![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by IsoM on February 13, 2003, at 12:13:10
In reply to Re: Terror Attacks!! forgive me I'm Canadian,,but » gabbix2, posted by shar on February 13, 2003, at 1:21:53
Warning!!! If you like Bush & his policies, don't play this.
I'm Canadian & so remove myself from American politics, but I know Jay will really like this:
http://www.fuckitall.com/bsh/
(there's 3 different programs you can open this in - sorry to anyone with snail-pace modem connection...)...and Dr. Bob - I didn't choose the name of the site, they did.
Posted by jay on February 13, 2003, at 12:24:17
In reply to Re: Terror Attacks!! forgive me I'm Canadian,,but, posted by gabbix2 on February 12, 2003, at 23:14:33
> I have a suspicion that George Bush might be purposely trying to frighten people He's stated that Iraq and Al quaeda(sp) are co - conspirators quite recently. Now he's warning about terror attacks from the Al Quada who is dubiously (imo) connected with Iraq.
>
> Frightened people quickly turn to angry people and it could only help to inflame the publics support for an attack Iraq, after all it would be attacking Al quaeda as well.
> It just seems a little "timely" to me, as he hasn't had the amount support he seemed to expect.
>
>
> Agency Panic: Couldn't agree more.
> It sure keeps one's mind off the real terror that is about to be
> > inflicted upon millions of people in Iraq and the Middle East in general.
>
>Yes..I do in some ways wish folks would read more international press , because you will get very different stories outside of N. America. For example, France is *deadset* against ANY U.S. violent use of military intervention,(and even have a very viable, alternative plan) and I think we as humans (and a part of the United Nations) must accept that. There are also millions of Iraqi innocent citizen lives at risk. They don't have B2 bombers and stealth aircraft.
Second, there is no reason to justify this 'war' against Iraq. Even some people in the FBI and CIA can't figure out where this supposed connection between Bin Laden and Iraq is. Even Bin Laden said Hussein is an "infidel"..and hates the guy. So..where is this connection? IMHO..
Jay
Posted by jay on February 13, 2003, at 12:28:56
In reply to State of the Union speech...., posted by IsoM on February 13, 2003, at 12:13:10
Posted by beardedlady on February 13, 2003, at 13:01:17
In reply to Re: Terror Attacks!! forgive me I'm Canadian,,but, posted by jay on February 13, 2003, at 12:24:17
Warning: this post contains a controversial opinion (not my opinion but one that's shared by many in some of my circles). This post does not assume that this information is necessarily true, nor does it assume it's true of French persons. It is not meant to offend but merely to offer a possible explanation for France's unwillingness to support the U.S.
Phew!
The talk among the Jewish community is that France has long been an anti-Semitic country. Some people believe that France is dead-set against war because they know any weapons developed by Arab nations will be used on Israel.
I have a hard time believing this is true, but, considering the U.S. pretty much saved Europe (a little too late, if you ask me), many people think France should rush to support the U.S. I heard similar talk about it on NPR yesterday.
beardy
Posted by gabbix2 on February 13, 2003, at 13:36:52
In reply to State of the Union speech...., posted by IsoM on February 13, 2003, at 12:13:10
Okay in defence of Bush, I have to give him credit, in the past few months he has learned that Africa is a Continent and not a *Country* : )
Now if he would just stop saying Nucular..Really though, I agree with Beardy, Right left Dead center, Good is Good, Dinah, everyone
My biggest wish my happiest thought is that
all of us, could drop these burial shrouds of fear and misery, no more drug riddled tired minds and exhausted bodies. All of us just somewhere warm peaceful, laughing and dancing.
Posted by jodie on February 13, 2003, at 14:11:18
In reply to Preparing for Terror Attacks!!, posted by jodie on February 12, 2003, at 21:43:54
You know what everyone, I am sorry for even starting this darn thread!!!! I am just sick of everything, war talk, not sleeping, being depressed, mixed emotions, this crash I get at the end of the day from my Adderall XR. Please everyone just forget I even brought up this subject. Many people have been feeling down lately (speaking of people here). This is something to just cause more stress. I brought it up becasue I just so happened to watch the news last night and realized how bad the situation is (or is being made out to be). I haven't been in a good mood. I should have just left the stupid subject out of psycho-social-babble. I apologize to all that I upset.
