From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #67 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, February 25 2003 Volume 12 : Number 067 Today's Subjects: ----------------- The irrelevancy of France (was: anti-war movement) ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: Robyn Hitchcock [Miles Goosens ] Re: boo yah [Tom Clark ] Re: boo yah [Christopher Gross ] Re: boo yah [Eb ] Re: boo yah [Steve Talkowski ] RE: boo yah ["Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\)" ] Re: boo yah [Tom Clark ] Re: boo yah [Eb ] Re: boo yah ["Michael Wells" ] Re: boo yah [Steve Talkowski ] Re: boo yah [Steve Talkowski ] Re: boo yah [Steve Talkowski ] Re: boo yah [Eb ] Re: The complicity of France (was: anti-war movement) [Marcy Tanter ] Luxor and Nextdoorland ["James Francis" ] Re: Sublime/ridiculous ["Michael Wells" ] Re: PQ boo yah [rosso@videotron.ca] Re: London area shows [Michael R Godwin ] Re: sold out ["Marc Holden" ] Re: trivia ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Re: The complicity of France (was: anti-war movement) [The Great Quail Subject: The irrelevancy of France (was: anti-war movement) I agree with those who point out that Chirac is cynically appropriating the (very real and very persuasive) arguments of the millions opposed to Bush's vendetta against Hussein, in service of France's economic and political interests. This is appalling, but the funny thing is that France is afforded such a loud voice to begin with. As those funny folks over at thenewrepublic.com pointed out: "The United Nations continued for half a century to confer special authority upon the states that possessed special authority at its founding. The 'permanent membership' status of France on the Security Council is not so much an outrage as an anachronism. Maintaining the diplomacy of the 1940s in perpetuity is rather like maintaining the technology of the 1940s in perpetuity; but the United Nations does not still use rotary telephones. The protest of Jacques Chirac against the contemporary world order is the protest of a rotary telephone." ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:40:32 -0800 (PST) From: bayard Subject: Robyn Hitchcock Quick question - a friend of mine says she once heard one of robyn's songs and she liked it but doesn't remember much about it offhand other than it's (mostly?) acoustic, had a good riff at the beginning, and supposedly mentioned "October." According to Robynbase the only song with "October" in it is Autumn sea and I don't think it's that one. Autumn is your last chance is a possibility. any others? - -- http://glasshotel.net/glassflesh (on sale for a limited time!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:53:10 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Robyn Hitchcock At 02:40 PM 2/24/2003 -0800, bayard wrote: >Quick question - a friend of mine says she once heard one of robyn's songs >and she liked it but doesn't remember much about it offhand other than >it's (mostly?) acoustic, had a good riff at the beginning, and supposedly >mentioned "October." According to Robynbase the only song with "October" >in it is Autumn sea and I don't think it's that one. Autumn is your last >chance is a possibility. any others? "September Cones" sounds like a more likely suspect (acoustic, good riff at the beginning) despite that tricky part about "October." If that's it, she's only off by a month! I have at least three real life friends who will remember songs *just a little* off, and a mistake like "September"/"October" is exactly the kind of small error they make, and I've learned to think with them in order to decode what they're really talking about. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:54:31 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: boo yah on 2/24/03 2:15 PM, Ken Ostrander at kenster@MIT.EDU wrote: > we went out > last night to see _gangs of new york_ and tonight will be watching the video i > made of the grammys. we like to fast forward. > Here's a cheat sheet for you: Norah Jones, Norah Jones, Norah Jones, Rod Stewart & Harvey Fierstein, Robin Williams, Norah Jones, Bee Gees medley by 'N Sync, Norah Jones, still photo of Flaming Lips accepting for best rock instrumental, Norah Jones, "All the people who died last year" montage, Springsteen-Costello-Grohl-Van Zandt performing "London Calling", Norah Jones. > > ken "moving to florida" the kenster Is this official now? No offense to present or future residents, but there are way too many episodes of "Cops" filmed in Florida for my liking. - -t "and Texas too" c ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:56:23 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: boo yah On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Ken Ostrander wrote: > japan gets my vote for "most ravaged country" though > > http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/Hiroshima.html I'd vote for Poland, myself. They had a higher *proportion* of their people killed than any other country (over 20% of their entire prewar population, I believe), as well as suffering material damage comparable to the USSR (and perhaps worse than Germany or Japan), plus they lost a major chunk of their land when the borders were redrawn after the war. If you ever visit Warsaw, note that every building you see that seems to predate 1944 is almost certainly a reconstruction; after the Warsaw uprising of that year, Hitler ordered the entire city razed and its surviving residents deported. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:24:55 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: boo yah > >It's too bad more people in front didn't run out that exit to the >right of the stage. Maybe it was more like a "stage" entrance than a >public one. > >from the video footage it looks like that's right where the fire started. I think they could have run under/around the flames, if they reacted early enough. The first flames were over the stage, several feet away from the exit door. And the initial path of the flames seemed to be forward into the crowd, rather than lateral. The morning's post-Grammy debate is a little too intense for me...I may have to sit this one out. But feel free to carry on. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:35:06 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: boo yah On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 05:24 PM, Eb wrote: > The morning's post-Grammy debate is a little too intense for me... What's there to debate? ; ) The Clash tribute lived up to all the hype! Plus, Elvis Costello, appropriately, opened AND closed the set. Coldplay's performance with the New York Philharmonic was pretty amazing too. - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:38:36 -0800 From: "Jason Brown \(Echo Services Inc\)" Subject: RE: boo yah Steve t wrote: > What's there to debate? ; ) The Clash tribute lived up to all the > hype! Plus, Elvis Costello, appropriately, opened AND closed the set. Really I thought it sucked mightily! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:43:27 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: boo yah on 2/24/03 4:35 PM, Steve Talkowski at stevetalkowski@mac.com wrote: > Coldplay's performance with the New York Philharmonic was pretty > amazing too. Am I supposed to like these guys? They seem to have gotten an awful lot of hype recently, but the three or so appearances I've seen have left me fairly unimpressed. The way they were introduced at the Grammy's, I thought Radiohead was gonna perform. Boy was I disappointed. - -t "don't get me started on John Mayer" c ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:45:17 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: boo yah >Steve: >What's there to debate? ; ) The Clash tribute lived up to all the hype! > >Coldplay's performance with the New York Philharmonic was pretty amazing too. I'd debate both of those points. ;) But...the Flaming Lips won a Grammy! That's the bottom line. :) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:58:33 -0600 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: boo yah Steve: > What's there to debate? ; ) The Clash tribute lived up to all the > hype! I don't know 'bout that, but there's no debating that Gwen Stefani could help me get my freak on anytime at all. Hell, maybe she'd find my freak and decide it hadn't been freaky enough lately, then maybe her and Norah would work on it together. Freak city. Michael "and don't get me started on Faith Hill" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:03:51 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: boo yah On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 07:38 PM, Jason Brown ((Echo Services Inc)) wrote: > Steve t wrote: >> What's there to debate? ; ) The Clash tribute lived up to all the >> hype! Plus, Elvis Costello, appropriately, opened AND closed the set. > > Really I thought it sucked mightily! That's a damn shame. What, in your opinion, sucked about it? (well, besides Steve Van Zandt's singing in a faux English accent, it pretty much rocked) - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:05:26 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: boo yah On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 07:45 PM, Eb wrote: >> Steve: >> What's there to debate? ; ) The Clash tribute lived up to all the >> hype! >> >> Coldplay's performance with the New York Philharmonic was pretty >> amazing too. > > I'd debate both of those points. ;) Go for it! > But...the Flaming Lips won a Grammy! That's the bottom line. :) One interpretation of a line perhaps. I was happy to see them win and even stayed up late to catch the beginning of 120 Minutes (which the Lips hosted last night) - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:06:59 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: boo yah On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 07:58 PM, Michael Wells wrote: > I don't know 'bout that, but there's no debating that Gwen Stefani > could > help me get my freak on anytime at all. Not with that song she performed last night though! Terrible selection. > Michael "and don't get me started on Faith Hill" Wells Yeah, what WAS she thinking in that Tina Turner get-up? (though her legs could go on forEVER) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:22:37 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: boo yah >>Steve t wrote: >>>What's there to debate? ; ) The Clash tribute lived up to all the >>>hype! Plus, Elvis Costello, appropriately, opened AND closed the set. >> >>Really I thought it sucked mightily! > >That's a damn shame. What, in your opinion, sucked about it? I don't think it "sucked," but basically, you had four singers with really raw, phlegmy voices which became four times MORE raw and phlegmy when combined. It was overkill. It found it grating as much as "rocking." It was like a karaoke smackdown to see who could shred his vocal cords first. Offhand, I'd say Springsteen won. Also, Little Steven felt out of place to me...he didn't fit, because he's such a minor figure when compared with the other three. Made me wonder if Bono pulled a last-minute cancel. As for Coldplay, I'd say that was a stellar example of a weak song dressed up with an orchestra to give a false air of importance. Vanessa Carlton (jeez, she gets on my nerves) pulled the same manuever. It's a favorite Grammy trick. Meanwhile, the Coldplay singer's tortured piano-bashing was just about unwatchable. Eb, asking the musical question "Does Paul Simon even WANT to perform anymore?" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:24:18 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: Re: The complicity of France (was: anti-war movement) At 10:33 AM 2/24/2003 -0500, The Great Quail wrote: >I am sorry, and with all due respect for your father's postwar experiences, >you and Marcy are really arguing from an emotional stance with little >respect for the facts. For instance, let's look at France, the main European >bone of contention here. The political/economic ties not withstanding, I don't think it's a disrespect for facts to consider that there are more than political/economic ties involved here. We have economic ties (remember the oil fields?) ourselves. The point is that George Bush and his cronies have no reason whatsoever to just ravage Iraq. The Europeans remember what it was like to have their countries ripped apart because of a dictator, they remember how many people died and they remember the aftermath. Going into Iraq is not just about going into Iraq, it's also about what happens to the rest of the world once it begins. Anyone alive today should realize that an American attack on Iraq will be used as an excuse by other militants to attack citizens of the countries that take part in the attack. I think it would be melodramatic to say a world war would occur, but if I were a terrorist, I'd think this would be an opportunity to attack the US again while the gov't isn't paying attention to what's going on at home. Bush has already basically given up on improving the economy and is so focused on trying to convince us all that we need to bomb and kill lots of people (who made us king of the world anyway? I think I was asleep that day) that he's ignoring the masses of unemployed folks who are going to suffer here at home from things like lack of health care, lack of food, lack of services because the economy is so bad. It's easy for Americans to sit at home in their easy chairs, watching tv or reading web sites, deciding when and how people half-way around the world should live and die because it's been a very, very long time since any of us had to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of a war fought on our own soil. Most of the people saying we have to have this so-called war aren't even involved in the fight, they're not on the front lines, not in the gov't, not sending their own kids/brothers/husbands/wives/fathers to be killed. Is it emotional, you bet your ass it is because it's emotion we're all going to feel when it's over and we have to face what we've done. What gives us the right to decide that Iraqies should die because of the possibility that they could build an A-bomb? We've got A-bombs and worse, does that mean Canada could come down and bomb us next? Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:59:02 -0800 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Sublime/ridiculous Replying to James Dignan about Nick Hornby's Fever Pitch: Not sure I'd be interested in reading a book about soccer, and you say the movie is only distantly related to the book? High Fidelity was a fun movie, though I haven't read the book yet. Replying to Quail: I'm sure you have very good reasons for America waging war on Iraq, but the nefarious past of France will not be one of them. Half of the world is made up of women and I would guess 98% of us are anti-war. Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:39:28 -0600 From: "James Francis" Subject: Luxor and Nextdoorland Hello from an occasional member and reader. Pardon me if I've missed it, but I keep checking in with the archives for some discussion of the new album, Luxor, and I haven't seen anything at all! Doesn't anyone know anything about the new record? I saw the set list for the Arizona show and there didn't seem to be any new songs, so . . . maybe it's not a collection of new songs? I thought I'd read that it was supposed to be an acoustic album, and since I think _Eye_ is far and away his best work, this news had me full of anticipation . . . have I missed something? Please pass along whatever you may know. Thanks! Jim (who loves Nextdoorland more and more as time goes by) The only reason I down so much beer is to see into the future. --Bohumil Hrabal * * * * * Who is Aging Nigel? * * * * * Find out who's green and who's not! Use Care2's Green Thumbs-up! http://www.care2.com/go/z/4029 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:21:32 -0600 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: Sublime/ridiculous From: "Marcy Tanter" > The political/economic ties not withstanding, I don't think it's a > disrespect for facts to consider that there are more than > political/economic ties involved here. We have economic ties (remember the > oil fields?) ourselves. Yes, we're going to war because of oil. > The point is that George Bush and his cronies have > no reason whatsoever to just ravage Iraq. The Europeans remember what it > was like to have their