![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 46 to 70 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:44:26
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » AuntieMel, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:25:42
>
> > But they are, you have to admit, a bit one sided.
>
>
> Yes they are. Their mission statement makes it clear where their sympathies are going to lie.
>
> With world peace and reduction of people dying of preventable disease etc etc..
>
I think it would be pretty hard to find a group whose mission statement promotes global warfare and an increase in people dying of preventable disease.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:50:54
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 13:33:29
> > The removal of a strong, (insert a few adjectives here) government leads to more violence in a country where age old hatreds have been kept in check with (insert methods of keeping hatreds in check here).
>
> Hmm. The presence of a foreign occupying force also leads to more violence in a country where the majority of citizens want... Them to withdraw (can find link if people would like)
>
> > The current war against Iraq may have been based on incorrect assumptions, and had the correct information been known, would probably have never been undertaken.
>
> That is one theory. ANother theory is that it was known before pre-emptive strike that there were no WMD in Iraq... And that there were other motives for the war such as oil and economic takeover etc.They're both theories. I thought your personal philosophy was that the most charitable assumptions be made?
>
> > But isn't the question *now* what to do to minimize the number of deaths? Most analysts I've seen, whether or not they were opposed to the war, don't believe a pullout will result in the least number of deaths - other than of course deaths among the soldiers.
>
> i can find a link if people would like.
> How many insurgents were there supposed to be?
> How many have been killed now?
> Either the body count means... There really aren't very many insurgents left (which doesn't seem right)
> Or more civilians than insurgents are part of that body count
> Or civilians are becoming insurgents at a very rapid rate...
>
> I've heard the latter is probable.
>
> If it is about the welfare of Iraq...
> Why not turn the troops over to the UN to control?That would be absolutely wonderful. Are they willing and eager to do this?
>
> What do the Iraq citizens want?
>
> The US troops to withdraw.
>
> Civil war...
>
> How would the US have felt about... Oh... Russia or someone coming along while you guys were doing the civil war thing...I'm not sure someone didn't? I know France took sides in the Revolutionary War.
>
> ?
>
> > There is no "good" solution at this point. But perhaps we can look to history to help us find the least bad solution.
>
> Or...
>
> YOu could look at what the majority of citizens want.
>
> Ahem.
>
> Iraq citizens of course...
>
>
Of course. If the majority of Iraqi citizens prefer us to leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that.Ummm... Wait. Let me rephrase that. If the majority and the minority of Iraqi citizens prefer that we leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that. Obviously in ethnic strife, the majority would usually like to be left to their own devices. Or at least the better armed side. If the Kurds and the other ethnic minorities all agree then let's by all means withdraw.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:10:28
In reply to Re: Your allowed to say... » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:44:26
> > Yes they are. Their mission statement makes it clear where their sympathies are going to lie.
> > With world peace and reduction of people dying of preventable disease etc etc..> I think it would be pretty hard to find a group whose mission statement promotes global warfare and an increase in people dying of preventable disease.
ROFL!!!!!!
((((((Dinah)))))))
Oh you are so right. Excuse me it has just gone 7am (no excuse really). I just realised my mistake and came here to 'clarify' (aka to try and squirm out of that one).Heh heh.
:-)
By 'world peace' I meant that they are fairly much pacifist. So they are going to focus on articles etc that talk about the horrors of war, rather than justifications for war.
By 'preventing people dying of preventible diseases' I meant that they think this should be done even if it means the US (and other countries) drug corporations lose money in the process, rather than talking about how to raise money so third world countries can afford to pay the prices which are high because of intellectual copyright laws etc.
They try and raise awareness of issues to do with global justice
(Some people think you should just worry about justice within a country)I guess they are fairly left wing...
Er... Is there a comperable source that is trying to raise awareness of more right wing issues?
Because that would be interesting... To compare...
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:28:06
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:50:54
> They're both theories. I thought your personal philosophy was that the most charitable assumptions be made?