Jodie
Posted by noa on February 13, 2003, at 19:13:07
In reply to Re: what about pets, posted by dreamerz on February 12, 2003, at 23:10:53
Yes, I would think small pets are especially vulnerable. So if you're stocking up on stuff, stock for kitty too.
I just wonder what dog owners will do if we have to hunker down for a few days!
Scratch that--what will *I* do if I have to seal myself into one room--no bathrooms?!?!?! Yikes!!!!
Posted by shar on February 14, 2003, at 0:13:48
In reply to Re: what about pets » dreamerz, posted by noa on February 13, 2003, at 19:13:07
Seal yourself into the bathroom?
Shar
> Scratch that--what will *I* do if I have to seal myself into one room--no bathrooms?!?!?! Yikes!!!!
Posted by jane d on February 14, 2003, at 0:30:59
In reply to Re: Preparing for Terror Attacks!!, posted by jodie on February 13, 2003, at 14:11:18
> You know what everyone, I am sorry for even starting this darn thread!!!! I am just sick of everything, war talk, not sleeping, being depressed, mixed emotions, this crash I get at the end of the day from my Adderall XR. Please everyone just forget I even brought up this subject. Many people have been feeling down lately (speaking of people here). This is something to just cause more stress. I brought it up becasue I just so happened to watch the news last night and realized how bad the situation is (or is being made out to be). I haven't been in a good mood. I should have just left the stupid subject out of psycho-social-babble. I apologize to all that I upset.
>
>
> JodieJodie,
One thing that I've noticed when reading this board is that once you start a thread it belongs to everyone who posts to it and anything can happen. You are not responsible for anyone else's reaction to the thread. For what it's worth I think that most people are upset by what's going on - and that talking about it here is a way to release some stress. And it is the number one topic in the news these days so somebody had to bring it up. Besides it's kind of interesting to get responses from outside the US.
Jane
Posted by jodie on February 14, 2003, at 0:42:47
In reply to Threads go where they will » jodie, posted by jane d on February 14, 2003, at 0:30:59
You are right!!! Thank you, I feel better.
I guess it is interesting to hear others opinions/responses.
Jodie
Posted by Ritch on February 14, 2003, at 9:35:09
In reply to State of the Union speech...., posted by IsoM on February 13, 2003, at 12:13:10
> Warning!!! If you like Bush & his policies, don't play this.
>
> I'm Canadian & so remove myself from American politics, but I know Jay will really like this:
> http://www.fuckitall.com/bsh/
> (there's 3 different programs you can open this in - sorry to anyone with snail-pace modem connection...)
>
> ...and Dr. Bob - I didn't choose the name of the site, they did.
Hi, I heard Robin Williams mention that name as a hypothetical new antidepressant!My thoughts about French and German resistance to "supporting" our war: They feel that GB has likely handled the whole thing with poor judgement and they don't want to be in our camp when the results of what we are planning to do go sour (which in their minds has a high probability of ocurring). Their politics are far more to the left of this administration's thinking about a range of topics, and continental Europe is starting to get tired of following us blindly (with NATO), and wants to assume a more prominent role in policy-making. They are seeing the "terrorist threat" as a much less serious real threat to them (as opposed to the former Soviet bloc). They may be viewing much of this as a "made for TV" crisis that in the end is doing nothing but helping to re-elect GB and they aren't going to get any benefit as a result.
Posted by IsoM on February 14, 2003, at 11:38:06
In reply to Re: State of the Union speech.... » IsoM, posted by Ritch on February 14, 2003, at 9:35:09
I really am apolitical - there's not one political agenda out there that's not inherently self-centred AND very selfish too.
Besides the humour in the altered state of the union speech, I posted the link for another reason too. If a kid can make an altered speech (which is obvious - it's not done that well) saying something Bush didn't say, then how hard is it to alter any one else's word on tape or video when done by experts? I think more & more people are coming to understand how easy it is to manipulate the words coming from the "enemy camp".
Posted by wendy b. on February 14, 2003, at 12:20:46
In reply to Re: State of the Union speech.... » Ritch, posted by IsoM on February 14, 2003, at 11:38:06
In response to a previous post, France's purported anti-semitism is a smokescreen issue. The Resistance movement in France during the war is legendary, and France had and still has a large Jewish population. There are anti-Semites in every country on earth; the French don't have a corner on the market...
