From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #284 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, September 12 2002 Volume 11 : Number 284 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: WAS: Fitting Tribute NOW: World views and a touch of RH ["Golden Hind] Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. [crowbar.joe@btopenworld.co] Back to politics [The Great Quail ] Lightning's Luciferase ["Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #282 ["Jonathan Fetter" ] Re: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. ["matt sewell" ] RE: beneath, between, behind [gSs ] RE: beneath, between, behind [Brian ] Re: Back to politics ["Jonathan Fetter" ] Re: Can of Bees tour dates ["Jonathan Fetter" ] Re: Back to politics [The Great Quail ] Return of the Sacred Land Crustacean ["Rex.Broome" ] back to 'tics [Christopher Gross ] RE: beneath, between, behind [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Return of the Sacred Land Crustacean [Stewart Russell ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:49:12 +0000 From: "Golden Hind" Subject: Re: WAS: Fitting Tribute NOW: World views and a touch of RH As some of you may know, I have an inexplicable intrest in Cental Asia, the great nowhere at the center of the world. Anyway, that makes me aware of the oil reserves there, and the different proposals on where and how to construct pipe lines to move this oil. This is just a link to an opinion piece, but its one that puts alot of info into focus. Its juvenily worded in places thou: I hate agit as much as prop: http://news.terminalcity.ca/newsroom/1003639045/index_html. Kay _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:50:55 +0100 (BST) From: crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com Subject: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. Can I be the first, in this round of political debate, to stoop to gratuitous personal insults and say - Fuck George W Bush... But seriously, one for the hawks out there, where does Scott Ritter fit into the picture? joe.mbc Awaiting the United Islamic Kingdom, but not holding my breath. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:55:29 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Back to politics Jeff writes, > If there was a chance that the regime succeeding Hussein would be > democratic, the invasion might be acceptable to me. But we have no > interest in there being democracies in the Middle East (save Israel); > after all, democracies might decided to cut off our oil supply. Or > maybe even try to differsity their economies. I think this statement says more about your own biases and prejudices against US interests than it sheds any light on the realities of the Middle East. For numerous reasons, democracy is a plant that finds Middle Eastern ground somewhat less-than-fertile. While I agree that we support numerous egregious regimes for the sake of our own oil consumption (which we, the American citizens, are ultimately responsible for, not our government), I feel that it's untrue to consider our interest anti-democratic per se. I would also like to see what other "diversification" strategies you have to offer oil-rich, undemocratic desert countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia. > And if Dick Cheney goes on TV one more time talking about how evil > Saddam is, I swear I'll puke. Funny how that evil wasn't relevant > during the Clinton administration when Cheney and Halliburton were > doing so much business with Hussein. According to "The New Republic" recently, we still buy 10 BILLION DOLLARS a year of Iraqi Oil! And the Saudis -- holy cow. I agree with you, the hypocrisy is astounding. > Well, all the better to make sure that there is a second term to W's > administration. Osama will be found in September or October of 2004, > and not a moment sooner. Oh, really now. This is just conspiracy theory and nothing more. You think that we're holding Osama is prison somewhere? Personally, I think he's probably been dead for awhile. Kay writes, > Hey -- he was the good guy during the war with Iran. As Im sure you know, it > can be argued we made Hussein. Hussein made Hussein -- you should read about this guy's rise to power. It was quite ruthless. Of course, he had our help, on and off -- but still, it's simplistic to say that he was the "good guy" in the war against Iran. Better to say that Iran was more our "enemy" at the time than Iraq. After the Shiite Islamic Revolution there, Iran did pose a legitimate threat to secular US interests, as well as surrounding Islamic regimes such as Iraq, which have a population of mixed Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The fact is, America is a superpower; basically an Empire in many ways. When countries fight each other, they come to us for support, and we support whichever country is in our best interest. While I would be delighted if our only "best interests" were democracy and human rights, that will never be the case -- especially in the Middle East, so rich in oil, so troubled in