From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #287 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 13 2002 Volume 11 : Number 287 Today's Subjects: ----------------- sea-cucumber ["Marc Holden" ] Re: sea-cucumber ["*FS Thomas*" ] Re: fireflies & rainbows & eating slime ["Jonathan Fetter" ] Re: back to 'tics [gSs ] A snippet from Azziz ["*FS Thomas*" ] Re: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses ["matt sewell" ] Re: A snippet from Azziz ["matt sewell" ] Re: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses [Michael R Godwin ] RE: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses ["Bachman, Michael" ] Iraq and Afghanistan and stuff [Christopher Gross ] Re: Side 3 and Great Central Revisited and, oh yes, war... [gSs Subject: sea-cucumber >I once ordered a sea-cucumber in a Chinese >restaurant (some kind of creature, don't know >phylum or family). Cooked, but still major >slime factor & aftertast. Left much on my plate. >I shall not order another. Ross Taylor MMMmmm--sea cucumber. Without a doubt one of the most vile things I've ever eaten. I had some in Beijing once. I should have known to be wary when they said they had a special dish (I don't eat duck, which was the scheduled main dish). I have never had so much trouble trying to swallow something without gagging, which really surprised me (I'm having sushi for lunch today because it's one of my favorites). My friends still like to offer to see if they can get sea cucumber for me when we go out to eat. Thanks for the reminder there, Marc bonus fact--the male sea cucumber gnaws it's penis off to un-couple after mating. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:04:04 -0400 From: "*FS Thomas*" Subject: Re: sea-cucumber - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Holden" > > bonus fact--the male sea cucumber gnaws it's penis off to un-couple after > mating. Stunningly delightful tidbit! Must file that one away for future use. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:19:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: fireflies & rainbows & eating slime When I was a kid I saw a toad eat a firefly--since it was dark, I could watch the firefly pass through the toad's digestive system for a good while. Jon > There's a nice poem by Norman Dubie called "In > the Dead of the Night," where his cat's been > catching & eating fireflies, but they don't > agree w/ it, & in his dark bedroom it vomits a > glowing pool. (True story). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:32:56 -0400 From: "*FS Thomas*" Subject: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses - --------------------------- After a while the DOORGUNNER stops firing and grins at JOKER. DOORGUNNER (shouting to be heard) Anyone who runs is a V.C. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined V.C. (laughs) You guys oughtta do a story about me sometime. JOKER Why should we do a story about you? DOORGUNNER 'Cause I'm so fucking good! That ain't no shit neither. I've done got me one hundred and fifty-seven dead gooks killed. And fifty water buffaloes, too. Them're all certified. RAFTERMAN gags. JOKER Any women or children? DOORGUNNER Sometimes. JOKER How can you shoot women and children? RAFTERMAN gags. DOORGUNNER Easy. You just don't lead 'em so much. (laughs) Ain't war hell? - --------------------------- That's the point. It IS hell. It's supposed to be Hell and it's supposed to be something you avoid. Civilian deaths (no matter how distasteful) are a part of war. If the targets of eventually errant bombs were military targets, then there's little or no justification needed. Civilian jetliners, loaded with civilians, rammed into civilian targets with zero military value are inexcusable. Period. You could argue, then, that the dropping of the atomic bomb onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inexcusable, as they were civilian targets, and you may have a point. However, the number of Japanese and American lives that were spared by avoiding a mainland invasion of Japan could be used to counter the argument. Not too long ago I read an interesting essay by Stephen Ambrose about the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. Basically it stated that the European theater differed from the Pacific fundamentally by the fact that the bulk of the American soldiers fighting in the war had European ties. Those of Germanic heritage identified with yet (with the exception of a small minority) fought the Germans. Italians understood what their ancestors were dealing with under Mussolini. The Franco-Americans cringed every time their relatives threw up their arms in surrender, but understood. The Pacific, though, was different. The Japanese culture had little or no identity in the US and they were viewed not only as utterly foreign but savage in battle, showing no quarter. Their treatment of POWs was reviled in the states and brought American war mentality to a fevered pitch with the attack on Pearl Harbor was still very present in the American psyche. (An attack, as an aside, while horrific, and some would say unprovoked, was at least carried out by uniformed soldiers on what was very much a military target). The bomb, however, was such a strong (some could say over-the-top) response and so utterly devastated the Japanese people that it really ended hostilities with one felled swoop. The bomb allowed the Japanese people a way out, so to speak, to surrender without losing face. Had we not used it, Ambrose hypothesized, but were forced to conduct a long, bloody land invasion, peace would not have come easily. Without any cultural understanding between us and the Japanese we wouldn't have entered so willingly into the rebuilding campaign after the war, nor would we enjoy the relationship we do with that nation today. Just another two bits. - -ferris. