![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 38. Go back in thread:
Posted by beardedlady on March 20, 2003, at 7:06:45
In reply to Re: I support my president, posted by syringachalet on March 19, 2003, at 23:59:09
S:
I don't want to be argumentative, but you have made some comments in your post, and I would like to present another viewpoint. I hope you understand that disagreement does not make people incompatible or unfriendly. I respect your views.> Our President and our country is in a very sensitive time right now.
> Noone I know wants to go to war.
>
> But I can not forget the attack on our country took less than two years ago. I also cant forget how that has changed all of our everyday lives forever.But what did this attack have to do with Iraq? The terrorists were mostly Saudis, and they were being trained by Bin Laden who was hiding in Afghanistan. Why aren't we bombing Saudi Arabia?
> Some say we are only going there 'for the oil'.
I'm one of those. Check out the rate at which countries produce their oil. http://www.abelard.org/news/archive-oil1-2.htm#oil_resources
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, yet they produce almost the fewest barrels of oil. I think this war was initiated because they're just not producing quickly enough. The world's reserves will be exhausted in 39 years (according to this chart), while Iraq's will last 128 years.How accurate is this? While I'm skeptical about any numbers and statistics, I still think it's about oil. Our leaders are oil tycoons. Condalisa Rice even has an oil tanker named after her! Bush even warned the Iraqis not to burn the oil fields!
> We are going to stop terrorism and to free the people suppressed in Iraq to someday be able to self-govern.
How will this stop terrorism? We have more terrorists in our own country--Tim McVey, the KKK, et al. And I'm not sure if freedom from Saddam is what the Iraqi people want. (Also--I believe that 60% of Iraq's population are 14 years old and under.)
> I want my children to grow up street smart but not to have to continue to live under a cloud of terror and paranoia about anyone who might look of Meditteran decent.
I don't know how a war with Iraq will change this. I also want the same for children around the world. I wonder what parents in Iraq are telling their children right now as they clog congested roads trying to get out of the city.
> I support our President and pray for God to give him and his advisors the wisdom and strength to make good decisions that will have this engagment end soon and with as few a casualities as possible.
This is a good prayer. I think we can all agree that if war has begun, it should be as quick and as casualty-free as possible.
> How many of you would be strong and brave enough to stick out your necks and ask some young man or women to go into harms way to make our world safer for everyone?? Its a tough call.
I wouldn't. I do not believe in war. I believe (and this is simply my belief) that many--but by no means all--people join the military because they can't afford a college education and because the likelihood of war was relatively small.
This is from a letter to Bush by Michael Moore, the filmmaker: "Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South
Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces!"> I pray and support of families of those defending what this country is all about.
Me too. And I wish you the best!
beardy
Posted by syringachalet on March 20, 2003, at 8:01:32
In reply to Re: I support my president » syringachalet, posted by beardedlady on March 20, 2003, at 7:06:45
beardy,
Thank you for sharing your differing point of view that presents the other side of this very stressful time.
As the mother of teenage sons(17 yr old twins), the guys each have decided they want to enlist
in the military branch of their choice and
defend their country. Hopefully this conflict will not last that long nor take that many casualities.My husband was honored with a Bronze Star
during his tour of duty in Viet Nam.My aunt was one of the first nurses to join the Army Nurse Corp in the late 1940s to do two tours of duty in Korea. She was also one of the few women then to be honored with a Purple Heart for what she used to say,'just doing my job as a loyal American'.
I guess this board really is about freedom of speech. But with that freedom of speech comes certain responsibilities to maintain civility and 'respectfully disagree' on issues from time to time.
thanks again. Take care, beardy,
syringachalet
Posted by Dinah on March 20, 2003, at 8:02:28
In reply to Re: I support my president » syringachalet, posted by beardedlady on March 20, 2003, at 7:06:45
I also don't want to be argumentative. That's why I had really hoped not to have this argument spread to the board. I'm afraid I'm going to lose Babble over this war. A small price in comparison to the ones others will pay, but a meaningful one to me.
Bush asked that the oilfields not be burned to avoid an environmental crisis, not so that he can plunder them. Americans put out the oil fires last time not because we profited from doing so, but because it was the right thing to do. And at great expense and risk to those Americans.
We aren't planning to annex the Iraqi oilfields.
I think that Bush is not evil, that his greatest sin is moral certitude.