politics, so harsh to human rights. Having said that, I do think we are muddling up the ME -- we have to many conflicting interests. How I long for a consistent, clear policy, one based ultimately on democratic and humanitarian principles. One that puts pressure on Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, removes Hussein from power, and supports Katami's presidency in Iran. Matt writes, > Hitler > was expansionist. Now, in the last decade, has Iraq been expansionist? The last decade, Iraq was not *allowed* to be expansionist. But Hussein is indeed expansionist -- witness Iran and Kuwait. Of course, that still does not validate any ridiculous Hitler/Nazi Germany comparisons. As you already stated, they lack the ability, history, or resources of Germany. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 07:05:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eugene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Lightning's Luciferase somebody asked: > > That brings up another geopraphical/linguistic question: in what > > regions of the US are they called "lightning bugs"? In southern US states (well, in Louisiana, where I grew up) we call them "fire flies." But when I see them, usually as I dangle in my hammock in my back yard in the evening, I always say the word "luciferase," which is the name of the enzyme that provides their bioluminescence. One of my favorite words. "Luciferase." Has a lovely ring to it. Also, when I hear the term "lightning bug" I think of those big, bulbuous bugs in "Starship Troopers" which puff up and fart glowing plasma and spaceships full of Denise Richardses. . Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:30:30 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. It's closer than you think, effendi - I got stoned yesterday! Peace be upon you, Matt >From: crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com >Awaiting the United Islamic Kingdom, but not holding my breath. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:49:24 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. matt sewell wrote: > > It's closer than you think, effendi - I got stoned yesterday! you remember that Fat Freddy's Cat cartoon too? ;-) Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:53:08 -0400 From: Brian Subject: Tom Verlaine Where can I find the reissues of the Tom Verlaine albums? Thanks, Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:15:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V11 #282 The dried jellyfish was pretty awful. That's all I remember about that, though I have had it in a fresher form--salty with a tough sauerkraut texture. The tunicates were very chewy, about like octopus, but less pleasant. I can't remember if they were fresh or dried, but since this was in Wisconsin, I'd have to go with dried. They didn't taste like very much at all. > >>The main course was "Five Phylum Stew." Arthropods, > >>molluscs, echinoderms, coelenterates (dried jellyfish), and tunicates. > >>It was interesting. > > Please describe the taste and texture of the latter two items. Because you > will never find anyone else other than the feglist who will ask you. > > Chin up, kids. Puke Day is almost over. > > -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:23:24 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. Yes - the fabulous furry freak bros were partly responsible for my appalling GCSE results! Still, doesn't matter - it seems dope can get you through times of no money better than money can get you through times of no dope! Matt "still wasting my potential" Sewell >From: Stewart Russell >Reply-To: Stewart Russell >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: Who's side are you on? World War 3 of course. >Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:49:24 -0400 > >matt sewell wrote: > > >>It's closer than you think, effendi - I got stoned yesterday! > >you remember that Fat Freddy's Cat cartoon too? ;-) > > Stewart - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:24:44 +0000 From: "Brian Hoare" Subject: Re: cvb, rew, s3 >Rex: >I just have to know... what don't you like about TFLV if you like the other >early CVB so much? To be honest I haven't played it in years so it's a vague memory. I quite liked the instrumentals but the songs failed to grab me. Where The Hell Is Bill I liked, Lassie Goes To The Moon just felt too forced in the "wacky" department, I don't really remember the rest. There was something in the production or performance that made it seem stilted. I'll dig it out over the weekend and give it a spin and report back any change of opinion. >Anyways, this >is kind of mixed news for me as I've had the full catalog for so long. >Wonder what the actual extras are gonna be. I checked the track listing at amazon which suggests that instead of the wished for filling of discs with goodies, the first 4 cds are just the albums as they were so any new stuff will be on the 14 track 5th disc from which All Her Favorite Fruit (Orchestral) was already CVB Is Dead. >And you're right... Key