Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    It's a new stress syndrome called Hypervigilance, characterized by
    channel switching to catch all of the On The Hour newsreports.  Also
    characterized by other traits as sleeplessness, hypertension, excess
    drinking, ...
    
    ed

    Yes, there is a lot more coverage of this war then there was
    of Viet Nam. I think that's because there was no slow ramp up
    time/ Yes it took 6 months to get everyone there but there was
    no fighting. Once the fighting started it started all at once
    big time. Nam built up gradually over the years from "advisors"
    to big time fighting. This war went from nothing to 2,000 sorties
    a day in zero time. We didn't have the gradual build up to
    prepare us and the media.

    I too have found that I spend a lot of time on the coverage. I was
    up late reading and I turn on the TV first thing in the morning which
    I never did before. I also tend to keep the car radio on an all news
    station now. I'm a news junkie, I feel I *have* to know whats going
    on in the world, anyway. Normally I only get news burnout on election
    day. (Why do I need to know who won in Hawaii? Beats me.) Now we're
    getting election day type coverage everyday.

    Part of the problem is cable BTW. CNN, Headline News, CSPAN, and
    stations from out of town. When you want to watch news it's on. Somehow
    there is a tendency on my part to sort of assume that if the
    news is reporting something that I should be watching.

    			Alfred

    reminds me of the Tom Lehrer Song:
    
    "So long, Mom
     I'm off to drop the bomb
     So don't wait up for me
    
    ...Though you may swelter
    Down there in your shelter
    You can see me
    On your TV
    
    While I am fighting frontally
    Watch Brink-e-ley and Hunt-e-ley
    Reporting contrapuntally
    The cities we have lost
    You needn't miss a single minute
    Of the agonizing holocaust!"
    
    (from his album That Was The Year That Was....or ws it called "That Was
    The Week That Was?)
    
    

I watched the news the first night that Israel was bombed.  In 2 
hours, the reports contradicted themselves at least 5 times, the 
"experts" felt free to draw sweeping conclusions about an event that 
still wasn't clearly defined, and I felt frazzled.

So, I stopped watching the news.  (I normally don't watch the news; I 
read the papers.)  The papers may not be as up-to-date, but they are 
more accurate, less sensational, and allow me to feel more distance 
from it.

It isn't necessary for us to take in and process all the information 
the TV throws at us RE the war.  It's information overload.  I don't 
think that taking in that information adds to the quality of our lives 
or the to the quality of the personal decisions that we need to make 
about the war. 

I think it just furthers our TV-show mentality, and wrecks our stomach 
linings.  I recommend turning it off (except for Celtics games).

							--Gerry

Re: .3

The album is "That Was The Year That Was".  The TV show has "Week" in the
title.

			Steve

    re: .4
    
    I have the same feeling as Gerry, I think.
    
    Once the tension of the standoff was broken, I got fascinated
    with the coverage, marveled at the weapons which seemed to
    be working (surprise!), at the numbers, etc.
    
    But it didn't take long before I began to swear at the so-called
    experts, who often babbled like this:  "Well, that's a
    good question, Peter.  Of course, it's too early to tell, and
    this is early information (which is always suspect), and we don't
    have the damage assessments yet, and there isn't enough hard 
    data, and we only have that unconfirmed report as a data 
    point, but in my opinion it means that ..."  And what it "meant"
    was usually "good for our side."   I was encouraged by the
    good-for-our-side statements.  Made me want to cheer!
     
    But after a while I began to think, "These people don't know
    diddley squat about what's really happening.  (Most of the time)
    
    I've been listening to my car radio a lot these last two weeks.
    This morning, I was about to turn it on, and I caught myself,
    and rode the half hour to work in silence.  I wondered if this
    was some kind of numbing setting in, a way to avoid the war, or
    whether I was just getting a better filter.  I have the same 
    feeling as Gerry, that the newspaper is better because the time
    that it takes to get into print allows the BS level to go down.
    