Is this war misguided? I actually think so. It isn't the choice I would make. I will actually state that I am opposed to invading Iraq.
But I refuse to vilify those who are against it, Bush included. There are well thought out reasons on both sides. And I think that everyone should at least attempt to understand those reasons for the sake of respect and friendship on this board and within this country.
If my opinions lose me Babble, I am very sorry. It has come to mean a lot to me.
Posted by beardedlady on March 20, 2003, at 8:55:49
In reply to Re: I support my president, posted by syringachalet on March 20, 2003, at 8:01:32
S:
Thanks for your comments. I'm glad discussions so potentially heated can remain civil.
My dad was stationed in Kansas for six months, as he registered for Selective Service, and there was no war going on. His first cousin was killed in WWII.
My father-in-law was strapped to the mast of a ship for hours on end in the pouring rain at Iwo Jima. He couldn't ever go swimming again, though he did take his kids to the beach.
My brother-in-law applied for and won Conscientious Objector status for Viet Nam.
My grandfather escaped from Hungary when he was twelve. A sister who stayed behind had her husband and son taken by the Nazis. They were never seen again.
That's about all the war history I have.
beardy
Posted by syringachalet on March 20, 2003, at 11:51:20
In reply to thank you. » syringachalet, posted by beardedlady on March 20, 2003, at 8:55:49
Thanks, beardy, for sharing...
You really have walked the walk..
syringachalet
Posted by shar on March 21, 2003, at 20:48:10
In reply to Re: I support my president » syringachalet, posted by beardedlady on March 20, 2003, at 7:06:45
>But what did this attack have to do with Iraq? The terrorists were mostly Saudis, and they were being trained by Bin Laden who was hiding in Afghanistan. Why aren't we bombing Saudi Arabia?
>I think this is a blurred issue, and Bush is happy to let it stand as is. Iraq (really, Hussein) has provided support (financiing and training) for a number of terrorist groups, including Al Queda and Hussein's bud Bin Laden. I don't believe Hussein was directly involved in the attacks during 9/11, but I do believe that he very likely was involved indirectly via previous (and probably ongoing) support.
Iraq and Al Queda are separate issues in some ways, and as time went on, people in the media quit making much of a distinction between the two and in the minds of many people Iraq is responsible for 9/11 which isn't accurate. However, there *is* an element of preventing terrorism by getting rid of Hussein in that he presumably won't be offering terrorist groups the same level of support.
I figure you already know this information, but just don't believe it? You're too well-informed not to know about the connection between Hussein and Bin Laden/Al Queda.
Shar
Posted by syringachalet on March 21, 2003, at 23:43:41
In reply to Iraq and Al Queda » beardedlady, posted by shar on March 21, 2003, at 20:48:10
I think that many Americans have a problem connecting 9/11 and Al Queda to Hussein and Iraq.
What I see is 'the big picture'. Not being too focused on one person or place but considering terriorism as a whole.
Its been 12 years since we had oue last little trest with Saddum and we foolishly trust him to follow his promises to rebuiidl his regime and take care of his people.
Instead his regime wasted 12 years and things just got worse. For some reason he felt above the rules and laws that govern the rest of the world...maybe he thinks hes bullet-proof?!?We tried to get Ben Laden and we havent totally given up on him yet. But when Hussein contined to be non-compliant and denied this own people basic humanitarian needs, it was time for some country to 'step up to the plate', 'drawing a line in the sand' that ruling a country with raping and killing and torture would not be tolerated.
Maybe Bush thinks that if America can put Hussein out of commission, the other terrriorists will know that America isnt just talk..it means what it says. George even thought that the other countrys would want to help bring down SH. But they decided not to.
By the way, after America and Canada and Great Britian 'do all the dirty work' in gettting SH regime in the past and rebuild Iraq(Or what ever they decide to call it), are all those nations who didnt want to 'get involved' in a Iraq conflict want to enjoy the benefits from Hussein down-fall? (cheaper oil prices, etc...)
Kind of reminds me of that story about the wolf and the three little pigs who the first two didnt want to go to the work to build with brick and then they wanted refuge in the third little pigs brick house from the wolf make after them...
Should 'to the victors belong the spoils' ???syringachalet
Posted by daizy on March 22, 2003, at 8:40:24
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda, posted by syringachalet on March 21, 2003, at 23:43:41
Just my opinion ........ yesterday I saw on the news, American soldiers writing "revenge for 911" on missiles... knowing they might kill and injure hundreds of innocent people who had no choice but to support their evil dictator...
