From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #70 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 070 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: boo yah [with Stuart Scott in the Hizzouse] [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: cross my heart and swear to die ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Iraq re: Jeffrey ["matt sewell" ] Iraq around the clock ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Time for a new subject line, methinks [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Digna] Re: That there whole war thingy ["Kenneth Johnson" ] Re: Sublime/Ridiculous [Barbara Soutar ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:39:20 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: boo yah [with Stuart Scott in the Hizzouse] Eb wrote: > I don't really have enough hard facts to enter the war debate, > but no matter what I hear about Iran's Evil Doings, I still I assume you mean Iraq. > can't help but wonder if this is all just a case of Dubya > switching his Big Bad from Osama to Saddam because the War on > Terrorism wasn't producing enough "sexy" results. More like there isn't enough light in the alleyway to find the keys he lost there, so he's going to go look out by the streetlamp instead. ===== "Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in very nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies." -- F.M. Cornford "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt . Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:41:15 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: boo yah [with Stuart Scott in the Hizzouse] >Eb wrote: >> I don't really have enough hard facts to enter the war debate, >> but no matter what I hear about Iran's Evil Doings, I still > >I assume you mean Iraq. Oops. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:43:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: The complicity of France (was: anti-war movement) The Great Quail wrote: > 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. But that only applies to Chirac and the government. The populace, who are also it seems mostly opposed to the war, had very little to do with those transactions. ===== "Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in very nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies." -- F.M. Cornford "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt . Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:11:58 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: OT war/politics "into the morass" On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, The Great Quail wrote: > > (BTW- pro-war/anti-bushies: How does it feel to be complicit with the > > administration you purport to despise?) > > I do not "purport" to despise it. I truly do despise it. And to answer your > question, it feels ugly and confusing. Think about it this way, Quail: this being "complicit" with a President you despise at least proves that you're willing to look at the arguments for war on their own merits, instead of just blurting out a knee-jerk response. Not that I've seen anyone do that.... This thread has gone too far, too fast, for me to respond to everything that I might like to. But here is a handy summary of my thinking about the war, circa 25 Feb. 2003: I think there are actually a lot of good arguments for the war -- Saddam's regime is both evil and a real menace to the rest of the world. However, I also that there is a real risk that war would turn other Arab/Muslim nations against us (imagine if nuclear-armed Pakistan fell under the control of Taliban 2.0!), that the war might spread, and that Iraq itself could become a bloody quagmire. The risks of war seem to me to be greater than the risks of not going to war, so I lean slightly toward the no-war side. But if/when the war does start, I'll reluctantly but definitely come down on Bush's side: once peace is no longer an option, the best remaining possibility is for a quick US-and-whoever-joins-us victory. But, finally, I strongly suspect that Bush and co. will manage the postwar situation in Iraq as badly as they have in Afghanistan, perhaps worse; and meanwhile, the war against al-Qaeda will continue to meander along unsuccessfully. I'm deeply pessimistic about the whole situation. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:25:36 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: cross my heart and swear to die Ken wrote: > > i wonder if everyone had the bomb, would we all > be safer? what, like ? (apologies if other Bob fans -- of which I know there are several on the list -- got there first) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:28:28 -0800 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: Re: OT war/politics "into the morass" Quail writes: > >Also, again, I am not really sure I *do* support the war, because I do not >trust Bush or the aftermath. But I certainly see the argument for an >invasion. I understand your position a lot better after reading your last few posts. Thanks for sticking with it, but dont feel you have to debate every anti-war position. also forgive my cynical idealism. I am a pascifist through and through and I will be first to admit that sometimes that may take me out of the realistic world for a minute. Quail writes: >They are not, and they have not been working for many years....The very >next second he is back to his old tricks.... OK I still say the inspections are producing more results than ever before. I think it is making progress. A drop in the bucket maybe, but preferable