countries ripped apart because of a dictator, they > remember how many people died and they remember the aftermath. What? I may be mis-interpreting this...are you suggesting the ravaging and mass murder in Europe should have continued unchecked, because too many people would later die in the battles to contain, and finally defeat, the madmen who incited the damn things in the first place? Madness. With the Saddameister it is much more conflicted, in that we gave free rein when it suited our political and economic goals and now call him out when he's become thorny again. It's too convenient an excuse to call him a murderer that must be stopped NOW when he was killing his own people on our payroll not 20 years ago. > Going into > Iraq is not just about going into Iraq, it's also about what happens to the > rest of the world once it begins. Anyone alive today should realize that > an American attack on Iraq will be used as an excuse by other militants to > attack citizens of the countries that take part in the attack. I think they have proven, beyond the shadow of all doubt, that they were already prepared to do that. > Is it emotional, you bet your ass it is because it's emotion we're > all going to feel when it's over and we have to face what we've done. What > gives us the right to decide that Iraqies should die because of the > possibility that they could build an A-bomb? We've got A-bombs and worse, > does that mean Canada could come down and bomb us next? Bring 'em on! Actually, I've been advocating for a pre-emptive strike on Canada for awhile now. Wipe out Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette in one go and turn the place into a giant, frozen penal colony. With caribou. Barbara: > Replying to Quail: I'm sure you have very good reasons for America > waging war on Iraq, but the nefarious past of France will not be one of > them. In a weird way, I think that's exactly what he was saying. Michael "see? I told you I wasn't going to be drawn into this" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:28:40 -0500 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: PQ boo yah On 24 Feb 2003 at 17:15, Ken Ostrander wrote: > i'd like to see quebec become it's own independent state. Really? Why? > aren't there several different resolutions? that should divy up the vote. They've already taken the issue to the people of Quebec. The vote was "no". Twice. It's democracy as a test, with the government generously giving you as many trials as you need to get the right answer. Then you're locked in "like lobsters in a pot" (a quote from Jacques Parizeau, the Parti Quebecois leader at the time of the last referendum.) When they lost the first time they said "If I understand correctly, you mean to say 'until next time' " (Rene Levesque). When they lost a second time, they publicly blamed "money and the ethnic vote" (J.P. again) The two campaigns pushed the "yes" option before there was even a question! The most recent campaign posters attached the word "oui" to pictures of flowers, globes and dollar coins instead. Vote yes to flowers! Yes to dollars! Yes to the world! Now they're waiting for "winning conditions" and a "winning question". I had thought that when the people expressed their will and it was acted on, *they* won. I lived here when the Parti Quebecois had their first term in office. Their first bill of law was one establishing the primacy of french by outlawing english. The day the law took effect, the streets were lined with people painting out english wording from signs, some happy, some nervous. It wasn't Kristallnacht, but it didn't look like the start of anything healthy. Funny. I thought I was too weary of this bullshit to be angry anymore. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:58:57 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: London area shows On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Marc Holden wrote: > Hey there London area Hitchcock fans-- > I'm just trying to get a bit of information here. Are there any > interesting concerts in the London area between the 26th of February and the > 4th of March? Any show information or links to sites that might list London > area concerts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot, Marc Dear Sid Griffin fans, There have been some changes to the touring schedule, including a newly added London show on 27th February. The Coal Porters Bluegrass band: 27th February - London, England - Ryan's Bar 181 Stoke Newington Church St, N16 0UL; onstage at 9pm Prima Records also now have copies for sale of the recent Italian live compilation CD 'Worldwide Live 1997-2002'. Full details of the above and more info on the tour dates below can be found at the usual place - http://www.sidgriffin.com Best wishes, Phil. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:49:12 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Re: sold out I'll be hard to reach after tomorrow afternoon. It looks like the Foyer Bar (Royal Festival Hall) will work out pretty well for anyone interested in meeting up before the show. Talk to you soon, Marc If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you did." Jack Handey - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Holden" To: ; Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 8:49 AM Subject: re: sold out > >Yes,I got the last ticket on thursday,the worst seat in the house > >apparently,but who cares,I just have to be there! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:19:12 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: trivia I heard Raymond Chandler Evening on NPR once before, about 5 years ago - can't remember the context, just that they only played the intro, no words, and I was roused from a stupor by Robyn's familiar guitar tone. That was when I realized that he's got the most distinctive guitar tone that nobody ever talks about. At 3:18 PM -0600 2/23/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "steve" and whispered: >Raymond Chandler Evening just played on This American Life. This >week's topic --- private detective wannabes. > > > > >- Steve MacFeg, who just got a beige G3 MT and a Color Classic off eBay > >__________ >Do you think Americans should ask God to grant George W. Bush the power >to fly? House majority whip Tom DeLay, the ability to predict the >future? Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, X-ray vision? In a prayer >written for the National Day of Prayer, May 2, the Reverend Lloyd >Olgivie, the Senate chaplain, asks God to "bless our President, >Congress, and all our leaders with supernatural power." He didn't >beseech God to endow them with strength and wisdom--a more reasonable >request--but to make them superheroes. - David Corn - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:16:25 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re:The station Several other club owners on the tour have supposedly stepped forward and said that the band had cleared pyros with them before the shows, and didn't use them when it was denied. I'm not online right now, though, so can't substantiate it. At 2:31 PM -0800 2/23/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Eb" and whispered: >>Here's a >>link to The Smoking Gun site with the band's standard rider (nothing about >>pyro): http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/greatwhite1.html > >Yeah, I already looked at this a night or two ago. Be sure to look at >the last page of the rider, which has an explicit diagram of the >stage setup with no indication of pyro cannons (or whatever you call >'em). That *is* the "smoking gun," as far as I'm concerned. > >Oh, here's some compelling reading: >http://www.metal-sludge.com/GWGeorgeEmail.htm > >Eb - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:11:26 -0800 (PST) From: Perry Amberson Subject: REAP http://www.undercover.com.au/20030225_howieepstein.html - -Perry ____________________________________________ Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:12:43 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: The complicity of France (was: anti-war movement) I am not apologizing for more politics, because those who are sick are free to delete -- the thread is pretty clearly marked. First of all, I do believe that there are some good arguments *against* invading Iraq. It saddens me to see that Marcy, like so many other protesters, cannot move above the emotional, "War is bad" argument to prevent a reasonable and mature critique. Marcy writes, > The political/economic ties not withstanding, I don't think it's a > disrespect for facts to consider that there are more than > political/economic ties involved here. You seem to locate the sole reason for France's reluctance on their acknowledgement of the horrors of war. I pointed out that for a nation concerned with such horror, it's awfully odd that they'd supply so many arms to belligerent nations. >We have economic ties (remember the > oil fields?) ourselves. I believe that I have stated this in my posts to great lengths. In no way to I think our goals are purely uncompromised by oil or power. >The point is that George Bush and his cronies have > no reason whatsoever to just ravage Iraq. False, false, false. There are several reasons, and I'll give them: 1. Saddam's dictatorship is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, and that's not counting the dead Iranians and Kuwaitis. That's counting only the people ostensibly under his own protection, from the Kurdish towns he has *annihilated* to the thousands of tortured and murdered civilians to countless members of his own regime that he has brutally executed. This includes things from before the Iran-Iraq War, during the Gulf-War, and especially during the last decade, in his brutal attempts to quell insurrections and uprisings. Liberating a country from an unpopular and murderous dictatorship is always a reason for war, and in my opinion, one of the best ones. I invite you to look into his rule -- his penchant for ecological disaster, his draining of the swamps to murder the southern "Marsh Arabs," his machine-gunning down of crowds, his refusals of oil-for-food arrangements, his selling of medicine to the Yemeni black market, and so on.... And by the way, just because the Reagan administration overlooked -- and even supported -- his evil in the name of opposing Iran, it doesn't mean that the current United States government needs to do the same. Good article drawing a parallel to East Timor: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25HORT.html 2. In the last decade of sanctions/containment/inspections, Iraq has consistently flouted the UN regulations. He is allowed to do this because as the post-Gulf War years ticked away, the P-5 members of the security council grew less concerned with Iraq -- except, of course, unless its oil was concerned. Especially your beloved France -- who flagrantly betrayed the US when they abstained from voting for renewed inspections at the last second in 1999. Why did they