    I think my "interest" is going up again, because there is tension
    building as it gets toward the new moon, and the ground offensive
    may be beginning.  But it is too hard to try to filter the real
    information from the chaff on TV or radio.
    
    ******************************************************************
    
    As an aside:    On the evening when the bombing started, I watched
    on a TV that had a caption-decoder for the deaf.  I watched with
    a friend who is deaf.  The major news shows were all live-captioned,
    (but not CNN) so I could hear all the words and then see the same
    words in print a couple of seconds later -- including the initial
    misspellings of people's names and place names and weapon system
    names (Kreusz missiles!) etc...  Without the captioning, my friend
    is reduced to reading the newspapers -- no radio, and incredible
    frustration trying to watch TV.   If you are hungry for the news,
    imagine having the same hunger, turning on your TV and then flipping
    your eyes from the image on the screen, the maps, people's faces,
    the scenes of war to three lines of small print rolling up at
    the bottom of the screen.    The captioning helped me to see the
    ridiculousness of many of the experts.  When you hear someone say
    all those caveats about how useless their statement is going to be
    and then you see it in print at the bottom of the screen even as
    they are delivering their useless statement, it makes you at least
    flip to another channel.  ON the other channel some other expert 
    is delivering more useless opinion as his caveats roll off the
    caption area.  Drives the point home...
    
    Wil

    
    > watching the war is exhausting me
    
    	Just try it as a Reservist on activated stand-by...
    
    	Or as a parent of a daughter over there...
    
    	Or as a military person concerned about having to leave their kids
    	and SO behind...
    
    	etc etc.

>        <<< Note 558.7 by CYCLST::DEBRIAE "the social change one..." >>>
 
>       -< History will show if Bush's war was 'worth it'... >-


	First of all...it is NOT Bush's war. Get your facts
	straight. 

	And if you continue to have your freedoms and if others
	gain freedom from tyrannical, despotic rulers...yes...it
	will have been worth it.



	kits

    

    >	First of all...it is NOT Bush's war. Get your facts
    >	straight. 
    
    	Oh? And from which media are you getting this from? 
    
    	Obviously you haven't been reading Mexican, African and other media
    	expressing the world opinion that it is very much Bush's war, and
    	in fact call it just that in their headline.
    
    	Just becuase ABC, NBC, and CBS use the word 'coalition forces'
    	does not mean that is what the world sentiment is. Most foreign
    	media I have been reading refer to it as the 'US vs Iraq' war.
    
    	If it were the UN war, UN generals would be running this show. Or
    	at the very least commanders from the Soviet Union and China would
    	be standing next to ours, and helping in the command decisions.
    	Are they? Were they asked to?
                                                                    
    	We'll see what the world opinion is after Bush's rush to war...
    	Want to place some bets? PS- Is your media passing on the UN's
    	discontent with "the American effort" aka 'war' yet?
    

	First of all...it is NOT Bush's war. Get your facts
	straight. 

Perhaps we disagree on the facts. It was the world's embargo. I feel it is
Bush's war. If Bush hadn't pushed Baker to get his ducks in a row there would
be no authorization for force. The decision to start hostilities I believe
originated in the White House as well. If Bush opposed it there would be no
war, I doubt that can be said of any other single person involved. Perhaps
more accurately this is George Bush and Saddam Hussein's war.

	And if you continue to have your freedoms

I don't believe my freedoms were threatened - this is not a war for my freedom.

        and if others gain freedom from tyrannical, despotic rulers...
        yes...it will have been worth it.

Freeing Kuwait justifies this war - it doesn't make it wise. It's not at all
clear to me that this war will gain freedom for the Kuwaitis, but it will allow
them to have their legitimate despotic rulers back. That, in fact, IS worth
something to me. *I* respect the sovereignity of nations, even nations I don't
like - unlike George Bush, who only respects the sovereignity of nations that
are either "friendly" or too large to intimidate. Anyone remember the World
Court decision against the U.S. mining of Nicaraguan harbors?

	-- Charles

I saw a wonderfully biassed quote the other day on the differences between
Bush's domestic and foreign policies; I wish I could remember who said it.