Dont they know than 911 Al-Quaida and Saddam Husseins regime are two different things completetly, and there is no proven link between the two. It angeres me to see that just because the two share the same faith, they are seen as one in the same ...
It is totally wront for America to take revenge for 911 by going to war with Iraq. Im not saying here that Saddam doesnt need to be dealt with, and also terrorism, but im afraid that by going to war with Saddam it will just feed the terrorists with reasons for further attacks... All the Arabs and muslims see is bombs being dropped on Afghanistan, Iraq, and palestine. Who could then blame them for hating countries like Britain and America.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 9:05:59
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda, posted by daizy on March 22, 2003, at 8:40:24
Gotta say here.
I don't know what the American soldiers are doing. I haven't been watching the same sources of news, apparently.
I've been watching CNN, and the military leadership as all due gravitas towards the situation, all due respect for the power they are using, and all due respect for the Iraqi people and any innocent casualties that might occur despite our best efforts to avoid them.
I just watched General Franks, and I was quite impressed with his awareness of the situation in its entirety and from perspectives other than our own.
I also saw lots of interviews with soldiers who had surrendered who do not see Americans as "invaders" but as liberaters, and pictures from a village where the residents also seemed pretty happy to be free of Saddam, whose human rights abuses are documented at the website of Amnesty International, hardly as you might agree, a patsy for the Bush administration.
My source of information is CNN, again hardly a huge source of support for Bush.
And I grew ashamed of my previous opposition to the war, which was based on selfish concerns for American interests rather than true concern for the people of Iraq.
Again, just my opinion.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 9:06:45
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda » daizy, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 9:05:59
Posted by daizy on March 22, 2003, at 9:11:39
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda, posted by syringachalet on March 21, 2003, at 23:43:41
"Maybe Bush thinks that if America can put Hussein out of commission, the other terrriorists will know that America isnt just talk.."
They will know that America isnt just talk its action, its war, its killing innocent people, and then maybe they can justify their terrorism even more no?
Posted by J.Brown on March 22, 2003, at 9:34:30
In reply to Iraq and Al Queda » beardedlady, posted by shar on March 21, 2003, at 20:48:10
> >But what did this attack have to do with Iraq? The terrorists were mostly Saudis, and they were being trained by Bin Laden who was hiding in Afghanistan. Why aren't we bombing Saudi Arabia?
> >
>
> I think this is a blurred issue, and Bush is happy to let it stand as is. Iraq (really, Hussein) has provided support (financiing and training) for a number of terrorist groups, including Al Queda and Hussein's bud Bin Laden. I don't believe Hussein was directly involved in the attacks during 9/11, but I do believe that he very likely was involved indirectly via previous (and probably ongoing) support.
>
> Iraq and Al Queda are separate issues in some ways, and as time went on, people in the media quit making much of a distinction between the two and in the minds of many people Iraq is responsible for 9/11 which isn't accurate. However, there *is* an element of preventing terrorism by getting rid of Hussein in that he presumably won't be offering terrorist groups the same level of support.
>
> I figure you already know this information, but just don't believe it? You're too well-informed not to know about the connection between Hussein and Bin Laden/Al Queda.
This does not describe the Bush doctrine regarding the extent of Al Queda militant organization in Iraq. Colin Powell has repeatedly cited a Muslim sect in Northern Iraq as Hussein's tie to Al Queda. Hussein allegedly supports this group, about like Bush tolerates street gangs. This would be tantamount to identifying all Christian fundamentalists who subscribe to Liberty Lobby as terrorists.At any rate, part of the attack included missile attacks against these northern tribes in the Kurdish territories, who had attacked no U.S. or Brit forces. A column of Turkish forces also advanced on the tribes, to the chagrin of the primary offenders of this offensive. In this war, ideological opposition to the U.S. is treated as an act of terrorism.
Posted by beardedlady on March 22, 2003, at 9:48:49
In reply to Iraq and Al Queda » beardedlady, posted by shar on March 21, 2003, at 20:48:10
Shar:
I'm with J.Brown on this one.
It's not that I don't believe it, but I believe his aid is less significant than our role in terrorism. It is undisputed that our government actually funded and trained Osama and his ilk. Where is our responsibility?