Yes. Though in this case... Evidence is coming in is it not? Evidence regarding Bush admitting that he knew there were no WMD in the country before the war. I think there is an investigation into that... Yeah, charity is a guiding principle... But the evidence... IMO it is looking bad. But I guess we should see how it goes. I guess I've been hearing a lot about the claim that the war is unlawful because the initial argument... Came from a doctor in England who studied Philosophy in NZ and he was defended by a lawyer who is a QC who studied in NZ and so I have been reading a bit about that and... I think that side has a better case (though I'm probably biased towards pacifism)...
> That would be absolutely wonderful. Are they willing and eager to do this?
Do they need to be 'willing and eager'? Have they been asked if they would like to do that?
> > How would the US have felt about... Oh... Russia or someone coming along while you guys were doing the civil war thing...
> I'm not sure someone didn't? I know France took sides in the Revolutionary War.Did they come along with their military and occupy the country?
> Of course. If the majority of Iraqi citizens prefer us to leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that.
Okay. I'll go on a links hunt...
Now yes I'll grant you that GPF is rather biased in the kinds of articles they collect to put links to on their site. But... They aren't funding the people who write the articles (in most cases). People write articles for the London Times and the New York Times and the San Francisco Times etc and they just collect them under various headings like 'foreign occupation' so people can read them on the net.So maybe you can find other news sources from other links off the net. But I'll have a little hunt around on GPF for some links...
> Ummm... Wait. Let me rephrase that. If the majority and the minority of Iraqi citizens prefer that we leave them to their own devices, then I'm all for that.?
You want 100% consensus?> Obviously in ethnic strife, the majority would usually like to be left to their own devices. Or at least the better armed side. If the Kurds and the other ethnic minorities all agree then let's by all means withdraw.
So seperate out all the minority groups...
And run an election for what each of them wants??
This is an interesting kind of democracy...
(Really)
Ok. So what's up with the Kurds? They are the ones most friendly to the US... Okay I'll have a hunt for that...Er...
Do you think all ethnic minorities should get... Their own govt?
Really... I'm interested because there has been some talk of having a seperate Maori govt in NZ. Currently I think they get something like 3 designated seats in parliament... Which... I might be wrong... But I think that exceeds their 10% (roundabouts) of the population status... We have around 10% asian population too... But I guess we didn't sign a treaty with them...
So... US has sided with the Kurds? ANd there is concern that if the troops withdraw the kurds will lose the civil war?
Er... Why is it the US business to make sure the kurds win the war or whatever???
Or is the idea that if the US troops withdraw then the ethnic majority in Iraq will kill the kurds (ie genocide)
Is that the idea?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:41:48
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:28:06
I'm not sure I'm up to explaining why a minority viewpoint should be taken into account when the wishes of the majority are to... Oh lordy. Definitely not up to it. Why don't you google ethnic warfare in Iraq.
Are we siding with the Kurds? Of course not, where did you get that idea. Would we be doing them a disservice by allowing ethnic tensions to play themselves out as they have in the past? In my humble opinion, allowing that would be unconscionable. Just as standing by in the Sudan is unconscionable. But that, of course, is just my conscience and reasonable people apparently do believe otherwise.
In hindsight, I don't believe we should have gone in, hindsight being twenty-twenty and all. But I also believe that reasonable people could have concluded that the reluctance of the government to allow UN inspectors to look for WMD could have meant that there were WMD. That's why I said I regret that the UN inspectors weren't allowed to inspect.
I just think that that is irrelevant in regards to what we should do *now*. What we should do *now* should be based on an analysis of the likely outcome of a pullout.
Does the UN need to be asked to volunteer to replace US forces with UN ones?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:45:50
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:41:48
a search of
kurds iraq
should be more than sufficient.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:50:35
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 13:50:54
british poll:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/resist/2005/1024britishforces.htm
british sympathy for the kurds:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/kurdsindex.htm
hmm.
okay. so if you only follow one link...
give this one a chance. it is long... but i think it is quite good...http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/0318motive.htm
the kurds... are willing to talk oil dealing with the us... does that factor into the sympathy vote?
how much does it cost to convert a tank to run on peanut oil?
how many lives have been lost?
