![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by garnet71 on March 3, 2009, at 0:15:58
Former President Bush must feel awful; With the state of the U.S., I imagine him living the rest of his life feeling tortured inside...so here's some positive karma for him:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/opinion/05kristof.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/27/bushs-africa-legacy/
Posted by 10derHeart on March 3, 2009, at 18:00:14
In reply to Bush, a friend of Africa, posted by garnet71 on March 3, 2009, at 0:15:58
Thanks for those links. With the state of things as they are right now - in American and across the globe, it's good to reflect on the right and positive things people - presidents are people too, right? - have done, have tried to stand for, that hopefully last and really make a difference in the daily lives of so many.
Especially politicians. Overall, it's tough not to feel suspicious of and angry with all politicians - local, state, federal, just for being in the job, even though that attitude can't really be fair...
On both sides, all sides, these worthy things exist, but they sure do get lost in the heated, partisan fray sometimes, ya' know? A couple days ago on another message board, I tried to calmly point out to a person running down former President Clinton, the helpful and good things that, IMO, happened during those years. I think I also said I never think administrations are all good, or all bad. This person would have none of it and labeled me a certain errr...name. S/he (no idea) was even more incensed to learn I identify myself as mainly Conservative, because, "how could YOU defend 'that man?!'" and then I was given another colorful "label." Sigh. I questioned what sort of dialog those remarks were going to further...or something like that (I think I was nicer, even) and s/he posted that I should "just never mind because {insert uncivil word} like you never understand how [insert name of common political ideology] are destroying everything...." Sigh.
No civility rules there, of course. I like it *much* better at Babble.
In the lovely, fantasy world in my head, there are marvelous 3rd and 4th parties in the U.S., parties that can do more than erode the number of votes from the R's or D's - but alas, it IS a fantasy, so far....
America is resilient and has withstood much - so we shall see. All I can mostly do is watch and pray, and I do try to stay aware...or as aware as I can stand to be....
Gosh - another 10derHeart ramble - can I blame you, garnet, for my ramblings!?! (jk)
Posted by Sigismund on March 4, 2009, at 0:40:24
In reply to Bush, a friend of Africa, posted by garnet71 on March 3, 2009, at 0:15:58
>I imagine him living the rest of his life feeling tortured inside.
Really?
Posted by garnet71 on March 4, 2009, at 0:41:26
In reply to Re: Bush, a friend of Africa » garnet71, posted by 10derHeart on March 3, 2009, at 18:00:14
I can so relate to the message forum hostility of some political boards. I am 100% non partisan--which leads to getting beat up by both sides! I mean bullied and bashed. It is not at all an enlightening experience for me, so I avoid those places now. So there are like 50 plus political parties and I could never resign myself to one of them. http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
I just base each issue upon their merit-from what I know from education and experience, and of course my own virtues. I don't understand how any one person could agree with the ideology of such a large group, but that's a personal choice of virtue I suppose. However, I do see that parties exist for a reason...just don't want to be part of that.
For example, look at free trade. I don't care if its a republican ideology--because I am for it, does not make me conservative or republican. I am no economic expert, but have had a few classes in that realm, read probably a dozen books, and learned that very few economists--and that includes those on the left-are against free trade. It is proven to benefit all parties. The problem is not free trade--but its how politics divy up the fruits. If you want to restrict it to save jobs for one group--say the auto industry--it hurts another group or even the country at large. What is not reported in the media too much is that a large part of our trade imbalance is due to the importation of manufacturing inputs for American businesses that produce and create jobs (though the gap is somewhat converging due to upward trends of service industry trade). When you restrict imports, it might save one group--but hurts the rest. Everyone else has to pay, in some way, to support the group who benefits. It just seems silly. Not only that, but it destroys competition--look at the state of our auto industries today. Yeah, even Japan's hurting in that industry right now, but their product is way above our par; superior to American cars. All the past auto protections did nothing but cost consumers and hurt the industry on the macro level. Republicans did offer protections to the steel industry--that led to dumping by other countries--it distorted the entire market, and again, hurt businesses outside the steel industry--more businesses depend on steel then just the steel industry. I think unions sabatoge themselves, I really do. So that's one issue.