In addition, the recent Supreme Court ruling that anti-abortionists can, once again, harass and ridicule and get the the faces of those who enter family planning clinics proves to me that we support terrorism much in the same way Saddam does. (Yes, I'm saying I think that some anti-abortion activism is terrorism. )
So I'm not condoning Iraq's support--merely saying there's a different reason for our Iraq attack. Terrorism doesn't fly with me.
Thanks for asking!
beardy : )>
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 9:52:21
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda » shar, posted by beardedlady on March 22, 2003, at 9:48:49
I certainly hope that you aren't equating ridicule (not that I at all approve of harassing people for their beliefs) with the blowing up of an office building without warning or the gassing of Kurds (which admittedly was not an act of terrorism since it was carried on by a dictator against his own people).
Posted by shar on March 22, 2003, at 23:30:24
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda » shar, posted by beardedlady on March 22, 2003, at 9:48:49
BL:
>I'm with J.Brown on this one.
........I wasn't trying to sway you one way or the other (or J.Brown, either).
........Please remember that I was responding to your response to Syringchalet, in which you said (in essence) what does 9/11 have to do with invading Iraq?
.........My response was an attempt to explain how people began to see the two as tied together.
........Not that it should be tied together, or shouldn't be, just trying to paint a picture of what happened, how the lines got blurred, etc.
........I will say that your response to Syr. seemed a little...well, I can't think of the word. It's when you know something (like you probably knew already how come people equate the war with Iraq as revenge for 9/11) but act like you don't (it's a word that starts with non- I think but it is not nonplussed). And your response to Syr. would make one believe that you didn't understand how people came to believe that the war with Iraq was about 9/11 (if it was about Al Queda why aren't we bombing Saudi Arabia), when there's more to it than that (and I figured you knew there was more to it), but I thought I'd try to elucidate (for whose benefit I no longer know) the 'more to it' part.
> It's not that I don't believe it, but I believe his aid is less significant than our role in terrorism.........and I was responding to your question to Syr., not trying to say what was right/wrong or significant/insignificant, or even state a position, etc.
>Where is our responsibility?
....Tho' this is off topic from what my post was about, I believe our responsibility is to deal with what's happening now, since we can't go back in time and undo what's been done. BLaden and Al Queda need to be dealt with.
.......So does Hussein, imo.
>
> In addition, the recent Supreme Court ruling that anti-abortionists can, once again, harass and ridicule and get the the faces of those who enter family planning clinics proves to me that we support terrorism much in the same way Saddam does. (Yes, I'm saying I think that some anti-abortion activism is terrorism. ).........I could not agree more. I cannot stomach what is allowed to take place against women who want legal medical services during an extremely hard time in their lives.
>
> So I'm not condoning Iraq's support--merely saying there's a different reason for our Iraq attack. Terrorism doesn't fly with me.........and I wasn't condoning or condemning Iraq's support, merely trying to explain how people have come to believe that Hussein, Al Queda, BLaden and 9/11 are the reason we're at war.
>
> Thanks for asking!.........my pleasure!
>
> beardy : )>
Posted by wendy b. on March 22, 2003, at 23:40:11
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda » beardedlady, posted by Dinah on March 22, 2003, at 9:52:21
> I certainly hope that you aren't equating ridicule (not that I at all approve of harassing people for their beliefs) with the blowing up of an office building without warning or the gassing of Kurds...
Dinah,I usually don't do this, but I have to say (well, I don't have to, I want to say): sorry, but I do not believe Beardy was saying this at all. You characterize her as someone who doesn't understand the relative weight of words, that she lacks subtlety. I disagree.
I'm pretty sure (!) that she was saying: Americae speaketh out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to issues like this. Terror visited upon other people -- whether they be abortion clinic patients, or innocent civilians -- should be called what it is. And that *certain* kinds of terror are deemed okey-dokey by the US of A (i.e., the clinic bombers and harassers), but other kinds, performed by brown-skinned people from that nebulous region, the "Middle East," are deemed high crimes.
Hope that addresses any misunderstanding.
An aside:
I have been in parking lots at abortion clinics in my area, trying to outsprint the protesters who screamed venom at me and other women. Some of us were there to have the procedure done, some of us were escorting patients into the clinics, others of us counter-protesting with our own signs and slogan-chanting. They carried signs of botched abortions, and tried to chain themselves to the examining room tables. These people inclded the infamous Randall Terry and his Band of Merry Men (and women and children, of course)."I have seen the face of evil..."
