep arable land near towns zoned for food production.
I guess we could knock down the suburban sprawl to start feeding a greater population. Importing will not be feasible without a cheap fuel source either, and planes have no viable alternative at present anyway.Really going now. would not have posted again except for teejay's block which appeared like I posted after without seeing it..when really started posting b4 :-)
Posted by zeugma on March 29, 2006, at 16:12:11
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » teejay, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2006, at 23:09:15
on the subject of teejay's four-week block:
President Bush is a liar.
Is there in truth no beauty?
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2006, at 13:45:29
In reply to plaintive comment, posted by zeugma on March 29, 2006, at 16:12:11
> President Bush is a liar.
Sorry, but please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, so this time it's for 2.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
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
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 April 3, 2006, at 17:53:57
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » zeugma, posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2006, at 13:45:29
miss you :-(
i will get back to that convergence thing over the next couple of weeks...methinks it isn't supposed to apply to god (as a stative utterance) so much as normative attributions of intention.
Posted by Declan on April 3, 2006, at 18:01:10
In reply to Re: (((((((((((((((z))))))))))))))))))))))))))))), posted by special_k on April 3, 2006, at 17:53:57
Yes, I will miss you too.
Declan
Posted by Declan on April 11, 2006, at 8:44:49
In reply to Re: Goodbye from me.........., posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 16:47:13
'If you like and respect the people involved, why is it difficult to express that liking and caring through a civil exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are conflicting?'
You didn't get an answer to that. I don't have one either. You would have read novels where the the strangely addictive quality of hatred is mentioned. Politics, support and education. Hmmm.
Declan
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:35:36
In reply to It was a good question » Dinah, posted by Declan on April 11, 2006, at 8:44:49
I'll never understand people if I live to be C.
Posted by Declan on April 11, 2006, at 15:57:23
In reply to Re: It was a good question » Declan, posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 15:35:36
C? Like 100? By the time you're 100 the business of undertanding people will feel different. Emporerer Concerto on last night and I can remember how I felt about it almost 40 years ago. The fullness drops away. By the time I'm anywhere near 100 there will be only wheels and cogs left. I'll make this fit in Politics by quoting Bismarck: 'Now that I know people I prefer dogs'.
Declan
Posted by Dinah on April 11, 2006, at 23:17:34
In reply to Bismarck » Dinah, posted by Declan on April 11, 2006, at 15:57:23
Posted by TexasChic on April 14, 2006, at 21:00:03
In reply to Re: Goodbye from me.........., posted by Dinah on March 27, 2006, at 19:32:14
> I think I'm going to walk away from this board too.
>
> Spittin in the wind. I just keep spittin in the wind.I really should have read this thread before I started posting in Politics.
-T
Posted by Declan on May 4, 2006, at 23:39:57
In reply to Re: What's the solution? » Declan, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 21:45:16
From Foreign Policy, May/June 2006. Lt-Gen W. Odom
'The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the US is no longer credible.
No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American.
Still, the US President g. Bush says the US must stay the course. Why? let's consider his administration's most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.
If we leave there will be civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after US forces toppled Saddam Hussein. Any close observer could see that then; today only the blind deny it.
Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war. Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are dooomed to pay.
Our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups turning against al-Qaeda and its sympathisers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.'
No good choices
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.