"George Bush is not an ungenerous man; it is just that the only homeless
person he has met is the Emir of Kuwait"

    RE: 558.4
    
    I definately agree with Gerry's next to last paragraph!!! Absolute
    information overload!!!! Info that is inaccurate, repetitive, and full
    info not needed to know.  It serves to make people anxious, irritable
    and panic stricken!!!???? . . .
    
    
    My .02 cents worth
    
    RAE!
    

    re: .7 
    
    As I wrote the base note I was wondering how long it would take
    someone to make the comparison of my "suffering" to that of those who
    are over there doing the fighting... and it took just 7 replies.  Not
    too shabby.  
    
    <flame ON>
    
    I KNOW the folks over there are having a hard time!
    
    I KNOW parents of daughters over there are suffering!
    
    I KNOW THEY WORRY ABOUT FAMILY/LOVED ONES LEFT BEHIND!
    
    But, this string isn't about them... it's about the massive news
    coverage this war is having, and how that coverage is affecting those
    of us who allow it to intrude into our lives.
    
    I am offended by your implication that this one set of feelings is
    to be compared to their sufferings... why do I, as a veteran of the VN era,
    who spent nine years in the Navy, feel as if my feelings in *this* era are
    being invalidated?
    
     
    Why is it so difficult to stay on a single thread of thought in one
    topic?  Why do some have to force their philosophy (right or wrong)
    into every corner?
    
    And I also wondered how long it'd take before someone "rat-holed" this
    string with their fault-finding.
    
    <Flame OFF>
    
    Tony

    Tony,
    
    If .7 was a rat-hole, it was only in your mind.
                                
    It wasn't a 'comparison of suffering' but an addition to your observation 
    that even more people have it bad due to this war, ie, "Yeah this stinks 
    alright. Can you imagine having to XYZ on top of it too? No way, huh?"
    
    Nevermind...    [now _this_ is rat-holing it. :-)]

    
    Someone on the local NPR station said today that although
    the Emir is not the paragon of democratic governance, its
    not up to Saddam to change their government for them, but rather
    up the the Kuwaitis..
    
    This fellow must've got on KQED by accident, unlike the usual radical
    liberals they have on...

    RE .9
    
      First of all your title offends me,the U.K. seem to be losing
      quite a lot of hardware along with personnel and we seem to be
      flying quite a lot of sortis as well.So don't give me this crap
      that the U.S.A are the only ones involved and losing machinery and
      men.I hope to god that you never have your freedom taken away from
      you,but by some miracle that you do,then and only then will be able
      understand what liberation would mean.Another thing that bothers me 
      is the comparison with the war against Sadam Hussein and Iraq with
      the war against Vietnam,the U.S. decided to go that one alone,this
      time there are quite a number of countries contributing,U.K.,France
      Egypt and the Saudis to name but a few.So really in a manner of 
      speaking it is NOT Bush's War but the hole of the Free World's War
      to release Kuwait from their invaders.
    
     Peter

    RE: .0 and .7
    
    I agree with you Tony.  Your feelings (about anything) are
    your feelings.  You displayed them and asked others to
    share there's.  
    
    Reply .7 did not add the respondent's feelings.  It added
    the imagined feelings of various third parties, and implied 
    (at least I got the implication and I think you got it) that you
    ought to feel guilty about having these feelings when compared
    to the stronger feelings of others.   
    
    Measuring the relative depth of feelings is probably useless 
    between two people who are HAVING the feelings. If I am having
    feeling A and another person is having feeling B, and B tells
    me his feeling is more severe than mine, it does not invalidate
    my feeling.  And it doesn't change it.  I still have my feeling.
    I am not going to get reasoned out of my feeling.  Only when the
    other person acknowledges my feeling, by showing me that he
    heard what I said and can imagine what I must be feeling am I
    in a position to change.  And vice-versa, of course, if the 
    other person is having a feeling.  I have to acknowledge and
    imagine what his feeling is like.  The depth of the feelings
    may be different, of course, and understanding and acknowledging
    the differing depth of feelings is part of the process, maybe
    a painful part of the process.  But implying that the person
    with the deeper feeling has more "right" to his feeling, or is
    more correct, or that the person with the lighter feeling is
    less sincere, or incorrect, or less valid, is a mistake.
    