In Buffalo, they succeeded in murdering an OB/GYN who performed the procedure, among all the other types of services he provided. These anti-abortionists also made their children protest out there with them in sub-zero temperatures. What a world...
As somebody said, in one of our other recent "War" threads, it is here in America that the right to protest -- to publicly and peacefully disagree with one another, without fear of being detained by the miltary state apparatus -- is guaranteed, simply by the fact that you live here. Civilized people (those who are civil to one another), can disagree and still respect each others' rights to co-exist on the planet. It's this type of peaceful protesting that Bush dislikes; everyone MUST agree ("Ya-voll"), or our patriotism is called into question.It's this slow eroding of our fundamental freedoms (and I don't mean the 2nd Amendment) -- those of speech, assembly, and public expression -- that I ultimately fear about Bush's administration. That, and the fact that the United Nations has been turned into a farce by the behavior of the U.S. In my view, in order for this world-body to be effective, we cannot chose to live outside of its rules whenever the rules do not justfy our own ends. But this is what we have done. All I can say is: woe betide us.
Luckily I don't have cable, or I would be glued to the TV news right now. Who has the time? Who doesn't already have enough anxiety? I read my news on the web (so I control the rate of input into my overloaded-already brain), and look at several daily newspapers, to try to stay informed. But it gets too overwhelming on the boob tube. Somehow I always end up wanting to throw large, blunt objects at the television screen, when watching the American news program channels.
Best wishes, in any case, to everyone,
Wendy
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2003, at 5:00:09
In reply to Re: wherein the author goes on a Riff, posted by wendy b. on March 22, 2003, at 23:40:11
Yes, perhaps my wording was stronger than I had intended, because I posted in genuine surprise. I had indeed thought that Beardy understood the relative weight of words.
I probably ahould have said "I beg your pardon?" than "I certainly hope".
I don't think our government condones abortion clinic bombings, quite the contrary in fact. Do you have evidence of the government doing so? Which abortion clinic bombings have not been investigated and prosecuted? I do believe we should all put pressure on the proper authorities at once!
As far as harassment goes, I'm sorry, but I just can't equate that with blowing up the federal building or the Twin Towers, or suicide bombings, or clinic bombings, or killing doctors who perform abortion.
And I think it's an important distinction for the same reason that I think genuine sexual abuse should be separated from men at construction sites calling out lewd things to young women. Calling harassment terrorism or sexual abuse diminishes the larger meaning of the word.
I figure that abortion protesters and antiwar protesters and anyone who wishes to protest about anything all have the same rights. If they obtain the proper permits they can assemble and speak their piece. If they go beyond that which is allowed by law they should be arrested. I'm pretty sure that that is what happens? I certainly have heard of plenty of abortion protestors being arrested. If antiwar and antiabortion protesters are not treated equally in your town, if one or the other are allowed to break the law with impunity, all the appropriate measures should take place to see that such injustice does not continue.
How can I compare the two protests, some might ask. I suppose because the laws of our government doesn't discriminate between whether a protest is popular or unpopular, thank the constitution.
I still stand by not equating our government with terrorists because of a Supreme Court decision allowing lawful protest, even if it's protest that is unpopular.
Posted by syringachalet on March 23, 2003, at 5:20:31
In reply to Re: wherein the author goes on a Riff, posted by wendy b. on March 22, 2003, at 23:40:11
In Buffalo, they succeeded in murdering an OB/GYN who performed the procedure, among all the other types of services he provided. These anti-abortionists also made their children protest out there with them in sub-zero temperatures. What a world...
>
>
> As somebody said, in one of our other recent "War" threads, it is here in America that the right to protest -- to publicly and peacefully disagree with one another, without fear of being detained by the miltary state apparatus -- is guaranteed, simply by the fact that you live here. Civilized people (those who are civil to one another), can disagree and still respect each others' rights to co-exist on the planet. It's this type of peaceful protesting that Bush dislikes; everyone MUST agree ("Ya-voll"), or our patriotism is called into question.
>
I find it interesting that President Bush would be seen in this context...
He has always defended the right for people to have peaceful assembly as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others...