I don't think Bush is the bad, evil person he is sometimes made out to be. I didn't like some of his policies, but Congress and the former Adminstrations are also responsible for the state of our country now. If you read some of the political blogs, each side blames the other in totality. I can't comprehend the action of blaming JUST the democrats or JUST the republicans. I do think Cheney was behind a lot of the policies though, not Bush. Maybe Bush wasn't such a good leader, but not a bad person overall. I really do admire Laura Bush though. Now Obama is getting hell for wanting to spend all that money in his budget to Congress--but I'd imagine he has top economists behind him. Government spending--WWII--got us out of the Great Depression, many economists believe. The difference bet. this war and that one was that it fueled increased production/ manufacturing. There really isn't too much else that can be done right now, imo. I think Obama is going to be a great president. I was pleased to see he hired both republicans and democrats for his Cabinet. I think perhaps some democrats may be a bit disappointed though when they find out he is more of a Realist when it comes to foreign policy, and is basically following the same national security strategies that were developed under Bush's Admin. For example, it wasn't Obama that called for a civilian Army--it's been in place for quite some time.
I think I hate politics-i guess that's what its all about--serving one group while sacrificing another group.
Yeah, like you, if I get in the mood (and seems tonight I'm in the mood), I can always post here w/o being torn apart. Glad to hear your ramble; I am paying you back with mine! lol. :)) Oh, and Bill Clinton was my favorite president of my lifetime, so I agree with you on that.
Ah the beauty of individual thought!!!
Posted by Sigismund on March 4, 2009, at 1:08:02
In reply to Bush, a friend of Africa, posted by garnet71 on March 3, 2009, at 0:15:58
Kristof?
Does that ring a bell?
Posted by 10derHeart on March 4, 2009, at 15:24:52
In reply to Re: Bush, a friend of Africa » 10derHeart, posted by garnet71 on March 4, 2009, at 0:41:26
>Oh, and Bill Clinton was my favorite president of my lifetime, so I agree with you on that.
weeell...I myself wouldn't be able to truthfully say that ;-) I have deep misgivings about certain views held by Bill Clinton, probably his wife as well, but I won't get into that here. He hasn't quite made it onto my list of favorite presidents. I was on active duty in the USAF when he was in office, so he was my CINC. It was a difficult time if you tend to be outspoken. That's not a viable option for members of the armed services, as I think you know (don't I recall you are prior military, or am I totally mixed up?). I certainly gave him the respect required by virtue of the position he held, as I had sworn several oaths to do so, which I always took with much seriousness. I felt disappointed in a lot of things that happened in Washington DC during that time.
BUT, important and lasting stuff like welfare reform, just for one easy example, have to be attributed to his administration, I think. I can find some good things, or 2 or 3, etc. I really can endorse, about EVERY administration, I believe. So, at this other board, on an impulse really as I never bother with these emotion-driven, personal attack sites (that's how I think of most I've run across,) as a conservative, I tried to inject reasonableness and was met with distain. It happened withing minutes, by another "conservative." Okay - whatever. I am required to demonize, marginalize and detest all Democratic presidents, particularly President Clinton, in order to meet with "approval?" I think not. Bye, bye.
Wow - you are really educated about free trade and other issues - impressive! And good for you. I am woefully ignorant on that one, and so many others. Our world is so complex now, and it takes time and discipline to go out and find *reliable* information about things like that. I just can't do it.
>Ah the beauty of individual thought!!!
Amen to that.