Lime Pie was, and remains, wildly underrated. It is a change of the previous stuff but I was converted during my first play. Not so keen on Jack Ruby and Sweethearts but the rest is all damn good stuff. Lottery/June/Fruit/Humid Press of Days being truly great. Stewart > >Mr Rew's disc rocks! Indeed it does for the large part but I am prone to skipping the instrumental, drugs and ... > >Purple & Orange Stripes could be the new Uncorrected Personality Traits! I seem to be alone in this, but I think it's horrible and clumsy Joe: >Just got Side 3 and I reckon it's very very good. If a couple or three >songs from here had been swapped onto NDL we'd be talking about a set >closer to UM and CoB standards. What's the playing time of S3? Could NDL + S3 be burnt onto a single cdr? Brian "God won't take the time to sort your ashes from mine" Hoare np Flash Harry : Red. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:38:24 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: RE: beneath, between, behind oops, wrong list. On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Chris Franz wrote: > We called them "lightning bugs" where I grew up in Maryland. here we call em' "litenun bahugs". but you have to say it fast, with bourbon on your breath. gSs np - jacob's ladder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:43:45 -0400 From: Brian Subject: RE: beneath, between, behind At Thursday, 12 September 2002, you wrote: >gSs > >np - jacob's ladder The Monochome Set? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:05:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: Back to politics While I agree that we support numerous > egregious regimes for the sake of our own oil consumption (which we, the > American citizens, are ultimately responsible for, not our government), ... Should I take this to mean that the CAFE standards of the 70's and the recent efforts to update them (shot down by the gas-guzzling Bush admin in one of those idiotic moves that can piss you off for a week) are wrong? Or are you saying that our government walks or takes the metro to work? Oil consumption has become a national security issue, for which I think the government has said it was interested in being responsible. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:14:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: Can of Bees tour dates > I prefer bee stings 'cos you get the gratification of knowing they just ripped their insides out and will die shortly. Not a good advert for evolutionary theory :) > Doesn't matter to the workers if they die, since they're sterile and don't contribute genes to the next generation. Smilie noted. Hmmm... if I were a worker honeybee, would I choose to slowly be worked to death over 40 days, or kill myself stinging some human who's yelling "Omigod, a yellowjacket!" Mr. Apis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:20:13 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Back to politics Jon "Hymenoptera" Fetter writes, > Oil consumption has become a national security issue, for which I > think the government has said it was interested in being responsible. I think that it's 100% our fault. If no one bought SUVs, there'd be less of a problem. The majority of Americans enjoy a gas-guzzling, high-wattage, high-environmental-impact lifestyle, and so we have the government that we deserve. And while I agree that it has become a "national security issue," it has nowhere reached the point where the average American is willing to make sacrifices. Hell, the average American isn't even willing to simply read up on the Middle East. As a whole, we remain happily oblivious, insulated by our might and secure under a protective shield of willful ignorance.... - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:58:59 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Return of the Sacred Land Crustacean Matt: >>For instance, woodlice (pillbugs, whatever - there could be a thread dedicated to names for this creature) Oh yes, there just COULD be... >>are crustaceans, like crabs and lobsters. I knew that but wasn't gonna bring it up. They actually look a lot more trilobyte-y than the oft-cited horseshoe crab. We called them "potato bugs" but apparently many people use that term to mean a very different creature. We also called them "roly polies" for their tendency to roll up in a ball armadillo-style. A younger kid I knew actually called them, in that form, "cookie", and yes, he had more than a passing acquaintance with the flavor of land crustacean. I'm sure most of y'all read the nifty book "Trilobyte!" a few years back. I'm reminded of the author describing the flavor of horseshoe crab, which he felt obliged to eat in order to get a hint of how the trilobytes might have tasted. The answer, apparently, was "like prehistoric ass". >>both trout (trout!), but one is deliciously tasty and good-looking, the other >>hideously ugly with a murky, muddy, river-water flavour). But the freshwater rainbow trout is a tasty treat indeed. Almandine one up and enjoy. Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:06:09 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Back to politics On Thu, Sep 12, 2002, The Great Quail wrote: > I think that it's 100% our fault. If no one bought SUVs, there'd be less of > a problem. The majority of Americans enjoy a gas-guzzling, high-wattage, > high-environmental-impact lifestyle, and so we have the government that we > deserve. I agree with you. SUVs are total menaces on the street, as far as consumption and safety. What I think the government needs to do is put high taxes on SUVs and maybe even larger engines like in Europe. That would probably make a lot of people get something like a Subaru instead, which more meets the needs of the average SUV owner, and uses a lot less resources as well. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:08:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: back to 'tics In southern NJ, we usually said "lightning bugs," though the term "fireflies" was occasionally heard. And Joss Whedon's new series "Firefly" premieres Friday, Sept. 20. As for pollyticks: I support and have supported the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban (aside from some of Bush & Ashcroft's scarier domestic measures); but I'm more ambivalent about the possible war against Iraq, to say the least. Sure, Saddam Hussein is evil and dangerous, and both Iraq and the rest of the world would be better off without him. On the other hand, attacking Iraq would also be dangerous. Could it turn other Arab and Muslim nations against us? Could it turn the non-Muslim world against us, for that matter? Could our troops wind up in an endless quagmire in Iraq? I'm not sure enough for comfort that the answers to all these questions are "no," so I lean against going to war. Better to concentrate on hunting al Qaeda, while keeping Iraq contained. I don't have a definitely decided stance right now, but that's the direction of my lean. On the other hand, if President Bush and Congress somehow ignore my advice and go to war against Iraq, I would then support fighting on to victory. Once the war starts, the only good option remaining will be to win it. NOTHING could be worse than starting the war, alienating the Arab world, killing lots of people, and then pulling out without at least getting rid of Saddam. So though I'm doubtful about starting the war, don't go looking for me at your "end the war now" demonstration once the fighting starts. Now, some specific replies. (Looking back before I hit send, I see that I mostly replied to anti-war posts. This should not be taken to mean that I'm pro-war. The two paragraphs above still hold.) On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > There's no denying that Saddam is a relentlessly unrepentant > motherfucker. But if we did succeed in removing him, we'd just replace > him with _another_ relentlessly unrepentant motherfucker, just one who > is our little puppet. Sort of like Saddam was pre-1990. But even if you're right and we just replace him with another dictator (which you assume far too easily), Saddam is far *worse* than than the average Third World dictator, so I'd say the odds favor a net improvement. And pre-1990 Saddam was NOT our puppet, or even our ally. We cynically aided him against Iran, which seemed more dangerous at the time; but we had no control over him, which is the essence of puppetry. And since he got more aid from the USSR than from us, and since he knew we wouldn't drop our aid while Iran still seemed dangerous, we didn't even have that much potential *influence* on him. > Just like we > did in Afghanistan, where we replaced the Taliban with what is for all > intents and purposes Taliban-lite. To say women are better off (as Bush > and his apparapchiks[sp] keep doing) without the Taliban may be > techinically true, but only in the sense that a woman is better off > being raped by a HIV+ guy wearing a condom that one _not_ wearing one. This is wrong on multiple levels. First of all, life for Afghan women has improved a LOT more than you think. They can now show their faces in public, they can go to school, they can work (a big consideration in such a poor country, where families need every possible source of income and society needs everyone who can contribute), and they can not only vote, they're guaranteed representation in government. Secondly, life for everyone of either sex has gotten better: more political freedom, more social freedom, no arbitrary executions of those who fail to toe the Taliban's line, etc. Thirdly, insofar as there is still oppression of women in Afghanistan, it's due to local cultural tradition rather than the policies of the new government. And the biggest problem in the country, rampant warlordism and lawlessness, is not the government's fault, except in that the government is too weak to stop it. Though the Bush administration deserves severe criticism in Afghanistan, it's for failing to do enough to *help* the new government. (Abandoning Afghanistan, like attacking Iraq, is shaping up to be a Bush