Dr. Stephen Nagler: Disturbing?
h1clock
appear that both he and Dr. Chung are very unstable 'doctors'.
Be leery of where you take any medical advice from.
h1
<<<<<<<<<Capt Ron,
The courts are pretty clear on this. My reading of the archives
is that Dr Nagler commented on the contents of your chart. To be
precise, he stated, " And if Mr. Yoli chooses to make it
the business of this board and starts posting passages from it here on
ast, then he can be sure I will return the favor - it's all on disk.
Very easy to do. And believe me - it ain't pretty."
The other day, and please correct me if I am wrong, he called you
an alcoholic. I have to wonder if your records contained something
regarding liking to toss a few back after a rough day at sea, and he
might have considered any discussion of your drinking to form the
opinion that you had a drinking problem. Pure speculation on my part.
Any doctor that would do this, I believe should come under
scrutiny. I'd find out where the law stands on this and how the GA
Medical Licensing Board feels about all this. They can be reached at:
Composite State Board of Medical Examiners
Attn: Ms. Gladys Henderson, Complaints Unit
2 Peachtree Street, N.W., 10th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
PH: (404) 657-6487
FX: (404) 656-9723
me...@dch.state.ga.us
No Dr Nagler, none of this has been funny at all.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF GEORGIA
CASE NO. S99A1490
REBECCA LYNN KING, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF GEORGIA, Appellee.
BRIEF OF AMICUS THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
I. IDENTIFICATION AND INTEREST OF AMICUS
Amicus the Medical Association of Georgia ("MAG") submits this brief
in response to this Court's Order of May 1, 2000. MAG appreciates the
request for its input and the opportunity to be of assistance to the
Court.
MAG is a non-profit, voluntary professional association of Georgia
physicians. MAG was founded in 1849, is affiliated with the American
Medical Association and is the largest physicians' association in
Georgia. Presently, MAG has over 7,500 members - more than
5,000 of whom are physicians actively practicing medicine in the State
of Georgia. MAG is an active advocate for Georgia physicians and
their patients. While the issues under review by this Court present
serious concerns for physicians and how they practice
medicine in Georgia, the issues are far more important to Georgia
patients. Indeed, the policy concerns that underlie the historical
right to privacy in medical records focus on obtaining the best
possible treatment for patients and underscore the importance of these
issues to patients.
The interest of MAG in this issue is (1) to protect the
well-established privacy interests of patients in physician-patient
relationships and the records arising out of those
relationships; and, (2) to promote adoption of a clear-cut and easily
applied test for the production of medical records in response to a
subpoena that protects the privacy rights described above, allows
physicians to respond appropriately to such subpoenas without
risk of liability, and protects the legitimate interests of the State
and private party litigants in obtaining such records in an
appropriate case.
In undertaking this analysis, MAG has attempted to go beyond the
positions taken and authorities cited by the parties and the Georgia
Hospital Association in its previously filed amicus brief in the
belief that reiteration of previous arguments and analysis will be of
little use to the Court.
II. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
There is a customary and common law right of confidentiality or
privacy in the physician-patient relationship and in the medical
records emanating from this unique relationship. The right of
confidentiality is steeped in the history of western civilization and
founded on sound public policy that should not be abrogated. This
right, and the policy on which it is based, dates back to the time of
Hippocrates as recognized both in federal and Georgia caselaw.
There is also a constitutional right to privacy in medical records.
There is a well-established right to privacy in medical records under
the due process clause of the federal constitution.
That substantive federal constitutional right carries with it a
procedural right to notice and a right to be heard before one's
medical records are produced. The existence of that federal
constitutional right of privacy in medical records is important for
two reasons. First, a federal constitutional right to privacy must be
enforced by this Court under the Supremacy
Clause and binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court,
whether or not such a right exists under the state constitution.
Second, this Court has repeatedly held that the
privacy right in the Georgia Constitution is broader and affords
greater protection to the privacy rights of individuals than its
federal counterpart. Thus, the existence of privacy
protection for medical records under the federal constitution
necessarily implies that such protection exists under the broader
Georgia constitutional privacy right.
Finally, even aside from the ample federal authority establishing a
constitutional right to privacy in medical records and implying the
existence of such a right under the Georgia Constitution, there is
Georgia authority not cited by either party or in the now-vacated
opinion(s) that supports such a right under the Georgia Constitution.
A right to privacy in medical records exists under both the Georgia
and the federal constitution.
As this Court has held, the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
Thus, once the existence of a constitutional privacy right in medical
records is established, the proper test to be
applied to a statute limiting that right is whether the limitation
serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to
effectuate only that compelling interest. Unless O.C.G.A.
§ 24-9-40 is construed so as to require notice to patients and an
opportunity to be heard before the production of medical records
pursuant to subpoena, then these statutes are
not narrowly tailored to effectuate only the compelling state
interest. That conclusion is mandated by a comparison to O.C.G.A. §
9-11-34(c), which governs requests for production of medical records.
Section 9-11-34(c) is a model of procedural due process, requiring
notice, a chance to object, and judicial resolution of objections
before medical records are produced. The same safeguards could easily
have been incorporated into O.C.G.A. § 24-9-40. Because § 9-11-34(c)
serves the same compelling interest but is more narrowly
drawn to protect the same privacy right, it is clear that O.C.G.A. §
24-9-40 is not narrowly drawn to protect the fundamental privacy
right in medical records. This constitutional defect
must be remedied, either by striking down the statute and awaiting
legislative correction of the deficiencies, or by judicially requiring
notice and an opportunity to be heard upon all subpoenas for medical
records, perhaps under the aegis of defining an "appropriate"
subpoena as suggested by now-vacated concurrence of Justice Carley.
III. ANALYSIS AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
A. The Right To Confidentiality In The Physician-Patient Relationship
Is Venerable And Founded In Sound Policy Considerations
One of the medical profession's chief ethical obligations is to hold
in confidence all patient information acquired during the course of
treatment. For over two thousand years, the Hippocratic Oath has
called upon physicians to maintain the confidentiality of patient
information. The translation of the Hippocratic oath adopted by MAG
states as to confidentiality that:
[w]hatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in
connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought
not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that
all such should be kept secret.
Caselaw recognizes that the Hippocratic oath imposes a duty on
physicians to maintain the privacy of their patients. See e.g. Orr v.
Sievert, 162 Ga. App. 677, 292 S.E.2d 548 (1982)
("because of the Hippocratic oath . . . a doctor has a professional
and contractual duty to protect the privacy of his clients.");
Hammonds v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 243 F. Supp. 793, 801 (N.D.
Ohio 1965) ("Almost every member of the public is aware of the
promise of discretion contained in the Hippocratic Oath, and every
patient has a right to rely upon this warranty of silence.").
<snip>>>>>>>>>>>
h1clock
Nagler is apparently a very very deranged person with a medical
degree.
<<Search Result 2
From: Scrambulator (scramb...@aol.com)
Subject: Nagler on Yoli
View: Complete Thread (5 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.support.tinnitus
Date: 2002-07-16 12:26:37 PST
I made a slip in a post this morning--a while back, in an archive I
don't have
access to at the moment, Nagler informed me that he believed that Yoli
was
posting under multiple "nicks" to inflate his apparent support on the
group. I
recalled his having included "Childress" among those aliases, but
Nagler now
claims I was mistaken. But it was an honest mistake--not an
intentional lie. Of
course, the infamously mercurial Nagler then decided, despite my
recent
recommendation that he return to this list, to set off a cherry bomb
of spite
over this minor mistake, trying to ingratiate himself with two of his
most
dedicated enemies--Childress and the ever-demented Yoli.
Now I will return the favor for Nagler. Here is an E-mail he sent
to me
yesterday about one of his medical interventions with Yoli. Note the
appalling
betrayal of doctor-patient confidentiality: Nagler freely disclosed to
me, in
clear violation of the requirements of his medical licensing, the
private
details of a private doctor-patient intervention. Note the even more
chilling
death wish upon Yoli--form a man whose professional oath commits him
UNDER ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES to the saving of life, not to wishing, even in
retrospect, that
someone would have taken his own. This repulsive E-mail from Nagler,
together
with the events of the last week, have shown me that Nagler and Yoli
have been
locked in a fatal dance of death for so long because they are actually
mirror
images of each other: two erratic, mean-spirited hotheads locked in a
fatal and
mutually destructive embrace. So with this publication of the depths
of
Nagler's treachery, I hereby retract my recommendation that he have
any role on
this board or on any other group dedicated to helping people with
tinnitus.