to all out war with an invasion could very well provoke. I concur regarding Saddam's character and his ambitions. Saddam needs to go, for sure, but I still am not convinced that aggresive force is the way to do it. Quail: >and Saddam just keeps getting more and more powerful as containment erodes. I disagree. Yes this shit has been continuing for over a decade, but Since the recent UN resolution containment has been streghten not eroded. at least that is my impression from following the inspection circus on the news. Quail:>I think he should be removed, period. yes and even though a successful peaceful solutions hasnt come to fruition yet, must we abandon any alternative to an invasion force? I cannot support the Georgie regime's mandate to wage pertual war whereever and whenever it wants. and I feel we must make a stand here. I don't believe the situation merits the sense of urgency the executive administration gives it. > Me:> > Sanctions and inspections are working. > Quail:>Again, I am afraid this view -- while "popular" -- is actually based more on >wishful thinking. Read up on the last decade of sanctions and inspections, >and it is self-evident that they are not, in fact, working. point to the evidence that says Saddam and Iraq have been successful at maintaining a WMD program. show me the records that say he has more of these WMD now than when the inspections have started. Now, if these things do exist, as well they could, tell me how invading the country will help the situation. if this clandestine machinery of war he is allegedly harboring exists how does deposing the despot suddenly bring it to light and dispose of it root and all. I dont have a viable solution all that mind you > Quail: >Bear in mind, I went into this with the same opinion. It's only through >spending a month or so studying the issue that my eyes have opened up >to>what's been going on behind the sound bites. I try to read and listen to as much as I can bear on the topics at hand. My media diet goes well beyond the sound byte. I may not have read as many books on the subject as you, but I am much more informed to than most Americans on the matter. Time permitting I would like to peruse more, but for now the cliff notes from well-read people like you will have to suffice. > Me:> > The UN or some similar body should approach the council of Arab nations with > > a peaceful proposal to do away with Hussein. The Arab neighbors >understand > > by now the alternative to leaving him in power, which is to let the >raving > > lunatic American regime off its UN leash. Quail: >??? I can't even believe I'm reading this statement. The amount of >ignorance, naivety, and reflexive anti-Americanism it shows is appalling! >First of all: "some similar body?" Like what, NATO? OPEC? The Rotary Club? the American government or any other government that could act on this. Since the UN is as you point out, not a unified body. Which is why I used there word "body" instead of group or organization. "some similar body" is poorly phrased, I will admit. I should have said "a body with similar diplomatic capabilities". There is a league of Arab Nations and I was suggesting that they be addressed with regard to regime change in Iraq as I believe they have. They dont want war either and they have a more immediate stake in the situ than our government. Even though they rarely act as a unit, they might hold sway over the situation. maybe not. "raving lunatic regime" is an exaggeration for effect. I do think it has some not so sane tedencies and policies. I do not like them politically. forgive my rhetoric > Me :> > Marcy has a great idea, lets take all those fat, pompous, armchair war > > mongers and give them each a rifle and maybe some ammo and a gas-mask >then > > ship their ass to Iraq. >Quail: >By that you mean, me. At least that seems to be the implication, as that's >what Marcy wrote about me. actually no. If you suggest I wish you in harm's way because of your theorectical support of military action, that's not the case at all. (nor do I think that was Marcy's point either) I was thinking specifically of Limbaugh and his ilk and their shrill ravings. >Wow, you really are on a tear, aren't you? hehehe yes that was a little bit too much wasn't it? It was obviously not to be taken literally. I dont really subscribe to any warlike fascist tenets. so that paragraph was a jibe a jest a satire. did you think I honestly was honestly backing those suggestions? beyond being unrealistic they are purposely absurd. I do think, however, that if those who were so enamoured of war had to meet its ugly realities they might change their position. That was just a colorful way of saying that. Me:> > Can anyone seriously suggest that there is no alternative to perpetual war? > > If this is true, allow me to be cynical and say, let the nukes fly, >because > > thats what perpetual war means: mass-suicide. >Quail>OK, Captain Johnson, we have now left the earth and any sphere of >rational >debate on this issue.... "captain johnson" hehehehe point taken, my intentionally gross exaggeration aside, how can perpetual war not spell doom for the human race on some level? Me:> > War will do nothing better that a peaceful regime change and further > > inspector-assisted cleaning up of the weapons cache wont. Quail: > >Right, because we all know that peaceful regime change and >inspector-assisted cleaning up is such an option when dealing with >history's >dictators, tyrants, and psychopaths. Jesus, you can hate war, but at least >try to be somewhat realistic. I do recognize the necessity to be