From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #75 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, February 27 2003 Volume 12 : Number 075 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: protest songs RH content ["Terrence Marks" ] Re: The President (NOT Bush!) ["matt sewell" ] Re: Replies to Edward, Jeffrey ["matt sewell" ] reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: 'nother reap ["Stewart C. Russell" ] RE: Impending REAP [Christopher Gross ] Re: anti-war songs [John McIntyre ] can you say "reap"? [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: Iraq re: Jeffrey [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] RE: Impending REAP - BVTS ["Sumiko Keay" ] Re: An extremist writes... [gshell@metronet.com] anti-war songs [Jill Brand ] Re: Masters of War/Neighborhood Bully [The Great Quail ] Re: You'll Have To Let The Old World Go [The Great Quail Subject: RE: protest songs RH content > does anyone have a favorite(s) anti-war song? Pearls Before Swine's "Uncle John" Phil Ochs' "I Ain't Marchin' Any More" Insect Trust's "World War I Song" The Kinks' "Some Mother's Son" Fapardokly's "The War" The Monkees' "Zor and Zam" and maybe Harry Nilsson's "Old Forgotten Soldier" And hon. mention to Capt. Beefheart's "Ant Man Bee" I do find it a bit odd that there's so few garage bands who sang about war. It may be that British and Canadian bands are overrepresented in my sample, but I've got a lot more songs by Americans about how people are hassling them than about the draft. Terrence Marks http://nice.purrsia.com http://www.unlikeminerva.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:54:27 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: protest songs RH content One of mine too - the barely suppressed rage in Bob's voice sends shivers down my spine... although I would have to say desks really does not rhyme with masks, even if you are Dylan... Also I think To The Teeth by Ani Difranco is superb, though I guess that's an anti-weapon song rather than anti war per se... I'm sure the Fixin'-to-Die Rag's already been mentioned? Cheers Matt >From: "Kenneth Johnson" >Nothing is as straight-forward as Dylan's "Masters of War" (one of >my personal anti-war faves) > >Kenneth > >************************************ > >"Come you masters of war >You that build all the guns >You that build the death planes >You that build the big bombs >You that hide behind walls >You that hide behind desks >I just want you to know >I can see through your masks > >You that never done nothin' >But build to destroy >You play with my world >Like it's your little toy >You put a gun in my hand >And you hide from my eyes >And you turn and run farther >When the fast bullets fly > >Like Judas of old >You lie and deceive >A world war can be won >You want me to believe >But I see through your eyes >And I see through your brain >Like I see through the water >That runs down my drain > >You fasten the triggers >For the others to fire >Then you set back and watch >When the death count gets higher >You hide in your mansion >As young people's blood >Flows out of their bodies >And is buried in the mud > >You've thrown the worst fear >That can ever be hurled >Fear to bring children >Into the world >For threatening my baby >Unborn and unnamed >You ain't worth the blood >That runs in your veins > >How much do I know >To talk out of turn >You might say that I'm young >You might say I'm unlearned >But there's one thing I know >Though I'm younger than you >Even Jesus would never >Forgive what you do > >Let me ask you one question >Is your money that good >Will it buy you forgiveness >Do you think that it could >I think you will find >When your death takes its toll >All the money you made >Will never buy back your soul > >And I hope that you die >And your death'll come soon >I will follow your casket >In the pale afternoon >And I'll watch while you're lowered >Down to your deathbed >And I'll stand o'er your grave >'Til I'm sure that you're dead" > > >************************************ > >************************************* > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Express yourself with cool emoticons. Get MSN Messenger today. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:02:58 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: The President (NOT Bush!) It was me, and yes it was a reference to The President and no, I don't actually have a shotgun, or any other type of gun for that matter - I did once have a Captain Scarlet cap gun that I was really proud of, but I don't know what happened to that... Cheers Matt >From: "Poole, R. Edward" > >Jeffrey: > > >> 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... > >Quail: > > > ... I am sorry I triggered in you a desire to shoot me, or someone else, > > or whatever. > >Ummm, you *do* realize that this was a reference to "The President," right? >("When I hear the word "Security" / I reach for my shotgun") > >OK, just makin' sure (I don't even think J.w/2F'sJ. *has* a shotgun -- >certainly he wouldn't have written "shot gun" if he did). > >-ed > >============================================================================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 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Send instant messages for free with MSN Messenger. Click here to download it now! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:14:12 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Replies to Edward, Jeffrey Quail mistook my post for a post by Jeffrey and Jeffrey said: >Uh...actually I didn't write that, nor any of the things in this post that follow. I agree with >some of it, but not all of it, and I would have put it differently. I'm very glad to hear it - if you had written it, agreed with it and not put it differently, that would have really freaked me out... ;0) Cheers Matt >From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey >On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, The Great Quail wrote: > > > Jeffrey writes, > > > > > Oh really? Which Imperial trappings are you comfortable with? > >Uh...actually I didn't write that, nor any of the things in this post that >follow. I agree with some of it, but not all of it, and I would have put >it differently. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Send music and picture to your friends with MSN Messenger. Download it FREE here. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:03:37 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: reap Fred Rogers, former host of Mr. Rogers Neighborhood ===== "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: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:35:23 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: 'nother reap Sabina Carlson wrote: > > reap: > tom glazer also recorded three of the classic "Singing Science" albums: Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:00:08 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: RE: Impending REAP > Steve T: > > > Buffy The Vampire Slayer. > > > > A series I've never seen. Is it worth the hype? Ooh, don't get me started on Buffy! It's easily one of my favorite shows of all time. It's a brilliant mix of horror, character drama and comedy. It's also very different from the original 1992 movie, if you've seen that. Jason: > Yeah definitely it's a great show! This season hasn't been that great > though. I'd highly recommend checking out the reruns of FX of the the > first 3 seasons on DVD if you think it would be your cup of tea. I'd disagree that this season hasn't been that great, but I would agree that it was at its greatEST in seasons 2 and 3. However, my advice is to start at season 1 and watch the whole series in order, if possible. At the beginning they were still figuring things out and the whole first season has a definite low-budget feel; but the cast and dialogue were great practically from episode one, and if you start at the beginning then you'll get the full impact of numerous surprising plot turns. As Jason said, seasons 1-3 are already on DVD, with season 4 coming in June, and the FX network shows reruns every weekday. If you want to make sure you're seeing reruns in the proper order, check here: But don't read the descriptions before seeing the episodes, or you'll spoil all the surprises! Spoilers are the enemies of human happiness. - --Chris [if I was more awake I'd add a cute Buffy quote here] ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:28:02 -0500 From: John McIntyre Subject: Re: anti-war songs > >does anyone have a favorite(s) anti-war song? I am compiling a list for a > >possible cd project. The Fugs "Kill For Peace" with the lines "Kill, kill, kill for peace/Far or Near or very Middle East". Tom Paxton's "Lyndon Johnson Told The Nation". Phil Ochs "I Ain't Marchin' Any More", "Cops of the World", "Santo Domingo", "White Boots Marching In A Yellow Land", "The War Is Over", heck, most of his songs. John McIntyre Physics - Astronomy Domine Dept Michigan State University mcintyre@pa.msu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 07:35:16 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: can you say "reap"? Fred Rogers, 74, of cancer: host of _Mister Rogers' Neighborhood_. ..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: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:09:07 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Iraq re: Jeffrey Quoting The Great Quail : > > > 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. I don't really feel like I'm on a hook, actually. The situation is not "do A, or do B," the situation is alternatives A through, oh, Q, including doing nothing. The discussion was about whether the war being "proposed" (a weak word in this context) by the Bushies was a good idea, not necessarily "what should be done about Saddam?" See, I think that's part of the problem: the US's messianic complex, whereby we think that every problem in the world must be addressed by us (and unfortunately, our first response is often military). (Are the people of Andorra debating, hmmm, shall we invade? shall we impose sanctions?) There are, in fact, things beyond our control, and I'm more and more inclining to the view that *nothing* the US could do re Saddam would not make things worse. Bad things happen in the world; not all of them are preventable. I seriously doubt you're persuaded by the above; I'm not entirely sure I am, but I do think that part of the problem the rest of the world has with the US is that we cannot keep our fingers out of any pie, even if for the best motivations (rare - at least among our leaders, if not amongst our populace). That said, I think the debate