I'm not apolitical, never have been, never will be. I think fairness and decency should be the ideals we live by. Calling a spade a spade is ok, *really.* There is a world of difference between the French ambassador's speech today at the United Nations (we have not given enough time for the inspectors to do their work, Saddam is belligerent, yes, however, there have been *no* discoveries of weapons of mass destruction according to Hans Blick, let's enter into a war *only* if there is irrefutable evidence that Iraq is not complying), and the current headline about Bush saying, we will win decisively, we will win completely, etc., blah blah blah. Even after so many countries have said today at the U.N. that it is ill-advised to do so.
However, Israel can have all the weapons of mass destruction it wants, supplied in large part by the U.S. Hardly anyone brings this up in any of these debates... But Bush and his war-mongers keep maintaining Iraq cannot be allowed to do the same thing Israel has done for decades... How much instability does *that* account for in the Middle East? The U.N. and every other civilized country (except ours) agrees to a Palestinian homeland, but Israel will never agree. It amasses arms and nuclear warheads, continues to settle lands that were specifically designated as Palestinian areas, and where is the outcry against these policies? Why is Israel permitted by the world community to point weapons at Palestinian lands, kill thousands of innocent people, try to kill Arafat in his own headquarters, etc. etc?
I am opposed to any country's having these weapons, and I am opposed to war of any kind. Peaceful resolutions are the hallmark of a civilized society, this is what the U.N. is all about... The U.S. wants to pick and choose which resolutions to adhere to, and which they will simply ignore or openly defy. The inspections should be allowed to continue, and I believe (as do millions of others around the globe) we still have a long way to go before any attack would be justified.
Peace and love, not war,
singing peace songs this weekend,Wendy
Posted by beardedlady on February 14, 2003, at 13:18:41
In reply to Re: France, Israel, etc., posted by wendy b. on February 14, 2003, at 12:20:46
> In response to a previous post, France's purported anti-semitism is a smokescreen issue. The Resistance movement in France during the war is legendary, and France had and still has a large Jewish population. There are anti-Semites in every country on earth; the French don't have a corner on the market...
It was my post you are responding to (just in case you don't remember). But that's the closest you've come to acknowledging my existence in months!
As I said, although I've heard others bandy anti-Semitism about as a reason for France's refusal to join the U.S. , I don't buy it.
I think the fact that it's a bad idea has more to do with it.
As far as Israel goes, I have heard it debated often--even on major network news. But yesterday's Diane Rehm show on NPR spent a major portion of an hour on the topic of Israel's weapons.
I guess when you're allied with a SuperDuperPower, your missiles are allowed to reach well beyond 90 miles.
beardy
Posted by Ritch on February 14, 2003, at 13:50:35
In reply to Re: State of the Union speech.... » Ritch, posted by IsoM on February 14, 2003, at 11:38:06
> I really am apolitical - there's not one political agenda out there that's not inherently self-centred AND very selfish too.
>
> Besides the humour in the altered state of the union speech, I posted the link for another reason too. If a kid can make an altered speech (which is obvious - it's not done that well) saying something Bush didn't say, then how hard is it to alter any one else's word on tape or video when done by experts? I think more & more people are coming to understand how easy it is to manipulate the words coming from the "enemy camp".We had a big discussion about this very thing at work the other day (after Powell's presentation). I don't necessarily suspect that we made the thing up (we can certainly embellish some though for dramatic effect)-what worries me is that it might not be made up at all and noone will believe it because we have been lied to by leadership (primarily business) over the last few years in a big way. I am thinking Enron, Stock Market techno-bubble analyst spin, etc. Scandal after scandal where people made up stuff and lied to get what they wanted. It is just tough to believe anything you hear some suit say nowadays.
Posted by Ilene on February 14, 2003, at 13:55:50
In reply to Re: I'm goin' guys.... » Dinah, posted by beardedlady on February 13, 2003, at 9:45:51
> I understand what you're saying.
>
> My mother is for the war, and she voted for George Bush. Our politics are at opposite ends of the spectrum. But I am still able to see her as one of the most intelligent, introspective, and thoughtful people I have ever known. She thinks she's right; I think I'm right. But neither of us think any less of each other.