For America to just 'stand by' while dememted men like Hussein and Ben Laden continue to run terror and death throughout their own people would be a travesty.
The oil fields that Hussein burned in 1991 and starting now are not his oil fields to burn.
They also dont belong to America or any other nation. They belong to the people of Iraq.
These fields are one of the few bargain chips these people have left to sell to the world in exchange for the things they need to survive.As for the strength of the UN, I think what we have seen with President Bush is that when the rest of the world bowed down to terriorism, America 'drew the line in the sand' and said NO MORE. It was a tough call to make and I support him for having the courage and the faith in the people who put him into office.
If it makes those who 'didnt want to rock the boat' or would prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand and not see what is really happening in Iraq look bad, well...
(These will probably be the ones who will want to enjoy the benefits of ousting of these two dememted men from power with cheaper oil and gasoline prices.)The fact that people like Hussein and Ben Laden hide behind the skirts of women and children show even more just what kind of cowards they really are.
P.S. As for the abortion clinics and their bombings and killings associated, bombing and killing are just that...punishable crimes(when not in times of declared war) and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
People can march all they want as long as it doesnt not infringe on the rights of others...
Your rights end where mine begin.....
syringachalet
Posted by beardedlady on March 23, 2003, at 7:33:49
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda » beardedlady, posted by shar on March 22, 2003, at 23:30:24
Shar,
First, I wasn't arguing with you--just answering your question. Second, I really don't understand why people equate this with 9/11. As you know, I'm still convinced it's oil. And I wouldn't be as bothered by war if we were told the truth from the beginning, and if we were honest to our people about the events that led up to the war.
Finally, my being with J.Brown simply meant that he'd already answered the post with what I'd say.
So please don't take it as if I were taking sides. I know what your post was referring to, and I was being honest with you, not judgmental or negative or anything else. And my post to syr was not either. I think she took it in the spirit in which I intended it. If she didn't, she didn't say. I thought our exchange was pleasant.
Have a great day!
beardy : )>
Posted by beardedlady on March 23, 2003, at 7:36:11
In reply to Re: wherein the author goes on a Riff, posted by wendy b. on March 22, 2003, at 23:40:11
I'm just working on limited time for computer discussions these days, and brevity leaves holes.
beardy : )>
Posted by Ritch on March 23, 2003, at 14:01:32
In reply to Re: Iraq and Al Queda, posted by daizy on March 22, 2003, at 8:40:24
> Just my opinion ........ yesterday I saw on the news, American soldiers writing "revenge for 911" on missiles... knowing they might kill and injure hundreds of innocent people who had no choice but to support their evil dictator...
>
> Dont they know than 911 Al-Quaida and Saddam Husseins regime are two different things completetly, and there is no proven link between the two. It angeres me to see that just because the two share the same faith, they are seen as one in the same ...
>
> It is totally wront for America to take revenge for 911 by going to war with Iraq. Im not saying here that Saddam doesnt need to be dealt with, and also terrorism, but im afraid that by going to war with Saddam it will just feed the terrorists with reasons for further attacks... All the Arabs and muslims see is bombs being dropped on Afghanistan, Iraq, and palestine. Who could then blame them for hating countries like Britain and America.
Hi, I found an article that pretty sums up the way I feel about the whole thing:http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,919987,00.html
The quote from Winston Churchill in there was particularly accurate IMO:..."If selling the US presented problems last year, the task is vastly more difficult today. A country which stands for individual freedom and whose people are so eager to do the right thing - even though, as Churchill observed, they may explore all other options beforehand - is now considered by millions to be halfway between behemoth and pariah."
Posted by daizy on March 23, 2003, at 15:16:10
In reply to Observer article...interesting... » daizy, posted by Ritch on March 23, 2003, at 14:01:32
> > Just my opinion ........ yesterday I saw on the news, American soldiers writing "revenge for 911" on missiles... knowing they might kill and injure hundreds of innocent people who had no choice but to support their evil dictator...
> >
> > Dont they know than 911 Al-Quaida and Saddam Husseins regime are two different things completetly, and there is no proven link between the two. It angeres me to see that just because the two share the same faith, they are seen as one in the same ...
> >
> > It is totally wront for America to take revenge for 911 by going to war with Iraq. Im not saying here that Saddam doesnt need to be dealt with, and also terrorism, but im afraid that by going to war with Saddam it will just feed the terrorists with reasons for further attacks... All the Arabs and muslims see is bombs being dropped on Afghanistan, Iraq, and palestine. Who could then blame them for hating countries like Britain and America.
