![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 42 to 66 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on July 27, 2006, at 10:03:16
In reply to Re: 'How far do you take it back', posted by Declan on July 26, 2006, at 17:50:23
Lebanon may seem small, but didn't WWI start over the assasination of an archduke?
Sometimes, if people are itching for a fight anyway, it doesn't take much.
This is giving ammunition to the 'wipe Israel off the earth crowd. AlJazeera isn't trying to look unbiased these days.
Iran's president is one of that crowd, and they supplied some of the missles being used in this conflict. Imagine if they had nukes?
It can't be all about generating power. We offered them nuclear power technology - free - if they swore off enrichment and they said no.
Posted by Declan on July 27, 2006, at 14:13:22
In reply to Re: 'How far do you take it back' » Declan, posted by AuntieMel on July 27, 2006, at 10:03:16
No, of course Iran wants a bomb. The region is a tinder box. And it's between Afghanistan and Iraq.
More people (soldiers?) have been dying in Iraq than Lebanon. Hizbullah has become the hero of the day among the Islamic world for taking on Israel (win or loose is irrelevant. Everyone knows you don't f*ck with Israel. That's why they did it).
This may have something to do with the Shia/Sunni divide. The conservative Arab regimes are feeling uncomfortable. I wonder if the long term aim of Hizbullah is directed at those regimes, not so much Israel?
A diplomatic solution? What does that mean? It's nice when we can hear how some of the leaders actually think (Yo Blair).
I fear we are in for a lifetime of Middle East peace process.
Posted by tealady on July 29, 2006, at 3:33:29
In reply to Re: 'How far do you take it back' » AuntieMel, posted by Declan on July 27, 2006, at 14:13:22
> I fear we are in for a lifetime of Middle East peace process.
>
>Hi Declan,
Just reading a bit of the end of this thread.
I sure hope its a lot longer than a lifetime !!!
gee, that could imply the end of the world .. though I know you didn't mean it ;-),
'Twould be only "lasting a lifetime" for all though...
gee I read things the wrong way.How many thousands of years has it been unsettled there? before Moses, the Assyrians.. lots of battles known about..
All started before Muslim when you think about it.I just hope it stays relatively peaceful with only a few flares here and there..and doesn't spread worldwide too much.. especially this way.
Posted by Declan on July 29, 2006, at 12:51:19
In reply to Re: 'How far do you take it back' » Declan, posted by tealady on July 29, 2006, at 3:33:29
G'day Jan
Positioned between the fuel hungry economies of the West, Russia, China and India, with an enraged population some of whom would be only to happy to set things alight, with complicated politics and group loyalties, each after an external backer......This looks like a pre WWI situation to me.
I hope our rulers do not get any more flashes of optimism.
Declan
Posted by Jay on July 29, 2006, at 23:49:34
In reply to Re: Mid East situation-Jay, Phillipa, Coraf, and, posted by Jost on July 22, 2006, at 16:42:26
Hey..listen...I am right now in the middle of some very deep personal problems...and have been through some you could likely never understand, and don't appreciate anyone acting as my spell-checker. Second, I absolutely did not infer blame to any of the sides that where/are fighting in the region. All's I said, basically, is it is just damn horrible...all of it...death, in every corner. If you can't appreciate that, well I am very sorry.
Jay
Posted by Phillipa on July 30, 2006, at 0:15:42
In reply to Re: Mid East situation-Jay, Phillipa, Coraf, and » Jost, posted by Jay on July 29, 2006, at 23:49:34
Jay I'm sorry. I had no idea. Please accept my apology. Love Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 30, 2006, at 4:43:50
In reply to Re: Mid East situation-Jay, Phillipa, Coraf, and » Jost, posted by Jay on July 29, 2006, at 23:49:34
> I ... have been through some [very deep personal problems] you could likely never understand
I'm sorry things are rough for you right now, but please don't jump to conclusions about others.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Jakeman on July 31, 2006, at 19:34:10
In reply to What I feel sums up the Mid East situation, posted by Jay on July 20, 2006, at 8:48:11
The situation in the Middle East is an explosive situation that likely will affect the whole world. I wish they would let Jimmy Carter or other conflict resolution organizations get involved. I just wrote the White House and several politicians expressing my concerns. So I'm probably on some kind of watch list now. I feel helpless. I think I may join Amnesty International.