>
The problem is that some people are *not* thoughtful.> Those who are not able to accept that others have different views are usually people who are insecure in their own views.
I can accept opposing view if those views are based on informed reasoning, not "my country, right or wrong". Or "Saddam Hussein is a bad man who has dangerous weapons, therefore we need to attack his country."
I also think it is important to present the reasons for my position. It's not an abstract argument; people's lives are at stake.
I should talk! I'm not exactly politically engaged. But then I don't really like leaving the house, and don't always focus very well. This is a good day.
--I.
Posted by Ilene on February 14, 2003, at 14:12:40
In reply to Re: State of the Union speech.... » Ritch, posted by IsoM on February 14, 2003, at 11:38:06
>If a kid can make an altered speech (which is obvious - it's not done that well) saying something Bush didn't say, then how hard is it to alter any one else's word on tape or video when done by experts? I think more & more people are coming to understand how easy it is to manipulate the words coming from the "enemy camp".
I think it is possible but unlikely. While the US gov't is not always exactly honest, I don't think it would do something as potentially embarrassing. It just doesn't have what Richard Nixon called "plausible deniability".
--I.
Posted by IsoM on February 14, 2003, at 14:35:10
In reply to Re: State of the Union speech.... » IsoM, posted by Ilene on February 14, 2003, at 14:12:40
I'm not saying the tape from Ben Ladin isn't real. I tend to think it may be real but I'm also not sure when it was actually taped or if his side didn't alter it to make it sound more recent. The issues mentioned that make it seem as if it was just taped could have been added by their side too.
What I'm saying is that it's almost impossible to know what's real & what's not. If something is being shown in real time, in many places around the globe, in public view, only then would I thoroughly trust that it's not been altered. I doubt that many things HAVE been altered yet, but it becomes easier & easier to do so now. Gone are the days when someone could say "I saw it on (whatever media is was) & believe it."
As Mitch (Ritch) said, most of us have gotten to the point where we don't trust everything we're told by leaders due to frequent lies in the past from those in charge. Can they blame the public for mistrusting them?
Posted by beardedlady on February 14, 2003, at 14:45:40
In reply to Re: State of the Union speech.... » Ritch, posted by IsoM on February 14, 2003, at 11:38:06
> I really am apolitical - there's not one political agenda out there that's not inherently self-centred AND very selfish too.
I'm not apolitical at all, but I agree with your second comment.
> Besides the humour in the altered state of the union speech, I posted the link for another reason too. If a kid can make an altered speech (which is obvious - it's not done that well) saying something Bush didn't say, then how hard is it to alter any one else's word on tape or video when done by experts? I think more & more people are coming to understand how easy it is to manipulate the words coming from the "enemy camp".
In my first post, I mentioned how my husband believed the White House sort of whipped something up. He LOVED your link and spent the better part of an hour looking for a tape recorder so he could take it in and share it with his students--just to say, "look what technology can do!" He was really tickled with it and told me it was evidence of the point he was trying to make (which is similar to what you said).
Although I know we have the technology to do it, I wonder if it's feasible to cheat the country that way. Wouldn't too many people have to be sworn to secrecy? Wouldn't it leak out that the tapes were fabricated? Wouldn't someone succumb to honesty? (Wouldn't he be killed first? : ) )
I dunno. I'm not naive, I just would like to live in a fantasy world--one in which wars are fought at the Olympics.
Posted by Dinah on February 14, 2003, at 17:09:25
In reply to Re: France, Israel, etc., posted by wendy b. on February 14, 2003, at 12:20:46
And as far as France is concerned, if you think their stance is altruistic and based on their best judgement, you need to look into their financial interests with Iraq and related Arab countries. The United States isn't the only country with an iron in the fire in the Mideast.
I don't think it's an anti-Semitic thing at all. I think it's purely pragmatic economics.I don't actually believe that invading Iraq is a good idea, but I don't think it is *at all* fair to assign horrible motives to those who disagree. Maybe George Bush really does believe that Iraq is a threat and a provider of training and support for terrorists. And accusing them of manufacturing tapes? And satellite photos? Notice the UN inspectors aren't really disputing the facts, just asking for more time. For agents of the United Nations, the inspectors have been surprisingly negative about Iraq's cooperation and position.
