Re: Odd Polities of the Future
Dan Goodman
>
>
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080918.wtrade18/BNStory/International/home
>
> "Canadian and European officials say they plan to begin negotiating
> a massive agreement to integrate Canada's economy with the 27 nations
> of the European Union, with preliminary talks to be launched at an
> Oct. 17 summit in Montreal three days after the federal election.
>
> While I've thought this would be a good idea for a while,
> this is not a development I ever expected. Economic integration often
> leads to politican integration (one of the dangers of the FTA,
> although the Americans have been thoughtfully obnoxious enough to
> maintain a healthy level of distrust for them in Canada [1]) but I
> will admit when I toy with superstates of the future, I've never
> envisioned one where Canada ends up part of EU-Plus and not a
> Pole-to-Pole New World Union.
>
> When I think about it, though, I live in a world where France
> has several overseas regions that it counts as integral parts of
> itself and this is no weirder.
Not to mention the two US states, and several territories, which are
not contiguous with most of the US.
> SF tends unfortunately towards bland worldstates or barely
> modified versions of today but are there examples of an Earth divided
> up along lines that would seem counter-intuitive to us?
>
Can't offhand think of one.
>
> 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time
> to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at
> one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin
America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members,
or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and
Mexico.
--
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
Mirror Journal http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Mirror 2 http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Christopher Henrich
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin
> America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members,
> or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and
> Mexico.
Why such bad feeling between Brazil & Chile on the one hand and
Argentina on the other? Because of a war? Consider the example of France
and Germany, which fought each other in three wars between 1870 and
1945, and are now both members of the European Union.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
htp://www.mathinteract.com
David Johnston
<chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>In article <48d47587$0$90345$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin
>> America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members,
>> or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and
>> Mexico.
>
>Why such bad feeling between Brazil & Chile on the one hand and
>Argentina on the other? Because of a war? Consider the example of France
>and Germany, which fought each other in three wars between 1870 and
>1945, and are now both members of the European Union.
Only because both nations were now more worried about the military
might of Russia and the economic might of the United States than they
were about each other. What's the common binding threat for those
three nations?
eatfastnoodle
> James Nicoll wrote:
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080918.wtrade18/...
not gonna happen, unless US is significantly weakened or Latin America
gets significantly stronger. Otherwise, there will be no incentive for
the US to play the team game of any real sense. And there will be
serious disincentive for Latin American countries to remain suspicious
toward the US given the history of US involvement in that part of the
world, not to mention the significant animosity toward people of
Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in
America.
EU succeeded because European nations face common military threat from
Russia and the danger of their voices being drowned out by giants like
Russia, America. That gives them the incentive to band together, no EU
nation is strong enough to dominant certainly forces them to
compromise; Almost all of EU members are highly developed or at least
having the industrial and educational infrastructure in place for a
quick lift-off, that reduces considerably the potential cost to
integrate together economies of multiple nations; EU nations share
close cultural, historical and religious background, that greatly
reduces the potential friction arising from racism or religious
fanaticism. To this very moment, EU still only pays lip service to
Turkey's bid to join the still-white-Christian club because of
Turkey's size, Turkey's wealth and most important of all, Turkey's
religion. Democratization or rule of law are reasons too, but for the
most part, they are excuses consciously or unconsciously picked up by
EU to indefinitely delay actually admitting Turkey.
Jordan179
> ... not to mention the significant animosity toward people of
> Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in
> America.
Maybe this is a product of having lived most of my life in New York,
NY and Oakland-San Francisco, CA, but I really don't see a lot of anti-
Hispanic sentiment. Anti-_illegal_ sentiment, yes, but not anti-
Hispanic qua Hispanic.
I am well aware that, six decades and more ago, things were very
different.
- Jordan
Matthias Warkus
> Only because both nations were now more worried about the military
> might of Russia and the economic might of the United States than they
> were about each other.
That doesn't explain the "private" side of the Franco-German
reconciliation, which included groups of enthusiastic pacifist students
of both sides tearing down customs barriers in protest, and private
initiatives setting up town twinnings.