Warm regards, Jake
Posted by tealady on July 31, 2006, at 19:57:59
In reply to Re: 'How far do you take it back', posted by Declan on July 29, 2006, at 12:51:19
Ok its census night yet again. I haven't looked at the form as yet, but there's usually a what is your religion quest. last time I was considering entering 'anti-fundamentalist Muslim".. just in case the census weren't destroyed and the world lasts long enough..so in a few hundred years time , my descendants might realise I wasn't on that side of any conflict..
Now I want to enter anti fundamentalist (or extreme) anything.. like not fundamentalist Muslim, but also not fundamentalist Jew or Christian or ...anything.. like not extreme?
Is there a term for this that u know of Dec ..or anything.
just would like to convey what 'side' of the conflict I'm on.. like a more peaceful side.
Also did you see the news about the speech in Melbourne at the synagogue was it?.. I think inciting, but at least referring to the other Middle east countries as being like Hitler and wanting to exterminate them?.. that's extreme.
personally I think the conflict is ongoing.. WWI you mentioned also kinda started with the Muslim/Christian issue too, in the Balkans but there also was the Ottoman empire and the Armenians.... the letter wasn't really it?.. but I'm don't know about the rest of the middle east.. never followed them back then Declan.:-)
I do agree about the oil issue.. if it weren't there who would care?? .. and they're wouldn't be money to try to fight back either.. I'd guess Israel would be a lot bigger by now, but maybe more peace, but that's only a guess. Look at Africa where there is no oil though.. it doesn't stop the killings, sigh. I don't know Dec.. all I can say is it would be different.. and , of course, the US (and supporters) would not be in Iraq/Iran either I guess.I'd love to see the majority of Israel relocated to somewhere in the US..and still retain its sovereignty as Israel..and Israel be a divided country(like they made Germany after WWII).. not much diff in travelling time with modern aeroplanes and telecommunications would make it even closer.. so feasible. that would allow Israel to have the necessity territory is needs to expand as it wants..and still allow the others the live too. A really small (at least as small as it was initially made, perhaps smaller ) Israel in the middle east. .. this is a solution suggestion as drBob is always saying to make suggestions!!! It would be as popular weith thsoe rlcated from their homes as israel was when located in the Middle east perhaps>. but the US has way more land..and they are on their side too.. should help a bit.
The problem really , I think , Is the US funding of Israel..with no balance.. no Russia anymore to worry about is there?
Russia threatening nukes at Britain and France (didn't they?) stopped the Suez crisis.. but there isn't a balance anymore. I'm not sure on that.. just recall listening to it said?
perhaps Iran having a nuke will provide such a balance?
of course this is scary when one is used to having all the power.. but maybe not as scary if not on that side? Just some ideas.
Posted by llrrrpp on July 31, 2006, at 20:50:11
In reply to what name would u call this » Declan, posted by tealady on July 31, 2006, at 19:57:59
The USA isn't the only nation which supports Israel. Germany sends a huge amount of foreign aid there. Immense. Only Germany is much quieter about their financial support than the US is.
-ll
Posted by Jakeman on July 31, 2006, at 23:12:21
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » tealady, posted by llrrrpp on July 31, 2006, at 20:50:11
> The USA isn't the only nation which supports Israel. Germany sends a huge amount of foreign aid there. Immense. Only Germany is much quieter about their financial support than the US is.
>
> -ll
>Good point. Althought from what I've read it's not military aid. Most of the bombs being dropped now are made in the USA.
