![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on May 6, 2006, at 6:10:13
necessarily means you are 'against' something else.
Purely' postitive' and 'constructive' statements are nearly impossible to make. I said once that the Civility rules require us to omit anything that could imply, lead to the inferring, or link to (but not double-link to- we are only mortal and cannot foresee the unpredictable actions of those who, willingly or not, encounter incivility in their travels through the Internet) anything that could make anyone feel bad about the human condition. The human condition, let me reiterate, is an excellent one. Particularly if God has blessed your nation with favorable armed forces. God, Napoleon said, is on the side of the army with the bigger battalions, and this inspired a theological argument between then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. For his heresy (Napoleon was a poor theologician, and those who follow him have always been trouble) Mr. Powell was excommunicated, and is now a religious renegade making sniping comments at Mr. Rumsfeld. Shame- shame.
To my point. I found an article that illustrates the dilemma in a particularly pure form. the article says nothing uncivil. The opposing parties both claim only the highest, most disinterested motives. It cheers my heart to read something I can post unadulterated by endless interpolations (if my interpolations seem intrusive, imagine how assaulted you would feel by the endless nasty comments that people seem impelled to make about each other. it used to be only Democrats who made these kinds of comments. I notice signs of restiveness among politicians with 'R' following their names. Strange and saddening. The Republicans were the party of decency and dignified government.) here is the article, a perfect illustration of how beautiful CIVILITY looks when practiced as it should be, even in the face of mutual disagreement. And if CIVILITY fails, BANISH the poor souls who cannot control themselves:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'West Point' Off Limits to Anti-War Alums By WILLIAM KATES, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 5, 10:48 PM ET
SYRACUSE, N.Y. - The Army warned an anti-war group of former U.S. Military Academy cadets to stop using the words "West Point" in its name, saying they are trademarked.
A co-founder of West Point Graduates Against the War countered Friday that his organization is simply following the cadets' code."At West Point, we were taught that cadets do not lie, cheat or steal — and to oppose those who do," said William Cross, a 1962 West Point graduate. "We are a positive organization. We are not anti-West Point or anti-military. We are just trying to uphold what we were taught."
The group, open to West Point graduates, spouses and children, claims about 50 members.
West Point spokesman Lt. Col. Kent Cassella said the academy sent the April 12 warning letter because the group failed to go through a licensing process to get permission to use the term "West Point." The group's anti-war stance is irrelevant, he said.
"This is not a political issue. They did not ask for permission. We are doing what any college or university would do to enforce its trademarks," Cassella said.
The Army registered the words "West Point" — as well as "United States Military Academy," "USMA," and "U.S. Army" — as trademarks in 2000 to control their use on educational material and commercial goods.
An attorney hired by Cross and his colleagues said the warning raises questions of First Amendment speech protection and selective enforcement. Joseph Heath said he noted the concerns in a response sent to the Army on Monday; he has not yet received a reply, he said.
"I would hope that the Army would be proud of these men and their willingness to promote democracy and freedom of speech," wrote Heath, a Navy veteran who also opposes the war.
Heath also noted widespread commercial use of the words "West Point."
Cassella said the Army has negotiated agreements with local businesses allowing them to use the phrase in their names.
___
-z
Posted by Declan on May 6, 2006, at 21:06:15
In reply to dilemma for Politics- being 'for' something, posted by zeugma on May 6, 2006, at 6:10:13
The cost of operations in Iraq is $US97 billion for financial 2006 and totalling $US440 billion all up (US Congressional Research Service).
What positive things can I say about this? How might things have been done better?
Health care (health insurance), social security (long term funding for) and reducing dependance on foreign oil (instead of tax breaks to oil companies) for starters.
Declan
Posted by James K on May 7, 2006, at 0:10:53
In reply to dilemma for Politics- being 'for' something, posted by zeugma on May 6, 2006, at 6:10:13
es?
Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 6:05:03
In reply to Feeling bad about the human condition? » zeugma, posted by Declan on May 6, 2006, at 21:06:15
> The cost of operations in Iraq is $US97 billion for financial 2006 and totalling $US440 billion all up (US Congressional Research Service).