Read it and weep:
Return-Path: <nag...@tinn.com>
Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.25])
by emu (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 17u72h1Zx3NZFnx0
for <kma...@earthlink.net>; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 07:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from user-38lcodj.dialup.mindspring.com ([209.86.97.179]
helo=ClinicDirector.tinn.com)
by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 17U72G-0003Uk-00
for kma...@earthlink.net; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:41:13 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.200207...@pop.mindspring.com>
X-Sender: nag...@pop.mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:35:20 -0400
To: kma...@earthlink.net
From: Stephen Nagler <nag...@tinn.com>
Subject: Re: Kaufman & Nagler's
In-Reply-To: <Springmail.0994.10...@webmail.pas.earthlin
k.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
At 07:20 AM 7/15/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>He [Yoli] is a compulsive liar. This is not a news bulletin!
>
>BK
............
Never thought I'd ever say this about anybody, but I regret saving his
life.
Several months before he ever became a patient of mine, he called me
at 2AM
with a gun to his head. He was ready to pull the trigger - and his
wife
was frantic. I spoke with both of them at length - got him quieted
down
and told his wife how to arrange for urgent psychiatric intervention
for him.
I now wish I'd not been home when he called. Then maybe somebody else
could have saved his life - and I would not be burdened with the fact
that
I played any role whatsoever in his existence.
smn
Stephen Nagler
part):
>Be leery of where you take any medical advice from.
...............
... which is the only thing of value that you have written on this
subject, Terri.
smn
Stephen Nagler
(quoting me):
>Never thought I'd ever say this about anybody, but I regret saving his
>life.
>
>Several months before he ever became a patient of mine, he called me
>at 2AM
>with a gun to his head. He was ready to pull the trigger - and his
>wife
>was frantic. I spoke with both of them at length - got him quieted
>down
>and told his wife how to arrange for urgent psychiatric intervention
>for him.
>
>I now wish I'd not been home when he called. Then maybe somebody else
>could have saved his life - and I would not be burdened with the fact
>that
>I played any role whatsoever in his existence.
>
>smn
................
So what's the big deal?
I saved "his" life.
"He" subsequently did some absolutely awful things - horrendous things
- to me and my family.
So I posted that I wished somebody else had saved "his" life instead
of me - so that our paths would not have crossed.
It's not like I posted that I wished "he" had died.
So - in context - I'll stand by my statement quoted above.
But here you have an example of why in another thread a participant on
this newsgroup wrote:
>I ignore usenet posts when googling. Anyone can write anything on
>usenet completely unvetted (researched for accuracy).
smn
h1clock
Or is this all just a fantasy? Not really within the archives of Google?
h1
WHAT NAGLER HAS TOLD TINNITUS SUFFERERS:
----------------------------------------
*NAGLER* to someone with tinnitus who disagreed with him about TRT:
' You are going to rot in hell for eternity with your ears screaming
at 100 dB,but not before your buddies in the penal institution into
which youare undoubtedly headed knock your teeth out and then over and
over and over again teach you the only thing your vile mouth is good
for'
*NAGLER* to someone asking about what jobs he tried to perform for
income during his one year in bed:
"I'm finished answering your questions. And I'm finished trying to
help and provide insight on this board. Now go to hell, Jack."
*NAGLER* speaking to a woman about a subject they disagreed on:
"You are a horrible woman, [name witheld]."
*NAGLER* to someone who announced he had received Social Security
benefits:
"You irresponsible bastard. Go get a job."
*NAGLER* speaking of tinnitus disability:
"But tinnitus in and of itself does not make you disabled to the
extent that you cannot find some employment somewhere. And if you can
do that, you ain't disabled enough according to the US government to
get a free ride, however meager that free ride might be."
*NAGLER* responding to a post by someone tried to help explain the
Social Security process:
" [name witheld] is spiritually dead by his own hand, folks"
*NAGLER* leaving - again - in 1999:
"Either way, I'm out of this place."
......AND WHAT NAGLER HAS DONE TO T SUFFERERS:
----------------------------------------------
"Yes Your Honor. Here stands Stephen Nagler,
medical doctor. He has been accused of the following by the court:
* Releasing a patient's medical information on the internet;
* Inferring said individual is an alcoholic;
* Stalking a disabled person and stating he would contact the judge on
their Social Security case;
* Obtaining and improperly using said person's social security number to
call Social Security to obtain his caseworker's name;
* Trying to extort letters of apology to the American Tinnitus
Association [ATA] or he would carry through on the threat;
* Interfering with at least one individual's relationship with his
doctor - a specialist of which he is not - by saying his doctor was
"flat-out wrong" and he had "deemed him to a life of misery."
......INTRODUCING THE GOOD DOCTOR:
----------------------------------
Nagler has no formal training in otolaryngology. After a year in bed
with tinnitus ( apparently !) , he set himself up as a TRT specialist,
offering a discredited expensive treatment called TRT. He spends most
of his waking hours policing the tinnitus message boards on the net.
You may ask does he actually do ANY work !!! However be aware that the
publicity he gets freely on the net is fuel for his TRT business in
Atlanta.
NAGLER DROPS HIS TRT CLAIM THANKS TO AST:
-------------------------------------------
Nagler has recently dropped his TRT clinics claim:
'2 days in Atlanta ... a lifetime of tinnitus relief'
to:
'2 days in Atlanta ... we can help'
as a result of continual complaints and pressure from tinnitus
sufferers and the potential threat of legal action.
***
THE ATA --A SHOPFRONT FOR TRT :
-------------------------------
The ATA which ( over which Nagler has far too much influence ) is
currently being run as a shopfront for TRT and is spending an enormous
amount on 'researching' TRT, to the detriment of other areas more
worthy of research.
As tinnitus sufferers the ATA should be our organisation reflecting
our interests and concerns and we should demand no less.
****
TRT _ WHEN IT DOESN'T WORK....
-------------------------------
If you try TRT and you don't see the SPECTACULAR benefits
guaranteed at the start of the treatment, Naglers excuses include:
Its the patient fault they didn't REALLY want to be cured of
tinnitus....
Its the patients fault they didn't take the leap of faith required....
Its the patients fault they didn't follow the strict protocol....
etc etc etc
It will always be, you guessed it, YOUR fault!!!!
But be careful....
... COMPLAIN OR DISAGREE AND IT GETS WORSE .....
-------------------------------------------------
.....He may threathen to publicise your medical record over the net!
*NAGLER* telling a disgruntled patient below that if he speaks about
his
treatment at his center, he'll start disclosing details of his medical
file:
"...it's all on disk. Very easy to do. And believe me - it ain't
pretty. "
...And Finally.....
... A MESSAGE TO THE 'DOCTOR' NAGLER AND OTHER TRT PRACTITIONERS:
------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is time to remember that we as physicians are responsible not
justfor treating our patients but for teaching them as well. It is
time to remember that, without integrity, a physician is no better
than
a snake oil salesman. Innovation requires experimentation.
Without experimentation, tinnitus will never be treatable.
Experimentation must be done in accordance with time-tested principles
that allow confidence in the efficacy of the proposed treatment. To
charge patients for treatment programs before reliable proof of
treatment efficacy has been achieved puts the cart first and raises
the
specterof financial gain being placed ahead of patients welfare.
Physicians must stop recommending, prescribing, promoting, or even
passively accepting treatments for which no scientific basis has been
established. Our reputations and the reputation of our specialty
demand no less."
- Matthew L. Howard, Department of Otolaryngology, University of
California San Francisco,San Francisco, California, U.S.A. 2001
Stephen Nagler
>Do you have some answers for these gems from the google archives,'Dr.' Nagler?
..............
Yes, Terri.
For every one. Every single one. In context.
Bye, now.
<plonk>
smn
Bob (this one)
> Do you have some answers for these gems from the google archives,'Dr.' Nagler?
>
> Or is this all just a fantasy? Not really within the archives of Google?
Terri, why are you posting under a new name?
Bob
terr...@knowspam.mam
wrote:
I hate to disappoint you, Stephen, but I certainly have no reason to
post comments under any other name since this one works just fine.
Terri
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Poor guy. His vision is blurring all who would oppose him into one
person.
He remains in my prayers to God in Christ's name.