realistic. There is nothing that says war is the only option in these cases. It could potentially be solved another way. You are forcing an absolute here that is disturbing. to say the only way to deal with the tyrants and psychopaths is to be one. Me: > > We have crazy megalomaniacs all over the globe of all colors and stripes > > threatening world peace. If we depose them all and allow peaceful >democracy > > to flourish that would be ideal for sure. We all know that is not about >to > > happen, but it would be nice. > Quail: >And how do you propose doing this without the use for force? Even >containment and deterrence imply the use of force. We do not live in an >ideal world, so we must work with realistic solutions to attain ideal >goals. It is true that these things require force, which is why I dont propose them. I said it would be nice, but impossible. I wasnt offering this as a solution merely a whimsical sigh. we do not live in an ideal world, too true. I wish for realistic solutions that do not include war that's all. Kenneth _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:56:31 -0500 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: That there whole war thingy So here's my whole thing. I'm actually hearing a lot of intelligent debate on this topic, here and elsewhere, but I have no interest in participating myself for the following reason: the war is going to happen. That's been clear for a long time. Personally I'm against it, but articulating why I'm against it ain't gonna stop it. So the constant talk about it is starting to drive me crazy. I'm finding myself in the odd position of wishing that something I don't want to happen would just go ahead and happen, soon. I see an ocean of rancid uncertainty on the other side of this action. Bad things are going to happen to America and to Americans, I figure, but I'd just as soon start to be able to figure out what those things are and what to do about them. From my current position, though, all I can really tell is that we're going to war... I'm nervously anxious to find out what happens after that. Essentially, it sucks to be powerless to stop something, but it seems to suck even more to be powerless to stop it for so long that you get not just frustrated but eventually numb, and ultimately bored. Is anyone else going nuts here? Or am I just being a lazy, defeatist and/or simply bad person? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:54:56 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Iraq re: Jeffrey Oh really? Which Imperial trappings are you comfortable with? American democracy (Nov 2000 elections)? American moral authority (export of weapons to a long list of countries, some dictatorships, with a horrendous record of human rights abuses including er, Iraq)? The free market economy, American-style (forcing other countries to open their markets while protecting their own)? American freedom (the rich in gated, secure areas with enormous tax cuts and SUVs while the poor rot)? America's commitment to the environment (commitment to fuck it over completely)? You say the UN is badly compromised, but hey, you're willing to go with the US govt's idea of morality, eh? If you think the present administration has any interest in a democratic Iraq then you most certainly have another think coming. If you can't see that the present US administration is currently the biggest threat to global security and global livelihoods well, I really don't know what to suggest. I can understand if you love and are proud of your country, but when I hear the word Imperial, I reach for my shot gun... Cheers Matt >From: The Great Quail >Jeffrey, I agree with you in the ideal sense. But sadly, I think the UN is >so badly compromised, they lack the moral authority needed to make these >sort of decisions. The fact is, I am probably more comfortable with the role >of the US as a superpower than you are, and I am certainly more comfortable >with *some* of its Imperial trappings. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's fast, it's easy and it's free! Click here to download MSN Messenger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:54:48 -0500 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: Iraq around the clock T.G.Q. & Mr. Two F's: >>> Again -- IF WE HAVE VIABLE PLANS FOR A >>> RECONSTRUCTION. > >> And we don't, and are very unlikely to do so...and even if we did, >> it's highly questionable that we *could* do so or that it would be >> successful. >I think it could be successful if we put our resources to it. But sadly, I >agree with you, we have no good plans, and that stops me from fully >supporting the invasion. This the crux of the matter, at least for "liberal hawks" like Quail (and, to a lesser extent, myself), but I draw different conclusions from the absence of such plans (at least publicly announced plans). For me, the utter failure of the Admin to (a) come up with a viable vision for a post-Saddam Iraq; (b) to devise a workable strategy for getting us there; and (c) most tellingly, to "sell" the US (and World) populace on the merits of such a plan, completely undermines the otherwise forceful arguments made in favor of military intervention in Iraq. IF the Bushies *really* had humanitarian, terror-reducing, peace-promoting, Israel-protecting, Democracy-inducing goals FIRST and FOREMOST in mind, they would have been lobbying for public support for the post-Saddam "nation building" enterprise since day 1 (and, given the US's recent disastrous half-measures in nation building -- Somalia and Haiti to name but two -- they would