> What positive things can I say about this? How might things have been done better?>>If the war had not begun at all. The CIA is in 'free fall' and has been shoved aside by Donald Rumsfeld, ironically it has been discredited because of supposed intelligence failures re 9/11 and Iraq, when the fact is that reports written by CIA analysts were not regarded as worth anything anyway (hence low morale, staff shakeups, massive exodus of senior operatives. There is nothing quite as frustrating as writing accurate, or reasonably accurate, reports that are not taken seriously by their intended audience).
Money sunk into Iraq has been pouring water on sand. Things might have been done better by 1) believing Richard Clarke when he said on 9/12/01 that it was al Qaeda and not Saddam Hussein who perpetrated an act of war against the U.S.; 2)by finishing the job in Afghanistan instead of massively diverting resources to Iraq; 3) by not killing the messenger because the message wasn't liked (that is a perennial problem in politics, and on this board. We can see, in the Bush Administration, a striking parallel with the Civility rules. Input from intelligence is compared to what flatters predetermined notions, and judged on that basis rather than intrinsic merit. Nothing quite as frustrating as this.)
> Health care (health insurance), social security (long term funding for) and reducing dependance on foreign oil (instead of tax breaks to oil companies) for starters.>
I am listening to the radio as I write, and health insurance, social security are falling apart completely, I hear. When Americans do spend money on these things, it's throwing water (or oil) on sand again. Americans' health is worse than Europeans' despite America's spending more money on these matters, reason being that people wind up in emergency rooms because health maintainance is not profitable or intriguing to policy makers, aggressive care of an advanced disease is promoted above methods of prevention that are, it seems, hard for segments of the government to understand.
And pre-emptive warfare, as canvassed in Bush's 2006 policy statement. The human condition is what it is, the American condition not what it was. Maybe self-inflicted wounds satisfy some deep human need, I don't know.
-z
>
>
Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 6:14:04
In reply to Can ownership of a word negate past live experienc, posted by James K on May 7, 2006, at 0:10:53
Yes, in America 2006.
Privatizatation of experience. If you don't own it, it's not yours.
Conversely, as we saw in the 2004 election, George Bush had ownership of a better military record than John Kerry, despite the fact that Kerry had had the experiences.
one can make a similar point when you compare Cheney's attitude towards torture, to McCain's.
Cheney had a lot of experience in the Cold war, McCain with a different kind of conflict. Cheney might be feeling nostalgic given his recent comments to Russians. One always longs for a simpler time before one's convictions are put to the test.
-z
Posted by verne on May 7, 2006, at 18:06:42
In reply to Re: Can ownership of a word negate past live experienc » James K, posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 6:14:04
I'm trying to avoid the news so not really keeping up. But wasn't there evidence that Rumsfield personally oversaw *interrogations* at the Bay and even rewrote the manual that was followed at Abu Grab?
Soldiers following Rumsfeld's guidelines are now in prison - of course, the lowest in rank. Reminds me of the Battleship Iowa explosion. The navy, at first, blamed a low-ranking gay sailor (conveniently killed in the mishap) rather than admit there was something wrong with the battleship's guns. The Navy knew the guns had a flaw and had malfunctioned but looked for a scapegoat. Why? for fear, the TRUTH would hurt future recruitment.
I still can't believe this mess. I think the Iraqis, who dance and celebrate the downing of a helicopter and deaths of those brave heroes only trying to help them, should have the government they deserve. REINSTATE Saddam Hussein.
verne
Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 18:25:29
In reply to Re: Can ownership of a word negate past live experienc, posted by verne on May 7, 2006, at 18:06:42
But wasn't there evidence that Rumsfield personally oversaw *interrogations* at the Bay and even rewrote the manual that was followed at Abu Grab? >>
There is a lot of evidence. But how many times have I heard that phrase, "a few bad apples."
Some U.S. delegate to a human rights commission said that yesterday. It's easy to say a private got out of hand. The scapegoating is sickening and dishonorable in every way.
We started the war because we said Saddam had WMD, and was in league with Osama. Then we became the philanthropists of Mesopotamia, occupying Iraq for their own good. There are no philanthropic wars. You go to war because you must. Because people will die or be maimed.