>
>
> Hi, I found an article that pretty sums up the way I feel about the whole thing:
>
> http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,919987,00.html
>
>
> The quote from Winston Churchill in there was particularly accurate IMO:
>
> ..."If selling the US presented problems last year, the task is vastly more difficult today. A country which stands for individual freedom and whose people are so eager to do the right thing - even though, as Churchill observed, they may explore all other options beforehand - is now considered by millions to be halfway between behemoth and pariah."
>
>This was a very good article, thanx Ritch!
I may have been a bit harsh in my post yesterday, I was simply trying to see it from the ordinary Iraqi's point of view....... I do support the troops afterall its their job and they are simply following orders, I feel that it is the governments that are to blame for their way of thinking... Lets hope Bush does keep all his promises and treat post war Iraq fairly.....
One other thing I saw on the news was that all the contractors that go into Iraq once the war is over will be Americans..... Funny that isnt it Ritch!
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 21:39:44
In reply to Re: wherein the author goes on a Riff, posted by syringachalet on March 23, 2003, at 5:20:31
> the rest of the world bowed down to terriorism
> those who 'didnt want to rock the boat' or would prefer to keep their heads buried in the sandPlease remember that there are people from the rest of the world here and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, and complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by mair on March 23, 2003, at 22:20:53
In reply to Re: wherein the author goes on a Riff, posted by syringachalet on March 23, 2003, at 5:20:31
"For America to just 'stand by' while dememted men like Hussein and Ben Laden continue to run terror and death throughout their own people would be a travesty."
Actually, we've been doing that for years all over the globe so long as we perceived whatever monster was in power to be less of a threat to us than the unknown alternative. To the best of my recollection, President Jimmy Carter was the only President who made human rights a priority when dealing with foreign governments, and he got little credit and a lot of ridicule for taking this stance. Let's also remember that we gave Bin Laden all kinds of support (Arms) when his target was the Russians.
> The oil fields that Hussein burned in 1991 and starting now are not his oil fields to burn.
> They also dont belong to America or any other nation. They belong to the people of Iraq.
> These fields are one of the few bargain chips these people have left to sell to the world in exchange for the things they need to survive.
>
> "As for the strength of the UN, I think what we have seen with President Bush is that when the rest of the world bowed down to terriorism, America 'drew the line in the sand' and said NO MORE."But this is the worst part of this war. No one disagrees that Hussein is a pretty awful guy who abuses his people and his office, there's a difference between thinking that Hussein is awful, and endorsing the idea of the U.S. taking very unilateral steps to get rid of him. I believe one reason Bush failed so miserably at the UN is because he came into this with his mind made up and with a "my way or no way" attitude. He presumed to know what was best for the world and when the other powers didn't go along with his view, he said the equivalent of it doesn't matter because I'm going to do what I want to anyway. IMO It was a miserable display of diplomacy. I think if there is ever going to be a lasting peace, peace has to be waged as aggressively and be as hard fought as is war. No one country, not even the strongest can disregard the interests and concerns of its allies. It's one thing to be strong. It's another to be a bully. I think the rest of the world perceives the U.S. to be a bully and I believe this will shape their willingness to cooperate with us on all sorts of other matters.
> "(These will probably be the ones who will want to enjoy the benefits of ousting of these two dememted men from power with cheaper oil and gasoline prices.)"
If it's not "about the oil," why do people keep raising the issue of lowered oil prices as one of the spoils of victory? The Europeans have lived with high oil prices for years; and have compensated with public transportation and smaller more fuel efficient cars. Although I live in a very rural area where 1)there is almost no public transportation and 2)where 4 wheel drive automobiles and trucks are a necessity for many people, and 3) where the winters are cold enough to make people highly dependent on oil as a source of heat, I would gladly live with higher oil prices if it meant that we were respected for our efforts to find a solution to the problems of the Palestinians and if it meant that every 3rd Arab male didn't want to commit jihad on the United States.
I just happen to believe that this war is about so much more than who wins the military battles.
>
Respectfully,Mair
Posted by syringachalet on March 24, 2003, at 0:37:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » syringachalet, posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 21:39:44
Thanks, Bob for your input.
syringachalet
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.