Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. ** Get real. Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words serious consequences. Please, try and keep list discussions in the realm of the serious Jeroen. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: RE: Deadlier Than War
---Original Message--- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we are now killing babies by failing to make war on Iraq, then we were also killing babies by supporting sanctions. Unless the we in those sentences is the whole human race, I don't think it makes any sense to think this way. ** You need to consider the trade-off. For example, the various Christian Churches of the world do not hold people morally culpable all those who do not sell off all of their possessions to devote themselves to a life of poverty and charity - even though doing so in the short-term would certainly save lives. In the case of sanctions, however, there is minimal moral culpability for supporting sanctions as opposed to lifting sanctions - since the sanctions regime permits Saddam Hussein to buy unlimited food and medicine, and he simplye *refuses* to do so. Thus, in this trade-off, supporting sanctions is not morally culpable. Now, in the trade-off of sanctions vs. war, since war would clearly save Iraqi lives, the moral burden is upon the supporters of continued sanctions to demonstrate why the cost of war is too high to justify the saving of those Iraqi lives. 5,000 children under the age of 5 die every month in Iraq. - UNICEF JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, there are indeed benefits in becoming a state, and statehood may pass the next election. It doesn't take a revolution; it just takes voting yes. Congress has to approve statehood, but it has indicated a willingness to do this after a yes vote in the past, and I don't see this as a big hurdle. * BTW, I'd just like to point out, that the quintessential example of Anti-Americanism is criticism of America's treatment of Puerto Rico. Just to review, the US regularly lets the Puerto Rican vote on their status, and they have chosen the status quo every time. I think the biases that would lead one to critcize the US's handling of this are clear. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared ^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. Typo correction: That should be leaving, not leagin. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] The citizens of the US are in a unique moral position. With great power comes great responsibility. JDG - Who wonders if France would oppose Spiderman's unilateralism in pursuit of criminals. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ** Wow! Note the phrase all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. Actually, its not as open and shut as you might think. Whether Iraq now poses a threat to peace and stability in the region is open to interpretation. * No... that's not what I meant. Resolution 660 authorizes the use of force to enforce *all*subsequent*resolutions. Resolution 1441, not only explicitly recalls Resolution 660 in the Preamble - but takes the unusual diplomatic step of recalling it in a separate preambulatory clause to emphasize its importance. (In normal operations, the Security Council recalls all of its previous resolutions in a single preambulatory.) Thus, Resolution 1441 reads: Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) Thus, the plain meaning of this unanimous resolution is that the US is authorized to use force to uphold it. Unfortunately, the reality is that most people in Europe tend to favor the French interpretation of the resolutions. Lost in all of this is the tremendous victory the French are winning in their battle with the US. Tremendous victory? Let's see what the world looks like some months after the war is over. I personally think that France may be winning a victory, but that they are losing the War. Their influence will only be reduced after this is all said and done. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
However, to be consistent with that policy, the population of *every* country should then be measured as the number of people who voted that country's government into power. No it should be measured by those who had the *opportunity* to vote. IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the decisions. I think that such an arrangement would be both an improvement over the status quo, and beneficial to the United States. After all, the US hasn't exactly shown itself to be a knee-jerk unilaterlist, even after being attacked a year and half ago. 15 months after the axis of evil speech and five months after Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq, we're still consulting with the international community, even though we didn't have to. So, basically the world could accept such an arrangement as described above, or else continue with the status quo and I think that you will see that the abandonement of the United States by the international community in this time of need, will probably leave the US much more unilateralist in the future as it is today. So, despite your insulting accusation that the US wants a dictatorship, perhaps you should consider that something may be much better than nothing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am currently pretty frustrated by the UK's First Past the Post system - at no time because of demographics (I've still voted, but...) has my vote counted Your vote still counts even when your guy loses. Indeed, there is no meme more inimical to the concept of republican/democratic government than the meme that your vote doesn't count when you lose. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Computer Repair Question
---Original Message--- From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Try another power cable. The number of times I've seen people replace power supplies because the fuse on the power lead's burned out... Unfortuantely, I'm using that same power cable right now on my old computer... sigh. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