May he accept Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that
he too will be more discerning and wise.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z11841938
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
terr...@knowspam.mam
wrote:
Bob, this is one of Stephen's tactics to make it appear that there
aren't any other people that can figure out his deceptions. He has a
number of them including creating names to argue with himself or even
creating people to ask him questions so he can look like "a smart boy"
when he answers them.
I don't post under other names other than terri231 on usenet because
I'm just too lazy to keep up the deception that would go along with
doing it well.
Terri
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Bob already knows this because he uses the same tactic.
Poor guy.
He remains in my prayers to God in Christ's name.
May he accept Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that he will start
worshipping what truly matters.
Bob (this one)
> terr...@knowspam.mam wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:34:20 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>h1clock wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do you have some answers for these gems from the google archives,'Dr.' Nagler?
>>>>
>>>>Or is this all just a fantasy? Not really within the archives of Google?
>>>
>>>Terri, why are you posting under a new name?
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>Bob, this is one of Stephen's tactics to make it appear that there
>>aren't any other people that can figure out his deceptions. He has a
>>number of them including creating names to argue with himself or even
>>creating people to ask him questions so he can look like "a smart boy"
>>when he answers them.
>>
>>I don't post under other names other than terri231 on usenet because
>>I'm just too lazy to keep up the deception that would go along with
>>doing it well.
>>
>>Terri
>
> Bob already knows this because he uses the same tactic.
<LOL> I literally spit tea on my monitor when I read this. <LOL>
I'm taking such pains to hide my identity. <LOL> Even Chung knows how
silly this is. He knows why I changed my handle - because of all the
spam I've been getting. Hilarious. Guy's got all the integrity in
town, huh?
He posts his FAQ under a fake identity from an anonymous domain
owner's name. Liar lying.
He'll say anything - anything - to try to embarrass me and others.
Sad, sad little clown. He could be doing so much good, instead.
Bob
francispoon
> I also saw this on a random google search of Stephen Nagler. It would
> appear that both he and Dr. Chung are very unstable 'doctors'.
Wait till you run into those who are truly "unstable" and you will
discover how sane these two doctors are.
FP
===================================
liaM
>
> Wait till you run into those who are truly "unstable" and you will
> discover how sane these two doctors are.
Yeah. Frightening. Imagine being in a dentist's chair with
Dr. Rumsfeld and Nurse Bush about to give you a root canal.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Now, now, liaM.
Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush have not exhibited the obsessive
behaviors that seem to be coming from Stephen.
Now, imagine being on the operating table with Stephen cutting on you
as a colorectal surgeon. *shudder* Now, may Christ banish this image
from your mind and heal you of any psychological trauma that you may
have suffered from this image.
Stephen remains in my prayers to God in Christ's name.
May he accept Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that
he too will know the peace and quiet that comes from God's eternal
kingdom.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P28052048
liaM
> liaM ...
>>Imagine being in a dentist's chair with
>>Dr. Rumsfeld and Nurse Bush about to give you a root canal.
>
> Now, now, liaM.
>
> Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush have not exhibited the obsessive
> behaviors that seem to be coming from Stephen.
Rumsfeld's ossession with efficiency to the point of treating people
like slaughterhouse cattle ?
> Now, imagine being on the operating table with Stephen cutting on you
> as a colorectal surgeon. *shudder*
That's not 1,000,000 times as frightening as Bush's starting a process
which will cost that many lives maimed and ruined..
> Now, may Christ banish this image
> from your mind and heal you of any psychological trauma that you may
> have suffered from this image.
May each one of us wake up to the bloody image of this president's
glaring disregard of American values, in time to cast him out of office
in November !
liaM
Buddhist Activist
Stephen Nagler
...............
liaM -
I have had to add Chung to my killfile list. Please do not quote his
bullshit in your posts.
But as for this one - I'm glad you did!!!!
Chung's been whining and whining to the police - robbey/homocide
bureau (they call it "Crimes against Persons") no less - complaining
about me. More than half-a dozen calls.nnHe has been told by them
time and time again that I have not even come close to violating any
laws. But still he calls them. Finally - sick of him - a detective
called me and asked me to do him a favor and stop responding to Chung
so that he would stop bugging them with this crap and allow them to
get on with their work.
If he calls the police again, I am sure that they be REAL interested
in his reference to me that you quoted above.
What a complete asshole! Chung's momma probably won't let him hide
behind her skirts anymore - so he's had to find refuge in the police,
who don't want to have anything to do with him either.
Poor guy.
smn
terr...@knowspam.mam
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 May 2004 17:00:47 +0200, liaM <lh...@email.com> wrote:
You've really made the "hiding behind momma's skirts" reference as an
insult too many times, Stephen --and on Mother's Day, nonetheless. Is
this some Freudian slip or do you just need some new material?
How many times have you contacted the police or other authorities,
employers, etc. on peoples' postings on usenet? Don't answer now --
you have me killfiled, too (or so you say).
Terri
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
In a word:
Desperation.
> How many times have you contacted the police or other authorities,
> employers, etc. on peoples' postings on usenet? Don't answer now --
> you have me killfiled, too (or so you say).
>
>
> Terri
The bigger question:
Why are the police still investigating him despite his earlier claims
to the contrary?
Stephen remains in my prayers to God, in Christ's name.
May he accept Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that
he too might be forgiven of all his trespasses against others.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > liaM ...
>
> >>Imagine being in a dentist's chair with
> >>Dr. Rumsfeld and Nurse Bush about to give you a root canal.
> >
> > Now, now, liaM.
> >
> > Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush have not exhibited the obsessive
> > behaviors that seem to be coming from Stephen.
>
> Rumsfeld's ossession with efficiency to the point of treating people
> like slaughterhouse cattle ?
>
There are many who value efficiency. This hardly defines obsession. Has
Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of this obsession?
>
> > Now, imagine being on the operating table with Stephen cutting on you
> > as a colorectal surgeon. *shudder*
>
> That's not 1,000,000 times as frightening as Bush's starting a process
> which will cost that many lives maimed and ruined..
Ok, then imagine the scenario of Stephen running this country instead of
President Bush.
When someone disagrees with him:
"You are going to rot in hell for eternity with your ears screaming at 100
dB,but not before your buddies in the penal institution intowhich you are
undoubtedly headed knock your teeth out and then over and over and over
again teach you the only thing your vile mouth is good for"
In *any* context, this will go over real well for starting wars on every
front.
>
>
> > Now, may Christ banish this image
> > from your mind and heal you of any psychological trauma that you may
> > have suffered from this image.
>
> May each one of us wake up to the bloody image of this president's
> glaring disregard of American values, in time to cast him out of office
> in November !
>
May God's will be done in Christ's name.
>
> liaM
> Buddhist Activist
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
liaM
>>Rumsfeld's ossession with efficiency to the point of treating people
>>like slaughterhouse cattle ?
>>
> There are many who value efficiency. This hardly defines obsession. Has
> Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of this obsession?
Who's being hounded in Guantanamo and Irak... subjected to extremes of
sound and light, cold and heat, ridiculed and sexually violated,
without a lawyer and otherwise protected by the rule of law ???
Who could be just some young kid picked up on the street looking
suspicious ?
>
>>>Now, imagine being on the operating table with Stephen cutting on you
>>>as a colorectal surgeon. *shudder*
>>
>>That's not 1,000,000 times as frightening as Bush's starting a process
>>which will cost that many lives maimed and ruined..
>
>
> Ok, then imagine the scenario of Stephen running this country instead of
> President Bush.
>
> When someone disagrees with him:
>
> "You are going to rot in hell for eternity with your ears screaming at 100
> dB,but not before your buddies in the penal institution intowhich you are
> undoubtedly headed knock your teeth out and then over and over and over
> again teach you the only thing your vile mouth is good for"
I agree. You've nailed Bush and Nagler exactly as they are. They are
flighty and heartless people who go on witch-hunts and wage wars on
whims and impulse.. Who spy and scheme and will take a welfare check
from someone just because of they have suspicions and in general
think people are free-loaders (and meanwhile cheat and lie in their own
business in order to make a profit).
I have kill-filed Nagler long ago; and will do the same to George W. in
November !
> In *any* context, this will go over real well for starting wars on every
> front.
liaM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > liaM wrote:
>
> >>Rumsfeld's ossession with efficiency to the point of treating people
> >>like slaughterhouse cattle ?