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:40:55
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:41:48
> I'm not sure I'm up to explaining why a minority viewpoint should be taken into account when the wishes of the majority are to... Oh lordy. Definitely not up to it.
yeah. it is a hard one. i agree though that that would be one possible negative of a democracy where everyone gets one vote. say you have a minority of 5% and 95% think they should kill off or otherwise rip off the 5%. that would seem to be democratic in a sense... yet it would also seem to be er... not in the interestes of justice (i hope thats civil it is a hypothetical case...)
so i agree that that could be a probelm with democracy yeah.
Why don't you google ethnic warfare in Iraq.
ok. but i have to go to work soon...
> Are we siding with the Kurds? Of course not, where did you get that idea.cause of the oil thing... them sitting on the oil and willing to get producing... and the us kind of really really wanting production to be coming along... so i thought that might have been why there was sympathy for the kurds. cause turkey wants the oil too eh? but if they got it then how would production come along? i just thought the kurds were more sympathetic to the idea of getting the exports coming along...
> Would we be doing them a disservice by allowing ethnic tensions to play themselves out as they have in the past? In my humble opinion, allowing that would be unconscionable. Just as standing by in the Sudan is unconscionable. But that, of course, is just my conscience and reasonable people apparently do believe otherwise.
i guess my worry... is how much war helps the situation. kind of like... in private affairs... violence isn't really the way... rather you talk to people... maybe lock them up if it comes to that. i guess i think that instead of war... there should be courts... lock people up. i don't know that continued us occupation is helping things along.
it was meant to be a short war easily won...
tis starting to remind me of vietnam...
> In hindsight, I don't believe we should have gone in, hindsight being twenty-twenty and all. But I also believe that reasonable people could have concluded that the reluctance of the government to allow UN inspectors to look for WMD could have meant that there were WMD. That's why I said I regret that the UN inspectors weren't allowed to inspect.
ok. i've heard the claim that bush said to someone official... that he knew there weren't any wmd in iraq before the pre=emptive strike. if that is true... but maybe it is false... i think there is some kind of evidence... taperecording... maybe he said it in front of a bunch of people. can't quite remember. yeah i think we shuold be charitable... innocent until proven guilty etc. but i guess... if that is right...
:-(
> I just think that that is irrelevant in regards to what we should do *now*. What we should do *now* should be based on an analysis of the likely outcome of a pullout.and an analysis of the likely outcome of remaining...
the situation seems to be...
remaining fairly much just as bad
if not getting worse...:-(
stop the killing people i say
yeah if the troops withdraw people will die
but people are dying already
> Does the UN need to be asked to volunteer to replace US forces with UN ones?sorry...
not UN forces. to the best of my knowledge... the UN doesn't have any forces.
my thought was the US should turn the control of the US troops over to the UN. allies should do the same...
if the UN thinks it is a justified war...
Then the UN should control the troops (re when to withdraw etc)
that way...
people in funny corners of the world...
people in iraq...
might be less inclined to think that the war is really about advancing the US interests RE oil and economic takeover etc.
but...
most people in the world...
outside the us...
(i guess the us is divided)
but most people outside the us
(to the best of my knowledge)
were against the US occupation.
there is a problem of what to do now...
giving control of troops to the UN might be a good start. to kind of make up fo rthe whoopsie etc.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:46:04
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:50:35
i did a google...
i dont' tihnk the us is helping...
but the countries are going 'come and help us uncle sam'
'cause with us backing...
they could get rich.
and without it...
they could get trade sanctions etc...
:-(
i think the us has too much power politically.
yeah it is sad there is so much fighting in the middle east
:-(
but i don't tihnk the us is helping.
i think they shuold withdraw.
but how to do that and save face at the same time?
:-(
:-(
and still the people die.