Of course there was a strong outside motivation, but millions of actual,
simple people in France and German really *felt* sick and tired of all
the warring and scheming. It was a bit like a panting, sweating couple
realising that after breaking all the crockery and laying waste to the
entire apartment, they could as well have some excellent make-up sex and
then think about how to pay for the redecoration. :)
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<4ae75a45-2513-451f...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>):
Expressing anti-Hispanic sentiment in South Florida would be a Very Bad
Idea(tm). Hint: Dade County's majority Hispanic, and I'm not just talking
Cubans, either.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Dan Goodman
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin
> > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are
> > members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus
> > Canada and Mexico.
>
> Why such bad feeling between Brazil & Chile on the one hand and
> Argentina on the other?
Tradition and rivalry.
> Because of a war? Consider the example of
> France and Germany, which fought each other in three wars between
> 1870 and 1945, and are now both members of the European Union.
Consider the example of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.
And of Irish-Americans who support those Catholics, and Irish-Canadians
who support those Protestants.
Consider the example of Serbia and Croatia.
Consider the example of Greece and Turkey.
Dan Goodman
> not gonna happen, unless US is significantly weakened or Latin America
> gets significantly stronger.
The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world)
since about 1945.
In the 1950s, Arthur C. Clarke and other Brits wrote sf in which
England was still a world power, and was also among the leading powers
in space. England was no longer a world power.
The US is still a world power, but probably remains a superpower only
because of past reputation.
In Central America (and to some extent in the rest of Latin America),
it seems to now have influence about equal to Venezuela's.
In Europe, the EU counts for more than the US does.
The most positive thing I can say about US influence in the Muslim
world is that we're _probably_ still trusted more than Israel is.
Some parts of Latin America have been getting stronger. For example,
Brazil has been doing very well with agriculture.
> Otherwise, there will be no incentive for
> the US to play the team game of any real sense. And there will be
> serious disincentive for Latin American countries to remain suspicious
> toward the US given the history of US involvement in that part of the
> world, not to mention the significant animosity toward people of
> Hispanic origin explicitly expressed by the majority racial group in
> America.
>
> EU succeeded because European nations face common military threat from
> Russia and the danger of their voices being drowned out by giants like
> Russia, America. That gives them the incentive to band together, no EU
> nation is strong enough to dominant certainly forces them to
> compromise; Almost all of EU members are highly developed or at least
> having the industrial and educational infrastructure in place for a
> quick lift-off, that reduces considerably the potential cost to
> integrate together economies of multiple nations; EU nations share
> close cultural, historical and religious background, that greatly
> reduces the potential friction arising from racism or religious
> fanaticism. To this very moment, EU still only pays lip service to
> Turkey's bid to join the still-white-Christian club because of
> Turkey's size, Turkey's wealth and most important of all, Turkey's
> religion. Democratization or rule of law are reasons too, but for the
> most part, they are excuses consciously or unconsciously picked up by
> EU to indefinitely delay actually admitting Turkey.
--
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Jordan179
> The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world)
> since about 1945.
Well yes, but that's because "the rest of the world" had been
devastated by World War II.
> The US is still a world power, but probably remains a superpower only
> because of past reputation.
.... and a huge, first-rate modern military, backed by thousands of
nuclear missiles and some of the only operational _anti-missiles_ in
the world.
> In Central America (and to some extent in the rest of Latin America),
> it seems to now have influence about equal to Venezuela's.
So what you're saying is that a mere _fraction_ of America's might
easily counterbalances Venezuela's _entire_ national might?
> In Europe, the EU counts for more than the US does.
So we're _not_ stronger in Europe than is Europe itself? Why would
you expect us to be?
The only way that we could have remained as relatively powerful as we
were in 1945 is if we had _sabotaged_ the recovery of the rest of the
world. But that's not our kind of game.
- Jordan
John Schilling
A Russian-Venezuelan alliance, of course. If we simply extrapolate
from recent trends, that alliance is going to be powerful enough
and aggressive enough to pose a real challenge for even a full ABC
alliance in a decade or two. And the United States will be too
busy dealing with Cuban Missile Crisis II to help...