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:49:22 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Sea cuke I'm sure someone answered the sea cucumber phylum question already, but actually, before anyone asked, Ross said: >>I once ordered a sea-cucumber in a Chinese restaurant (some kind of creature, >>don't know phylum or family) And I said, >>Echinoderm. I've never bothered to try one, having already covered that >>phylum in the form of urchin So yeah, echinoderm (spiny skin). In there with urchins, starfish, brittle stars and other tube-feeters. Althogh I'm pretty sure the sea cucumber is the only one that actually turns itself inside out as a self-defense mechanism. Rex Echinobroome ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:48:13 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: back to 'tics On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, matt sewell wrote: > Well, it doesn't sound like extreme examples to me, eeyore - Oxfam (where > I work) is an international aid agency, and we have people flying in and > out of Afghanistan all the time. You say "civil liberties for the vast > majority have improved exponentially"... erm, no - I think this is just > what you want to believe, I'm afraid. the overall conditions for the majority of afghans has improved exponentially in the last year. the poppy crops alone that they are now doing so well has improved the conditions for a countless number of people and the selective forced poppy crop famine enforced by the taliban simply to increase the value killed or devastated entire communities and forced hundreds or thousands, perhaps millions to flee to refugee camps or other countries did more damage to the immediate population as well as the opiate dependants and traders and average citizen in surrounding countries than anything that has occurred in the last 12 months as a result of the fall of the taliban. change takes time and some people don't change on their own. Again, Warlords have been running large sections of that country as for centuries. The surrounding countries are also loaded with tribal and faction leaders. What is different in that regard now, from say 100 years ago? That is a problem that must be resolved from within. So, here I ask again: Do you actually have a suggestion as to what should or could be done to help the country become self supporting and stabilized as opposed to just more unsubstantiated criticism? you can't see the world through rose colored glasses for very long, but just the same you can't look long at the world through a gray filter and just bitch. While I do not agree, and with good reason, with most of your comments, I feel that everyone everywhere has the right to life, liberty etc... But a great number people are mostly lazey and self pitied and while some of them they complain about this or that, they never actually do anything in regard to changing it, expecially if it means giving up or sacrificing something they appreciate, good or bad. they bitch and complain and explain how wrong you are and how right they are, yet they have tv's in everyroom, cable television, a new jetta, a couple $100 pairs of shoes and they go to aruba twice a year, for example. have sex or get yer ass out of bed and put on your pants. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:48:13 -0400 From: "*FS Thomas*" Subject: A snippet from Azziz (from Reuters) - --- Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz on Friday rejected the unconditional return of U.N. arms inspectors as demanded by Washington, saying the move would not avert U.S. military designs on Baghdad. "The return of inspectors without conditions will not solve the problem ...because we have had a bad experience with them. Is it clever to repeat an experience that failed and did not prevent aggression?" Aziz told Dubai-based Arab satellite station MBC in an interview to be broadcast at 11:00 a.m. EDT. - --- They had a bad experience with them because they (the inspectors) wanted unconditional access to suspected sites and Iraq had to refuse less something be discovered. (And I don't buy for a second their hiding behind claims of imugned sovereignty were chemical plants-cum-palaces inspected.) By refusing the inspectors they're signing their own declaration of war. This is *exactly* the response those UN seeking to avoid US military action do not want to hear. If the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Sudanese [insert your favorite M-E country here] want to avoid us steam rolling Iraq again, they had best get on the horn and talk them down of this diplomatic window ledge they've crept out onto. It's a thin, crumbling ledge, slick with rain, and the wind's starting to pick up. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:52:08 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses Ferris wrote: >Civilian deaths (no matter how distasteful) are a part of war. If the >targets of eventually errant bombs were military targets, then there's >little or no justification needed. Civilian jetliners, loaded with >civilians, rammed into civilian targets with zero military value are >inexcusable. Period. I don't see what links the two halves of this paragraph - I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree that crashing jets into civilian targets is inexcusable - I'd go so far as to say utterly evil - but I still think that the idea of it being justifiable to kill civilians (and let's remember - these civilians had *nothing* to do with war or terrorism, didn't vote for the Taliban, didn't have any hand in the attacks on NY) in order to hit a military target is repulsive. I don't