certainly need to do a lot of convincing to win over the American electorate (and, yes, I mean electorate, not populace)). If you accept as true that the Bushie W.H. isn't (primarily) interested in sticking around long enough to ensure that viable democratic systems and human rights protections (not to mention economic infrastructure) are built into the post-Saddam Iraq, what does that tell you about the actual motivations (and announced justifications) for the intended "invasion"? It is not logically inconsistent to maintain that the Bushies actually believe in the expressed party line about putting a stop to Saddam's bloody repression of Iraqis and ending his (actual and potential) threat to the rest of the world. However, I find it hard to swallow that these are the "real" or motivating factors at work: if they were, surely the administration (which employs bright people, regardless of the low wattage emanating from the Oval Office) would already be making the case for nation building post-invasion. I take it that Quail's response to the argument that "this is about oil, not human rights" (vastly oversimplified, but you know what I'm talking about) is basically: if Action X is warranted (morally, let's say) because of Good Reasons 1, 2, and 3, it is OK to support someone who proposes to take Action X even if they are motivated by Wrong Reasons 4, 5, and 6 (and maybe a little of Good Reason 1). In other words, if I want to break down a locked door because there is a person being robbed inside whom I want to assist, it's OK to join forces with a guy who wants to get inside to rob the apartment upstairs as well. The analogy is flawed -- I'm NOT saying that Quail (or other liberal hawks) are actively or passively supporting the conduct which may follow (here, the upstairs robbery) the agreed-upon action (breaking down the door). What I am saying is that you have to be suspect about the motivations for the (seemingly) agreed-upon actions (breaking down the door or toppling bloody dictators) because the motivations provide strong evidence of whether the other party's actions (or follow through) will really be the ones you want to support. As the last Gulf War surely taught us (if not Bushie), half-measures will do no good in Iraq (just ask the Shia and Kurds who thought that we would support their post-Gulf War uprising, as Quail recognizes), particularly if the regime (as opposed to merely its current leader) is not ousted and replaced by a free and democratic government. Indeed, there is every possibility that half-measures will do more harm than good (on top of the "collateral damage" to civilian populations inherent in any invasion, imagine an Iraq with Saddam's hand-picked successor in power, dealing out reprisals to the Kurds, Shia, Kuwaitis, Israelis, etc; the "martyrdom" of Saddam in his "valiant" struggle against the Imperialist US "menace" being used as the recruiting video for the next wave of suicide bombers; the reprisals by terrorists against US citizens for the attack against Iraq; & etc). All in all, I'm not convinced that Bushie has the moral or political courage to do what's right in Iraq and will lose interest once control of the country's oil reserves has been placed in more secure hands (namely, ours or our allies'), several hundred billions have been spent on military equipment which will then have to be replaced (by his campaign contributors in the military supplier markets), and, of course, once he is able to secure Saddam's stuffed and mounted head to present to Daddy-O for his next birthday present. I just can't get behind the war effort unless and until I am convinced that we are prepared to go all the way. - -ed "sorry about the .sig" poole ============================================================================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: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:59:08 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Time for a new subject line, methinks That sneaky, clever Eb, noting there was no post-Grammy debate, wrote: >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. ...upon saying which, post-Grammy debate suddenly started! - --- >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. well, it's "based on the book", I suppose. But it turns an autobiographical account of a soccer fan into a love story where the protagonist is torn between his love for one woman and football. Not quite the same thing. But enjoyable, nonetheless - especially if you enjoyed the likes of "About a boy". - --- >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! I wonder what would have happened if the referendum question had then been reworded "I vote that Quebec remain part of Canada - YES/NO"... - --- although I'm getting thoroughly sick of the Gulf politics doing the rounds on this list at the moment, I will add the following: >>Deposing Hussein (why do people call him Saddam?) > >Heh -- I just learned this last week, actually. It's because his name *is* >Saddam. Arabic names are not like ours. He is "Saddam, son of Hussein." >Hussein is not a family name, nor is it disrespectful to call him "Saddam," >as it would be to call our president "George." But by that system, you'd have to. He'd be George George. And surel.y it's less of an insult to call him George than Dubya. One intriguing thing, though, is the number of people still referring to SUH-d'm Hussein rather than Suh-DAHM Hussein. The former is apparently a fairly sizable insult in Arabic. Oh, and I suspect that most of Quail's arguments (except the oil one, of course) are far