    Worse still is the situation of having displayed my feelings 
    only to have someone appoint himself spokesman for the imagined 
    feelings of nameless others, and then to begin an advocacy for
    them based on the depths of their feelings compared to mine.
    
    I flamed along with you!             Wil
    

    	Boy wil,

>  - the imagined feelings of various third parties,
>  - implied 
>    (at least I got the implication and I think you got it) that you
>    ought to feel guilty about having these feelings
>  - implied that the person
>    with the deeper feeling has more "right" to his feeling, or is
>    more correct, or that the person with the lighter feeling is
>    less sincere, or incorrect, or less valid, is a mistake.
>  - appoint himself spokesman for the imagined 
>    feelings of nameless others, and then to begin an advocacy for
>    them based on the depths of their feelings compared to mine.
    
    You got all that from three lines? Wow! Do I write well to have stated
    all those views in three lines. Sure you weren't reading too much of
    your own paradigm expectations into that now...

    Now was that your 'perceiving' self or 'judging' self?

    I'm not even going to bother getting into writing people off because
    you feel their feelings are only 'imagined'...

    >I flamed along with you! 

    You sure did Wil. Flamed me good. Boy you must feel proud! 
    Stick out your chest...
    

 Did it ever occur to you that there's a reason why people react the way
they do to your writings, Erik?

 I'm sure you consider yourself to be a sensitive guy. In my opinion, you are
extremely insensitive to those who do not subscribe to the same political
philosophy as you, and miss no opportunity to stake a claim to the moral
high ground in any situation where people are not agreeing with you. It's
quite annoying to have topics deariled because you feel the need to make a 
"comparison" which devalues the feelings that people are writing about. Your
delivery practically guarantees that any valid points you raise will be
drowned in the ill will your notes engender. If you really want to be "the
social change one," try the jui jistsu method instead of the commando raid.

 The Doctah

	This is  amazing,  I  haven't  been this 'mapped on to' (to use Gerry's
	phrase)  since  I  don't  know  when.   First  Wil  maps  his  paradigm
	expectations  into my words, and now you are mapping things on to me as
	well.

> I'm sure you consider yourself to be a sensitive guy.

	It's so  nice that you know me so well.  I have never said I thought of
	myself as a sensitive guy. That's mapping your own feelings on to me.

> In my opinion, you are
>extremely insensitive to those who do not subscribe to the same political
>philosophy as you, and miss no opportunity to stake a claim to the moral
>high ground in any situation where people are not agreeing with you.

	And now  I'm claiming the moral high ground? In who's mind is this, who
	is  making  that 'moral high ground' judgement, me or you? I have never
	claimed  to  more  morally  fit  or on a higher moral plane than anyone
	else.   You  are  mapping  your  own  views about which argument is the
	'moral high ground' on to me here.  I've never presented either side as
	the moral high/low ground. How much of this is driven by your own view?

	And as  for  being insensitive to the other side of the argument, funny
	that  only  comes  up  when  the  other  side  is  finally  produced in
	conservative  male  space.  Otherwise the 'she is only doing it to save
	her  skin'  in  your  CO  note and other very insenstive mappings on to
	people happen all the time here.  It's just noticed when the other side
	of the argument finally speaks up, eh?

> If you really want to be "the social change one," 

	Ah, and  now  you  know  what  my  PN  stands for too now? I have never
	explained  to  anyone  why  that PN is there or what it means.  You are
	making  assumptions and mapping again.  Of course doing that is OK only
	when it fits your own philosophy, eh?

>   -< are your attempts to get the last word any less "macho" than tho >-

	As for how 'macho' I am, I'll let Mr. Beeler answer that question...