7-22-06 By David S. Cloud and Helene Cooper
US Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis - The New York Timeswarm regards, Jake
Posted by llrrrpp on July 31, 2006, at 23:33:13
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » llrrrpp, posted by Jakeman on July 31, 2006, at 23:12:21
> > The USA isn't the only nation which supports Israel. Germany sends a huge amount of foreign aid there. Immense. Only Germany is much quieter about their financial support than the US is.
> >
> > -ll
> >
>
> Good point. Althought from what I've read it's not military aid. Most of the bombs being dropped now are made in the USA.
>
> 7-22-06 By David S. Cloud and Helene Cooper
> US Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis - The New York Times
>
> warm regards, Jakethanks for posting that link Jake. I guess it's important to realize that Israel is buying arms from the US. They get money from? And why does the US take their money? I'm sure the humonguous national debt is good motivation... Anyways, I guess my point was just that it's more complicated than the US + Israel against the muslim countries in the Middle East. There are many other nations which are "quieter" but very much involved in the political and diplomatic machinery in this conflict.
-ll
Posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 18:16:03
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » Jakeman, posted by llrrrpp on July 31, 2006, at 23:33:13
Mel Gibson's father is a follower of Archbishop Lefebvre, who was excommunicated (?) from the Catholic Church for his rejection of VaticanII.
I sympathise with anyone who wants to maintain liturgical standards. (That's the best face I can put on it).
Mel seems quite old fashioned.
I can remember a time when Christians were antisemitic.
Not that I am myself (I hasten to say.....one must be so careful these days).
Posted by tealady on August 1, 2006, at 18:57:47
In reply to Mel Gibson, posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 18:16:03
> Mel Gibson's father is a follower of Archbishop Lefebvre, who was excommunicated (?) from the Catholic Church for his rejection of VaticanII.
> I sympathise with anyone who wants to maintain liturgical standards. (That's the best face I can put on it).
> Mel seems quite old fashioned.
> I can remember a time when Christians were antisemitic.
> Not that I am myself (I hasten to say.....one must be so careful these days).yes, I noticed about Mel, Dec.
I guess it's who controls?
I too can remember a time too. I like his acting and maybe I might like him too.. though don't know much about him.
Mels lesson, don't talk when drunk.. hmm maybe I should learn that one too.
I did used to find that useful in office parties though many years ago.Do you have a term for my "religion" above.. in "what name would u call"
Posted by Declan on August 1, 2006, at 20:26:35
In reply to Re: Mel Gibson, posted by tealady on August 1, 2006, at 18:57:47
I haven't got my census. I wondered if you were talking in code, but it's in today's paper. When did you get yours?
I never know what to put for my religion. I was born an anglican and the kids are baptised catholic. We don't go to church.
Why not say you're a Buddhist? Is there a spiritual category? Kinda like the Greens of religion. I don't want to be thought of as New Age.
Anyway, tell me about this census.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 1, 2006, at 22:57:34
In reply to what name would u call this » Declan, posted by tealady on July 31, 2006, at 19:57:59
> this is a solution suggestion as drBob is always saying to make suggestions!!!
Thanks! I'll be interested to see the feedback you get...
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on August 2, 2006, at 13:42:46
In reply to what name would u call this » Declan, posted by tealady on July 31, 2006, at 19:57:59
Why not just put 'pacifist?' Or what I ususally put - none.
Funny thing about too much drinking - you tend to say what you really think. I never much liked Mel Gibson until Braveheart, but I loved that movie.
Still, I don't think I'll ever be able to look at him again in the same way - and I probably will never buy any of his products.
His father was (is) also a big believer that the Holocaust was a giant fiction. It would have been interesting to see what Mel's mini-series would have been like.
As for oil? We (the US) were involved with Israel long before we were dependent on foriegn oil.
Posted by Declan on August 2, 2006, at 13:57:01
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » tealady, posted by AuntieMel on August 2, 2006, at 13:42:46
The US tilted to Israel more after Eisenhower?
