Re: The US in Sudan
JDG said: Only conspicious because you defined troops as including only military personnel, and not including *police* personnel. So is your thesis that genocide is a criminal problem whereas, say, terrorism is a military problem? (I also note that there are vastly more military than police personnel deployed, and many other countries deploying police. I couldn't find any figures for the actual US deployment. American contributions to support and humanitarian aid are duly noted.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Once more into the 9-11 breach
On Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan
One thing nobody in this conversation has taken up is the amazing
amount of damage to the interior lobby area. Firemen teams
who arrived
found scores of injured in the ruined lobby {not dead smooshed
people
having jumped to their death outside}. Here's some oral histories
by
the firemen and others as MP3:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm
Did anyone survey these people to determine where they were when
they were injured? Or asked them what happened? Some of them must
have survived. Yet none of these stories seem to do that. Maybe
these folks were hurt up higher and came down?
Immediately after 9-11 I heard some people speculate that the
explosions were channeled down the elevator shafts and blew out the
elevators in the lobby. I haven't heard anything more about that, I
don't believe.
- jmh
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
the original message.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What MDW are?
On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Correct the header. :-) Modernized now. Yoda-ized the header. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The US in Sudan
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JDG said: Only conspicious because you defined troops as including only military personnel, and not including *police* personnel. So is your thesis that genocide is a criminal problem whereas, say, terrorism is a military problem? This is dirty pool, and you know it. Obviously, my response was much more extensive than the selection you quoted. While snipping quoted text is to be encouraged, snipping quoted text as means of misrepresenting the original argument is dirty pool. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The US in Sudan
JDG said: Obviously, my response was much more extensive than the selection you quoted. While snipping quoted text is to be encouraged, snipping quoted text as means of misrepresenting the original argument is dirty pool. I don't see how I can be accused of selective quoting when in the part of my reply which you snipped I specifically agreed that US logistical and humanitarian aid was valuable: American contributions to support and humanitarian aid are duly noted. (If I *were* being snarky, I might observe that America is spending as much fighting the war in Iraq each week as it spends in preventing genocide in Sudan in one or two years.) So what do you consider the most valid approaches to preventing genocide and suppressing terrorism? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Dan Minette wrote: Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Dan some snippage grin And I was refusing to have my pro-choice stance deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens etc.) OK, fine. Then the question on the table should be who is a protected person being and what is not. As your discussion WRT self-harm (tobacco etc) notes, it depends. We have different levels of protection for different entities; a minor is not legally able to purchase alcohol or tobacco b/c these are potentially very harmful, but an adult ought to be able to choose how s/he pollutes his/her own body. OTOH, since we know that second-hand smoke *is* harmful to children, adults and the unborn, laws limiting exposure are IMO reasonable (while completely banning tobacco or alcohol would be insupportable). My understanding is that you equate a zygote with a person; I do not. The law does not, although some legislation esp WRT teratogens is primarily beneficial to the unborn (as well as the ecosystem in general, of course). But we didn't *start* that war - Hussein invaded Kuwait. I was referring to the earlier bombing of the Iraqi reactor by Israel, probably with tacit US support. Without it, Hussein would have invaded Kuwait having already had a significant nuclear arsenal. He was within a year of getting enough plutonium for his first bomb when the Israelis bombed the reactor. Well, maybe he would have used the bomb against Tehran earlier, that's always possible...but the point is that that bombing raid probably saved a number of lives. Murky ground ethically; if you are *certain* that somebody is preparing to attack people, and you have the means to remove the threat without, say, bombing a hospital, then you are on the lighter side of Grey to pre-emptively strike (as I stated in a post several years ago). In my book, workers in a facility creating WoMD are ligitimate targets rather than innocent civilians. But if your intelligence is questionable - say from a single source of dubious veracity, ie GWII - you are on the darker side of Grey to strike first. yet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an adult is, and just as killing an ape isn't. Nor, under law, is aborting a 15-week fetus. Nor is aborting a 8.5 month fetus as long as a hospital and physician can be found for a go-ahead. My sister said she knows personally of highly questionable late term abortions where she's workedno indication of life threatening illness to the mother at all. From what she told me, before birth, the only person that matters is the motherthe fetus is not human until borneven thought it would be viable. Now, I have a hunch you wouldn't agree with that. I do not support late-term abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, or a terminal birth defect like anencephaly is detected. You said no hospital would do that. But, the fact that my sister worked at a hospital that did does seem to contradict that. No, I did not say that; I said that I did not know any OBs who would equate abortion with euthanasia of drug-addicted babies (or AIDS babies, either). No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that 500. ? Sorry, missing that? Please clarify. If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. An 8-week fetus does not have the same status as a born human; OTOH millions of children die yearly from malnutrition, various diseases, poor sanitation, neglect and abuse. My crack about alligators and swamps was meant to reflect the fact that the entire milieu (sp?) needs to be changed: the culture(s), poverty, disease, education, attitudes etc. Just this morning a client asked me for help with cantering her horse, but what she *needs* is help with communication and control of her horse, as well as control over her own body (balance, breathing etc); only when the latter are corrected will she be able to fearlessly canter her obedient and willing horse. Debbi Off For Dressage With Cezanne Maru :) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The US in Sudan