I'm certain there will be people here who have some choice words
about the wisdom of simple extrapolation from recent trends, but
this *is* a science fiction newsgroup, and have you considered
what fraction of the total body of SF we'd have to dispense with
if we were to implement a "simple extrapolation from recent trends
is stupid" rule?
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.S...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Howard Brazee
>The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world)
>since about 1945.
The rest of the world has been getting stronger more quickly - partly
because followers have easier paths than leaders. The U.S.'s
industrial revolution took less time than Britain's, and China's is
taking less time than ours.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Pedro Dias
Heh. I was asked, not that long ago, after a sterling job interview,
if I'd ever considered changing my name.
Pedro M. Dias
Pedro Dias
> On Sep 20, 9:50 am, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world)
> > since about 1945.
>
> Well yes, but that's because "the rest of the world" had been
> devastated by World War II.
Even so, our relative position improved for a couple of decades after
that.
> > The US is still a world power, but probably remains a superpower only
> > because of past reputation.
>
> .... and a huge, first-rate modern military, backed by thousands of
> nuclear missiles and some of the only operational _anti-missiles_ in
> the world.
For values of "operational" approaching zero, sure.
But I take the point that our military budget equals that of the rest
of the world's, combined.
> > In Central America (and to some extent in the rest of Latin America),
> > it seems to now have influence about equal to Venezuela's.
>
> So what you're saying is that a mere _fraction_ of America's might
> easily counterbalances Venezuela's _entire_ national might?
Sure. But that fraction has shifted mightily, recently.
> > In Europe, the EU counts for more than the US does.
>
> So we're _not_ stronger in Europe than is Europe itself? Why would
> you expect us to be?
Because, not that long ago, we were?
Just a guess.
> The only way that we could have remained as relatively powerful as we
> were in 1945 is if we had _sabotaged_ the recovery of the rest of the
> world. But that's not our kind of game.
That *wasn't* our kind of game. But Truman and Marshall *weren't* Bush
and Cheney.
But then, Harvard =/ Yale.
John F. Eldredge
Here in Nashville, Tennessee, we have had a relatively large influx of
Hispanic folks in the last decade or so. A lot of the local
reactionaries don't make much distinction between illegal immigrants,
legal immigrants, and folks of Hispanic descent born in the USA, even if
the latter group have been here for many generations. These are the same
sort of reactionary folks who, before the Hispanic influx, were
constantly griping about black people. The dinosaur-types make up only a
minority of the total white population, but they are a very vocal
minority, both in the media and on the Internet, making Nashville appear
to be much further to the right than is actually the case. Some of them
give the impression that they would consider the KKK to be too left-wing.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Dan Goodman
> On 20 Sep 2008 16:50:58 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world)
> > since about 1945.
>
> The rest of the world has been getting stronger more quickly - partly
> because followers have easier paths than leaders. The U.S.'s
> industrial revolution took less time than Britain's, and China's is
> taking less time than ours.
Also, leaders have more investment in This Is The Way We Do It. Which
is part of why the Japanese started using transistors in consumer
electronics before US companies did, for example.
Ben Goodman
> > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at
> > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
>
> I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin
> America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are members,
> or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus Canada and
> Mexico.
>
Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back
its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago. Then there
are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in
Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long-
held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to
form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it
progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
William Black
"Ben Goodman" <goo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:555b8ee0-0132-4d2d...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back
its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago. Then there
are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in
Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long-
held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to
form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it
progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
-----------------------------------
Gibraltar seems to show that nobody cares so long as people are busy making
money.
Cyprus seems to show that countries on the fringes of such organisations can
manage quite well with ostensibly illegal governments.
Israel (An EC preferred EC trading partner, which means it gets all the
free trade benefits) shows that you can offend even the Arabs and stay.
When there's money to be made everyone gets really agreeable to doing
deals...
The British have even managed to keep border controls...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Matthias Warkus
I've read pretty much the exact opposite in a very respectable German
paper (FAZ IIRC) not long ago - i.e. that Bolivia and Peru had finally
settled their conflict to the point where they could move on and take
care of more important issues, and Mercosur (I think that's what it's
called) heading towards implementation of a first stage of political union.