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:54:45
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Declan on August 2, 2006, at 13:57:01
yeah census... this saturday - right?
trouble is that some people object to it because of the name...
the notion is that just how gay people reclaim the word 'gay' (which has nicer connotations) all the godless heathens out there decide that it is nicer to be characterised for something positive rather than an absence.
works for me (kina kinda)
Posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 19:19:24
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:54:45
I have trouble with some of their claims (claims typically of individual members. For example... You can believe in the possibility of life after death even if you don't believe in God.) And so on... But anyways...
From the website:
The word atheist however is not in and of itself a negative term. However, it's used to infer something negative by those who misunderstand the word's origin, those who assume that atheist means against theism.
Look at it this way: Asymmetrical doesn't mean against symmetry; it means not symmetrical. It's a simple concept. Atheist means not theistic. There's nothing about being against theism implied in the word.
The ones who say there are no atheists in foxholes discount the authenticity of a person's belief system.
When our elected officials call for public prayer they show their contempt by shunning 29 million nonreligious citizens. For this reason, Many atheists are closeted. If they want to be heard--that is, taken seriously, and respected--they feel they have to keep their identity as atheists secret, closeted.
People whose world-view is naturalistic--that is, free of supernatural or mystical elements--refer to themselves as Brights. The Brights have learned something about the power of words from African Americans and gays. In this new connotation, Bright is a noun, like the word black is a noun when used to refer to an African American, and gay is a noun when used to refer to a homosexual person. Some Brights, like some African Americans and some homosexuals, are very intelligent. Others are average, ordinary people.
Who are these Brights? They are humanists, free thinkers, agnostics, skeptics and atheists. They are barbers, teachers, waitresses, doctors, philosophers, construction workers, and scientists. They are mothers and uncles. They are your next door neighbors. They are Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. And yes, some of them are members of your church, mosque or temple.
The only thing Brights have in common with all other Brights is that they base their ethics, morality, decisions and behaviors on a naturalistic worldview as opposed to one based on faith.
So often I hear the phrase freedom of religion. What does that mean? Does it mean we can choose any religion we want? Does it mean that in order to be considered credible citizens loyal to this great country, we must choose a religion? I don't think so. That just doesn't make sense. Freedom of religion must imply freedom from religion, or there is no real freedom regarding religion. Brights are free from religion.
What do these Brights want? They want the same thing blacks, gays, Christians, Jews, and Moslems want. They want a voice in social, political and ethical issues. They want to be heard and respected.
The Brights are coming, and they will staunchly support the separation of church and state. They will protest tax money being used to provide help of any kind with religious strings attached. They will protest tax dollars being spent to support schools that teach children to make important decisions based on faith as opposed to reason and scientific evidence.
Posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 20:34:24
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 19:19:24
I might say I'm a Hindu. Lingam stones and stuff. Or maybe a Buddhist. I'd be Muslim except I don't like the Salafi thing. Certainly not a materialist.
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:18:16
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Estella on August 3, 2006, at 18:54:45
> yeah census... this saturday - right?
>
> http://www.the-brights.net/
>
> trouble is that some people object to it because of the name...
>
> the notion is that just how gay people reclaim the word 'gay' (which has nicer connotations) all the godless heathens out there decide that it is nicer to be characterised for something positive rather than an absence.
>
> works for me (kina kinda)
>
>
I know what u mean bu kinda;-).. only problem with that idea is, I do feel a spiriual sense .. quite strongly especially if I allow myself to .. that doesnt mean a 'being' as such.. just spiritual ..If I went into what I sense .. everyone would think I was a ... .well better not finish that sentence methinks;-)
I've occasionally tried edging around it .. but I get shot down.. anyway I relate to this spiritual stuff.. but dont understand what I feel..and definitely dont believe it has to be as any religion attempts to define it ..and know ITS BEYOND me to define it.. so I'm just content to sense and use that feeling for support too:-).. so that rules out the atheist stuff anyway.
now to get back to politics:-)..