	-Erik

    Erik, I didn't write my reply for you, I wrote it for Tony.   Wil

re: .19

There are still a few around who hate this war, feel it was unecessary,
and are terribly upset about what they feel to be the sad sad waste of
life.   These people are pretty frustrated with the mass of opinion in
this country that seems to be supporting the war.  So, if one of them 
gets off the current "string", to express his or her emotion, I have no
problem with that.   

As far as the news goes, I'm sick of hearing nothing but military experts.
Where are the views opposing the war?   Hardly any anywhere.

Mardy

just to clarify:  my "well, tough" was a flame against those you are so
worried about this topic straying from it's base note..   So, I apologise
to them.   I just wanted to explain why I think the topic might be deviated
from by some.   And I support Erik's feelings about the war 100%.

Mardy

    re: -1, -2
    
    this topic is already diverted... 
    
    there are numerous other strings where we can voice our opinions on the
    war... i'm not surprized this one is consumed by them also.  just a
    little disappointed (boy, if this disappointment is the worse one
    today, it'll be a good day!)
    
    back to the topic...
    
    last night, after going home, i purposfully avoided ANY news about the
    war.  my wife and i watched an old (1939) movie with Greta Garbo, and
    talked, and enjoyed one another's company.
    
    it was refreshing.  and i enjoyed it.  
    
    i'll catch up on the Gulf news later... 
    
    tony

>Where are the views opposing the war?   Hardly any anywhere.

    I believe the news shows are trying to show mostly people who
    understand what is going on in the Middle East. I doubt that
    there are many such who think the war is unnecessary. IMHO.

    		Alfred

re: .25

Well, I agree that there are not many knowledgeable people on
the Middle East on news shows who think the war is unnecessary.
But I think there are knowledgeable people on the Middle East
who do think the war is unnecessary.  We don't hear from them
on news shows.  IMHO.

Mardy

Re: .26

There are knowledgeable and unknowledgeable people on both sides.  Most everyone
is unknowledgeable - few can do more than parrot what they've heard or read
elsewhere.

For an example of someone who is VERY knowledgeable and who was against
starting the war, listen to H. Ross Perot.

To presume that "the other side" doesn't understand the situation, no matter
which side you are on, is foolish and jingoistic.

			Steve

    Re: .26, .27
    
    I heard a very convincing argument against entering this war made by
    Zbignew Bresinski (sp?) as well.  He was National Security Advisor, or
    was it Secretary of Defense?, under Carter (okay, you can smirk, but
    the guy is extraordinarily skilled and knowledgable). 
    
    NPR (or perhaps it was just WBUR here in Boston) broadcast considerable
    debate both for and against entering the war.  I remember feeling that
    I'd been exposed to  well-argued and informed opinions on both sides,
    so I'd disagree that the press failed to present articulate, credible
    folks who were against the war (which, for what it's worth, I person-
    ally feel we are right to be in).  I'd also disagree that the national
    press only "beat the drums of war," if that's what someone's
    suggested...
    
    Scott

    CNN reminded me where the 'off' button is on my TV...

    
    Brezhinski was Jimmeh Cahtuh's NS Advisor.
    
    He is a hot draw for news shows because of his authentic Polish
    accent...

    You are all well educated people (Assumtion/feeling), working in
    a high-tech, multinational company. You regard yourself (assumtion/
    feeling) as broad minded.
    
    ....and your talking about "Bush's War"??
    
    
    This reminds me (appoligize for spinnig off) the "8-bit character"-
    problem. I t took a long while to overcome (still ongoing..?).
    One reason beeing Corp Eng defining "local" as Mass., and "rest of
    world" as US. (It's improved a lot last five years) 8-).
    
    I've been in US a lot of times, and visited quite a few states (12).
    The country impress me each time. It's so large and so deversified.
    If I lived there, I know for sure I'd have had a hard time not thinking
    US "first" (....second, ...third), and then the rest of the world.
    ..but then I'd had to pull myself together and try.
    
    
    Do you?
    
    I have a feeling...
    
    there's a better way.....Norway!  8-)
    
    
    (pls disregard any misspelling...it's not my mothertounge).
    