Iraq *invaded* their neighbor and our ally, Kuwait. As part of the peace settlement after their defeat in this act of aggression they agreed to certain conditions which they have not lived up to. No one disputes these things. We have *on tape* certain discussions that make clear that they are not living up to their agreement. Again, no one in power is disputing the authenticity of these tapes. Should they have agreed? They didn't have to - we could have carried the war out to its conclusion then. They chose to not have that result and to make peace instead. Pretty standard for a defeated country, especially if they were the aggressor.
Is this worth violating the sanctity of an independent nation and invading them? My opinion, actually, is no. I'm sorry that sanctions just result in harm to the people of Iraq, not the leadership, but I would prefer to box the country in to prevent harm to others rather than to invade it. But that doesn't mean that I in any way condone the vilification of those who disagree with me - on either side.
Posted by Phil on February 14, 2003, at 18:41:44
In reply to Re: Terror Attacks!! forgive me I'm Canadian,,but » gabbix2, posted by shar on February 13, 2003, at 1:21:53
> I agree completely. War is good for certain parts of the economy (usually), the rich get richer, there may be more jobs around, the spotlight is off what's happening right here in the good old USA in other areas (hmmm, many people thinking about medical care for senior citizens right now?).
While they're at it, what about us not yet senior c's?
Nobody is noticing how Bush has screwed Americans backward and forward (well, non-rich Americans)...because there's a lot more "exciting" stuff going on.Shar, did you hear about the gd budget fiasco? They have a clause buried in some part of the 32 lb. document that gives more control over National Parks to the 'logging industry.'
Shar, you know they're laying off at the state and that's GW's goddamn fault and wax-hair Perry's.
Bush never ran a successful business before running this country in the ground. I'm so pissed.Bush is grasping at straws, which he's been doing for years. He's a funny, good time, good ol' boy who claims to be from Texas, and after bringing Texas to its knees as governor, went on to become president of the US. The best thing is, he's out of Texas.
You got that right. I'd like him out of office!
> Sorry to be so political, but it IS political, it's strategy, poker, chess.
And Bush doesn't know which side of the cards to look at.
While we stock up on drop cloths and duct tape, our lives are about to come crashing down along with the non-rich folks economy. I imagine the wealthy will fare quite well.
>
> Downer Shar
>
>>>Realistic Shar! GW does not care about anybody's ass but his and I mean that. I want to hear Impeach during this first four years. I heard him say recently that where his father was methodical, that he, GW, went more on gut instinct as far as decision making. I've got to stop, between the state stuff and Alfred E Newman running the country, I need a nap.
Posted by Kar on February 15, 2003, at 2:20:56
In reply to Re: Terror Attacks!! forgive me I'm Phil. }}Shar, posted by Phil on February 14, 2003, at 18:41:44
I voice my opinion. Instead I'll say that
1)Phil, you don't "know" me but it's really good to see your name...and
2. From a campaign speech delivered in oregon by GW on 9-25-00:
"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."...
Posted by shar on February 15, 2003, at 19:52:33
In reply to Re: I was right to go, wrong to visit., posted by Dinah on February 14, 2003, at 17:09:25
>But that doesn't mean that I in any way condone the vilification of those who disagree with me - on either side.
ooooh, let me! I will happily villify both sides, equivalently if not equally, because nobody has anybody's best interest at heart here.
Cynical Shar
Posted by shar on February 15, 2003, at 19:55:05
In reply to I'll just get fired up if..., posted by Kar on February 15, 2003, at 2:20:56
> 2. From a campaign speech delivered in oregon by GW on 9-25-00:
> "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."...ssssiiiggghhhh. he didn't go to u.t. did he? omg.
aside from being sad, that is hilarious.
Shar
Posted by gabbix2 on February 16, 2003, at 12:55:45
In reply to Re: I'll just get fired up if..., posted by shar on February 15, 2003, at 19:55:05
Perhaps Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction he's hiding
and George knows this because it was his Daddy who sold them to him.Okay, I'll stop now cause I am all fired up, and I don't have enough restraint, or computer ability as you well know, to post links.
Darn frustrating cause there is one from the "Onion" that's really funny and as you said
well it would be hilarious if it wasn't sad.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.