![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 20 to 44 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 10:47:48
In reply to re: two wrongs... » NikkiT2, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 9:23:37
So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
I'm not starting an argument, just trying to explain my view that War, and calling for the blood of people we still don't know were really involved is not the way to go forward on this.
I just don't want more INNOCENT people killed...
Nikki
> > This is a different situation from Ireland, Nikki. Comparing them again and again is not going to help.
>
> I think as we debate what we feel to be the correct actions to be in the upcoming days, which I think we should do, we better keep this as a separate issue.
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 11:19:55
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Adam, posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 20:31:34
OK, my memory is REALLY bad.
The War Powers Act _was_ an answer to executive largess in Vietnam, and it does put some severe limitations, at least in principle, on what the President can do with the armed forces as Commander In Chief. I guess, according to the Act, the president is only directly authorized to commit the military in "war" when the country has been attacked, and then only for 60 days max, before further authorization from Congress is obtained by vote.
You would think I would remember more about this. At the time I took the class on Vietnam, it was during the Gulf War, and I was living in the Republic of Ireland...probably the safest place I could be at that time. The Act came up quite a bit, and was entirely apropos to current events. I think I may have killed a few too many brain cells in the pub while there.
I do remember my prof. being pretty rankled by the Gulf War. He had a good grasp of the history, and laid out in pretty stark terms how Saddam was once our guy, and how we armed and supported him, knowing full well what a genocidal nut case he was, because it was strategically convenient (warring with Iran, our then Enemy #1, etc.) I can't stress enough how left-leaning the prof. was though (an American, visiting Ireland like me, who had lived in Canada and Japan for ten years because he dodged the draft, making him an exile until Carter granted amnesty). He had huge scars on his right arm from a police dog that mauled him during a demonstration. He was pretty hard core.
Anway, as much as a "flaming liberal" as this guy was, he had his facts straight, if not always his interpretations. The power-politics of the US is a pretty sad tale in iteself, and surveying the history of Vietnam, from our support of Ho Chi Minh to expel the Japanese, through our rejection of him to back a colonialist power (France) after the war, to our eventual adoption of their role following the defeat at Dien Ben Phu (think I spelled that right)...it's like watching a devastating train wreck unfold in slow motion.
As for "making love" and so on... I think bin Laden has earned himself a few hundred consecutive life sentances, and even if he had nothing to do with the recent attacks (unlikely), prosecuting him would be a worthy cause. Going to war with Afghanistan to get at him, though...that's a lot more dicey, and I hope like hell the US doesn't do something that stupid. Tracking the perps down, bringing them to court, prosecuting them, that's the way to go. Best of all, we should really work the international coalition angle to put pressure on the governments who harbor these criminals to turn them over themselves, or allow UN forces to go get them without interferance. I really hope we take that route. Compelling the heads of these nations to follow international law, and giving them due credit when they do, that's the best possible way. Constant diplopatic engagement and pressure to stop lending support or giving safe harbor to terrorists, that's the future preventative course that will best serve us in the end, I think.
I'm not sure there is much popular support for such a protracted and focused campaign, though. That's what concerns me. Those calling the shots are hawkish enough, and the general population seems angry enough, to support some major military efforts, perhaps in multiple states, to punish those countries and their citizens. If we do that, we lose the moral high ground, and harden the resolve of the terrorists to strike again. We make lots of new ones in th process, too. We'll never be safe.
No, I sure as heck don't want to see those responsible go unprosecuted. Some people really do deserve to be punished, and punished severely, for this, if they are still alive. I just think we should be restrained in our action, and remember it's not like the USA hasn't done some pretty terrible things in the name of national interest even in the recent past. We can't assume moral superiority to anyone as a country, but we can behave very morally, with equanimity, and that course will always make our future brighter than it could very easily be.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:24:22
In reply to Re: re: two wrongs... » Krazy Kat , posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 10:47:48
thing. You're creating more dissention by doing that. The horrific situation between Ireland and Britain has different dynamics. It's not the same thing.
This is not just an American thing. Our allies will be affected as well, I'm certain.
I have yet to comment on who is responsible for these attacks, but it seems to be getting pretty narrow.
Let me make it clear, that I in no way endorse people targeting Arab Americans. It is outrageous, and guttural, and just Stupid. But that does not mean we can't be angry at the people who did do this act.
And again, I would ask, what is the solution if this person(s) and those responsible aren't held accountable? What if the U.S. or Britain or France or Japan is attacked tonight? And then tomorrow?