> >>
> > There are many who value efficiency. This hardly defines obsession. Has
> > Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of this obsession?
>
> Who's being hounded in Guantanamo and Irak... subjected to extremes of
> sound and light, cold and heat, ridiculed and sexually violated,
> without a lawyer and otherwise protected by the rule of law ???
The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
this "obsession"?
>
> Who could be just some young kid picked up on the street looking
> suspicious ?
>
Or could be someone on a suicide bombing mission.
>
> >
> >>>Now, imagine being on the operating table with Stephen cutting on you
> >>>as a colorectal surgeon. *shudder*
> >>
> >>That's not 1,000,000 times as frightening as Bush's starting a process
> >>which will cost that many lives maimed and ruined..
> >
> >
> > Ok, then imagine the scenario of Stephen running this country instead of
> > President Bush.
> >
> > When someone disagrees with him:
> >
> > "You are going to rot in hell for eternity with your ears screaming at 100
> > dB,but not before your buddies in the penal institution intowhich you are
> > undoubtedly headed knock your teeth out and then over and over and over
> > again teach you the only thing your vile mouth is good for"
>
> I agree. You've nailed Bush and Nagler exactly as they are. They are
> flighty and heartless people who go on witch-hunts and wage wars on
> whims and impulse.. Who spy and scheme and will take a welfare check
> from someone just because of they have suspicions and in general
> think people are free-loaders (and meanwhile cheat and lie in their own
> business in order to make a profit).
>
The quote comes from Stephen and *not* President Bush.
>
> I have kill-filed Nagler long ago;
Good for you.
> and will do the same to George W. in
> November !
>
That would be your choice. Be thankful to God that our soldiers have paid for
this choice with their lives.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too
will know eternal life, the limitless riches and peace of His kingdom.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> This is yet another entry from the google archives. This 'Dr' Stephen
> Nagler is apparently a very very deranged person with a medical
> degree.
>
He does seem to be very ill.
For this reason, Stephen remains in my prayers to God, in Christ's name.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
His illness appears to chronic.
For this, Stephen remains in my prayers to God, in Christ's name.
liaM
> The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
> this "obsession"?
Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
American.
>
>>Who could be just some young kid picked up on the street looking
>>suspicious ?
>>
>
>
> Or could be someone on a suicide bombing mission.
Of course a threat is there. But it is not OK to treat non-Americans
differently than Americans. Not if you believe in the Bill of Rights
for all peoples in the world. Or at the minimum, basic human rights as
defined in the UN charter and the Geneva Convention.
liaM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
> > this "obsession"?
>
> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
> American.
>
Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?
>
> >
> >>Who could be just some young kid picked up on the street looking
> >>suspicious ?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Or could be someone on a suicide bombing mission.
>
> Of course a threat is there. But it is not OK to treat non-Americans
> differently than Americans.
Why is that? We would treat folks like Stephen differently (hold him at arm's
length or farther and ignore him) even though he is probably an American. We do
this *for* anyone who is a threat to either himself/herself or the rest of
society.
> Not if you believe in the Bill of Rights
> for all peoples in the world.
There will be one when Christ claims the world. At this time, there is no such
thing.
> Or at the minimum, basic human rights as
> defined in the UN charter and the Geneva Convention.
>
Folks will trespass against each other. That is their sinful nature without
Christ.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that you too
will know how to love everyone including those with whom you disagree.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Don Kirkman
in article <67e426c1ab2f64a4...@news.teranews.com>:
>liaM wrote:
>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
>> > this "obsession"?
>> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
>> American.
>Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
>Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?
Just as wise as it was in 1942 to round up 70,000 US born *American
citizens* of *Asian* heritage, along with 40,000 of their long-time
(minimum 18 years) legal US resident parents, and ship them off with no
hearings, charges, or trials, to live for up to three years in desert
internment camps surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by military
police. All because of ethnic stereotyping, political and economic
motivation, hysteria, and exaggerated claims of military necessity to
safeguard the West Coast.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It it your claim that Mr. Rumsfeld was behind the internment of Japanese-Americans in
1942?
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Michael F. Poellot
wrote:
And Bush, a not very bright person by the way, started a war against
Iraq based on fictitious evidence and lies. Obsession ?? Where are
those weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent theat against the
US.
And self-centered, cocky and arrogant Rumsfeld repeatedly insulted
those countries and its people that opposed Bush´s unnecessary war. He
said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
"old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
with current US policies.
Bush´s obseesion resulted in the death of many American soldiers (and
the others of course).
Michael
fresh~horses
> liaM wrote:
>
> > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
9-11 was "instigated" long before those misguided souls came on the
scene...
> Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?
...by those who would rape pillage and murder for oil.
Your soldiers died for oil Andrew. Not some noble idea of freedom.
Enshrined on a piece of paper and ignored.
Your soldiers died for oil.
Zee
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:00:05 -0700, Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> >in article <67e426c1ab2f64a4...@news.teranews.com>:
> >
> >>liaM wrote:
> >
> >>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
> >>> > this "obsession"?
> >
> >>> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
> >>> American.
> >
> >>Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
> >
> >>Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?
> >
> >Just as wise as it was in 1942 to round up 70,000 US born *American
> >citizens* of *Asian* heritage, along with 40,000 of their long-time
> >(minimum 18 years) legal US resident parents, and ship them off with no
> >hearings, charges, or trials, to live for up to three years in desert
> >internment camps surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by military
> >police. All because of ethnic stereotyping, political and economic
> >motivation, hysteria, and exaggerated claims of military necessity to
> >safeguard the West Coast.
>
> And Bush, a not very bright person by the way, started a war against
> Iraq based on fictitious evidence and lies.
9-11 was neither fiction nor a lie.
> Obsession ??
Not my definition of it.
> Where are
> those weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent theat against the
> US.
They lie in the hearts of certain people.
> And self-centered, cocky and arrogant Rumsfeld repeatedly insulted
> those countries and its people that opposed Bush´s unnecessary war. He
> said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
> "old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
> with current US policies.
This would define politics rather than obsession. Neither France nor
Germany were stalked for disagreeing with current US policies.
> Bush´s obseesion resulted in the death of many American soldiers (and
> the others of course).
America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
Pearl Harbor.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message news:<67e426c1ab2f64a4...@news.teranews.com>...
> > liaM wrote:
> >
> > > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
>
> 9-11 was "instigated" long before those misguided souls came on the
> scene...
Yes, 9-11 was a successful repeat attempt at bringing down the WTC
towers.
> > Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?
>
> ...by those who would rape pillage and murder for oil.
Yes, some Iraqis have such a history (remembering the Kuwait invasion).
>
>
> Your soldiers died for oil Andrew.
They are not my soldiers but the soldiers of my country here on this
world.
Being that I am Christian, I am not of this world (as my Lord is not of
this world) and my true country is Heaven with Christ...
... and His soldiers, like me, do not die for He has given us eternal
life.
> Not some noble idea of freedom.
May American soldiers and their country remain blessed by God in
Christ's name.
> Enshrined on a piece of paper and ignored.
>
> Your soldiers died for oil.
Those who are Christian have eternal life.
You remain in my prayers, Zee.
May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that
you too will have eternal life and the limitless riches of His
everlasting kingdom.
Michael F. Poellot
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Michael F. Poellot wrote:
. . . <snip>
>>
>> And Bush, a not very bright person by the way, started a war against
>> Iraq based on fictitious evidence and lies.
>
>9-11 was neither fiction nor a lie.
>
>> Obsession ??
>
>Not my definition of it.
We all can argue to finally come up with the defintion of obsession.
Perhaps in your chatroom next Saturday, Andrew ;-)
>
>> Where are
>> those weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent theat against the
>> US.
They are not existent in Iraq, at least not physically.
>
>They lie in the hearts of certain people.
True (unfortunately) ! Hatred is the root of all evil.
>
>> And self-centered, cocky and arrogant Rumsfeld repeatedly insulted
>> those countries and its people that opposed Bush´s unnecessary war. He
>> said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
>> "old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
>> with current US policies.
>
>This would define politics rather than obsession. Neither France nor
>Germany were stalked for disagreeing with current US policies.
Politics were involved -- of course ! However, French and German
people felt being insulted or "stalked" by the Secretary of Defense in
March 2003. European newspaper articles published at that time
reflected that notion. I, myself, also visited Germany, my home
country, in Mar 2003, talked with people, watched the news, and thus
can confirm that Rumsfeld humiliated them.