:0(
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:48:07
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 15:46:04
all that money that went on a war that is even just 'possibly' unjustified...
could have given fresh drinking water to third world countries.
could have provided everyone with hiv appropriate drugs.
could have... rebuilt new orleans.
i feel so very sad :_(
and now i have to go to work
:0(
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:21:40
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 14:50:35
> the kurds... are willing to talk oil dealing with the us... does that factor into the sympathy vote?
>
> how much does it cost to convert a tank to run on peanut oil?
>
> how many lives have been lost?
>The sympathy vote? Are you calling moral opposition to what happened to the Kurds and what could easily happen again a sympathy vote? Or self interest in the name of oil? You know, at this point I'm just going to have to withdraw from this conversation. Sorry.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:35:48
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:21:40
> The sympathy vote? Are you calling moral opposition to what happened to the Kurds and what could easily happen again a sympathy vote?
I'm not so clear on what happened to the Kurds...
Er... What happened to the Kurds?
(I"m serious)
I guess I distinguish between moral opposition
(And indignation and so forth)
And... Bringing in the troops...
Just like I distinguish between moral opposition
(And indignation and so forth)
And... A punch in the head...
(But we aren't of course opposed to what happened to the Kurds if that involved some group of people doing something to the Kurds 'cause then those people might feel put down by our opposition)
The above paragraph was a joke... Kinda.
I guess I am thinking that probably comperable things happen to other minority groups...
But the US doesn't bring in the troops for them.
Hence... There must be some further motivation.
That is my thinking.
But... I could be way off because I still don't know what happened to the Kurds :-(
Just the general gist...
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:43:48
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:35:48
I'd still rather withdraw from this conversation.
But you might find it useful to discover what happened to the Kurds.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:43:48
i can't imagine it would be worse than what has happened to other groups around the world...
so...
why the concern with the kurds?
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 16:49:21
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:53:08
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
This is what I found from the second link to the GPF site when I was trying to find out about the Kurds:
British Colonialism and the Kurds
British politicians idealized the Kurds as a persecuted minority, but British records show that oil riches, not concerns for minority rights, drove official policy. Kurdish opposition to British colonialism, combined with the threat of a Turkish takeover in the north, further complicated imperial policy.
So thats about all i know...
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:57:47
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:53:08
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:06:43
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 14:41:48
I do understand that sometimes the gut reaction, and what seems to be the right thing to do, has unintended consequences.
And that the unintended consequences are what lead reasonable people to differ in these matters.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:10:16
In reply to re unconscionable, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:06:43
That led me to speak in such strong terms.
I apologize if I was overcome.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 23, 2006, at 18:25:39
In reply to Re: Iraqi Deaths, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 16:47:56
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
That's just a sample, but I like that it's from a medical group...something different as a source
If you google Kurds poison gas, etc.,
or just the village names of Birjinni and Halabja, you will find a lot more (many more villages were attacked with chemical weapons, but these are the two most publicized/biggest, in the center, if I recall)
I have a certain link that I hesitiate to post here...it's very thorough, detailed, very real as it contains first-hand accounts of those attacks, but it is EXTREMELY graphic and contains many heartbreaking photos of dead bodies, including many children, etc.
I'm not sure it's be okay here or wise. But I could Babblemail it to anyone interested.
I wrote a short paper on these attacks for a class, back around 1997 or so, but hadn't thought about it (except maybe during the inital invasion in 2003) for a while. Probably blocked it out :-(
I'm glad the topic came up here. We musn't forget these sorts of tragedies. I mean, the entire region is complex and reasons for taking or not taking actions keep changing (eg, I remember finding that the US and others probably supplied helicopters, military intelligence, etc., intended to support Iraq in the war with Iran, but those ultimately were used also to plan and execute the attacks on unprotected civilians - which, to the regime in power *was* a necessary part of their war effort as Iranian forces were in and around the villages. )
<sigh> A lot of horrific suffering all around.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:38:39
In reply to re unconscionable, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 17:06:43
er i'm a bit lost. are you okay? i'm sorry if i've done something / said something... i really was joking with my comment... really... it wasn't getting at you... if it was getting at anyone it was probably dr bob... sorry bob :-( but i was just kinda kidding. sorry if that comment had something to do with it.
and the new orleans bit... i'm really sorry. i think now... now... i feel like that comment was a bit below the belt and i'm really very sorry. i didn't mean for it to be. i'm sorry.