"On AMERICAN soil" (sarcastically said) - geez, do you have something against Americans? And how dare you use such an irreverent tone in light of what has happened?
I take great offense at your comment.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:36:09
In reply to Re: Many factual wrongs » Elizabeth, posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 11:19:55
Can this be done? It seems like we're (America) not getting a lot of support here.
I agree with you - this is ideal, but I really think, IMVHO, that it is wishful thinking.
"Tracking the perps down, bringing them to court, prosecuting them, that's the way to go"
Apparently we had "him" a few years back and let him go. I'm sure there was already sufficient horror to link him to. Why wasn't he contained then?
"Best of all, we should really work the international coalition angle to put pressure on the governments who harbor these criminals to turn them over themselves, or allow UN forces to go get them without interferance"
The UN isn't really that active in our favor. There's a reason we're considered aggressive. Why wasn't this road taken before?
Of course we've done horrible things as well. But this is all so idealistic. I amquite unaware of what can and cannot be accomplished, but we can look at it historically and piece together why political movements occurred, etc.
Throw us some more thoughts, please Adam! :)
- K.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2001, at 13:03:05
In reply to Don't make this into an American versus others..., posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:24:22
> If I have to explain to you what is good, upright, and moral in this world, then you are truly one to be pitied.
>
> You seem quite confused.> "On AMERICAN soil" (sarcastically said) - geez, do you have something against Americans? And how dare you use such an irreverent tone in light of what has happened?
Many of us naturally are having lots of strong feelings about the attacks -- and related issues. There's enough lack of consideration for others in the larger world; here, please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong and be sensitive to their feelings even if they hurt yours -- and please don't be sarcastic, post anything that others could take as accusatory, or put others down. Especially now. Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding civility should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 13:18:25
In reply to But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:36:09
> The UN isn't really that active in our favor. There's a reason we're considered aggressive. Why wasn't this road taken before?
>
> Throw us some more thoughts, please Adam! :)
>
> - K.I agree there is much that could have and probably should have been done in the past that would have been constructive. It's too late now, quite obviously.
But remember, the estimates for the death toll at the WTC are approaching 20,000. That's about 1/3 the number of all the American servicemen who were killed in Vietnam, during the entire campaign, which lasted over ten years. Maybe 3500 people died during the attack on Pearl Harbor. A staggering number of people have been killed in literally one fell swoop. We have to consider that hundreds or thousands of them were not US citizens. They came from all over the world, especially China, UK, Japan, but really all over. This attack has crippled commerce in the area, amputated large pieces of some major international corporations, and seriously impacted global markets. The terrorists couldn't have picked a better target if they wanted to harm not only the US, but secular society and capitolism, the latter a force as great and compelling as any religion. The destruction caused there rivals any single attack in modern war history. The only things I can think of offhand to compare are the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
So this is just plain different. It's so shocking, to what I hope is a universal sense of human decency, and so inclusive in its scope, that interest in an international anti-terrorist effort may be more keen than in the past. Hopefully something permanent and constructive might come from such an alliance.
Posted by Jane D on September 13, 2001, at 14:07:16
In reply to Don't make this into an American versus others..., posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:24:22
> thing. You're creating more dissention by doing that. The horrific situation between Ireland and Britain has different dynamics. It's not the same thing.
KK,
We don't know yet just what the politcan dynamics are here. And I certainly don't understand Britain and Ireland. In any event there are two things going on now. There is the attack on the US by someone (lets just leave it at that) that we are calling the start of a war. And then there is the first major terrorism attack on "American Soil". Right now, for me, that is the bigger shock. It is something that residents of London and Belfast, Beirut and Jerusalem and far too many other places have lived with for a long time. Until Tuesday it was something I couldn't comprehend at all. Now I think I am beginning to. I suspect Nikki knows better than we do right now just what we are feeling these days.To Nikki,
Thank you for your thoughts.Jane
Posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 14:39:11
In reply to Don't make this into an American versus others..., posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:24:22
I was not using an irrevorant tone as you insist, i was just trying to make my point without getting personal.
All I am trying to do is point out that war WILL kill innocent people. INNOCENT people. Yes, find the individuals responsible and take any action against them you wish, but it is not a nations fault, and the posts I have seen calling for war against Afghanistan, and (I quote) "To nuke the bastards" is going to waste yet more lives, and i don't see how killing more innocent people will help at all.