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 1:38 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: The US in Sudan JDG said: Only conspicious because you defined troops as including only military personnel, and not including *police* personnel. So is your thesis that genocide is a criminal problem whereas, say, terrorism is a military problem? The problem of genocide in Sudan is an old and messy one. I happen to have an African perspective on that problem available. About two and a half years ago, my Zambian daughter Neli stated that she was thoroughly disgusted with the UN over it's response to the Sudan. She was a phenomenal supporter of the UN since she was a little girl. She had done model UN in college, and even got to sit in the UN to represent her country at a model UN their. Her delegation was one of the three or four that received the top rating at the model UN. She said, at the time, that it really hurt her to admit that GWB was doing far more about the genocide in the Sudan than any other world leader. Also, as an aside, she has a personal interest in the Sudan since her best friend's uncle is one of the leaders of the black Southern Sudanese. Back about 3 years ago, if you recall, the US was castigated at the UN for referring to the genocide in the Sudan as genocide. The General Assembly showed their support of the genocide by putting the Sudan on the UN Human Rights Commission. Even much later, the UN official report stated that there was no genocide. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/index.htmlhttp://www .cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/index.html The year before this report was prepared, after a lot of pressure on the government, placed by the US and the EU, a treaty was signed. At that point, the African Union sent in peacekeepers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union_Mission_in_Sudan At the time, the US offered any logistics help needed...including air support if the peacekeepers came under heavy attack. It was agreed upon by all parties that US military forces would be problematic, so the US agreed to back the AU forces this way. I know that France was opposed to any air support for the AU forces, but I think that this ended up being an official NATO promise nonetheless, since France's military is not incorporated into NATO since the US was kicked out of France in the mid 60's. A bit later, the US proposed that UN peacekeepers be added: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/14/sudan.peacekeepers/ Now might be a good time to mention the makeup of UN Peacekeeping Troops. The top contributors of troops, by country are: Bangladesh: 10.3k Pakistan: 9.6k India: 9.1k Jordan: 3.7k Nepal: 3.5k Ethiopia: 2.8k Ghana: 2.6k Uruguay: 2.6k Nigeria: 2.5k South Africa: 2.0k Senegal: 1.9k Morocco: 1.6k Brazil: 1.3k China: 1.1k Sri Lanka: 1k Egypt 0.9k Argentina 0.9k Kenya: 0.8k Poland: 0.7k Namibia: 0.7k This list is obtained from http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/factsheet.pdf You see that it's mostly small countries that provide troops. I'm guessing, by Bangladesh leading the list, that the troops are paid by the UN, not sponsored by their own countries. Now, of the remaining countries that have contributed a few hundred troops to join the UN forces, the US may very well be on the bottom of the list. I'd argue that the difference between contributing 0.1% of the UN peacekeeping forces and 0.5% is not a critical measure of the desire for peacekeeping. Finally, to address your question about handing genocide, it is clear that the options for stopping genocide are limited. UN peacekeeping forces are, with rare exceptions like Korea or Gulf War I, only there to keep the peace after it has been agreed upon. For the most part, they are very lightly armed and can do no more than stand aside if a determined, well armed force decides to commit genocide. They are a very useful tripwire, and can be most helpful is policing agreements. But, they are not a mechanism that stops genocide. The real choices are either hope that diplomatic pressure is enough, or have a credible threat to invade the country with foreign troops to stop the genocide. By credible threat, I mean that sometimes one will be required to invade instead of only threatening to invade. Stopping genocide in this manner has been against international law. When the UN permitted genocide in the Balkans, it was following international law. When NATO stopped it, it was in direct violation of international law. Maybe the US should unilaterally intervene in places like Rwanda and the Sudan, even thought they pose no present or future threat to world stability. That's far and away the most likely way for it to happen...if it were to happen at all. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The US in Sudan
Excellent post, Dan.Two ancillary comments. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You see that it's mostly small countries that provide troops. I'm guessing, by Bangladesh leading the list, that the troops are paid by the UN, not sponsored by their own countries. That is correct.Countries are reimbursed at the rate of $1000 a month for providing peackeepers. This is naturally a financial bonus for developing countries, and not much of an incentive for richer countries. It is also worth noting that the US has had a strong historical tradition against placing its troops under foreign command. That is part of the explanation for why the US provides almost no troops to UN peacekeeping operations, in addition to the reasons you cited. It is worth noting, however, that the US funds 26% of the UN peacekeeping budget, and has veto over the establishment of all peacekeeping operations. Finally, to address your question about handing genocide, it is clear that the options for stopping genocide are limited. UN peacekeeping forces are, with rare exceptions like Korea or Gulf War I, In fairness, most analysts would not describe the Korean War and Kuwait War as peacekeeping. These missions were not under UN Command, and not part of the peacekpeeing structure. (And participants did not receive UN reimbursement.)Rather, these two cases were instances of the UN Secruity Council, acting under Chapter VII, authorized member States to use all necessary means to achieve an objective that the UN Security Council had judged to be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The US in Sudan
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, my response was much more extensive than the selection you quoted. While snipping quoted text is to be encouraged, snipping quoted text as means of misrepresenting the original argument is dirty pool. I don't see how I can be accused of selective quoting when in the part of my reply which you snipped I specifically agreed that US logistical and humanitarian aid was valuable: American contributions to support and humanitarian aid are duly noted. I think that Dan M. provided an outstanding rebuttal, so I will second his remarks, and only add a few of my own. My objection to your post is that you asked if I view genocide to be a criminal problem, rather than a military problem.I don't believe that any fair reading of my original post, where I cited US contributions to the military efforts in Sudan as well could have reached that conclusion. Indeed, the original question was whether the US had been a leader in Sudan? You've attempted to equate leadership with putting rank-and-file soldiers on the ground in Sudan. This seems to be a very parochial view of leadership - one that leaves aside any sort of diplomatic leadership, and which neglects other sorts of military contributions besides rank-and-file soldiers. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