more applicable to North Korea than they are to Iraq, yet diplomacy is still the order of the day there. >> If Saddam has weapons or weapons programs, war will not deter their use, >> they will encourage it. A pre-emptive war by American forces will lead >> directly to the use of the weapons it seeks to prevent and contain. > >Not if he doesn't have them yet. see, here's the rub. If he doesn't have them yet, and you seem convinced he wants them, then the sanctions are working and war is not necessary. If he has got them, then the sanctions are not working but war is already too late to wage "comfortably" (feh). As for the US's aim being to go in and replace Saddam with a new regime, isn't that how he got there in the first place? Who's to say that the new regime would be any better? (What was that old children's story - the Frog King or something?) >i distrust the "security council". i'm sure that a general assembly vote >would be very different indeed. given that the 116 countries currently meeting at the Non-aligned Nations Summit have come out almost unanimously supporting the continuation of inspections and condemning the moves towards war, that is quite a possibility. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:28:20 -0800 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: Re: That there whole war thingy REX wrote: >Essentially, it sucks to be powerless to stop something, but it seems to >suck even more to be powerless to stop it for so long that you get not just >frustrated but eventually numb, and ultimately bored. Is anyone else going >nuts here? Or am I just being a lazy, defeatist and/or simply bad person? I feel the same way sometimes. When I'm not having a knee-jerk reaction to evil in the world, I can always fall back on despair. ;) Seriously, everyone must feel the same anxiety about the outcome of the present situation. Even beyond this topic though, any sentient being with a conscience(regardless of his/her position on or relation to issue/object may be)will experience a commonality of powerlessness. Add to that, the threat of impending death and destruction and that feeling can really sink even the strongest of wills. For issues of lesser gravity where I may find myself unable to control the outcome of something which may effect me personally (i.e. local elections), I am able to let go and accept what comes. In the case of potential world war and human suffering, I often am unable to shrug it off. It will lurk everywhere and tease me with my inability to do anything about it. I can understand how ignoring or being numb to that sometimes is the only way to make it through the day without weeping, shouting or tearing the hair. You are not alone. It's a human coping mechanism, I'm sure. I doubt it makes one a bad person. Kenneth _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:58:26 -0500 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: cross my heart and swear to die On 25 Feb 2003 at 16:20, Ken Ostrander wrote: > 'autumn sea' makes the most sense. at the very end of the song is >the "ahhh...october", which would make it the easiest thing to > remember, >other than the storytelling in the middle. what's that > all about anyhow? i can never figure out what 'the fellow whose > name i can't remember' is talking about. "rotten things > lefts...and women" hmmm... I heard it the same way until somefeg set me straight. It's "rum things" -- an expression I'd never heard before I joined the list. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:23:52 -0500 (EST) From: Jill Brand Subject: that old chopped liver feeling Tom Clark wrote: " I guess I'll just have to be content with Aaron's harvard.edu addy for the time being." Gee, thanks! jlbrand@bu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:44:09 -0800 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: Sublime/Ridiculous Barbara furthers with, > 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. Quail says this: ''This wins the award for the most senseless thing said about the current crises I have yet to read. If you have a real point to make, I invite you to make it, rather than deliberately misread my comments about France, followed up by an imaginary statistic." Wow, I won an award! Admittedly my debating skills are fairly dull, since there is nobody to debate against me in Canada. Meanwhile I thought that I should represent the female half of the world, there are very few of us on this list. While you were tracking down all the hidden motivations behind those who are against war, in some cases it can just be a matter of being female. Note that I never said Saddam was a good person, but he has not attacked the States, so you guys would be in a position of making an unprovoked attack. By the way, my husband visited Hawaii on a business trip in November and noticed that CNN was persistantly and constantly showing photos of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein side by side on TV. This must have been where a lot of American people got the impression that the 9/11 disaster was connected with Iraq. And now when he chats on ham radio with people in the States he takes a random survey of how many are pro-war. Not many are, but those ones seem convinced that terrorists are poised to destroy major cities unless "we go and get them first". The panic about terrorism is building to the point where some parents are keeping their kids home from school, or so I read. This level of anxiety can't be good and isn't necessary. Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #70 *******************************