>
>> Bush´s obseesion resulted in the death of many American soldiers (and
>> the others of course).
>
>America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
Certainly. In addition, there has remained unfinished business to be
taken care of in my opinion, too.
>
>Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
>Pearl Harbor.
Umm, the US were actually involved in WWII operations before Pearl
Harbor. American destroyers protected convoy tankers and freighters on
their journey from the East Coast to Britain to support the England to
win the war against Germany. They actively participated along the
British in the Atlantic Battle to sink German U-Boats that attacked
the convoys. Remember, that Hitler and Roosevelt did not exchange war
declarations until the events of December 07 1941. Pearl Harbor became
the final and welcome trigger for Roosevelt to officially engage the
Axis Powers.
Just my two cents about history here on our cardiology forum :-)))
Michael
Bill
"Michael F. Poellot" <tt...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:u101a05vheoq8hc7q...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:55:16 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael F. Poellot wrote:
> . . . <snip>
>
>
> >>
> >> And Bush, a not very bright person by the way, started a war against
> >> Iraq based on fictitious evidence and lies.
> >
> >9-11 was neither fiction nor a lie.
> >
> >> Obsession ??
> >
> >Not my definition of it.
>
> We all can argue to finally come up with the defintion of obsession.
> Perhaps in your chatroom next Saturday, Andrew ;-)
>
> >
> >> Where are
> >> those weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent theat against the
> >> US.
>
> They are not existent in Iraq, at least not physically.
>
>
> >
> >They lie in the hearts of certain people.
>
> True (unfortunately) ! Hatred is the root of all evil.
>
>
>
> >
> >> And self-centered, cocky and arrogant Rumsfeld repeatedly insulted
> >> said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
> >> "old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
> >> with current US policies.
> >
> >This would define politics rather than obsession. Neither France nor
> >Germany were stalked for disagreeing with current US policies.
>
> Politics were involved -- of course ! However, French and German
> people felt being insulted or "stalked" by the Secretary of Defense in
> March 2003. European newspaper articles published at that time
> reflected that notion. I, myself, also visited Germany, my home
> country, in Mar 2003, talked with people, watched the news, and thus
> can confirm that Rumsfeld humiliated them.
>
>
> >
> >> the others of course).
> >
> >America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
>
> Certainly. In addition, there has remained unfinished business to be
> taken care of in my opinion, too.
>
>
> >
> >Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
> >Pearl Harbor.
>
>
> Umm, the US were actually involved in WWII operations before Pearl
> Harbor. American destroyers protected convoy tankers and freighters on
> their journey from the East Coast to Britain to support the England to
> win the war against Germany. They actively participated along the
> British in the Atlantic Battle to sink German U-Boats that attacked
> the convoys. Remember, that Hitler and Roosevelt did not exchange war
> declarations until the events of December 07 1941. Pearl Harbor became
> the final and welcome trigger for Roosevelt to officially engage the
> Axis Powers.
Just a small historical point, I believe Germany declared War on the US first
after Pearl Harbor (the US recipricated) and there is some debate about
whether this was one of Hitler's many blunders. That is, the US would might
have focused on Japan, the US scientists (Einstein, Teller, etc.) might not
have had as strong an argument for development of the A-bomb and things could
have turned out quite differently.
Bill
Michael F. Poellot
>
>Just a small historical point, I believe Germany declared War on the US first
>after Pearl Harbor (the US recipricated) and there is some debate about
>whether this was one of Hitler's many blunders. That is, the US would might
>have focused on Japan, the US scientists (Einstein, Teller, etc.) might not
>have had as strong an argument for development of the A-bomb and things could
>have turned out quite differently.
>
>Bill
Hitler was a fanatic man of many blunders. Many German Generals had
strong reservations when Hitler gave the order to invade Poland
starting dreadful repercussions which ended in a World War. Grand
Admiral Doenitz, the later Chief in Command of the German Navy and
Hitleræ„€ successor of the "Reich" after his suicide, wrote (already in
1939 !!!) that "we are certanly about to lose this war."
Hitler indeed was the first to declare war against the US after Pearl
Harbor based upon the obligations to his Axis Power partners ( I
guess, he in fact tried to avoid a war against America, but historians
have much more knowledge about this matter than I do).
The "Manhattan Project" was initially designed to develop a weapon to
bomb Berlin as I see it. So Japan did not play such an important role
for the US to consider them a the prime enemy.
Michael
Bill
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:16:48 GMT, "Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just a small historical point, I believe Germany declared War on the US
first
> >after Pearl Harbor (the US recipricated) and there is some debate about
> >whether this was one of Hitler's many blunders. That is, the US would might
> >have focused on Japan, the US scientists (Einstein, Teller, etc.) might
not
> >have had as strong an argument for development of the A-bomb and things
could
> >have turned out quite differently.
> >
> >Bill
>
> Hitler was a fanatic man of many blunders. Many German Generals had
> strong reservations when Hitler gave the order to invade Poland
> starting dreadful repercussions which ended in a World War. Grand
> Admiral Doenitz, the later Chief in Command of the German Navy and
> Hitleræ„€ successor of the "Reich" after his suicide, wrote (already in
> 1939 !!!) that "we are certanly about to lose this war."
>
> Hitler indeed was the first to declare war against the US after Pearl
> Harbor based upon the obligations to his Axis Power partners ( I
> guess, he in fact tried to avoid a war against America, but historians
> have much more knowledge about this matter than I do).
>
I'm not sure there was a formal obligation. There may have been an agreement.
But, in any case, Hitler was not one who was noted for sticking to pledges. He
could have choosen to not declare war.
> The "Manhattan Project" was initially designed to develop a weapon to
> bomb Berlin as I see it.
Actually the argument was the Germans are most likely doing it, so we have to.
I don't think a specific target was in mind.
You can read a copy of Einstein's letter here:
http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
But my main point was, had Hitler not choosen to declare war on the US things
could have turned out differently.
>So Japan did not play such an important role
> for the US to consider them a the prime enemy.
>
I don't agree with that. They did bomb Pearl Harbor after all. And there was a
lot of pro-German feelings in the US prior to WW II. It was a strategic
military decision to go after Germany first - after they declared war on the
US.
Bill
> Michael
>
Michael F. Poellot
>> Hitler indeed was the first to declare war against the US after Pearl
>> Harbor based upon the obligations to his Axis Power partners ( I
>> guess, he in fact tried to avoid a war against America, but historians
>> have much more knowledge about this matter than I do).
>>
>
>I'm not sure there was a formal obligation. There may have been an agreement.
>But, in any case, Hitler was not one who was noted for sticking to pledges. He
>could have choosen to not declare war.
>
>> The "Manhattan Project" was initially designed to develop a weapon to
>> bomb Berlin as I see it.
>
>Actually the argument was the Germans are most likely doing it, so we have to.
>I don't think a specific target was in mind.
Werner Heisenberg was a scientist about to successfully develop an
A-Bomb, but well known _not_ to reveal his knowledge about this part
of technology to Hitler.
>
>You can read a copy of Einstein's letter here:
>
>http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
Bill, thanks for the link !!
>
>But my main point was, had Hitler not choosen to declare war on the US things
>could have turned out differently.
A very good point. This could be a starting point for a discussion
among the history buffs here. Email me.
>
>>So Japan did not play such an important role
>> for the US to consider them a the prime enemy.
>>
>
>I don't agree with that. They did bomb Pearl Harbor after all. And there was a
>lot of pro-German feelings in the US prior to WW II. It was a strategic
>military decision to go after Germany first - after they declared war on the
>US.
True. And nobody listened to General Patton at the end.
Michael
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:55:16 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael F. Poellot wrote:
> . . . <snip>
>
> >>
> >> And Bush, a not very bright person by the way, started a war against
> >> Iraq based on fictitious evidence and lies.
> >
> >9-11 was neither fiction nor a lie.
> >
> >> Obsession ??
> >
> >Not my definition of it.
>
> We all can argue to finally come up with the defintion of obsession.
> Perhaps in your chatroom next Saturday, Andrew ;-)
>
One and all are welcome ;-)
>
> >
> >> Where are
> >> those weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent theat against the
> >> US.
>
> They are not existent in Iraq, at least not physically.
>
> >
> >They lie in the hearts of certain people.
>
> True (unfortunately) ! Hatred is the root of all evil.
>
Hatred is a sin.