You might "hate politics" but you sound like someone who if they had the calling to do it, I could support - you have and know your own mind!! But I'll bet many current politicians did at first, and the systems in place and the pressures just were too much. How on earth do they balance, on so many issues, the obligation to represent the people who elected them, AND be true to their own hearts? Those don't always match up, and it must be so hard. And that's not even mentioning powerful lobbies or special interest groups who probably exert pressure I can't begin to imagine. A tough game it is, and yet it seems too important to be a 'game!'
Nice rambling with you :-)
Posted by Sigismund on March 5, 2009, at 19:08:51
In reply to Re: Bush, a friend of Africa » garnet71, posted by 10derHeart on March 4, 2009, at 15:24:52
I don't mean to be nitpicky, but words have to mean something.
Conservatism, to me, means a suspicion of ideology and a respect for the wisdom of tradition (Burke, Oakshott). So, Obama certainly appears to be a conservative. I don't see why being in favour of tax cuts is evidence of conservatism for example, though I am prepared to accept that speaking like this just shows how over the hill I am.
Bush was not responsible for the economic crisis. But he always accepted responsibility for Iraq, and never expressed any regrets about the decision to invade it. Cheney memorably said he would do it all the same again. Ditto, I imagine for Afghanistan.
Posted by Garnet71 on March 6, 2009, at 0:57:13
In reply to Re: Bush, a friend of Africa, posted by Sigismund on March 5, 2009, at 19:08:51
Iraq is going to be much better off in the long run. We can debate endlessly whether the U.S. was right or wrong in its pre-emptive invasion and overthrowing the Ba'ath party, but the truth is that Sadaam ruined Iraq. Iraq used to be the top place in the Middle East with advanced institutions-education, medicine, etc. Beauty-art-culture..Sadaam destroyed the country's strengths and replaced it with control, fear, mismanagement and terror. The thing about dictatorships is--they cannot ever be effective. Everyone that is the right hand man of the dictator is scared to death to oppose him even when he is blatantly screwing up, and also will not tell him when things are going wrong in sectors of the society. One of my best friends is Iraqi, a son of one of Saddam's former Generals. He is extremely well- read, and we have had long discussions about his country. I don't doubt him and his history lessons, although I have also been educated on the subject from Western viewpoints.
It is in the U.S. interest to have a democracy in the Middle East aside from Israel, which was the only one true/free democracy until Iraq. Nation building is an argument in itself, but countries with power will always do what is in their best interest. It's been going on for centuries, it is going on today, and will continue on into the future. We may have unintentionally strengthened Iran in doing so, but I really think the people of Iraq will have a much brighter future now. Aside from the democracy building, after Kuwait, Saddam had plans to go after Saudi Arabia too. He threatened the stability of the entire Middle East.
Bush can't say he regrets the war, not that I think he does. He can't come out and say that over 4,000 soldiers were killed because we 'really shouldn't have been there in the first place'-- especially when there are still soldiers over there doing their jobs courageously. He has to support the ongoing effort rather than invalidate everything.
The 3 worries I have for Iraq are corruption and unemployment; and importantly: in the transition from all of the state-owned enterprises to private businesses, foreign investors are buying up Iraq while the Iraqi people lack ownership. On the bright side, more kids are in school now than when Saddam was in power, and oil production is likewise higher. In terms of conflict, when the Sunnis, who feared losing everything they had, were permitted by the U.S. to engage in governance again, that facilitated a shift in cooperation.
I'm optimistic--I really do think Iraq is going to be great again someday. That does not mean I agree with all of U.S. foreign policies, but I think as a nation, we should be working on making the best of the situation rather than looking back. In addition, sometimes if we follow only one group's ideologies w/o seeking out alternate views, we don't have all the information we need to make true progress.
Posted by Sigismund on March 6, 2009, at 1:32:22
In reply to Re: Bush, a friend of Africa » Sigismund, posted by Garnet71 on March 6, 2009, at 0:57:13
>countries with power will always do what is in their best interest.
You reckon?