Nikki
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 16:08:09
In reply to But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 11:36:09
Also, just to clarify, part of the reason I think a war in Afghanistan is a "stupid" idea is fairly practical: Fighting bin Laden on his home turf proved untenable for one superpower already, back when the Soviets were trying to root him out in the 70s. It is no exageration to say that Afghanistan was their Vietnam, and cost upwards of 100,000 Soviet lives in combat.
It's another one of those incredible ironies, when you think bin Laden, and the mujahadeen were "our guys" once too, a bit like Saddam Hussein was our guy before the Gulf War. We ally ourselves with fanatics against a common enemy, train them, fund them, sell them weapons and build up their infrastructure. Apparently bin Laden hides out in subterrenian fortresses in the Afghan mountains we built for the mujahadeen 25 some odd years ago. When something like that comes round and bites us in the arse, maybe it's a good time to reflect on "business as usual", realpolitik and the like, and consider what it gets us.
There is a saying: Nations have no friends, only interests.
Maybe we should focus on real international friendships. Even with Afghanis. The country is on the verge of collapse. The Afghani people have suffered under a radical regime of religious perverts for years, now, and drought threatens to kill millions. The country has been isolated already, which, as is usual in such cases, has served largely to strengthen the position of the oppressors (think Castro and Hussein). We've payed less attention to the plight of the Afghanis than even sub-Saharan Africa, and sent precious little aid to ease their suffering. If we start bombing Afghanistan, they will suffer the most, I'm sure, and bin Laden could conceivably escape entirely, as he did when the Soviets wanted him. We have to be careful, and considerate.
> Throw us some more thoughts, please Adam! :)
>
> - K.
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 18:26:19
In reply to Re: But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam » Krazy Kat , posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 16:08:09
I guess 20,000 may be way too high. It seems to be speculation (NPR reporter) based on the number of body bags Giuliani had requested be sent to NY. The number of dead at the WTC may be well under 10,000. That's still a horrific number of people, and still ranks as the biggest single attack on US soil.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 18:33:30
In reply to Re: please be civil » San, Krazy Kat, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2001, at 13:03:05
> Dr. Bob:
You've chosen to chastise those who have feelings toward one side of the fence. Nikki has said offensive things as well, as have others.
I'm really upset.
- K.
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 18:35:37
In reply to Re: But, it's not that easy, is it?-Adam » Krazy Kat , posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 13:18:25
Posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 18:40:54
In reply to Re: More realistic numbers..., posted by Adam on September 13, 2001, at 18:26:19
Man, my memory really suffers on these things...I've been trying to be accurate in my recounting of history, just for perspective, but I think specifics are off.
Anyway, I think the Soviet-Afghani war was in the 80s, not 70s.
I think, in Vietnam, there may have been some carte-blanche bill or resolution or something on the part of Congress to allow the president (Johnson, it would have to be) to expand military efforts there, but it didn't amount to a declaration of war. I think the War Powers Act came about because, clearly, things went too far after that. I think the original approval of expanded activity in Vietnam had something to do with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. If I remember that incident correctly, it was a ruse, a made-up attack against an Amercina vessel to get the US more deeply involved. I think we were blockading the gulf at the time.
I'll research better and relate more, if people want. I acutally have good books and notes on this at home, if people are interested. I should double-check before I shoot off numbers and dates from my (often) incorrect memory.
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 6:24:31
> San,
>
> It may be hard for you to believe that there are people who believe that Jesus was a very compassionate person (who believed in a higher power). I can want to model my life after that of Jesus' -- serving others, not judging, not throwing the first stone, etc. -- yet choose myself not to believe in some concept of a diety. There is not confusion in that concept.
>
> akc
> (another godless heathen)
>Jesus was not just a compassionate man who preached goodness. He was and is the Son of God. T o wish to model your life after him while denying the existence of His Father who He is the embodiment of is like slapping Him in the face. You're confused too! San
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:25:31
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by Elizabeth on September 13, 2001, at 6:49:18
> > > Oh really? And who defines "virtuous?" You?
> > >
> > > -elizabeth (godless heathen)
> >
> > >"Virtuous" (as defined by Webster)-having or characterized by moral virtue; of good, upright, moral. It can be deduced from this definition that the afore mentioned "virtuous inhabitants of this planet" are those who are good, upright, and moral. If I have to explain to you what is good, upright, and moral in this world, then you are truly one to be pitied. Moral, upright people do not sit on their hands and talk while thousands of innocent people are slaughtered.