>
> >
> >> And self-centered, cocky and arrogant Rumsfeld repeatedly insulted
> >> those countries and its people that opposed Bush´s unnecessary war. He
> >> said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
> >> "old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
> >> with current US policies.
> >
> >This would define politics rather than obsession. Neither France nor
> >Germany were stalked for disagreeing with current US policies.
>
> Politics were involved -- of course ! However, French and German
> people felt being insulted or "stalked" by the Secretary of Defense in
> March 2003.
Being insulted is not my definition of being "stalked."
> European newspaper articles published at that time
> reflected that notion. I, myself, also visited Germany, my home
> country, in Mar 2003, talked with people, watched the news, and thus
> can confirm that Rumsfeld humiliated them.
>
Feeling humiliated is not my definition of being "stalked" either.
>
> >
> >> Bush´s obseesion resulted in the death of many American soldiers (and
> >> the others of course).
> >
> >America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
>
> Certainly. In addition, there has remained unfinished business to be
> taken care of in my opinion, too.
>
Without 9-11, the American people would not have favored war on Iraq.
>
> >
> >Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
> >Pearl Harbor.
>
> Umm, the US were actually involved in WWII operations before Pearl
> Harbor. American destroyers protected convoy tankers and freighters on
> their journey from the East Coast to Britain to support the England to
> win the war against Germany. They actively participated along the
> British in the Atlantic Battle to sink German U-Boats that attacked
> the convoys. Remember, that Hitler and Roosevelt did not exchange war
> declarations until the events of December 07 1941. Pearl Harbor became
> the final and welcome trigger for Roosevelt to officially engage the
> Axis Powers.
>
The loss of the Pacific fleet was as welcome as the loss of the WTC towers.
>
> Just my two cents about history here on our cardiology forum :-)))
>
> Michael
We probably agree on more things than disagree here.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Michael F. Poellot" <tt...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:u101a05vheoq8hc7q...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:55:16 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> > <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Michael F. Poellot wrote:
> > . . . <snip>
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> And Bush, a not very bright person by the way, started a war against
> > >> Iraq based on fictitious evidence and lies.
> > >
> > >9-11 was neither fiction nor a lie.
> > >
> > >> Obsession ??
> > >
> > >Not my definition of it.
> >
> > We all can argue to finally come up with the defintion of obsession.
> > Perhaps in your chatroom next Saturday, Andrew ;-)
> >
> > >
> > >> Where are
> > >> those weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent theat against the
> > >> US.
> >
> > They are not existent in Iraq, at least not physically.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >They lie in the hearts of certain people.
> >
> > True (unfortunately) ! Hatred is the root of all evil.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> And self-centered, cocky and arrogant Rumsfeld repeatedly insulted
> > >> those countries and its people that opposed Bush´s unnecessary war. He
> > >> said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
> > >> "old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
> > >> with current US policies.
> > >
> > >This would define politics rather than obsession. Neither France nor
> > >Germany were stalked for disagreeing with current US policies.
> >
> > Politics were involved -- of course ! However, French and German
> > people felt being insulted or "stalked" by the Secretary of Defense in
> > March 2003. European newspaper articles published at that time
> > reflected that notion. I, myself, also visited Germany, my home
> > country, in Mar 2003, talked with people, watched the news, and thus
> > can confirm that Rumsfeld humiliated them.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> Bush´s obseesion resulted in the death of many American soldiers (and
> > >> the others of course).
> > >
> > >America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
> >
> > Certainly. In addition, there has remained unfinished business to be
> > taken care of in my opinion, too.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
> > >Pearl Harbor.
> >
> >
> > Umm, the US were actually involved in WWII operations before Pearl
> > Harbor. American destroyers protected convoy tankers and freighters on
> > their journey from the East Coast to Britain to support the England to
> > win the war against Germany. They actively participated along the
> > British in the Atlantic Battle to sink German U-Boats that attacked
> > the convoys. Remember, that Hitler and Roosevelt did not exchange war
> > declarations until the events of December 07 1941. Pearl Harbor became
> > the final and welcome trigger for Roosevelt to officially engage the
> > Axis Powers.
>
> Just a small historical point, I believe Germany declared War on the US first
> after Pearl Harbor (the US recipricated) and there is some debate about
> whether this was one of Hitler's many blunders. That is, the US would might
> have focused on Japan, the US scientists (Einstein, Teller, etc.) might not
> have had as strong an argument for development of the A-bomb and things could
> have turned out quite differently.
>
> Bill
War is generally a blunder for all parties concerned.
But once so engaged, it would be a greater blunder to not complete the onerous
task at hand.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:42:58 GMT, "Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote:
>
> >> Hitler indeed was the first to declare war against the US after Pearl
> >> Harbor based upon the obligations to his Axis Power partners ( I
> >> guess, he in fact tried to avoid a war against America, but historians
> >> have much more knowledge about this matter than I do).
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure there was a formal obligation. There may have been an agreement.
> >But, in any case, Hitler was not one who was noted for sticking to pledges. He
> >could have choosen to not declare war.
> >
> >> The "Manhattan Project" was initially designed to develop a weapon to
> >> bomb Berlin as I see it.
> >
> >Actually the argument was the Germans are most likely doing it, so we have to.
> >I don't think a specific target was in mind.
>
> Werner Heisenberg was a scientist about to successfully develop an
> A-Bomb, but well known _not_ to reveal his knowledge about this part
> of technology to Hitler.
>
> >
> >You can read a copy of Einstein's letter here:
> >
> >http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
>
> Bill, thanks for the link !!
>
> >
> >But my main point was, had Hitler not choosen to declare war on the US things
> >could have turned out differently.
>
> A very good point. This could be a starting point for a discussion
> among the history buffs here. Email me.
>
Truly, this discussion is welcome this Saturday as a "chat."
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
fresh~horses
> said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
> "old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
> with current US policies.
>
> the others of course).
>
> Michael
The son of a not very bright person. Daddy began the war on Iraq in
the 1990s and is responsible for subsequent happenings including 9-11.
There are no noble sentiments to hide behind here.
This war is about greed and American imperialism.
This war is about oil.
Zee
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > those countries and its people that opposed Bush´s unnecessary war. He
> > said for instance that France and Germany were not Europe, they were
> > "old" Europe. Again, here you see obsession with those who disagree
> > with current US policies.
> >
> > Bush´s obseesion resulted in the death of many American soldiers (and
> > the others of course).
> >
> > Michael
>
> The son of a not very bright person. Daddy began the war on Iraq in
> the 1990s
After Iraq invaded Kuwait.
> and is responsible for subsequent happenings including 9-11.
>
Hardly.
>
> There are no noble sentiments to hide behind here.
>
Truth does not need hiding.
>
> This war is about greed and American imperialism.
>
That could be said about any war that America is involved in, whether true or not.
>
> This war is about oil.
>
If that were true, you shouldn't mind Sadam being relocated to living in your neighborhood. I suspect you would
have a problem with that.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:40A05F...@heartmdphd.com...
> > fresh~horses wrote:
>
> >
> > Those who are Christian have eternal life.
>
> FWIW, you are chinese and speak Mandarin and Chinese.
Fwiw, I am a Christian who can speak Mandarin Chinese.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:40A0F64C...@heartmdphd.com...
> > Fox wrote:
> .
> >
> > Fwiw, I am a Christian who can speak Mandarin Chinese.
>
> ..... and ashamed of your chinese roots !
Neither proud nor ashamed. Simply thankful to God for the roots.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Don Kirkman
>Michael F. Poellot wrote:
>> >>liaM wrote:
>> >>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >>> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
>> >>> > this "obsession"?
>> >>> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
>> >>> American.
>> >>Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
[...]
>America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
Of course 9-11 was largely carried out by Saudis (what was it, 14 or 17
of the 19?), not Iraqis, and no link has been shown between Iraq and Al
Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. That casus belli is as
overstated as the non-existent WMD.
>Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
>Pearl Harbor.
Similar, but also different. Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation
on another; 9-11 was an attack by an amorphous outlaw organization
against a culture more than against a nation.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> in article <67e426c1ab2f64a4...@news.teranews.com>:
>> >liaM wrote:
>> >> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
>> >> > this "obsession"?
>> >> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
>> >> American.
>> >Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
>> >Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?