---Original Message--- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having said that, I despise the kind of rhetoric in this article. We are not killing babies by failing to make war on Iraq. There is a huge ethical difference between killing and letting die; otherwise, euthanasia would be legal everywhere. In the Catholic Church, we ask forgiveness for both what we have done, and what we have failed to do. Or, to put it another way, failure to do good when presented the opportunity is considered by us as a sin. Thus, to put it more exactly here - to not consider the fact that war would almost certainly benefit the Iraqi people would be a sin. Therfore, those who oppose the war, must make a case that is either: 1) Pacifist in Principle *or* 2) Explicitly demonstrates that, in your judgement, the costs of war are so great that they offset the benefit that would be derived by the Iraqi people. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
---Original Message--- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Having said that, I despise the kind of rhetoric in this article. We are not killing babies by failing to make war on Iraq. There is a huge ethical difference between killing and letting die; otherwise, euthanasia would be legal everywhere. In the Catholic Church, we ask forgiveness for both what we have done, and what we have failed to do. Or, to put it another way, failure to do good when presented the opportunity is considered by us as a sin. Thus, to put it more exactly here - to not consider the fact that war would almost certainly benefit the Iraqi people would be a sin. Therfore, those who oppose the war, must make a case that is either: 1) Pacifist in Principle *or* 2) Explicitly demonstrates that, in your judgement, the costs of war are so great that they offset the benefit that would be derived by the Iraqi people. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: S.V. van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do however think that keeping the pressure on high, while conducting further peacefull inspections is probably the best bet for improvement in the region. Then again I don't see how the US will be prevented from going for the price... oops I mean ... peace. :o) First off, thank you for recognizing the role of US troops in producing inspections in the first place. Unfortunately, it is pretty insulting for you to mock the price of your proposed solution here, as if it were pocket change. As it is, the USS Abraham Lincoln, currently in the Persian Gulf is about the set the record for the longest US carrier deployment ever. Indeed, right now, one out of every one thousand Americans is in the Persian Gulf. That is a lot of separate families, a lot of kids that don't have moms and dads around, a lot of lonely wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Heck, some sailors ahve actually already missed their own weddings, after their length of deployment was repeatedly extended. Meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding the war is keeping oil prices sky high, with devastating effects on the US economy. Inflation was 1.6% this *month*, after rising 1.1% last month. And none of this even counts the hundreds of billions of dollars of direct costs of maintaining this military force in the desert. Thus, while Saddam Hussein will clearly only permit inspections so long as he is within days of being wiped out - it is the simple truth that the US can't pay this price forever... and I think that the US would greatly appreciate it if France, Germany, and like-minded Europeans, who are bearing none of these costs, but are reaping the benefits of the first Iraqi weapons inspections in FIVE YEARS, could at least recognize that this stuff isn't cheap for us. Thank you. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Computer Repair Question
---Original Message--- From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I'm assuming that when you hit the power button, there is absolutely no effect? *** Well, once, and only once, when I had the cover off, pressing the power button caused the CPU fan to spin once. - On most modern PC's, the motherboard (MB) governs turning on the power supply, so a dead motherboard could possibly look like a bad PS. Unfortunately, this makes it tricky to directly test the power supply Yes, I was wondering if the loose cover might have produced a situation that could short the motherboard say static electircity or something? - After trying Erik's idea to reseat all the power plugs, if that doesn't help, try unplugging all the power connectors to the drives and case fans and stuff, except for the power to the MB. We'll see... I *know* that unplugging and replugging cords shouldn't be too difficult - but somehow it has always given me problems. Is there anything I should know before unplugging and replugging-in the colored cords from my powersupply? Thanks. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Commentary on French-bashing
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] If France can prevent the war from happening, than it *has* effectively protected American soldiers. After all, when there is no war, the risk to a soldier's life is significantly less than when that soldier goes into combat. Tell that to the families of all those soldiers who died at the Pentagon. Do the math of lives lost at the Pentagon, the Khobar Towers, and Dharan and compare to US combat losses. Unfortuantely, your policy calls for the US to absorb the attack from a future Iraq's nuclear arsenal, or its stores of anthrax and nerve gas before attacking Kind of ironic that your own beliefs are destined to prove the above post wrong. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: brin: Re: a call to the irregulars!
---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] stupid producers An oxymoron (or maybe a real moron) if I ever heard one I believe that you mean it is a redundancy. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