> > I also found it interesting that on you next post, you say you can't help but think "what would Jesus do?" Then you sign you follow-up to my post as "godless heathen." You seem quite confused. I wish you well and will remember you in my prayers----------San
>
> Jesus was a person. A good person with a good message. You don't have to believe in supernatural powers to believe that. I assure you, I'm not confused. But from reading your post, I had to wonder if you meant only Christians or only religious people by "virtuous." It really did come across that way because you used the word "heathens."
>
> Non-religious people (who make up about 15% of the U.S. population) are one of the most marginalised groups in this country. Please try to be more considerate.
>
> -elizabeth>What is the point in believing in Jesus if is a liar? He said He was the Son of God and if you don't believe He is, then in your eyes, that must make Him a liar. As to the "heathen" comment- I would catagorize other people of the world who might be contemplating such a horrific act as heathens-yes! San
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:37:05
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » Elizabeth, posted by NikkiT2 on September 13, 2001, at 6:58:23
> Do you believe that England should go into Ireland and bomb the hell out of them. They have put England under the terror of attacks for the last 20 years... Infact one of their recent bombs was very close to my home.
>
> I know none of their attacks have been anything near as devastating as the recent attacks on America, but calling for blood and revenge is not going to help. Killing more innocent people is not the way to go.
>England should not bomb Ireland because it would be like bombing their own country------San
Posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 20:35:18
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
If I had refrained from my parenthetical comment, which appears to be sarcastic, I believe my response was civil when I shared my beliefs about Jesus. I respect your beliefs, and would ask that you do the same with mine. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know everything. This does not mean I am "confused." I use to think I knew all when I blindly accepted a doctrine given to me by another. I am now on my own spiritual journey. One in which I happen to believe -- my belief, not yours -- in the greatness of certain humans who have lived in history. About these humans much is written. I also believe -- my belief, not yours -- that not every thing that is written is necessarily correct.
I share this because right now there are many people in this country who are very scared. And in that fear, they are striking out in anger. My first response when everything that happened was anger. Let's get those bastards and all of that. But that is not part of my beliefs. My beliefs, from this spiritual journey that I am on, comes from Jesus, from Ghandi, from Mother Theresa, to name a few. And from those individuals, I have learned that killing is not the answer -- throw the first stone and all of that.
We all are trying to deal with this in our own way. I am certain that your faith in Jesus, as the Son of God, gives you great comfort now. And we share some same teachings -- the turning of the other cheek, the throwing of the first stone. In this time of fear, it is easy to strike out in anger. But instead of striking out at each other, let's find those things we share in common. Let's give comfort to each other. This doesn't mean you are less of a Christian. It just means we remain civil even though we disagree in our beliefs.
akc
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 21:17:17
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 20:35:18
> If I had refrained from my parenthetical comment, which appears to be sarcastic, I believe my response was civil when I shared my beliefs about Jesus. I respect your beliefs, and would ask that you do the same with mine. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know everything. This does not mean I am "confused." I use to think I knew all when I blindly accepted a doctrine given to me by another. I am now on my own spiritual journey. One in which I happen to believe -- my belief, not yours -- in the greatness of certain humans who have lived in history. About these humans much is written. I also believe -- my belief, not yours -- that not every thing that is written is necessarily correct.
>
> I share this because right now there are many people in this country who are very scared. And in that fear, they are striking out in anger. My first response when everything that happened was anger. Let's get those bastards and all of that. But that is not part of my beliefs. My beliefs, from this spiritual journey that I am on, comes from Jesus, from Ghandi, from Mother Theresa, to name a few. And from those individuals, I have learned that killing is not the answer -- throw the first stone and all of that.
>
> We all are trying to deal with this in our own way. I am certain that your faith in Jesus, as the Son of God, gives you great comfort now. And we share some same teachings -- the turning of the other cheek, the throwing of the first stone. In this time of fear, it is easy to strike out in anger. But instead of striking out at each other, let's find those things we share in common. Let's give comfort to each other. This doesn't mean you are less of a Christian. It just means we remain civil even though we disagree in our beliefs.