    PerS
    
    
     

>To presume that "the other side" doesn't understand the situation, no matter
>which side you are on, is foolish and jingoistic.
    
    Well to be honest I do believe that there are people who understand
    the situation and don't want us in the war. People like Saddam for
    example. It's just that I have trouble believing that such people
    have the best interests of the Kuwaitis, Saudis, and Americans at
    heart.
    
    			Alfred

Re: .32

Alfred, the problem with a statement such as yours is that it is a "straw
horse" proposal.  You are assuming that the only choices worth arguing
about are whether we should stay in the war or pull out.  Not so.

What people like Perot argue is that this war would likely never have
occurred if Bush had attempted to understand the situation and psychology
in the Middle East, instead of playing John Wayne (following in his
predecessor's footsteps.)  Perot says that if Bush hadn't reacted the way
he did in August, and instead stepped back and let the other Arab states
handle the situation, Saddam may well have pulled out of Kuwait within
a few days, after making his point.  But instead Bush forced Saddam down
a path for which there was no escape but into war.

I am a bit tired of circular arguments such as "sometimes we have to do
what we have to do" - this is the sort of evasive answer my seven-year-old
gives when I ask him why he did something wrong.

The Middle East has been unstable for thousands of years.  Bush has
enormous hubris (or as one might say in Yiddish, chutzpah), to think that
by beating up Saddam he can magically instill a "New World Order".  Heck,
he doesn't even know enough to pronounce Saddam's name correctly, much less
try to understand the politics and sociolgy of the area.  I think of all the
people who are involved in the Gulf War, Bush knows the least of all.

				Steve

>What people like Perot argue is that this war would likely never have
>occurred if Bush had attempted to understand the situation and psychology
>in the Middle East, instead of playing John Wayne (following in his
>predecessor's footsteps.)  Perot says that if Bush hadn't reacted the way
>he did in August, and instead stepped back and let the other Arab states
>handle the situation, Saddam may well have pulled out of Kuwait within
>a few days, after making his point.  

    And if someone had drown Saddam at birth none of this would have
    happened either. :-)

    Perot makes an interesting argument. Why didn't the Kuwaitis come
    to the same conclusion I wonder? Or the Saudis? The reaction of
    those governments called the US in. There's no way I'll believe
    that Bush forced them to invite US troops. I think that Perot makes
    the rather ethnocentric assumption that the US got involved
    unilaterally and that the Saudis and Kuwaitis had no input. Or that
    the Saudis and Kuwaitis don't understand the situation. What do
    you think, does the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emir of Kuwait
    not understand the situation as well as Perot?

    			Alfred

Re: .34

Your interpretation of the events differs from mine, hence I can't answer
your question.  I don't believe that the US was "invited" except after
pressure by Bush, in the same manner as the US "bought" (in Perot's words)
the UN Security Council vote.


However, this discussion has strayed far from the base note, and the theme
of this conference.  Perhaps it's time for us all to take a breather.
Surely we've got other things to talk about?

			Steve

    
>    NPR (or perhaps it was just WBUR here in Boston) broadcast considerable
>    debate both for and against entering the war.  I remember feeling that
>    I'd been exposed to  well-argued and informed opinions on both sides,
>    so I'd disagree that the press failed to present articulate, credible
>    folks who were against the war (which, for what it's worth, I person-
>    ally feel we are right to be in).  I'd also disagree that the national
>    press only "beat the drums of war," if that's what someone's
>    suggested...
    
NPR is not "the press."  It is a very small portion of "the press."

Add up all the air-time, check the percentages, and then I think that 
you'll see that very little time and substantantive reporting has been 
alotted to arguments against the war.  (And I still think that--NPR 
aside--the mainstream press is completely missing a lot of things that 
the USA did to set this war up ahead of time, in early 1990.)