Posted by 10derHeart on March 6, 2009, at 1:53:40
In reply to Re: Bush, a friend of Africa » Sigismund, posted by Garnet71 on March 6, 2009, at 0:57:13
Lots to think about.
What do people think of the idea of the Iraqis, now or at some point, paying back the U.S. for some of the tremendous financial cost of the war - and also the ongoing costs of maintaining forces there for support, training, etc.? Is that feasible? Politically? Economically? Is it even right or fair? What do the *people* of Iraq think? I'll venture that is different from what the official government position might be...? Is is overwhelmingly that the U.S. invaded and harmed them and their land more than helped - period, despite the horrors of Sadaam? Or, do some see it more like Garnet wrote? I'd guess many factors could influence that - what area you lived in , what party you were loyal to, what your personal reality of life was under Sadaam. Dictators tend to get "the trains to run on time," so to speak, and I can see how the order and structure is missed. It's a natural human reaction.
I can't imagine how difficult it has all been, and how much suffering families endure in *any* war-ravaged country. You certainly never completely get over it. Especially the kids, to cope with war and its long aftermath. I wonder what they will learn in school about this time period?
Obviously, I'm not up on this at all. I've heard media reports saying there is *plenty* of oil money right now, then others saying, as mentioned, that the Iraqis really aren't controlling much of their own resources at the moment. Some say we should pay every cent to rebuild "everything we destroyed."
I think you could spend a lifetime studying and only begin to grasp the complexities of a country with a history like that of Iraq. And it's only one of many in such an amazingly beautiful yet tragic region. I've always wanted to visit Israel and other parts of the Middle East. I used to supervise an Iranian guy who knew so much about the period of the Shah (from things his parents taught him - they fled the country during mid-70's) the hostage taking, etc. Sadly, he felt nothing but pure hate for Iraqis, that was clear. Perhaps there were good reasons, likely stemming from stuff that happened to extended family back home during the horrible Iran-Iraq war in the 80's (think he would have been about 6-15 years old and living in the U.S. by then) Multi-generational hatred of entire countries and peoples always feels so sad and hopeless to me. It is a great experience to meet someone from the region, though. Makes it real, which can't hurt, to expand your mind by listening.
Sorry - so many questions and no information to share. I'm so curious, but it's tough to find time and trustworthy sources to educate yourself. There is *so* much available on the Web to read, yet it's hard to be discerning, and I often have to reject some of the severely slanted cr----errrr-----materials, waaaaay to the right and waaaaay to the left. It's not helpful - the amount of hyperbole I've found. It's just frustrating.
Posted by garnet71 on March 6, 2009, at 10:56:19
In reply to Iraq and the future, posted by 10derHeart on March 6, 2009, at 1:53:40
Hi 10derHeart,
http://www.amazon.ca/Stakes-America-Middle-East/dp/0813340780
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Iraq-History-American-Occupation/dp/0060764694
There is a wealth of information in these 2 books, yet they are easy to read--and balanced (imo). If you could find time to read just these 2 books, you'd be more educated on the subject than the majority. However, the books don't include what's been going on in Iraq over the past couple of years.
There are tons of polls out there expressing the views of Iraqis. I can't vouch for them and I find that polls can be very biased, but here are some that are not too old:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7299569.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm
There's been progress made over the past year.
For the 3 ethnic groups--the Kurds, once repressed and victimized by Saddam, have been most successful in post-invasion business development and generally want to be seperated; the Sunni-less than 20% of the Iraq population-- of course lost so much of their power; the formerly Shiites--comprising the majority of the Iraqi population at over 80%--have gained power. The post invasion conflict among these groups was extremely predictable--and so underestimated by the Bush administration--a huge, huge mistake in their strategy. They really f*ck*d up there.
It's really not that complex if you think in terms of power divisions. Since the beginning of history, groups and governments have fought over resources and power; it doesn't seem much different today--except--we develop more complex systems to divide up resources and power. But if you read the history of the Middle East and Iraq, it puts the pieces together.
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.