From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #71 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, February 26 2003 Volume 12 : Number 071 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: boo yah [rosso@videotron.ca] Re: Time for a new subject line, methinks [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: That there whole war thingy [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Sublime/Ridiculous ["matt sewell" ] Re: cross my heart and swear to die [Michael R Godwin ] RE: All Tomorrow's Parties ["Maximilian Lang" ] RE: All Tomorrow's Parties ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: OT war/politics "into the morass" [The Great Quail ] Re: Iraq re: Jeffrey [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:58:15 -0500 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: boo yah On 25 Feb 2003 at 12:12, Ken Ostrander wrote: > > i'd like to see quebec become it's own independent state. > > >Really? Why? > > quebec has its own culture and language. french-speaking quebecois are >discriminated against and generally oppressed within a larger, >english-speaking canada. this question has been going on for more > than a hundred years. since the brits originally took over. Discriminated against by the system? That's a pretty strong statement. I live here and I honestly don't think that's true. What do you know that I don't? If you mean some idiot might call a Franco-Quebecois "frog", I've been called "tete carree" (squarehead) often enough here in Quebec. There is no shortage of idiots in any place I've ever visited. > > > >> 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. > > from what i understand the votes have been very very close. doesn't sound like a mandate to me. didn't most of the no votes come from primarily english speaking montreal and most of the yes votes from the french speaking areas? and didn't premiers outside quebec state before the vote that the wouldn't deal with quebec in the event of a yes vote? > > > ken "bruce springstreet?" the kenster ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:18:36 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Time for a new subject line, methinks James Dignan wrote: > 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. What does it say about the American news media that the only national anchor pronouncing his name correctly is one on the FAKE news show on Comedy Central? It's truly pathetic. Of course, the reason (okay, my speculation of the real reason) the the pronunciation abrupted shifted was W's Pa and his advisors decided they wanted it to sound more like Sodom (since we've proven over and over we don't have an intelligence working within the Arab world, they couldn't have known it really was insulting). Why the media fell into line so quickly, the weasels are so desparate to prove they aren't liberal they'll do anything the Republicans demand of them it seems like. ===== "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 23:33:48 -0500 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: Time for a new subject line, methinks On 26 Feb 2003 at 11:59, James Dignan wrote: > >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"... Tell 'em James! It's true that a survey of Quebecois showed that many (a majority, if memory serves me) of the supporters of sovereignty for Quebec also believed they would continue to hold Canadian passports and send elected representatives to Canadian parliament. Hence the dollar coins and globes on the (never explained) campaign posters. As for the flowers, what's not to like? You gotta say "yes" to flowers unless you're some kinda monster! Both referendum questions were worded long after the campaigns began, and both were ambiguous -- the first being a single sentence of over 100 words. If you think people had trouble finding Gore on the Florida ballots, imagine them voting on that question! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:09:24 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Iraq re: Jeffrey Quoting The Great Quail : > Again, my biggest > problem is with our spectacular failure to envision a *better* postwar > Iraq. It's ironic to me that, typically, the anti-war crowd is called idealistic, unrealistic, etc. Ironic in this instance because while it seems you'd favor *a* war in Iraq, the war you'd favor is not the war that is likely to be fought. In the present situation, by your own logic, you should oppose *this* war - because it will not lead to the conclusions you desire, while in all likelihood leading to or strengthening situations you've said you do not desire. > > And none of the above suggests that war - particularly saturation > bombing - > > is the best strategy of intervention even in such cases. > > And you propose...? Just as it's fair and reasonable for you to state that, while you favor war in Iraq under certain situations, but do not feel that such support compels you actually to fight it, I will state that while I can mount any number of arguments against this war in Iraq, that doesn't mean I possess the knowledge or expertise to propose a better solution. But I can say that of all the goals the Bush administration has set forth for this war, the only one that has even a remote likelihood of coming to pass is the