> I do understand that sometimes the gut reaction, and what seems to be the right thing to do, has unintended consequences.
yes.
i agree.you know... i bemoan the theory... but a lot of philoosphers think that emotions are a really important part of morality.. of a moral sense. of a sense of what is the right or wrong thing to do.
eg.
if you don't feel fear... then you can't exhibit the virtue of courage. because courage seems to be... somthing to do with doing something you believe to be right in the face of fear. without fear... there can't be any courage. and that seems right enough.
and some people say that in a way... the function of emotions is that... well they think emotions are perceptions. we perceive features of the world that have some significance for well being. and perciving those features... is an important part of morality. so... feeling disgust when we perceive people to be treated unfairly etc. without emotions... we wouldn't feel upset at injustices. without feeling upset at injustices. we wouldnt' notice injustices. without noticing injustices... we woudn't do anything to remidy them...
> And that the unintended consequences are what lead reasonable people to differ in these matters.
yes.
yes.
yes.i firmly believe this. really truely. that is what i believe :-)
that is why i think people do tend to converge after... they converge on a DESCRIPTION of the situation and a description of the consequences.
so the process goes someting like this...
different people describe the way the situation seems to them...
then... you try and converge on a description.
then you consider the consequences of doing this...
and the consequences of doing that...and people just throw up ideas and considerations...
then you weigh those things...
and people point out other considerations... people point out where maybe reasoning has gone wrong too (happens to everybody sometimes cause we aren't ideal reasoners)
and then... convergence.
:-)
unintended consequences... yup.
i mean...
consider intellectual copyright laws.
consider a 'pro' description:something along the lines of... it is important to research to discover things to prevent these diseases and / or cure these diseases. people won't / can't do that research without some kind of funding. the govt. only has so much of that... the drug companies have much more available... but... they can't throw money into research unless they can recoup some of that later. if there are intellectual property laws patient laws etc then the drug companies can make their investment back. for every product they get up off the ground there is a lot of money spent on products that didn't get up off the ground. on reesarch projects that didn't eventuate in anything. of dead ends etc. that costs a lot. when they get a patient it might sound lik ethey make a lot but they have to recuperate the costs of the dead ends too. they wouldn't have an incentive to invest in research if they didnt' make it back. they probably couldn't afford to invest in research if they didn't make it back. if they don't invest in research tehn ... we won't discover preventions / cures. currently... not all can access them. but some can. and some are better than none. adn eventually... the patents will expire anyways.
sounds reasonable to me...
then consider the description from the other camp:
drug companies make back far more than they invest. they withhold lifesaving medication from pepole because they are greedy for profits. kind of like... the case over on social that legwarmers posted about... we should abolish the copyright thingimie and the drug companies have a moral obligation to provide their product at cost so that many lives are saved (peoples lives over profits)
and there is some truth to both sides...currently... i know a guy who is working on coming up with a fairer patent system. one that provides an incentive for companies to invest... and one that makes it feasible for everyone to have the medication they need.
comprimise.. but working out the details are very tricky and hard.
but i think...
both sides can converge.
have to believe that or there isn't any hope :-(
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:51:22
In reply to what happend to the Kurds *poss. trigger* » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on March 23, 2006, at 18:25:39
thanks i didnt' know about that at all.
so... there was talk of genocide...
i still think it should be up to the UN.
becasue they are the most global organisation there is and if it is up to the UN then it is a more united effort than the US taking things upon itself.
i think the people responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of law. yup.
but then... US use of white phosphorous in Iraq... should be similarly prosecuted to the full extent of law. yup. there are photos of civilians suffereing the effects of that too...
i guess what i think is that...
peaceful means.