family tradition. Maybe we can make one-term presidencies another Bush tradition.) > If there was a chance that the regime succeeding Hussein would be > democratic, the invasion might be acceptable to me. But we have no > interest in there being democracies in the Middle East (save Israel); > after all, democracies might decided to cut off our oil supply. Or > maybe even try to differsity their economies. I don't see what this proves. Who says a dictatorship is a more reliable source of oil? Heck, a dictator might be MORE likely to cut off our oil - -- he wouldn't be worried about the oil worker's union supporting him in the next election. And if dictatorship is so important to safeguard our oil supplies, why hasn't the CIA arranged a coup in Canada yet? On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Golden Hind wrote: > I know hes a "bad guy." I > guess what worries me is the timing of all this. Bush -knows- public > sentiment will get all nicely inflamed from the 9/11 anniversery. He knows > he can -use- this emotion and funnel it to support a purpose that is - -not- > all that closely tied to it. Also, arent there horrible mini-Hitlers > in many > other countries whom we turn a blind eye on? Isnt China, our economic ally, > working on the bomb? Ar e we going to invade India and Pakistan cause > they're working on the bomb? I smell opportunism and manipulation is Bush's > stance. Thats what I dont like. I agree that Bush is being manipulative (for using the 9/11 anniversary) and hypocritical (for not supporting democracy elsewhere). But that has little to do with the practical matter at hand. We have to judge how much of a threat Iraq is and how dangerous going to war with Iraq would be; Bush's personal character doesn't enter into it. Sure, it might make you sceptical of his claims; but healthy scepticism is a good idea anyway, even when the president isn't being opportunistic or hypocritical. As for comparisons with other nuclear-armed countries, there are two differences in Iraq's case. First, he seems more likely than, say, India to use his nukes to threaten the rest of the world -- probably by conquering his oil-exporting neighbors once his nukes made it much more costly to stop him. India and Pakistan, by contrast, just want to threaten each other. Secondly, since Iraq is just on the verge of getting nukes, it's still possible to stop him! It's too late in other cases. > Hey -- he was the good guy during the war with Iran. As Im sure you know, it > can be argued we made Hussein. How so? I know we aided him in his war against Iran, but we didn't actually create him or his regime. On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, matt sewell wrote: > Your govt's interest in Iraq is all about oil - corporate interests come > first... I agree that Bush is probably overstating the likelihood that Iraq is on the verge of getting nukes. However, that doesn't mean Iraq is definitely not a threat; nor does it mean Bush secretly believes Iraq is not a threat and is cynically promoting war to benefit oil corporations. More likely Bush just thinks that if Iraq has potential to become a threat, so it's best to take care of it now while we have the opportunity. > the corporate interests of the business cronies and warmongers > that make up Bush's cabinet... these old, white, corrupt oligarchs are > (to use Dumbya's phrase) stiffing the American people, and the people of > the world. First of all, being old and white isn't necessarily bad. (Of course I'm biased, being white and increasingly old myself.) I'm missing the significance of the oigarchs' ethnicity, but you might have just intended it as a colorful detail, like describing their clothes or haircuts.... Secondly, why do you think oil just a corporate interest and not a national interest? Think about how these evil oil oligarchs get their money: by selling oil and gas to people who use it as fuel. Oil doesn't just put money in Dick Cheney's pocket: it also puts food on our tables and clothes on our backs, it allows us to watch Buffy and listen to Globe of Frogs, it delivers welfare checks and flies Ralph Nader to Green Party rallies. We all depend on it, individually and collectively. This is, of course, a terrible situation, and I want our country to develop other ways of fueling itself; but for the time being we are still dependent on oil. Invading Iraq to just steal their oil would be wrong, of course; but on the other hand, if Saddam Hussein threatens our oil supply, fighting him could be defended as legitimate self defense, and I don't think I'd disagree. > The comparison with Hitler and Churchill is so badly-thought-out and so > obviously ridiculous, I'm not even going to bother to pull it apart. It's exaggerated, but not *completely* wrong. Saddam could potentially threaten his immediate region to the same proportional extent that Hitler threatened Europe. Of course since 1990 we've weakened him, but IF he got nukes, that could make up for all the tanks he lost and then some. But I do agree with you that Bush