ouster of Saddam, which *can* be accomplished (theoretically) by other means - while many of its other stated goals move further and further from reality the more Bush beats his war drums (preventing Iraq from possessing or developing weapons of mass destruction, to name one). The likelihood of multiple and undesirable outcomes from a war is far greater than the likelihood of positive outcomes - including, I suspect, the ouster of Saddam. Frankly, if that had been the only or real goal, it should have been accomplished quietly, quickly, and efficiently by soldiers trained for such tasks. The more Bush beats those drums, the more Saddam and Iraq fortify themselves and make Saddam's ouster harder to achieve. I'm not necessarily endorsing guerrilla assassinations - only noting that such a coup would more readily - and more ethically, by my lights, since targeting only those responsible - achieve the goal of "regime change" while minimizing the loss of innocent life. On the contrary, the strategy the US military is likeliest to pursue - massive aerial bombardment - is the least ethical approach, since it maximizes civilian casualties. Historically, in fact, not only was there massive military opposition to bombardment for these reasons - but its very *purpose* was to cause those civilian deaths, and increase unrest and disarray as a result. The term was "terror bombing," and that term's inventor and chief proponent during WWII? Winston Churchill. You dismiss Marcy's arguments because for you they reduce to the simplistic "war is bad," which you take as a given but argue that sometimes it's necessary. There is, of course, a developed body of work on "just war" - and the strategies likeliest to be followed by the US military run afoul of nearly every historical limitation of "just war." And the reasoning behind US strategy is equally heinous, morally: the lesson of Vietnam, for the military, was that US audiences had little stomach for mass death of its own soldiers. So, subsequent battles have avoided the use of ground troops and the attendant heavy casualties (for us) in favor of "death from above," which is far more lethal to its targets - but whose targets are of necessity far less finely chosen, and in many cases, chosen precisely for their terroristic effect. The few military targets in Dresden, in Nagasaki, were all but left alone. The relevant targets were, in fact, to serve as a display of massive power, might, and terror, to put the *civilian* enemy population into fear, panic, and despair. (BTW, one result was that the Nazi high command in some cases pulled higher ranking officers and civilians, and in some cases regular citizens, out of areas likely to be bombed...and moved in prisoners of war, so that the Allies ended up killing many of its own imprisoned soldiers.) - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: Empire is incompatible with democracy. Democracy is founded on the :: rule of law, empire on the rule of force. Democracy is a system of :: self-determination, empire a system of military conquest. :: --Jonathan Schell ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:28:23 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: That there whole war thingy Quoting "Rex.Broome" : > 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? Nah - you're like the guy forced to walk a tightrope who's thinking of just jumping instead. Or better: the audience watching it, wishing the guy would jump instead of waiting for him to fall. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 04:07:02 -0500 From: "Terrence Marks" Subject: RE: boo yah wrote: > paul simon looked like death. does he hate art that much? Mind you, when I read this, my first thought was of Paul Simon launching into a strange diatribe about how painting lead to sterility, blindness, and lunacy. Or about Picasso, Titian, and Van Gogh contributing to moral decay and directly causing World War II. Then I read a few more messages and everybody else is talking about Mr. Garfunkel. Terrence Marks http://nice.purrsia.com http://www.unlikeminerva.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:12:28 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Sublime/Ridiculous Osama Bin Laden! I remember him! I expect he's rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of an American invasion of Iraq - if (and this is an extraordainaryly big if) Iraq has a democracy after being bombed into the stoneage, there's a good chance this would be an Islamic government, given the majority of the population. Even if this isn't the case, there'll be plenty of people who, having seen their families and homes destroyed by daisy cutters and the like, will be quite tempted to sign up with Osama's mob. Of course, I should point out this link between Osama Bin Laden and George Bush is purely circumstantial, although come to think of it, so is the link between Osama and Saddam... Cheers Matt >From: Barbara Soutar >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 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Send instant messages for free with MSN Messenger. Click here to download it now! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:24:08 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: cross my heart and swear to die On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 rosso@videotron.ca wrote: > 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. The definition I have is "Beyond or deviating from the usual or expected", though I would have added a connotation of unease or worry. Pretty well obsolescent, I would have thought, except in the phrase "Ee lad, that were a rum do". P G Wodehouse quite often uses the 'upper-class twit' variant "rummy". Stewart, any views? - - MRG n.p. Reginald Gardiner's monologue on "Trains" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:45:57 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: cross my heart and swear to die Mostly it's coves that are rum as a rule, I've found. I'm as unsure as to where coves come from as I am as to where rum comes from, though I've heard that it's the West Indies... Hmmm Matt PS, See you Sunday, Mike? Chrissy and I will be right at the back! :0( >From: Michael R Godwin > >On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 rosso@videotron.ca wrote: > > 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. > >The definition I have is "Beyond or deviating from the usual or expected", >though I would have added a connotation of unease or worry. Pretty well >obsolescent, I would have thought, except in the phrase >accent>"Ee lad, that were a rum do". > >P G Wodehouse quite often uses the 'upper-class twit' variant "rummy". > >Stewart, any views? > > >- MRG > >n.p. Reginald Gardiner's monologue on "Trains" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8 you can filter it out ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:49:04 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: cross my heart and swear to die Michael R Godwin wrote: > > Stewart, any views? yeah, thta's pretty much what I would say. The nearest modern equivalent I can think of is "edgy"; bad/good in a good/bad way. eg: you might invite a rum chap to your party knowing full well he'd get terribly drunk, wade into the fishpond naked, and do his impersonation of Botticelli's Venus using only a half-empty bottle of champagne ... Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:59:37 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: All Tomorows Parties Check out the lineups for these shows in LA and the UK. Hope the NJ show is similar! http://www.wayahead.com/atp/main.htm# Max _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:20:29 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: RE: All Tomorrow's Parties ATP now has a new site and it seems is no longer going to be held in NJ. http://www.atpfestival.com/ _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:21:08 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: RE: All Tomorrow's Parties ATP now has a new site and it seems is no longer going to be held in NJ. http://www.atpfestival.com/ _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:17:34 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: OT war/politics "into the morass" Kenneth writes, > I disagree. Yes this shit has been continuing for over a decade, but Since > the recent UN resolution containment has been streghten not eroded. The recent UN resolution is just one more among many, and if inspections are continued, in four months things will drift away from international focus again. That's part of Saddam's game. Meanwhile, the US is losing more momentum for continued patrolling of the NFZ. Iraqi oil is all over the market, not just under UN oil-for-food resolutions, but from smuggling. Numerous nations, specifically China, Russia, and Syria, have been caught smuggling in weapons components. Obviously France and Germany are losing real interest in prolonged containment, especially its more militaristic aspects. Again, I refer to Kenneth Pollack, who has written numerous articles on the erosion of containment. > yes and even though a successful peaceful solutions hasnt come to fruition > yet, must we abandon any alternative to an invasion force? I believe that the only way to remove Saddam, is by force. I believe that anything else is wishful thinking -- sanctions failed, containment failed, supporting rebels failed. Meanwhile, since the Gulf War, over three hundred thousand Iraqis have died from a combination of Saddam's purges and internal attacks, as well as his gross manipulation of sanctions. When will it end? > 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. Neither can I support such an ideal. But I do believe that this case merits it. In fact, I think an invasion now is far too late -- we should have taken care of this in 1991. Uncle Sam's hands share the blood of the aforementioned slain Iraqis. > point to the evidence that says Saddam and Iraq have been successful at > maintaining a WMD program. There is no evidence that he has a completed nuclear program, at least, yes. In fact, most experts feel he is 2-4 years away from attaining nuclear materials at the very least. However, the inspections have not worked the way they were intended -- there has been no free and unfettered access. Over and over again defectors and careful inspectors have shown that Saddam is lying, and hiding a decentralized network of development. > 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. Occupation and rebuilding of the country. I think