do this? Because Iraq threatened to award oil contracts to Russia instead of France. The fact is, Iraq has been playing a long, long game of stalling and blocking inspections, to think that suddenly "four more months" is any different from the last decade of stalling tactics is simply naove. Saddam knows that unless we roll in the tanks and planes, he has all the time he needs to acquire whatever weapons he can, from VX nerve gas to nuclear materials. So failure to comply with inspections is a legitimate reason for war, yes. 3. There are other reasons for war that are more in terms of national self-interest than merely the oil. It is a FACT that Saddam is trying to procure nuclear weaponry. It is a FACT that his Ba'th regime has expansionist tendencies. It is a FACT that he has threatened, post-Gulf War, to nuke Tel Aviv. You figure it out. >The Europeans remember what it > was like to have their countries ripped apart because of a dictator, Exactly. Which would make you think that they would have been more eager to intervene when they saw it happening in Africa and Yugoslavia. > Anyone alive today should realize that > an American attack on Iraq will be used as an excuse by other militants to > attack citizens of the countries that take part in the attack. First of all, Marcy, the terrorism-war against us has already started. In case you might have missed it, the Islamic Jihad has been attacking us for years now. You think these maniacal barbarians are really waiting to see whether or not we topple the secularist Ba'th regime? But nevertheless, I still find your moral reasoning shaky here. So, we are never to wage war if it means that our civilians might be put in jeopardy? We might as well throw in the towel right now and hide our heads in the sand. >I think it > would be melodramatic to say a world war would occur, More than melodramatic, I would say both hysterical and woefully uninformed. >Bush > has already basically given up on improving the economy and is so focused > on trying to convince us all that we need to bomb and kill lots of people > (who made us king of the world anyway? I think I was asleep that day) that > he's ignoring the masses of unemployed folks who are going to suffer here > at home from things like lack of health care, lack of food, lack of > services because the economy is so bad. Look, I agree with you that Bush is playing havoc with the economy. I hate Bush, I think he's a terrible president. But I have learned to decouple my hatred of Bush with my judgment about all current US policy, and I am increasingly of the mind that if we can follow through with an Iraqi reconstruction, the war is just. (My big fear is that Bush will falter horribly on this element.) Again -- IF WE HAVE VIABLE PLANS FOR A RECONSTRUCTION. But so far, we don't -- and that's the only think making me hesitate giving my full support to the war. > It's easy for Americans to sit at home in their easy chairs, watching tv or > reading web sites, deciding when and how people half-way around the world > should live and die because it's been a very, very long time since any of > us had to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of a war fought on our own > soil. Marcy, no offense, but I feel it is *you* who are living in the comfort of an easy chair. I have been reading account after account of Saddam's misrule. Would a war kill innocent people? Yes. Would it kill American soldiers? Yes. Would it cost billions of dollars? Yes. Would the reconstruction place an immense burden on the United States? Yes. But when it comes down to it, I feel that, historically speaking, it is the right decision to make. A new Iraq could create a lot of positive change in that region, and a new, democratically-structured Iraq would certainly murder less of its citizenry than a Ba'thist Iraq. Not to mention the fact that, once Saddam gets nuclear weapons, the stakes change dramatically. You want to live in a world where Iraq has the bomb? Oh, wait, I forget -- you are more afraid of the United States nuking Canada. This is the real world, and tyranny, murder, war, and misrule are part of it. While the tragedy of a single dead innocent is itself a universe of horror, these emotional aspects cannot be used *solely* to guide international policy. The people under Saddam suffer horribly. We can change this. While I may not be happy about some of the context, the oil, the Bushies, the double-dealing with Israel and the Saudis, I still feel that things will only get worse in the future if we do not act soon. >Most of the people saying we have to have this so-called war aren't > even involved in the fight, they're not on the front lines, not in the > gov't, not sending their own kids/brothers/husbands/wives/fathers to be > killed. That's the way of the world, Marcy. Especially given that our armed forced are voluntary. >Is it emotional, you bet your ass it is because it's emotion we're > all going to feel when it's over and we have to face what we've done. What > gives us the right to decide that Iraqies should die because of the > possibility that they could build an A-bomb? We've got A-bombs and worse, > does that mean Canada could come down and bomb us next? Hey! I have an idea! Since you have put so much thought and research into your opinion, why don't you present this argument to the UN! I'm sure your lucidity, reason, and sense of Realpolitik will win the day. - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #67 *******************************