But then, respectable papers can be wrong, too.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Dan Goodman
> On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > James Nicoll wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time
> > > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at
> > > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
> >
> > I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin
> > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are
> > members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus
> > Canada and Mexico.
> >
>
> Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back
> its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago.
I'd forgotten about that. And the story about a member of another
country's government asking why Bolivia has a Department of the Navy
when it has no navy.
"Why does your country have a Department of Justice?"
> Then there
> are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in
> Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long-
> held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to
> form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it
> progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
It took a while for the European Union to get anywhere near that level.
Matthias Warkus
>> Then there
>> are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the countries in
>> Latin America get along with their immediate neighbors due to long-
>> held grudges and territorial disputes. There have been motions made to
>> form a South American verison of the EU, but I don't see it
>> progressing as far as giving up actual sovereignty anytime soon.
>
> It took a while for the European Union to get anywhere near that level.
Hmmm. There was a "European Parliament" from the get go. In fact, there
were three competing "European Parliaments". It then took twenty years
to settle on one and make it elected by the people instead of appointed
by governments.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Ben Goodman
> Ben Goodman wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > > James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > > > 1: NAFTA cannot lead to an NAU because there's no way at this time
> > > > to sell a union with Mexico with the US, even though it would at
> > > > one stroke end all illegal immigration from Mexico.
>
> > > I can see a Community of the Americas which includes most of Latin
> > > America (with Argentina not a member if Brazil and Chile are
> > > members, or Brazil and Chile not members if Argentina belongs) plus
> > > Canada and Mexico.
>
> > Not to mention Bolivia not joining unless Chile agreed to give back
> > its Pacific coast that it lost over a hundred years ago.
>
> I'd forgotten about that. And the story about a member of another
> country's government asking why Bolivia has a Department of the Navy
> when it has no navy.
>
> "Why does your country have a Department of Justice?"
>
Bolivia's Navy's main purpose nowadays is patrolling Lake Titicaca
which is South America's largest lake. It happens to straddle the
border between Peru and Bolivia. They may also be hoping to get their
Pacific coast back, and I've heard that Chile's been more receptive to
it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ben Goodman
wrote:
Bolivia's main beef is with Chile (although Peru was involved in the
war too and may bhave ended up with a Bolivian city, but they took it
from Chile). I've heard Chile is actually making concillatory noises
towards giving the Atacama back, but if I were from Antofagosta, I
would have serious issues with being told I was now living in Bolivia
after the area being Chilean for so long.
Dan Goodman
I'm talking about the beginning -- before it was officially concerned
with anything except coal and steel. And well before it was _called_
the European Community.
Matthias Warkus
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
>> Dan Goodman schrieb:
>>>> Then there
>>>> are Ecuador's squabbles with Peru. Basically none of the
>>>> countries in Latin America get along with their immediate
>>>> neighbors due to long- held grudges and territorial disputes.
>>>> There have been motions made to form a South American verison of
>>>> the EU, but I don't see it progressing as far as giving up actual
>>>> sovereignty anytime soon.
>>> It took a while for the European Union to get anywhere near that
>>> level.
>> Hmmm. There was a "European Parliament" from the get go. In fact,
>> there were three competing "European Parliaments". It then took
>> twenty years to settle on one and make it elected by the people
>> instead of appointed by governments.
>
> I'm talking about the beginning -- before it was officially concerned
> with anything except coal and steel. And well before it was _called_
> the European Community.
I was talking about that same period of time (which, by the way, was
made clear by the "twenty years" figure). The ECCS already had a parliament.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Howard Brazee
<goo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bolivia's main beef is with Chile
Not pork?
Jordan179
>
> > .... and a huge, first-rate modern military, backed by thousands of
> > nuclear missiles and some of the only operational _anti-missiles_ in
> > the world.
>
> For values of "operational" approaching zero, sure.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you trying to claim that our
anti-missile batteries are utterly incapable of shooting down enemy
missiles?