there is no other way. > I dont have a viable solution all that mind you Mind you, I am arguing a case that I do not yet fully support. > 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 am sorry, I was not implying at all that you got your info from sound bites. I was just remarking that *I* have had my eyes opened up by additional research. > 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. Well, this is complex. There is general agreement that most Arab nations -- except maybe Syria, which runs hot and cold regarding Iraq -- would indeed like to see Saddam removed. But they don't want the US to do so, because it smacks of imperialism, it means they have to surrender territory to bases, and it undermines them on the so-called "street." Additionally, and more cynically, some Arab nations would not like to see Saddam removed because they fear a democracy in its place. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait especially might not like seeing a free society so close to their heartlands! > 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) No, her "point" was that since I support (to a limited extent) an invasion of Iraq, I should enlist. > did you think I > honestly was honestly backing those suggestions? beyond being unrealistic > they are purposely absurd. No, that's exactly what I am reacting against. By being absurd, it removed it from any real realm of debate. It's reducto-ad-absurdium, or whatever that phrase is. >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. I agree to a large extent. I don't like the way Bush is slavering for war. I am not sure he understands the ideas of "sacrifice" or "grim necessity." Please remember that the principal reason I would support an invasion is to liberate the Iraqi people. > how can perpetual > war not spell doom for the human race on some level? The world has been locked in "perpetual war" since the dawn of humanity. I do not think an invasion of Iraq is contributing to the overall evil in the world, I think that a successful restructuring of the country would result, in the long run, in more good. (And, I wearily add again, I am uncertain Bush is capable of this.) > 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. I am not at all "forcing an absolute," nor am I saying that violence is always the only option. But in many cases, war is necessary to depose a greater evil. Sometime more peaceful ways can work, but sometimes they might also take too long, and in the meantime 6 million Jews die, or obscene numbers of Kurds, or Croatians, or Armenians, or Rwandans, and so on. I am not saying that the situation in Iraq is quite that bad -- though Saddam is destroying the Marsh Arabs. In fact, the Kurds are better off now, and in many ways Saddam has already done the majority of his damage. But the point still stands. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:33:51 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Replies to Edward, Jeffrey OK, I think it is obvious that I cannot possibly respond to all the replies to my postings and still do my duties here at work! I think I have made my views clear enough. But I would like to reply to a few things, in smaller measure: Edward writes, <> including: > 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. Right here is the Number One reason I feel for opposing the invasion. The Number Two reason is all the body bags that will come back. The Number Three reason is all the innocent Iraqis that will be killed. And before anyone raises the cry that an Iraqi life should be equally valuable to me than an American life, while I agree with you on a spiritual level, the fact is that Saddam has created this "Stalinist hell" of a police state, a state that has killed hundreds of thousands of its own civilians. So I do see a good argument for the case of, "Why should American boys be chopped to pieces because of this?" > 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). It makes me sick -- this whole thing makes me sick. But your scenario is sound, and it's the reason I feel we need to invade, occupy, and rebuild, for as long as it takes, even if we need to sacrifice "blood and treasure." I doubt Bush will do this. He'll probably sell out the Kurds, place a few military men in charge, purge only the worst elements of the regime, and eventually turn things over to a coalition party that will soon result in a state hardly "free and democratic." But the oil will flow, that's for sure. Jeffrey writes, > Oh really? Which Imperial trappings are you comfortable with? The fact that as the only remaining Western superpower, we are the only force that can mount enough strength to destroy such a repressive regime as Saddam's. That we can "monitor" and affect places like East Timor, Somalia, Kosovo, the Philippines. That we project power to protect our interests. I am comfortable with these things. What I am *not* comfortable with is the way we often abuse this power, from "doing nothing" to actively supporting dictators to "projecting power" inappropriately against our alleged high moral standards. >American > democracy (Nov 2000 elections)? While nothing burns me up more than this, it is hardly a fair example of the failure of American democracy. And your following list is likewise full of with