think that the weaponary used (eg. cluster bombs - specifically anti-personnel weaponary) was justified either. Very interesting what you say, though, about the H-bombs dropped on Japan - - much as it was utterly sickening - I do wonder what would have been the case had they not been dropped, and I can't help concurring that it would have led to an horrific land campaign in Japan, resulting in enormous (and largely civilian) casualties... I guess nothing is simple, eh? Cheers Matt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:06:41 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Slaters, turbines, bears oh my >We call 'em Slaters in Scotland. To the intense annoyance of anyone with >that surname. I was just reminded of the other common name for the terrestrial trilobyte creature-- the "sowbug". But why? Is that related to the term "sow" for female pig, or "reap as ye sow", suggesting they were a pestilence to crops at harvest? _______ Stewart: >>Oh, Darrieus turbines. Mechanically, a horror. I bet. But it is so bizarre that I can describe a giant eggbeater and have a proper name for it within a matter of hours. Cool. _______________ Matt's new band: >>I'd half decided that it's going to be called The New Moon. I like it. On the same tip, what do y'all think of "Challenging Stage"? I actually put an ad in the Recycler soliciting for a duo partner. I'm scared... - -Rex, not opposed to utopian thinking because, really, when you think about it, utopia would be kind of nice, probably ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:59:07 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: back to 'tics My suggestions? Don't just bomb and run, stick around for a bit, give a little more in aid, promote democracy - in fact do all the things the West has so far (for at least the last 100 years) not done... > But a great >number people are mostly lazey and self pitied and while some of them they >complain about this or that, they never actually do anything in regard to >changing it, expecially if it means giving up or sacrificing something >they appreciate, good or bad. they bitch and complain and explain how >wrong you are and how right they are, yet they have tv's in everyroom, >cable television, a new jetta, a couple $100 pairs of shoes and they go to >aruba twice a year, for example. have sex or get yer ass out of bed and >put on your pants. Greg, your rhetoric is inimitable! I have to admit I'm lazy and I love a good moan, but I don't necessarily think this makes me wrong about everything... Cheers Matt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:04:09 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: A snippet from Azziz While I'm utterly against Dumbya's imperialist war, I have to agree the Iraqi regime is not doing itself (or anyone else for that matter)any favours... there again, has it ever? Cheers Matt >From: "*FS Thomas*" >By refusing the inspectors they're signing their own declaration of war. >This is *exactly* the response those UN seeking to avoid US military action >do not want to hear. If the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Sudanese [insert >your favorite M-E country here] want to avoid us steam rolling Iraq again, >they had best get on the horn and talk them down of this diplomatic window >ledge they've crept out onto. It's a thin, crumbling ledge, slick with >rain, and the wind's starting to pick up. > >-f. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:09:12 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, matt sewell wrote: > Very interesting what you say, though, about the H-bombs dropped on Japan > - much as it was utterly sickening - I do wonder what would have been the > case had they not been dropped, and I can't help concurring that it would > have led to an horrific land campaign in Japan, resulting in enormous > (and largely civilian) casualties... I guess nothing is simple, eh? There was a discussion in the intellectual mags long long ago about whether it would have been more moral to drop the first A (not H) bomb offshore with an announcement saying "This is what we have got, the next one lands on Japan". I don't think that any conclusion was reached, apart from the fact that there was general agreement that the _second_ bomb was unjustified. Once Japan had realistically assessed how great the damage from the first bomb was, they would have had no choice but to surrender. Well, that was the argument, anyway. Was it claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military installations, or had WWII got beyond worrying about that by 1945? - - MRG n.p. Duck and Cover, Cover and Duck... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:17:21 -0400 From: "*FS Thomas*" Subject: Re: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses > Was it claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military installations, or > had WWII got beyond worrying about that by 1945? If I remember right, neither were major military installations. The Japanese communications systems were rendered so ineffective by that point in the war simply from the on-going bombardment of Tokyo that even if they had wanted to surrender prior to the A (not H) bombing that it would have taken days for the message to spread to the Allied forces. Of course you can argue they wouldn't have surrendered by the nature of their culture, but had they wanted to it wouldn't have mattered. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:15:29 +0000 From: "Golden Hind" Subject: [none] Me >>Would you prefer your sacrifices in lice or jellyfish? Godwin: >Sea-cucumber and fresh trilobite, SVP. Sea cucumber coming right up but ... -fresh- trilobite? Thats impossible!!! Oh dear, youre one of -those- sorts of godlets, arent you? - ----------------------------- Question Feg can probobly answer: Im fascinated by wind farms. Havent farms often used windmills to pump water? But being no engineer Im having a hard time figuring out the mechanics of a wind farm. Does anyone know a site on about 8th grade level that explains how they work? My secondary world cries out for them, but I dont want to botch -all- the details. - --------------------------------- Question Feg may not be able to answer: James wrote: >Oh, and a standing joke in my family: three of my dad's siblings wwre named >Gabrielle, Raphael - and Lu'. No, it's short for Louis, but... >(to >complete the set, his son is my cousin Michael) Gabriel, Raphael and Michael, Gabe, Ralph and Mike --its always, always those 3. But arent there supposed to be -4- archangels? The 4th, when you finially track him down, is usally called Uriel, thou Ive also seen Fanueil and Phaniel. Poor thing, nobody names their kids that. S/He dodnt get mentioned in the Bible. If Lucifer becomes Satan does Satan become Uriel? Or does Uriel have some hidden function? Is s/he shy? What gives? And why am I asking Feg a question bout Christianity? (Blame James, -he- started it;-p) Kay _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:23:16 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: Thoughts on War and Civilian Losses Matt wrote: >Very interesting what you say, though, about the H-bombs dropped on Japan >- much as it was utterly sickening - I do wonder what would have been the >case had they not been dropped, and I can't help concurring that it would >have led to an horrific land campaign in Japan, resulting in enormous >(and largely civilian) casualties... I guess nothing is simple, eh? Tens of thousands did die from both atomic bombs. I guess that the single plane dropping a single bomb did something to the psyche. However, if we fire bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki like we did Tokyo and Dresden, the results would have been similar, tens of thousands of deaths. It just would have taken more planes and bombs to do it than the single plane and atomic bomb method. I bet Japan would have surrendured if we fire bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:27:50 +0000 From: "Golden Hind" Subject: Re:Zevon Damn, 55 and lung-cancer. This just made the ending of Ian Bank's "Complicity" all the more shiver-inducing. Kay _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:55:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Iraq and Afghanistan and stuff I'll try to be briefer than yesterday, but no promises.... On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc) wrote: > The High King Quail wrote: > > I will go so far as to say that if Iraq decided to sell their oil to a > > country we were currently at war with, we would also have a reason to > > intervene. > > If they were also still selling to us what would be the problem? What > about neutrality? Iraq should be able to do whatever it wants with its > natural resources provided it doesn't harm the environment in some > catastrophic way. If they want to not sell to anyone fine if they want > to limit who they sell too then fine. Well, you can debate the morality of it, but it's standard procedure for countries at war to blockade their enemies if they have the capacity. This involves not only destroying enemy ships/trains/pack mules, but also stopping neutral ships or whatever from delivering anything useful to the enemy. This is accepted practice, as long as the neutrals are given fair warning at the start of the blockade. I don't think we'd have the right to forcibly stop Iraqi oil from going to, say, North Korea, just because we don't like the latter. But if we were actually *at war* with North Korea, then we'd have legitimate grounds to stop any Iraqi tankers heading for NK. On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, matt sewell wrote: > Yeah, that's the way it seems according to Oxfam, too. Kabul is > apparently a little more liberal - women show their faces, go to school, > sometimes work (although I should point out the minister for women in the > cabinet (a woman) was terrified out of her job having been threatened > with her life). > > Everywhere else, though, it's pretty much business as usual - the same > warlords are in power, with very much similar "Islamic" practices as the > Taliban. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced; I've heard too many conflicting reports. (And before you say "But Oxfam is infallible!", didn't they predict a hundred thousand Afghans would starve to death last winter?) And while that female minister's resignation is hardly a good sign, when you think about it, the fact that there WAS a female minister to be threatened shows a distinct improvement over the Taliban regime. Things in Afghanistan are far from perfect, but can you honestly say there has been no change at all? > The only thing the allied invasion achieved, it can be > (uncharitably) argued, was the deaths of 3,000+ Afghan civilians. Yes, that would be uncharitable. If nothing else, the fall of the Taliban has helped *us*, by putting a big dent in al Qaeda, an organization dedicated to killing Americans, Britons, and anyone else they consider an enemy of God. Besides that, the people of Afghanistan *have* benefitted. Even if you think the lot of Afghan women hasn't improved, will you at least agree that opponents of the regime are no longer regularly hanged in the town square? That men aren't whipped for trimming their beards? That people can listen to music and even watch TV if they feel like it? Life in Afghanistan still sucks, but people are just a wee bit freer than they were a year ago. Messrs. Sewell and Godwin both cite