And Cheney still says he was right that "the Iraqis greeted us like liberators." Just like our bombs were those of philanthropists.
I admire those who fight, but despise those who sent them.
-z
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2006, at 2:58:59
In reply to Re: Can ownership of a word negate past live experienc, posted by verne on May 7, 2006, at 18:06:42
> I think the Iraqis, who dance and celebrate the downing of a helicopter and deaths of those brave heroes only trying to help them, should have the government they deserve. REINSTATE Saddam Hussein.
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 first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-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 verne on May 9, 2006, at 12:59:28
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » verne, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2006, at 2:58:59
Iraqis deserve their own elected government.
Posted by tealady on May 11, 2006, at 3:48:20
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on May 9, 2006, at 12:59:28
> Iraqis deserve their own elected government.
yeah agree verne.. and need to decide their own candidates too..
Your idea did occur to a lot of people I suspect, but it'll never occur I guess, so it's not worth voicing those thoughts, besides not being politically correct.
Ya know, I would suspect he'd get in too.. , and his supporters maybe maybewould regard him as a bit of a martyr, but the country would still be divided with Kurds and other groups not entirely pleased I'd suspect.
I have not been following all the divisions within the Middle east enough to really comprehend.. there seems to be this continual conflict.
Do ya know back in WW1 times the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was involved in the genocide of the Armenians (Christians near Euphrates and Black Sea) by the Turks and Kurds? I know a long time ago..
I just hope that one day the Iraq people can choose their own candidates and elect one that is strong enough to unify all the various groups and make them all happy with their choice in his/her justness,and wisdom and strength.
To be able to both stand up to outsiders where the freedom of their own country is at stake and look after their land and people sustainably and wisely, ensuring everyone has enough to live comfortably now and in the future.The problem seems to be finding this person
..and no country can stand up to the US? .. the balance of power is too uneven maybe?
Which country owns most weapons of mass destruction of all kinds and has a history of using them .. more than once ?Hey but that'll change one day and not that far away.. I'm not sure if it'll be for the better though, just different.
Posted by teejay on May 11, 2006, at 6:58:18
In reply to Re: Can ownership of a word negate past live experienc, posted by verne on May 7, 2006, at 18:06:42
> I still can't believe this mess. I think the Iraqis, who dance and celebrate the downing of a helicopter and deaths of those brave heroes only trying to help them, should have the government they deserve. REINSTATE Saddam Hussein.
>
> verneI think thats a bit unfair verne. How many americans were hootin and hollaring at the shock and awe campaign at the beginning of the war. Seems our western minds suffer from terrible double standards.
You must also remember that iraqus consider us to be unwelcome occupiers and are still fighting to get us out. The french resistance are remembered as heros yet so called iraqi insurgents are considered scum. More Western double standards? I think so.
The odd thing is, if Saddam hadnt been so bold as to march into another country, kuwait (something the west does all the time) then he'd still be in power today.
Posted by teejay on May 11, 2006, at 7:02:39
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » verne, posted by tealady on May 11, 2006, at 3:48:20
The kurds have been squeezed and abused by the turks in the north and the iraqis in the south for as long as can be remembered.
Neither want to give them their homeland back, but IMO it willhappen one day. Kurdistan will be another name to pencil in on your map.
To be fair to Saddam, he did what he considered he needed to do to stayin power and keep his country together. Hardly a new crime! I believe on the other hand his sons were a blood thirst pair of monsters.
Posted by Declan on May 11, 2006, at 14:52:42
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » verne, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2006, at 2:58:59
Maybe a lot of history is just that?
Plan without sufficient care, then when it doesn't work out say 'they were not worthy of the gift of freedom'. It's a dangerous point in history when a war is lost; dangerous during the war too...nation fighting for survival...extraordinary measures...Armenians, Jews, class enemies. But when a war is lost, there are scores to settle. I've kinda assumed that some of the more difficult aspects of US politics have something to do with losing the Vietnam war. There are always scores to settle.
Just trying to think.
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:13:40
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by verne on May 9, 2006, at 12:59:28
This is the end of the 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.