When was Eisenhower Dec.. I forget.. actually I try NOt to follow US politics. Ok, I'll guess it was shortly after WWII though as it makes sense that the US suddenly strongly increased support for Israel after then.. due to the fact that somewhere was felt needed for the Jews to be safe...and ya wouldnt want it in the middle of the US now.. way better to support placing it where it didnt interrupt the US citizens as much.. and what better place to encourage the Jews to relocate than around the promised land??.. That's safely far enough away not to directly impact..thing is, if Israel was located in the middle of the US just consider.. would they be acting the same regarding border security issues??
I think it would be far better for all.. except those displaced of course.. but that affect far less people in the less densely populated US countryside than in an already densely populated country.(unless one picks the middle of New York)
and I suspect terrorism would also die down too.. The US citizens are hardly going to become terrorists.. no need is there? The US has enough strength to control its borders very effectively:-)
OK.. I went and googled it!!
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/610
and as I suspected the US involved in Israel after WWII ..
http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm
it was Truman, although the Brits were in it too.. what a surprise there Dec.. the US and the Brits..and , the Arabs getting no say...
"Free lands must be opened to them" Truman
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:31:58
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 20:34:24
I'm not a materialist either:-)
I studied a comparison of various religions around the world in an elective in Modern history in high school.. I think the election was a comparison of cultural beliefs/practises in sex and religion over various historical and geographical/racial times in modern history and how it influences that countries politics/history/culture etc...
Modern Hiostory being since Napolean.. It was something that got my interest anyway as a 15yr old:-)
But only being one of a no of electives we had to cover we didnt go into the depth I would have liked!!
I did like some aspects of Buddism though.. but I can't "believe" any rules made up by anyone else .. difficult enough following them!
and I like eating cows too much Dec :-)
I haven't managed to learn anything much else in my adult life either.. in BN I saw lots of Hari Krisna's..and lots of people preaching the end of the world on the streets! I don't see that much any more.. I'm not out and about as much..but it seems times have changed?
Maybe its caus its after 2000 now and the world is still here?.. so far anyway...
with the middle east situation, who knows..
Posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:46:38
In reply to Re: what name would u call this, posted by Declan on August 3, 2006, at 20:34:24
Muslim is way better for guys IMO:-)
I don't fancy that "obey" bit..
I don't mind the idea of multiple wives I guess.. but really, women should also be able to have multiple husbands too then.. these days it should be OK with genetic testing about!
Anyway.. Its the "obey" bit etc I couldnt live with.. I can take the covering up in the middle of a desertstorm in Arabia.. but NOT lying on a hot humid beach in Oz or swimming in the ocean either!..besides it causes VitD deficit!
politics bit...
One way Muslim spread was due to the Inquisition.. countries/peoples switched to avoid the inqusition. Muslim was a far friendlier way of life in those days..and also, in my impression, did not seem as "restrictive" as today in its practise.
I really could never understand the Inquisition... that's that extreme again I'm against!
I gather the Islam option is not going to be your choice in the census either?
I was raised C of E too.. and I put that on the last census in the end..as I didn't want anyone to think I was fundamentalist Islam or anything else, sigh. I guess I do have Christian "values". depending how losely one interprets that.oh yes Declan, I got the census hand delivered (as always).. Friday or Saturday a week ago.
Posted by Estella on August 5, 2006, at 9:21:43
In reply to Re: what name would u call this » Estella, posted by tealady on August 5, 2006, at 5:18:16
> I know what u mean bu kinda;-).. only problem with that idea is, I do feel a spiriual sense ..
yeah that adds to the 'kinda' too...
though strictly speaking they are a group of people who don't believe in spiritual *things* as in *entities*.
are numbers spiritual entities?
sigh.
it is hard to define...
i think it is mostly established religion and omni-god that they are trying to deal with...
someone wrote a pretty good critique about spirituality and co...
i get the impression dennett would be fairly unsympathetic to 'spiritual' too. he'd probably start talking about religous experience and temporal lobe epilepsy...sigh.
it can be hard to coordinate people...
i've heard it said that trying to coordinate a bunch of non-thiests can be like trying to heard a bunch of cats...
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.