because what we like to think people are learning in their personal lives (that violence doesn't work)
i think that applies between countries too. violence doens't work. war doesn't work. i don't think the us involvement has helped more people live... i dont think the us occupation is helping more people live. but it is creating division. within the us and between the us and the rest of the world.
and the us does have interests in iraq re oil.
and even if that really isnt' a factor in the current situation...
teh rest of the world will be sceptical.
if the un considers it a just war...
if the un considers occupation to be the best bet...
then i think it more helpful if they are seen to be running the show rather than the us becaues i think it is fair to say that there is a general worry (mostly outside the us) that the us is driven by its desire for economic growth than anything else. that might be true it might be false. i don't relaly want to argue that. it would be nice to be charitable. but fact is... i really do think that... that is what pepole outside the us tend to beleive. tend to believe about us motives. so if the us was seen to be supporting the un... then the occupation would be more likely be seen as an attempt to 'help' rather than an attempt to take over. giving control of troops to the un would help that along. because it would be more that the world is united in trying to do something about this terrible situation.the us just kind of making decisions off its own bat...
regarding invasion and trade sanctions etc...
i don't think that helps. i think it tends to escalate the situaiotn.
> <sigh> A lot of horrific suffering all around.
:-(
yes.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 18:59:15
In reply to Re: re unconscionable » Dinah, posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 18:38:39
I just got a bit concerned about my use of such strong language, and whether that was civil, or even fair. Because the reasons for not getting directly involved in the Sudan also involve concerns for the least amount of harm being caused, and are understandable. The people who believe that are also following their consciences, and are probably more familiar with the dynamics than I am.
Leaving no really good choices. And a heck of a lot of dead people.
Which saddens and frustrates me.
Posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 19:02:31
In reply to what happend to the Kurds *poss. trigger* » special_k, posted by 10derHeart on March 23, 2006, at 18:25:39
Unintended consequences are a b*tch.
I've got a cartoon from years back with Uncle Sam with his arm around a series of people, each with the caption "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And if you look at the series, you really get a good sense of unintended consequences.
Thanks 10der, for the explanation.
Posted by special_k on March 23, 2006, at 19:15:17
In reply to Re: re unconscionable » special_k, posted by Dinah on March 23, 2006, at 18:59:15
> I just got a bit concerned about my use of such strong language, and whether that was civil...
((((Dinah)))) I think you are okay. But then you understand the civility rules on this board better than me. But I really think you are okay. And if you get blocked then I'll start an almighty protest over on admin - ok? (though of course you wouldn't you would only get a pbc...) but really. i can't even imagine which of your phrases you might be worried about...
> Because the reasons for not getting directly involved in the Sudan also involve concerns for the least amount of harm being caused, and are understandable.
yep.
both sides are understandable once the views have been articulated (but of course it can be damned hard to articulate them i have sympathy for that oh yes indeed i do) and... i'm not so good at it to be fair :-( when people disagree... i think you need to figure their motivations... and your motivations... and typically what you find (or what my idealism says you will find - dammit!!!!!) is that you both want the same things it is just that you think different acts are more likely to lead to what it is you both want.but then you can turn to analysing which really is most likely to lead to what it is that people most want...
> The people who believe that are also following their consciences, and are probably more familiar with the dynamics than I am.
i don't know sh*t all really.
i guess my natural inclination is to go with... pacifism. or... doing nothing yeah. or... prosecuting but being very very slow to step in with the troops.
and other people... i guess their natural inclination is to go with... it really is a horrible situation and doing nothing is terrible so... we really need to step in and do something.
but which is most likely to help?
hard to say...i guess i think that war tends not to help the same way personal violence tends not to help. i mean... it might help in the we overpowered you so we get our way sense... but it doesn't really do anything to remidy the situation...
> Leaving no really good choices. And a heck of a lot of dead people.> Which saddens and frustrates me.
yep.
still... i had an idea :-)
about the un.
i'm quite fond of my idea :-)it must have occured to some other people out there...
i wonder if it really is feasible...
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.