![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 67. Go back in thread:
Posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 19:59:52
In reply to I support his stance., posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 19:48:10
IRL I can have civil discussions involving political disagreements a little more easily than here. This is because here there are not so many cues, and nuance is not so easily communicated. And IRL the disagreements I have with people where I live are small compared to here. That makes the disagreements here raw and overdetermined. And where I live almost everyone thinks the same about most of these things (that's why people live where they do).
But people in other parts think differently. For example I had a discussion with an Australian about our attitude to asylum seekers. He was saying 'Sink their boats in the water.' So I said 'Why not shoot them on the beaches? That would send a message.' All that proves (I suppose) is that political discussions IRL can be a bit raw too.
Declan
Posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:06:39
In reply to Re: I support his stance. » teejay, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 19:57:06
I too admire his stance reagarding protecting vulnerable people on the other boards, but people venturing into the realm of politics must surely be aware of what they are entering IMO.
Yes DR Bob does have more influence than you or I, but with influence comes responsibility.
I wonder (just out of interest) what Bush Blair of even Clinton would make of this board?
TJ
Posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 20:17:48
In reply to Re: I support his stance., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:06:39
I find it reassuring that Howard is always left out. I read the other day that if the USA decided to invade mars, the Australians would send along some backup support.
Declan
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:24:01
In reply to Re: I support his stance., posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 19:59:52
Sounds like an ideal moment to stay civil to me. :)
I once read a Star Trek novel where Sarek was talking to Dr. McCoy, and Dr. McCoy said something that was... injudicious. Sarek replied with a polite "Excuse me, I didn't quite hear that." and Dr. McCoy realized that what he really meant was that he was going to be polite enough to pretend he didn't hear that so that Dr. McCoy would have another chance to choose his words.
In my experience, people who advocate summary execution are usually just expressing severe frustration at what seems to them to be an unsolveable problem. There aren't that many people who would actually wield that gun.
One thing I like about Babble is discovering that people outside my native habitat are nice and fun and interesting and have valuable things to contribute that I might not find in my own nesting grounds. But perhaps because of that, Dr. Bob has an even bigger challenge in maintaining a civil atmosphere, wouldn't you think?
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:28:17
In reply to Re: I support his stance., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:06:39
This isn't an island. It's part of Babble. The feelings that are hurt on Politics will likely influence interactions on other boards.
In order to keep the site as a whole a place for support and education, he needs to keep the *entire* site a place for support and education. Unless the Politics posters were *only* Politics posters, how can the overall goals of the site not apply here as well?
Posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:33:01
In reply to Re: I support his stance. » Declan, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:24:01
<i>But perhaps because of that, Dr. Bob has an even bigger challenge in maintaining a civil atmosphere, wouldn't you think?</i>
Hmmmm, maybe, but I still feel Dr Bob skews his feelings in favour of the recipient of a post rather than the poster.........after all are the recipients feelings REALLY more important than mine? (rhetorical question)
The big issue for me in star trek is who is more sexually appealling, Lt Yah of Seven of nine???
Time for my bed dinah (3.30 am here), but its been nice 'chatting'.
TJ
Posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:33:50
In reply to Re: I support his stance. » teejay, posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 20:17:48
> I find it reassuring that Howard is always left out. I read the other day that if the USA decided to invade mars, the Australians would send along some backup support.
Howard???? Never heard of him ;-)
Posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 20:36:17
In reply to Re: I support his stance. » teejay, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:28:17
Discussing the foreign policy of a democracy is a challenge, because that reflects, in some way or other, on the citizens of that country. (That's my problem here)
One thing I like here is the opportunity to get to understand politics from the inside, rather than from outside; this comes through the tone of individual posts.
Declan
Posted by 10derHeart on March 28, 2006, at 20:38:48
In reply to I support his stance., posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 19:48:10
As do I.
Posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 20:38:58
In reply to Re: I support his stance., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:33:01
TJ, I was wondering what you were doing up at this hour.
Declan
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:40:15
In reply to Re: I support his stance., posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 20:36:17
Yeah, me too.
I'd like to have a chance to eavesdrop on other countries' citizens talking about their own issues. I know very little about the Australian challenges regarding asylum seekers, for example. Is it similar to our immigration issues?
And I learned a lot about the UK's healthcare issues as they relate to mental health on the other boards.
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2006, at 20:43:05
In reply to Re: I support his stance., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:33:01
I'm afraid I'm strictly Original Star Trekker. :)
I've enjoyed it as well.
Posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 20:45:39
In reply to Staying up late » teejay, posted by Declan on March 28, 2006, at 20:38:58
> TJ, I was wondering what you were doing up at this hour.
> DeclanTalking to you! LOL
Not anymore though as my bed is calling me.
Another time declan, and I enjoy chatting to some people on psycho babble and count you as one of them.
Live long and prosper as some fellah on star trek might say ;-)
TJ
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.
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.