>> Just as wise as it was in 1942 to round up 70,000 US born *American
>> citizens* of *Asian* heritage, along with 40,000 of their long-time
>> (minimum 18 years) legal US resident parents, and ship them off with no
>> hearings, charges, or trials, to live for up to three years in desert
>> internment camps surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by military
>> police. All because of ethnic stereotyping, political and economic
>> motivation, hysteria, and exaggerated claims of military necessity to
>> safeguard the West Coast.
>It it your claim that Mr. Rumsfeld was behind the internment of Japanese-Americans in
>1942?
That's such a strange interpretation of what I wrote that it really
shouldn't need an answer, but since I responded only to your last
question, "Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11
incident?", no, it should be clear that however much I may blame Mr.
Rumsfeld for other deficiencies this is not one of them. This one is at
the doorstep of Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court, the West Coast
Army command, and a host of politicians.
My point is that racial stereotyping and bigotry are still alive and
well in the US, as your own suggestion implies, as they were in 1942 -
and before, in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act, in 1906 with the
segregated San Francisco Oriental School (and the "Gentlemen's
Agreement" with Japan which averted a war over the issue), with the
1913-1920 Alien Land Laws forbidding non-citizens to own land in many
states, with the many anti-miscegenation laws, and with the 1924
Immigration Act which ended all Asian immigration into the US until the
1950s.
Anyway, I believe it is the CIA and the Home Security Department that
have responsibility for internal security, not Mr. Rumsfeld.
Are you *really* saying you think people should be arbitrarily detained
on the basis of their (perceived) racial background? That's a dangerous
slope to tread on.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
fresh~horses
Thank you Don for this post. I know it generally, more specifically as
it relates to Canada (similarly shameful) but I am marvel at your
ability to recall fact and date. Zee
Mosaic M_uns
>>
>> Fwiw, I am a Christian who can speak Mandarin Chinese.
>
>..... and ashamed of your chinese roots !
Fox, you post no nationality, race or any other such info. Why are you
ashamed of yours?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Michael F. Poellot
wrote:
...
>
>>Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
>>Pearl Harbor.
>
>Similar, but also different. Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation
>on another; 9-11 was an attack by an amorphous outlaw organization
>against a culture more than against a nation.
Don:
This war against Muslim culture is on the very way to escalate (by
creating a second Vietnam disaster for the US perhaps) as predicted by
myself and many of my American and German conservative friends who
initially supported Bush during the 2000 election campaign, however,
opposed any involvement in Iraq in the first place. America is about
to lose this war and to make Islam hate Western (or in other words,
Christianity-based) countries even more.
We also see a different kind of warfare here. There are no real battle
fields any more. Instead, we have to cope with Islamic terrorist acts
in our countries (9-11 and Madrid for example might have been just the
beginning), and I am sure that we all will see more of this happening
in the future. In addition, "their" retaliation against "us" doesn´t
represent traditional battle field exchanges. Remember the pictures of
the four mutilated civilians in Falujah ! Closely watch the gruesome
video showing the decapitation of Nicholas Berg !
Michael
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Correct. The question was rhetorical to underscore your non-sequitor.
> but since I responded only to your last
> question, "Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11
> incident?",
You responded with a non-sequitor.
Now try answering the question with either a "yes" or a "no."
> no, it should be clear that however much I may blame Mr.
> Rumsfeld for other deficiencies this is not one of them. This one is at
> the doorstep of Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court, the West Coast
> Army command, and a host of politicians.
>
> My point is that racial stereotyping and bigotry are still alive and
> well in the US, as your own suggestion implies, as they were in 1942 -
> and before, in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act, in 1906 with the
> segregated San Francisco Oriental School (and the "Gentlemen's
> Agreement" with Japan which averted a war over the issue), with the
> 1913-1920 Alien Land Laws forbidding non-citizens to own land in many
> states, with the many anti-miscegenation laws, and with the 1924
> Immigration Act which ended all Asian immigration into the US until the
> 1950s.
My point is that folks have a tendency to trespass against others. That
would be their sinful nature. Only through Christ can we overcome this
sinful nature.
> Anyway, I believe it is the CIA and the Home Security Department that
> have responsibility for internal security, not Mr. Rumsfeld.
>
> Are you *really* saying you think people should be arbitrarily detained
> on the basis of their (perceived) racial background?
No.
> That's a dangerous
> slope to tread on.
Where there is Christ, there is no danger.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> in article <40A05C...@heartmdphd.com>:
>
> >Michael F. Poellot wrote:
>
> >> >>liaM wrote:
>
> >> >>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >> >>> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
> >> >>> > this "obsession"?
>
> >> >>> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
> >> >>> American.
>
> >> >>Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
>
> [...]
>
> >America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
>
> Of course 9-11 was largely carried out by Saudis (what was it, 14 or 17
> of the 19?), not Iraqis, and no link has been shown between Iraq and Al
> Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. That casus belli is as
> overstated as the non-existent WMD.
Without 9-11, the U.S. War on Iraq probably would not have happened.
> >Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
> >Pearl Harbor.
>
> Similar, but also different.
Without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. entry into WWII probably would not have
happened.
> Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation
> on another; 9-11 was an attack by an amorphous outlaw organization
> against a culture more than against a nation.
Hit a hornet's nest with a stone and all folks standing around the nest
will get stung.
Fwiw, you remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:52:07 -0700, Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net>
> wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> >>Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
> >>Pearl Harbor.
> >
> >Similar, but also different. Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation
> >on another; 9-11 was an attack by an amorphous outlaw organization
> >against a culture more than against a nation.
>
> Don:
>
> This war against Muslim culture
The War on Iraq was not a war against Muslim culture.
> is on the very way to escalate (by
> creating a second Vietnam disaster for the US perhaps) as predicted by
> myself and many of my American and German conservative friends who
> initially supported Bush during the 2000 election campaign, however,
> opposed any involvement in Iraq in the first place. America is about
> to lose this war and to make Islam hate Western (or in other words,
> Christianity-based) countries even more.
Meanwhile, they are showing "The Passion of Christ" in all their
theaters to get back at the nation of Israel and unwittingly educating
their youth about Christ.
> We also see a different kind of warfare here.
This is how He conducts warfare... in the theatres :-)
First, the Lord of the Rings to teach folks about sin.
Follow-up with the story of His great sacrifice in the "Passion."
> There are no real battle
> fields any more.
The battle fields are in the hearts and minds of the people of this
world.
> Instead, we have to cope with Islamic terrorist acts
> in our countries (9-11 and Madrid for example might have been just the
> beginning), and I am sure that we all will see more of this happening
> in the future. In addition, "their" retaliation against "us" doesn´t
> represent traditional battle field exchanges. Remember the pictures of
> the four mutilated civilians in Falujah ! Closely watch the gruesome
> video showing the decapitation of Nicholas Berg !
>
> Michael
Those who walk with Christ have nothing to fear here. Our Lord is
winning every skirmish and battle :-)
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Michael F. Poellot
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Michael F. Poellot wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:52:07 -0700, Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> >
>> >>Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
>> >>Pearl Harbor.
>> >
>> >Similar, but also different. Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation
>> >on another; 9-11 was an attack by an amorphous outlaw organization
>> >against a culture more than against a nation.
>>
>> Don:
>>
>> This war against Muslim culture
>
>The War on Iraq was not a war against Muslim culture.
>
True. I made a serious mistake in my argumentation. My apologies !!
Michael
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> >> >liaM wrote:
There was no non-sequitor. Nor was there any non sequitur (from the
Latin). You sentence that I responded to had nothing to do with
Rumsfeld, but with (apparently) tracking "arab looking" people to
prevent another 9-11. As I said, that job doesn't fall within
Rumsfeld's purview.
>> but since I responded only to your last
>> question, "Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11
>> incident?",
>You responded with a non-sequitor.
>Now try answering the question with either a "yes" or a "no."
I responded with a detailed historical analogy to an earlier serious
misstep of the US government when citizens were denied their
constitutional rights. Drawing an inference from what I wrote to learn
the truth is simple.
>> no, it should be clear that however much I may blame Mr.
>> Rumsfeld for other deficiencies this is not one of them. This one is at
>> the doorstep of Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court, the West Coast
>> Army command, and a host of politicians.
>> My point is that racial stereotyping and bigotry are still alive and
>> well in the US, as your own suggestion implies, as they were in 1942 -
>> and before, in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act, in 1906 with the
>> segregated San Francisco Oriental School (and the "Gentlemen's
>> Agreement" with Japan which averted a war over the issue), with the
>> 1913-1920 Alien Land Laws forbidding non-citizens to own land in many
>> states, with the many anti-miscegenation laws, and with the 1924
>> Immigration Act which ended all Asian immigration into the US until the
>> 1950s.