is important, and knowing the history is important...because many of the intractable problems of the world arise in part because of bungled US (and European - not letting you folks off that proverbial hook either) actions. I'm not saying, "go in there, fuck things up, then walk away saying 'we can't do anything'"; I'm really saying, "stop going in there for the most part." That is, I am *not* comfortable with the US's imperial role, insofar as it can be avoided. The US has been perfectly content to support grossly undemocratic dictators, so long as they in turn support or cooperate with the US. That sort of insistence on client-stating *has led to* people like Saddam - and I rather think it might do so even if the US went in with good intentions to set up a client state. And in this case, the arguments for intervention are strictly academic - because the reasons the US will intervene are not the same, not compatible, and often at odds with the ethics for intervention you and others have been putting forth. > > 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. And yet, some assassinations under similar security succeed. Problem is, even if it did in this case, succession might likely fall to someone worse, or certainly might create a situation in which Saddam's "martyrdom" would make things worse. I see nothing but bad options, actually. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: we make everything you need, and you need everything we make ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0600 From: "Sumiko Keay" Subject: RE: Impending REAP - BVTS We've had some excellent episodes this season - - this week's was definitely one of them. But it is a good idea to watch the episodes in order (I'm sure that you can get them through NetFlix). Sumi >>> "Jason Brown (Echo Services Inc)" 02/26/03 06:13PM >>> Steve T: > > Buffy The Vampire Slayer. > > A series I've never seen. Is it worth the hype? Yeah definitely it's a great show! This season hasn't been that great though. I'd highly recommend checking out the reruns of FX of the the first 3 seasons on DVD if you think it would be your cup of tea. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:41:43 -0600 (CST) From: gshell@metronet.com Subject: Re: An extremist writes... On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, matt sewell wrote: > As for shooting you, blessyer guv, I meant for shooting the air like > Saddam does in Baghdad and presumably Greg Shell does in Texas... my gun is phallic. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:42:49 -0500 (EST) From: Jill Brand Subject: anti-war songs Kenneth asked about favorite anti-war songs. Although Filthy Bird is the only Robyn song that I can think of which is specific to the theme, The President reflects my mood at the moment quite well. Other greats are two Phil Ochs songs: I Ain't Marchin' Anymore, and The Marines Have Landed on the Shores of Santo Domingo. Oh yes, a third comes to mind: Cops of the World. And going back a ways, there is the German song The Peat Bog Soldiers (Die Moorsoldaten in German). Back to class. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:27:00 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Masters of War/Neighborhood Bully Jeffrey writes, > Really, though, "he's got no allies to speak of" - about Israel!? Well, to be fair, at the time it was written, the US was going through a period of disenchantment with the Israelis. - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:32:19 -0500 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Come & have a go if you think you're hard enough Dennis Miller: >>To me Hans Blix is like Weapons Inspector Crusoe Probably a misquote, as he obviously meant "Clouseau", but Miller has obviously gone so far off his ideological game that maybe the "hip references" are slipping, too. I've missed out on this whole Limbaugh turn of his... kind of disturbing. I used to really like him. Maybe this'll turn out like Neil Young's Reaganite phase. Realistically, though, it's way more problematic for Miller since sociopolitical commentary is his bread and butter. I mean, he's not gonna be able to make "Ragged Glory" and get back in everyone's good graces. No takers on my "Worst. Protest Song. Ever." challenge? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:30:47 -0500 From: noam tchotchke Subject: Fwd: DENI DOES LONDON -and other updates! looks like deni bonet is one of robyn's guests this weekend.... >Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:15:12 -0800 >From: "Deni Bonet" >To: woj@smoe.org >Subject: DENI DOES LONDON -and other updates! > >Hi there boys and girls. It's been a little while since I've filled you in >on what's happening here at Deni Bonet Central, so here goes... > >This weekend, I'll be taking a little hike over to London to help Robyn >Hitchcock celebrate his 50th birthday in style. If you live in the U.K., >or know anyone who is there, pass the word on that there is a big concert >shindig happening at the ROYAL FESTIVAL HALL on SUNDAY NIGHT, MARCH 2. >Check www.rfh.org.uk for details. I'll be playing on a few tunes with >Robyn, and rumor has it that such notables as John Paul Jones from Led >Zeppelin will be playing as well. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:32:09 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: You'll Have To Let The Old World Go Ah, Eddie posts!!!! Despite the exaggerations and general belief that the Unites States is universally evil, I will say, Eddie presents the best anti-war case that I have yet to see here. I have to confess, it has rattled me, and further underscores what a fucking mess I think this whole thing is. > it's not your decision to make, nor is it george bush's. has anybody asked > the iraqis if they *want* to be "liberated" by the united states? of course > not. Many Iraqi defectors and exiles agree that the US can play a role in removing Saddam. Some want an all out invasion, others advocate more political means. And the post-Gulf-War Iraqi intifadah -- which we callously betrayed -- seems to indicate that their is certainly grounds for popular support. > *nobody* outside the united states considers iraq to be a "threat". This is patently untrue. You may argue to the degree of the threat, but Israel, Iran, and Kuwait certainly view Saddam as a threat. And besides, I don't want to argue this anyway -- I *mainly* base my support of an invasion on the desire to remove Saddam from power, not to eliminate him as a threat. (Though that is part of it.) > from a combination of Saddam's purges and internal attacks, as well as his > gross manipulation of sanctions.> > > actually, the number is over 1,000,000 killed since the gulf war -- mostly > children. This comes down to where we get our facts, and who we believe. The sources that I place the most faith in contend that Saddam is deliberately exaggerating the humanitarian disaster. You can find a broad range of statistics on this. Eddie believes the most extreme. I believe those as laid out by Richard Garfield in his Columbia University study, which places the number closer to a quarter of a million. Either way, it is obscene. >killed not by *saddam's* "manipulation" of the sanctions, but by > the *united states'* propagation of and "manipulation" of (placing billions > of dollars worth of "holds" on needed supplies, for example) the sanctions. > this has been *extremely* well documented. see for example Again, where we get our facts. You select them from the most extreme, ant-American, radical sources. Do I agree that the sanctions were misguided and catastrophic? Yes. Do I believe the US and UN are complicit? Yes. But only in the principle of, you put a chicken in front of a wolf and he eats it. Saddam has *consistently* chosen to select keeping his weapons development programs secret rather than have the sanctions lifted. Until recently, he has consistently elected *not* to take part in the UN's proffered food-for-oil deals, and after he has, the UN itself has complained that he has not used the funds available for the correct resources. He has used food and ration cards as political weapons, and he has deliberately starved sections of his population that are "unwelcome," such as the Shi'ites. He has stockpiled medicine, baby formula, and food as rewards for his regime, and has put so much on the black market that Yemen and other countries have a wide selection of misdirected medicine and formula to choose from. Yes, we are complicit in this, because we foolishly -- and some would say, evilly -- allowed this to happen while we cling to the notion that he would suddenly change his mind. However, you cannot assert that Saddam has not manipulated sanctions. > at the same time, scott ritter, ray zilinskas, hans blix, richard butler, > and other inspectors repeatedly stated in 1998 that iraq had been > "qualitatively disarmed", or essentially disarmed, or that they were > three-quarters of the way around the last lap, etc.. And many of these inspectors change their mind on and off as new evidence comes to light, from defectors or discoveries. Remove inspections now, lift all non-humanitarian sanctions, and Iraq will have the bomb within this decade. But I get the feeling that you, and many other anti-war protesters, feel that "so what" if Iraq has the bomb, so de we. I think that is dangerously naove. Saddam's regime has even gone so far as to state that the bomb will allow him to "redraw the map" of the Middle East. None of his neighbors are particularly happy with this. > yet, the sanctions > stayed on. why? and why, when UN 687 mandated iraqi disarmament *in the > context* of region-wide disarmament, did the united states continue to arm > to the teeth israel, turkey, saudi arabia, and egypt? This has nothing to do with Iraq, and is a different matter. >and why should iraq be forced to forego its WMD while > so many other nations -- including, principally the u.s., which is in its > own league when it comes to *using* them upon helpless civilian populations > -- continue to maintain such programmes? Look, Eddie, if you think that Saddam Hussein will be more responsible with WMDs right now than the US, we have no grounds for an argument here. Despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and despite Bush's idiotic comments about tactical nukes. The problem is, you see the US as an even more evil regime than Iraq. I cannot argue with you on this: we are a blind and deaf man arguing about "Fantasia." But having said that, I deplore Rumsfield and his cronies, and I think we are INSNE to even suggest using tac-nukes and nerve gas. (Though your impassioned words certainly exaggerate