The anti-missiles we had in _1990_ -- which were heavy SAM's pressed
into anti-missile service -- were capable of shooting down enemy
SRBM's, and did shoot down quite a few of them. Why do you assume
that the technology hasn't advanced at all in the last 18 years?
(and if it hasn't, isn't that a rather harsh indictment of Bill
Clinton?)
> > So what you're saying is that a mere _fraction_ of America's might
> > easily counterbalances Venezuela's _entire_ national might?
>
> Sure. But that fraction has shifted mightily, recently.
I don't see that -- how has Venezuela suddenly become much more
powerful?
> > > In Europe, the EU counts for more than the US does.
>
> > So we're _not_ stronger in Europe than is Europe itself? Why would
> > you expect us to be?
>
> Because, not that long ago, we were?
>
> Just a guess.
So you're guessing that the original poster is ignorant of world
affairs? Because, after all, the only way we could have chosen to
remain stronger in Europe than Europe itself would have been to either
(1) deploy all our resources to the defense of Europe, for no obvious
sane strategic reason, or (2) activley prevent European strength from
recovering from World War II.
> > The only way that we could have remained as relatively powerful as we
> > were in 1945 is if we had _sabotaged_ the recovery of the rest of the
> > world. But that's not our kind of game.
>
> That *wasn't* our kind of game. But Truman and Marshall *weren't* Bush
> and Cheney.
>
> But then, Harvard =/ Yale.
Since when have Bush and Cheney been "sabotaging the recovery of the
rest of the world?" Among other things wrong with that statement is
that the "recovery of the rest of the world" occurred long before Bush
ever took office.
You have an anachronistically-compressed concept of the history of the
last 60 years.
- Jordan
Jordan179
> On 20 Sep 2008 16:50:58 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >The US has been getting weaker (compared to the rest of the world)
> >since about 1945.
>
> The rest of the world has been getting stronger more quickly - partly
> because followers have easier paths than leaders. The U.S.'s
> industrial revolution took less time than Britain's, and China's is
> taking less time than ours.
That's one reason. The other is that the weakness of the rest of the
world, in 1945, was due to the specific devastation of World War II.
But war damage is quickly repaired, given skilled populations. In
particular, it was practically inevitable that _Europe_ would return
to economic importance, and within a mere decade or two.
- Jordan
Damien Sullivan
>> > .... and a huge, first-rate modern military, backed by thousands of
>> > nuclear missiles and some of the only operational _anti-missiles_ in
>> > the world.
>>
>> For values of "operational" approaching zero, sure.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you trying to claim that our
>anti-missile batteries are utterly incapable of shooting down enemy
>missiles?
I'd read him as saying they're incapable of reliably shooting down enemy
missiles. "approaching zero" is not "equals zero".
>SRBM's, and did shoot down quite a few of them. Why do you assume
>that the technology hasn't advanced at all in the last 18 years?
>
>(and if it hasn't, isn't that a rather harsh indictment of Bill
>Clinton?)
Not if what they're trying to do is a hard technical problem, such that
18 years of Moore's Law still leaves it hard to do outside of a
contrived test. Your attempt to politicize this is... interesting.
>> > The only way that we could have remained as relatively powerful as we
>> > were in 1945 is if we had _sabotaged_ the recovery of the rest of the
>> > world. But that's not our kind of game.
>>
>> That *wasn't* our kind of game. But Truman and Marshall *weren't* Bush
>> and Cheney.
>
>Since when have Bush and Cheney been "sabotaging the recovery of the
>rest of the world?" Among other things wrong with that statement is
>that the "recovery of the rest of the world" occurred long before Bush
>ever took office.
Nothing he said contradicts that. Vs. saying that Bush and Cheney would
have made different decision, or executed them poorly.
-xx- Damien X-)
Mike Schilling
If Bush and Cheney had been running the Marshall plan, we'd have wound
up asking the devastated nations of Europe to give *us* money.
Bill Snyder
"Asking?"
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Kurt Busiek
Right after "going home" from Germany. Have we done that yet?
kdb
Gene
$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com:
> If Bush and Cheney had been running the Marshall plan, we'd have wound
* up asking the devastated nations of Europe to give *us* money.
We'd have ended up needing to.