Marc Herold's civilian casualty estimates. While Prof. Herold *may* be right, it should be noted that his estimate is not universally accepted as accurate. Herold's method was to compile news reports from Pakistan, India, and other countries in the region. He's already had to revise his total downward several times when some of these news reports proved to be exaggerated or wholly false. Other estimates are generally much less than Herold's 3000, though of course even say 1000 is a tragic total. In reality, no one knows how many civilians were killed, and we'll probably NEVER get an exact number. (Just out of curiosity, does anyone consider Pakistani or Indian reporters inherently more reliable than Americans in this regard; and if so, why?) > I don't think > anyone in their right mind would disagree that crashing jets into > civilian targets is inexcusable - I'd go so far as to say utterly evil - I'm glad we all agree there. I don't know if I ever said so in so many words, but the thing that most upset me about leftist reactions to Sept. 11 was that they seemed to reserve all their anger for the American response. Sure, most of them condemned the al Qaeda attacks, but without a tithe of the passion and fervor with which they condemned America. > but I still think that the idea of it being justifiable to kill civilians > (and let's remember - these civilians had *nothing* to do with war or > terrorism, didn't vote for the Taliban, didn't have any hand in the > attacks on NY) in order to hit a military target is repulsive. Well, what's the alternative? Not to fight back whenever your attacker has a bunch of civilians he can hide behind? > I don't > think that the weaponary used (eg. cluster bombs - specifically > anti-personnel weaponary) was justified either. Given that we were fighting Taliban/al Qaeda personnel, I'd say anti-personnel weapons were just the ticket. Dropping anti-submarine missiles might have been entertaining, but not too practical. And re: the atomic bomb: On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Michael R Godwin wrote: > There was a discussion in the intellectual mags long long ago about > whether it would have been more moral to drop the first A (not H) bomb > offshore with an announcement saying "This is what we have got, the next > one lands on Japan". I don't think that any conclusion was reached, apart > from the fact that there was general agreement that the _second_ bomb was > unjustified. Once Japan had realistically assessed how great the damage > from the first bomb was, they would have had no choice but to surrender. > Well, that was the argument, anyway. But after the first bomb was dropped, Japan DIDN'T surrender, or give any sign that they might. Hell, by any objective standard the Japanese had had no choice to surrender for six months or a year, but they had kept on fighting. Until the moment Japan actually surrendered or asked for a cease fire, the Allies had to assume that still more pressure was needed to make them quit. > Was it claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military installations, or > had WWII got beyond worrying about that by 1945? Well, Nagasaki had an important seaport, an army division was stationed in Hiroshima, and both cities had some military industry. (Other cities had much more industry, but they had already been heavily damaged by conventional means.) So in that sense they were military targets. But the real reason these cities were chosen was simply that they were among the largest undamaged cities left in Japan. The idea was to make it clear that the US could wipe out whole cities in a day (previously it had taken a week or more). This was expected to be an incentive to surrender that not even the Japanese military could ignore. Meanwhile, it should be noted that both sides were bombing civilians from the earliest days of the war (or even the pre-war war -- eg, Japan in China/Manchuria, Germany in the Spanish Civil War), so that part wasn't new. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:01:00 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Side 3 and Great Central Revisited and, oh yes, war... On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 crowbar.joe@btopenworld.com wrote: > Read Scott Ritter everyone. The man is a dyed in the wool, > Republican military man and yet he's tanking into the establishment. > He was there, he knows Bush is a hypocritical bullshitter. he is an idiot. possibly schizophrenic. his initial claims were that there in fact were no weapons to be found. but then he changed that to there are no weapons to be found because the inspection team is actually a cia funded spy squad and the iraqi's had every right in the world to keep the weapons and hard evidence of r&d just out of reach. the satellite photographs showing large convoys of military and other transport vehicles making urgent runs in and out of the facilities just prior to the inspection teams arrivals, is overwhelming. this was done over and over and over again. ritter, now, does not dispute those facts. i was initially a ritter supporter and even sent a note with the subject 'ritter for president', but his dramatic turns in actual event recollection, etc.. has lead me to believe he's got a problem in at least one of his combustion chambers. even after answering to the complaints by the iraqi's regarding the inspection teams had been all but satisfied as far as the nationality of the team members specifically, they still did not allow the inspectors to do their job. ritter leans with the wind. you don't get to choose your judge, but the iraqi government continues to insist they should. gSs ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #287 ********************************