this.) But I know we will not. We will not use nukes in Iraq. I do not think our own so-called "leaders" are that abysmally stupid. Your argument for uranium I accept. It is clearly a reason not to invade. > and why, again, when saddam has only ever used WMD when the u.s. *supported* > him doing so, and with george tenet having testified that in his opinion > he'd not use them again *unless* attacked are we worried about *saddam's* > WMD? Very good questions -- you correctly point out the perfidy of the US regarding Saddam's actions against Iran and the Kurds, and you wisely point out that all sources show Saddam will loose whatever he has in case of an invasion. All I can say is that with the former, I wish we would NOT have allowed him to do this, especially against the Kurds, but the past cannot be changed. I only hope that increased consciousness of the American public will generate pressure for us to STOP supporting dictators. I truly believe that the average American knows we had a hand in supporting Saddam, and they are growing tired of US complicity. Hell, I wish the world were a happy place without dictators to support in general, and without countries to arm them, but it is not. We need to live more up to the high moral standards we set for ourselves. (Here is *my* idealism.) > uh-huh. is that why the architect of the bush administration's war plan for > iraq *explicitly* compared it to hiroshima? why the plan calls to smother > baghdad with 800 cruise missiles in two days, so that there will be "no safe > place" in the city? why the plan calls for the u.s. to "take down their > power and water"? why u.s. war planners openly boasted of doing such a > smash-up job of destroying civilian infrastructure in the first gulf war > that it would lead to "incidences, if not epidemics, of disease" (see > )? I will read up on this, thank you. > the *methods* being *openly* planned are *obvious* war crimes of > *gargantuan* magnitude. I plan to read more on this, actually. While I am under no illusions that a war will be bloodless, I must confess I am not as familiar with the actual methods the military plans on using. And to respond to your charges of a humanitarian disaster, I again feel that an invasion is warranted if and only if we plan to stay and rebuild the country. This would address many of your just concerns about food, water, health, civil war.... >because its plans are > *explicitly* and *precisely* to cause massive civilian suffering. I am sorry, I cannot believe this interpretation. While you may think me dangerously naove, if I truly believe that the only reason we planned on invading Iraq was to "cause massive civilian suffering" I would move to Canada. Such blanket statements that attribute only the most nakedly evil motives to the US seem to me propaganda of the "other side." Will Iraqis die? Yes, in the thousands. How many more will die if the Saddamist regime continues into the next few decades? Who knows? As I have said before, to me, this is the crux: who am I to decide that X number of dead Iraqis now are better than X number later? I can only hope that the next generation would be free from the totalitarian police state. I hate this. And frankly, I am still undecided, which I think is a weakness. > ~The United States is apparently planning to utilize over 1,000 tons of > natural (as opposed to depleted) uranium munitions in Iraq, which would > create massive civilian, military, and environmental havoc. See > http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u231.htm#S6healthhaz. Eeek. Thank you, very much food for thought. > these are methods saddam used in the '80s -- when he was avidly supported by > the united states. Amnesty even criticised the blair government for calling > attention to them at this time. First of all, the fact that the US supported Iraq against Iran is not the cause of these atrocities. Secondly, by all humanitarian accounts, the regime has been just as evil during the post-Gulf-War period, when it had to contend with putting down numerous rebellions. > and many more we could name -- all supported by the united > states, with *huge* flows of military armaments. And this makes it all right for Saddam? Eddie, I do not support the United States supporting *any* of this. In fact, I think we are making a grave mistake in supporting so many militaries *right now.* Here we are in agreement. > so how should the first world solve the saddam "crisis"? stop shipping > armaments to and cultivating friendly relationships with every dictatorial > regime that is perfectly willing to bash its populations' heads in to > maintain "stability". That would be grand, yes, especially if we could get the rest of the world to do the same. >stop bombing third world countries whenever there's > an itch to scratch. This is just an exaggeration. >stop dropping hundreds of tonnes of radioactive > munitions onto third world countries, and expecting them to kiss your ass > for it. stop imposing austerity programmes on the third world. in short, > LEAVE THE THIRD WORLD THE FUCK ALONE, AND LET IT SOLVE ITS OWN PROBLEMS. Well, believe it or not, part of me believes in this. The biggest political struggle for me is between intervention and non-intervention. Thanks, - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #75 *******************************