some of the same examples of abuse I would also offer. What is missing is all the positive examples of American power. Look, I am not going to argue with you that we are often self-serving, corrupt, and simply wrong. But what I am saying is that we have the potential -- and, yes, the obligation -- to do good. As we have occasionally done so, regardless of some of the virulent anti-American sentiments around here, and elsewhere. > 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. Well, you are entitled to this opinion, and in part I agree with it, particularly regarding the environment. But I also think your views are unbalanced, representing extremism and absolutism. > 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... I see. Well, I am sorry of my "comfort" offends you -- the fact is, a country this powerful has to behave with *some* imperialist tendencies. (Meaning the act of extending our "authority" through our actions in the political, military, or economic sphere.) Even the millions of dollars in food we sent to North Korea is an aspect of imperialism. I merely recognize this and hope the US can play a more positive global role; it doesn't mean I think we should start invading and annexing every state that offends us. After all, a different administration might use the same powers quite differently, no? I am sorry I triggered in you a desire to shoot me, or someone else, or whatever. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:02:18 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Iraq re: Jeffrey Jeffrey writes, > It's ironic to me that, typically, the anti-war crowd is called idealistic, > unrealistic, etc. Ironic in this instance because while it seems you'd favor > *a* war in Iraq, the war you'd favor is not the war that is likely to be > fought. Yes, it is ironic. As my main reason for an invasion is the destruction of a police state, I feel my idealism is well in tune with traditional liberalism. > In the present situation, by your own logic, you should oppose *this* war - > because it will not lead to the conclusions you desire, while in all > likelihood leading to or strengthening situations you've said you do not > desire. Well, yes, Jeffrey -- this is exactly the struggle I am having, and apparently well-documenting in this forum! ;) > Just as it's fair and reasonable for you to state that, while you favor war > in Iraq under certain situations, but do not feel that such support compels > you actually to fight it, I will state that while I can mount any number of > arguments against this war in Iraq, that doesn't mean I possess the > knowledge or expertise to propose a better solution. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your analogy. Having an opinion and not having the resources to develop a deeper opinion are two different things. The fact I am not running to join the marines (I am sure they need 36-year old editors) does not relate whatsoever with your reluctance to back up your claims that "there has to be another way." In other words, it does not get you off the hook! If you can think of a way to depose Saddam without force, let's hear it. > Frankly, if that had been the only or real goal, it should have been > accomplished quietly, quickly, and efficiently by soldiers trained for such > tasks. The Ba'th regime and Saddam's security forces number upwards to half a million, and that's not including the common soldiers, policemen, and so on. Again, I take the stand that an invasion and occupation must destroy the entire Saddamist network. There needs to be a "deNazification." >Historically, in fact, not only was > there massive military opposition to bombardment for these reasons - but its > very *purpose* was to cause those civilian deaths, and increase unrest and > disarray as a result. The term was "terror bombing," and that term's > inventor and chief proponent during WWII? Winston Churchill. While it is indisputable that civilians die during modern bombing, that is no longer the point of bombing, and it is done much more efficiently than the 40s. I think your examples of Dresden and Nagasaki are out of touch. Having said that, I agree with you that the aerial bombardment that will undoubtedly precede a ground war will be terrible nevertheless, and kill more Iraqi citizens than a ground war might. This deeply troubles me, and is one of the main reasons I have for *not* supporting the invasion. In fact, I am forced to imagine a scale with heaps of dead Iraqis -- those killed in an invasion, and those who will die if Saddam's regime stands another decade. Horrible. > :: Empire is incompatible with democracy. Democracy is founded on the > :: rule of law, empire on the rule of force. Democracy is a system of > :: self-determination, empire a system of military conquest. > :: --Jonathan Schell Sounds off-base to me. All government is founded on force to one degree or another. So is law. But in any event, I take your point to be that the US is acting like an Empire in the case of Iraq. What's the case, then, if we topple the regime and actually do manage to build a democracy? Anyway, I any all of you folks who have your minds so well made up. I for one am deeply depressed. - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #71 *******************************