							--Gerry

    Re: 33
    
     My fiancee said she was watching TV and someone brought up the point
    of Bush's pronunciation of the name Saddam. The correct pronunciation
    connotes royalty and leadership and commands respect. According to
    an Egyptian linguist, the way Bush pronounces Saddam refers to
    a floor sweeper, which I guess is a great insult in the Arab world. Maybe
    Bush knows what he's doing when he pronounces the name that way.
    Then again, he could be suffering from Walter Mondale syndrome
    (pronouncing nuclear as nuke-you-lur).
     To avoid the media coverage of the war, I either workout, play my
    saxophone, fight with our cat or watch ESPN (if I must watch TV).
    Then I'll switch the channel to CNN just on the odd chance I'll
    get to hear Wolf Blitzer mention Colin Powell (who has a lot of guts
    to pronounce his first name the way he does).
    
    Paul
        

    OK, OK, will somebody educate a poor enguhneer on how
    to pronounce Saddam Hussein's first name?  Either for
    royalty or floor sweeper purposes...  Then, I'll have
    a choice.  Right now, I can only speak in ignorance.
    
    
    Wil
    

    re. .38
    
    Wil,
    
    You can call him Saddam, sort of rhyming with Notre Dame
    							----
    or
    
    You can call him Saddam, rhyming with Adam...
    
    or you can him....!
    
    -Dotti

    I'm laughing.  If I'm in France I say "noh-tre-dahm"
    If I'm watching a football game, I say "noder-daym"
    
    So, is it "Sah-'dahm" or Suh-'daym"?
    Or as the prez says, "'sah-duhm"?
    
    BTW, isn't it pretty disrespectful to call him by his
    first name, anyway?  Does Hussein call Bush "George"?

    
>    So, is it "Sah-'dahm" 

This one.
    
>    BTW, isn't it pretty disrespectful to call him by his
>    first name, anyway?  Does Hussein call Bush "George"?

I have read that he has requested that he be called by that name.


						--Gerry

No, all wrong so far.  It's "Suh-DAHM Hoo-SANE", or at least this is the
closest we can come to the Arabic.

I don't like the guy either, but I think it's only right to try to pronounce
his name properly.

				Steve

>No, all wrong so far.  It's "Suh-DAHM Hoo-SANE", or at least this is the
>closest we can come to the Arabic.

I never was much good at phonetics.  Oh, well...


						--Gerry

    But doesn't George say SAD-m, as in SAD SACK?
    
    I read that GB is doing many things which indicate a lack of
    respect for SH, in a deliberate attempt to work on his mind.
    
    ed

Yes, Bush says "SAD-dem".  To me, if you want someone to give in to you, you
don't insult them each time you say their name. 

				Steve

> To me, if you want someone to give in to you, you
> don't insult them each time you say their name. 

George doesn't want him to give in - he wants him so mad he'll do something
stupid and give us an excuse to invade Iraq and kick him out. That's something
we *don't* currently have. The U.N. resolution is to remove Iraq from Kuwait,
and NOTHING about destroying Iraq or deposing Saddam Hussein. Of course we'd
all like to see him removed, so...

	-- Charles

    I''m not making the argument, Charles, but the UN resolutions do say
    something about ensuring the security of the region as well.  That
    could be interpreted as justifying destroying Iraq's war-making machine
    and removing Saddam from power.
    
    DougO

    On NPR a few weeks ago, Harry Shearer (who was on Saturday Night Live a
    few years ago) did a parody of Bush giving a speech and said that the
    best way to defeat Saddam was to mispronounce his name as many times as
    possible. Then he said "SAD-um" about 12 times.  Funny scene.
    
    >>>Ken

    I read a report that Saddam is showing signs of combat fatigue.  During an
    interview he blinked 40-45 times/minute instead of his more customary
    20-25.
    
    ed

    re: blinking
    
    	Ah c'mon, he's just trying to look cute and bashful..
    
    	:-)

    One thing I have always noticed was his blinking it drives me nuts its
    like he has sand in his eyes all the time.
    
    -j

    I suppose one could say George has made Saddam blink?..... so to speak?
    No, literally.  

    Ref Saddam
    
    you can't argue with this guy....just see how he spells his name
    bacwards...... ;-).