is *probably* overstating Iraq's chances of getting nukes. > The Churchill/Hitler comparison is simplistic to say the least. Hitler > was expansionist. Now, in the last decade, has Iraq been expansionist? As others have pointed out, before that ten year limit, Iraq attacked Iran and Kuwait. They've only been non-expansionist in the past decade because we've held them down. If Saddam got nukes, he might well figure no one would dare hold him down anymore. I think it's a legitimate fear; I'm just not sure the chance of him getting nukes outweighs the chance of an invasion going awry. Whew, almost caught up now.... On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, The Great Quail wrote: > Jon "Hymenoptera" Fetter writes, > > > Oil consumption has become a national security issue, for which I > > think the government has said it was interested in being responsible. > > I think that it's 100% our fault. If no one bought SUVs, there'd be less of > a problem. The majority of Americans enjoy a gas-guzzling, high-wattage, > high-environmental-impact lifestyle, and so we have the government that we > deserve. True, Americans love guzzling gas. But the government could still encourage conservation by mandating higher fuel economy in new cars, purchasing alternative-fuel vehicles for itself, funding research into solar energy, fuel cells and fusion, etc. You're right, we're ultimately responsible for the government we have; but let's not ignore the things that that government *could* do, without inconveniencing or even awakening the electorate. - --Chris (the verbose) ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:09:11 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: RE: beneath, between, behind gSs: here we call em' "litenun bahugs". * Ah, as in: "The farmer saeed to the boll weevil I see yu ahn the squayuh The boll weevil saeed to the litenun bahug Yup mah whole durn fam'lys heyah Lookin fo' uh hooome Lookin fo' uh hooome" Variant lyric at: matt sewell wrote: > It's closer than you think, effendi - I got stoned yesterday! Stewart: > you remember that Fat Freddy's Cat cartoon too? ;-) * Wait till you put on those stereo headphones! Kay refers to: > "The May issue of the Petroleum-Economist reported that reserves of up > to 50 billion barrels of crude have been found in the northern part of > the Caspain [sic] Sea". * At last, we can power those ekranoplans! Ross asks: > how's your bird's lumbago? * Mustn't grumble! - - Mike Godwin PS re: "Roll it over": I won't bore you with how good that Clapton Rainbow concert was. Only show I ever paid a scalper to get into - three quid for a 75p ticket! Best number was 'Pearly Queen' with Capaldi on drums. The lineup was virtually the same as Blind Faith but with sane drumming, plus Pete T and Ronnie W, who did an excellent job on the Duane Allman slide parts. Did I read somewhere that Winwood wanted Capaldi in Blind Faith, but somehow Ginger Baker muscled his way into the drum seat? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:22:56 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: Return of the Sacred Land Crustacean Rex.Broome wrote: > > Oh yes, there just COULD be... We call 'em Slaters in Scotland. To the intense annoyance of anyone with that surname. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:34:15 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: back to 'tics Interesting and extensive post, Chris. Just a couple of points: Everyone could see that when Saddam invaded Kuwait, he was breaking international law, same as when Galtieri invaded the Falklands. But he hasn't broken international law since 1991 (the massacre of the Kurds was in 1988). I think that's why none of the extensive coalition of Arab states who supported the Gulf War are in favour of further anti-Saddam measures at present (with the possible exception of Kuwait). All the Arab leaders that Powell has talked to have said that sorting out the Israel-Palestine mess is a much higher priority than removing Saddam. And as Geoffrey Robertson pointed out in the paper last week, there is no international law against developing weapons capability. Nuclear bombs are proliferating all the time and no-one will take the first step to outlawing them, because nobody trusts anyone else. Why does proliferation to Iraq justify military action, but not proliferation to Pakistan or China, neither of which is any more democratic than Iraq? Bush and [probably] Blair support regime change in Iraq. Remember when the regime changed in Iran? A pro-Western Shah was replaced by the barmy ayatollahs. At least Saddam runs a secular state. If he is toppled, the most likely winners will be the Shia Arabs in the south who will push for closer ties with Iran, and the Kurds in the north who will destabilise the Turkish border. I'd love to believe that there is a Garibaldi-style patriotic front ready to take over Iraq and turn it into a liberal democracy, but that isn't going to happen. - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #284 ********************************