>
>My point is that folks have a tendency to trespass against others. That
>would be their sinful nature. Only through Christ can we overcome this
>sinful nature.
You should have made that point, then, though it would be irrelevant to
the topics in this thread.
How in the world could anybody take such a meaning from "Would it not be
wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?"? Not a word
about trespassing, sinful nature, Christ, or any other religious notion.
>> Anyway, I believe it is the CIA and the Home Security Department that
>> have responsibility for internal security, not Mr. Rumsfeld.
>> Are you *really* saying you think people should be arbitrarily detained
>> on the basis of their (perceived) racial background?
>No.
Then just what did you mean by "would it not be wise to do our part to
not allow another 9-11 incident"? Exactly what should we be doing?
Remember, liaM's issue was people who "look arab and are not American,"
and you are the one who said it would be wise to do our part.
BTW, the US is not in danger from "the Arabs" or from "the Muslims," it
and the rest of the world are in danger from a fanatical group of
terrorists who hold to a fundamentalist literalist interpretation of
Islam not shared by most of the Muslim world.
>> That's a dangerous slope to tread on.
>Where there is Christ, there is no danger.
Where there are no constitutional guarantees there is no freedom of
religion, or of thought, or of political opinion.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Don Kirkman
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> in article <40A05C...@heartmdphd.com>:
>> >Michael F. Poellot wrote:
>> >> >>liaM wrote:
>> >> >>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> >> >>> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
>> >> >>> > this "obsession"?
>> >> >>> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
>> >> >>> American.
>> >> >>Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
>> >America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
>> Of course 9-11 was largely carried out by Saudis (what was it, 14 or 17
>> of the 19?), not Iraqis, and no link has been shown between Iraq and Al
>> Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. That casus belli is as
>> overstated as the non-existent WMD.
>Without 9-11, the U.S. War on Iraq probably would not have happened.
Even with 9-11 the US War on Iraq should NOT have happened since (1) not
WMD, (2) no ties to Al Qaeda, (3) the UN was trying to solve the
problem, (4) it has inflamed the entire Muslim world against the US.
>> >Similarly, America's entry into WWII was cast with Japan's attack on
>> >Pearl Harbor.
>> Similar, but also different.
>Without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. entry into WWII probably would not have
>happened.
>> Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation
>> on another; 9-11 was an attack by an amorphous outlaw organization
>> against a culture more than against a nation.
>Hit a hornet's nest with a stone and all folks standing around the nest
>will get stung.
I think I read that in a fortune cookie once, but it makes no sense in
this discussion. The reality is that the religiogeopolitical roots of
Al Qaeda and terrorism bear no relationship to a quarrel between
sovereign nations.
--
Don
don...@covad.net
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> in article <40A1EA...@heartmdphd.com>:
>
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>
> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> >> in article <40A05C...@heartmdphd.com>:
>
> >> >Michael F. Poellot wrote:
>
> >> >> >>liaM wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >> >> >>> > The question again is: Has Mr. Rumsfeld stalked anyone as a consequence of
> >> >> >>> > this "obsession"?
>
> >> >> >>> Yes. He and his ilk are stalking any poor guy that looks arab and ain't
> >> >> >>> American.
>
> >> >> >>Did not the suicide-bombers who instigated 9-11 look arab (ie were not American)?
>
> >> >America's war on Iraq was cast with the events of 9-11.
>
> >> Of course 9-11 was largely carried out by Saudis (what was it, 14 or 17
> >> of the 19?), not Iraqis, and no link has been shown between Iraq and Al
> >> Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. That casus belli is as
> >> overstated as the non-existent WMD.
>
> >Without 9-11, the U.S. War on Iraq probably would not have happened.
>
> Even with 9-11 the US War on Iraq should NOT have happened since (1) not
> WMD,
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
> (2) no ties to Al Qaeda,
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
> (3) the UN was trying to solve the
> problem,
The problem was Sadam for which the UN had no solution.
> (4) it has inflamed the entire Muslim world against the US.
That would be an exaggeration.
> >> >Pearl Harbor.
>
> >> Similar, but also different.
>
> >Without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. entry into WWII probably would not have
> >happened.
>
> >> Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation
> >> on another; 9-11 was an attack by an amorphous outlaw organization
> >> against a culture more than against a nation.
>
> >Hit a hornet's nest with a stone and all folks standing around the nest
> >will get stung.
>
> I think I read that in a fortune cookie once,
Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.
> but it makes no sense in
> this discussion.
This analogy explains the turn of events and where the blame should be
placed.
> The reality is that the religiogeopolitical roots of
> Al Qaeda and terrorism bear no relationship to a quarrel between
> sovereign nations.
The reality is that terrorism can escalate the quarrels between soverign
nations.
Truth remains simple.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
This line of discussion started with someone else's assertion that Mr.
Rumsfeld was stalking suspicious "arab looking" people.
> As I said, that job doesn't fall within
> Rumsfeld's purview.
Agree.
> >> but since I responded only to your last
> >> question, "Would it not be wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11
> >> incident?",
>
> >You responded with a non-sequitor.
>
> >Now try answering the question with either a "yes" or a "no."
>
> I responded with a detailed historical analogy to an earlier serious
> misstep of the US government when citizens were denied their
> constitutional rights.
That analogy is not applicable since we are not discussing the rights of
citizens but the rights of arab-looking non-citizen visitors to the U.S.
> Drawing an inference from what I wrote to learn
> the truth is simple.
Not when the analogy was not applicable.
> >> no, it should be clear that however much I may blame Mr.
> >> Rumsfeld for other deficiencies this is not one of them. This one is at
> >> the doorstep of Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court, the West Coast
> >> Army command, and a host of politicians.
>
> >> My point is that racial stereotyping and bigotry are still alive and
> >> well in the US, as your own suggestion implies, as they were in 1942 -
> >> and before, in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act, in 1906 with the
> >> segregated San Francisco Oriental School (and the "Gentlemen's
> >> Agreement" with Japan which averted a war over the issue), with the
> >> 1913-1920 Alien Land Laws forbidding non-citizens to own land in many
> >> states, with the many anti-miscegenation laws, and with the 1924
> >> Immigration Act which ended all Asian immigration into the US until the
> >> 1950s.
> >
> >My point is that folks have a tendency to trespass against others. That
> >would be their sinful nature. Only through Christ can we overcome this
> >sinful nature.
>
> You should have made that point,
I have in parallel threads.
> then, though it would be irrelevant to
> the topics in this thread.
The topics in this thread is about folks trespassing against other
folks.
> How in the world could anybody take such a meaning from "Would it not be
> wise to do our part to not allow another 9-11 incident?"?
By answering the question.
> Not a word
> about trespassing, sinful nature, Christ, or any other religious notion.
Depends on how you explain your answer to the question.
> >> Anyway, I believe it is the CIA and the Home Security Department that
> >> have responsibility for internal security, not Mr. Rumsfeld.
>
> >> Are you *really* saying you think people should be arbitrarily detained
> >> on the basis of their (perceived) racial background?
>
> >No.
>
> Then just what did you mean by "would it not be wise to do our part to
> not allow another 9-11 incident"?
It remains a question.
> Exactly what should we be doing?
Depends on how you answer the question.
> Remember, liaM's issue was people who "look arab and are not American,"
> and you are the one who said it would be wise to do our part.
I simply posed the question.
> BTW, the US is not in danger from "the Arabs" or from "the Muslims," it
> and the rest of the world are in danger from a fanatical group of
> terrorists who hold to a fundamentalist literalist interpretation of
> Islam not shared by most of the Muslim world.
Understandably, the rest of the world will continue to try to identify
and persecute these folks.
> >> That's a dangerous slope to tread on.
>
> >Where there is Christ, there is no danger.
>
> Where there are no constitutional guarantees there is no freedom of
> religion, or of thought, or of political opinion.
The citizens of other countries would likely disagree with you about
this.
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Mosaic M_uns
>> Fox, you post no nationality, race or any other such info. Why are you
>> ashamed of yours?
>
>Eh. Pot calling the kettle black, I see.
I am an American, Caucasian, of English lineage traceable to the
Founding Fathers.
You're up.