>
> akc
Posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 21:45:45
In reply to Re: two wrongs... » San, posted by akc on September 13, 2001, at 20:35:18
> If I had refrained from my parenthetical comment, which appears to be sarcastic, I believe my response was civil when I shared my beliefs about Jesus. I respect your beliefs, and would ask that you do the same with mine. I'll be the first to admit that I do not know everything. This does not mean I am "confused." I use to think I knew all when I blindly accepted a doctrine given to me by another. I am now on my own spiritual journey. One in which I happen to believe -- my belief, not yours -- in the greatness of certain humans who have lived in history. About these humans much is written. I also believe -- my belief, not yours -- that not every thing that is written is necessarily correct.
>
> I share this because right now there are many people in this country who are very scared. And in that fear, they are striking out in anger. My first response when everything that happened was anger. Let's get those bastards and all of that. But that is not part of my beliefs. My beliefs, from this spiritual journey that I am on, comes from Jesus, from Ghandi, from Mother Theresa, to name a few. And from those individuals, I have learned that killing is not the answer -- throw the first stone and all of that.
>
> We all are trying to deal with this in our own way. I am certain that your faith in Jesus, as the Son of God, gives you great comfort now. And we share some same teachings -- the turning of the other cheek, the throwing of the first stone. In this time of fear, it is easy to strike out in anger. But instead of striking out at each other, let's find those things we share in common. Let's give comfort to each other. This doesn't mean you are less of a Christian. It just means we remain civil even though we disagree in our beliefs.
>
> akc
>akc, I do believe in your right to choose what you want to believe--but can't you also see how I find it difficult to understand how you can say that you believe in Jesus and His teaching, yet make other statements that are in opposition to those teachings.
You say you also follow the teachings of Mother Teresa. She spent her entire life trying to follow the teachings of Jesus who she worshipped . To equate her with One who she so humbled herself to, adored, and knelt in prayer to, I think would appall her. Ghandi, while he had many good teachings, never claimed to be THE Son of God/Messiah. So I can't see why you don't "cut out the middle man" and simply follow Jesus who is who He said He was/is.You also say that Jesus taught "don't cast the first stone"--true. But we didn't cast the first stone--the terrorists did.
We, in this country, at this time, turn to God, because He is the only one who can help us. We alone, cannot save ourselves.If you want to disregard my expressions of my beliefs, I wholly accept that and will argue with you no longer. In closing, you must also note that in my faith, those who do not accept Jesus and do not follow His teachings in their totality will not be accepted into Heaven when they stand before God. All I am trying to do is point you in the right direction---the rest is up to you---YOU and ONLY YOU can make that decision for yourself. I wish you luck in your spiritual journey and my only hope is that you find the truth, just as I have journeyed and found the truth. Best Regards, San
Posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:13:06
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
> Jesus was not just a compassionate man who preached goodness. He was and is the Son of God. T o wish to model your life after him while denying the existence of His Father who He is the embodiment of is like slapping Him in the face. You're confused too! San
Uhh, Dr. Bob???
Posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:16:48
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 18:33:30
> > Dr. Bob:
>
> You've chosen to chastise those who have feelings toward one side of the fence. Nikki has said offensive things as well, as have others.
>
> I'm really upset.I looked at Nikki's posts and didn't see anything "offensive." Can you say what you're referring to? Thanks.
-elizabeth
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 14, 2001, at 9:34:08
In reply to Re: please be civil » Krazy Kat , posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:16:48
So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2001, at 15:16:49
In reply to Re: two wrongs..., posted by San on September 13, 2001, at 19:00:25
> You're confused too!
I already asked you not to post anything that others could take as accusatory or to put others down, so I'm going to block you from posting for one week. It's not an automated system, so if I forget to unblock you, please remind me by email.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2001, at 15:19:53
In reply to Re: please be civil » Elizabeth, posted by Krazy Kat on September 14, 2001, at 9:34:08
> So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
I'm not sure I see how that's offensive, either, could you say more about how you took it? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 15, 2001, at 9:12:31
In reply to Re: offensive? » Krazy Kat , posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2001, at 15:19:53
> I took the "AMERICAN" in caps as sarcastic, as if we didn't think it mattered elsewhere, and I don't think this should be made into an American thing which is how I responded.
Sorry, I'm just looking for all sides to be represented, and it seems so heavily waited. I certainly felt in the minority, and chastised, on those days....
- K.
> So, it is like Bush said.. that "terrorism on AMERICAN soil will nto be tollerated"...
>
> I'm not sure I see how that's offensive, either, could you say more about how you took it? Thanks,
>
> Bob
Go forward in 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.