Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Seven EP #240

From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1991 02:48:25 +0000

Issue #240 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL:

*************************************************************************
Then he looked at me shrewdly from under his shaggy brows and said in
a low, forceful tone, "I found the road to wealth when I decided that
A PART OF ALL I EARNED WAS MINE TO KEEP.  And so will you."
*************************************************************************

Chapter One contains:

BAGHDAD, AUSTERLITZ, BLITZKRIEG II, KING'S GAMBIT, PASSCHENDAELE,
DRAGONS, BLACK OCTOBER, OPERATION DESERT STORM, THE SOMME

And is published by uunet!cti1!rlister or rlister@cti.com/Russ Lister

Chapter Two contains:

REPUBLIC, BORODINO, KHAN, SUTHERLAND

And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha

Chapter Three contains:

SQUALANE, BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE, CULLODEN, GANDALF'S REVENGE,
GOODBYE BLUE SKY, MASTERS OF DECEIT, PANDORA, NOW AND ZEN

And is published by mad-2@kub.nl/Constantijn Wekx

Chapter Four contains:

DEADLY DAGGERS, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, FIRE WHEN READY, THUNDERDOME,
BEREZINA, FONTENOY

And is published by daguru@ucscb.ucsc.edu/Nicholas Jodar

Chapter Five contains:

YALTA, AJAX

And is published by ddetlef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu/David Aaron Detlef

Chapter Six contains:

BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE, GIBRALTAR

And needs a publisher.

Chapter Seven contains:

HELM'S DEEP, GROUND ZERO, TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS
GUERNICA, TEUNISGEK, WOLF BLITZER

-------------
Chapter Seven
-------------

Table of Contents:

The Bulgarian Gambit
11 Player Variant
Letters from Steve Robinson
----

Taken from Diplomacy Digest #58, originally from Hoosier Archives
#120.
First published in EP #81

THE BULGARIAN GAMBIT
                        by Doug Beyerlein

Probably the least contested 1901 gain is Turkey's taking of
Bulgaria.  A Con-Bul backed up by an additional army and a fleet, and
Bul is guaranteed Turkish in 1901.  Or is it?

There is one set of orders, when used against an unsuspecting Turkish
player, which will leave Turkey with only 3 centers at the end of
1901 and no future.  This is the Bulgarian Gambit.

The requried orders are simple; the dipolomacy difficult...For Spring
1901, Russia sends F Sev-Rum and Austria opens with A Bud-Ser, F Tri-
Alb.  T is guided to a western attack with A Con-Bul and a follow up
into Con with either A Smy or F Ank.  In the Fall, Turkey is enticed
to move A Bul-Gre or -Rum so that it cannot be supported in place.
The opposition ... strikes with F Rum-Bul(ec) and A Ser S Rus F Rum-
Bul(ec), F Alb-Gre.  The Russian fleet takes Bul, The Turkish army is
annihilated or retreats to Con and the Turkish player counts only to
3.

Now for the difficult part:  the diplomatic setup of Turkey.  R must
convince T to go west while feigning a northern attack.  Thus in S01
R will ... at most send A War south to Ukr.  This is a definite
gamble on Russia's part.  Austrian diplomacy in the spring is
relatively simple.  Therefore the burden and the gain lies with
Russia.  It is all or nothing.

Assuming that S01 went according to plan, we now come to the fall.
Here R has an easy time diplomatically and Austria must pull a fast
one on Turkey.  Turkey with units in Bul and Con may be content to H
with support.  Gre can be attacked, but if Austria does A Ser S F
Alb-Gre, the attack is worthless without Italian support (which is
usually very unlikely).  So, to get T to move A Bul and therefore
guarantee T's loss, Austria must make some encouraging noises in
Turkey's direction.  Austria should say that A Ser is supporting a
Bul-Rum whether or not T makes the move.  This leaves Turkey (or so
the Turkish player thinks) with 2 options:  1) Stand off F Alb-Gre,
or 2) take the unsolicited support and attack him.  Then, when the
F01 orders are published, the damage is done and T is dead.

The only remaining problem is who gets Rum after the Russian fleet
moves out.  Either Austria can take it in return for the possible
standoff in Gre so as to have at least two builds, or Rus A Ukr can
have it.  This should be worked out well in advance.

Finally, R builds F Sev and A builds armies.  Then it is only a
matter of time...

This subtle blitz has its risks, however.  Russia, with only a
maximum of 2 units in the south, can be hit hard by a combined A-T
attack.  I have seen it go both ways and have been fortunate enough
to have been on the right side both times.  In every case, diplomacy
is the key and the gambit is doomed to failure without it...

Don Stehle in HA #123 replied:

...While the article is very good, there exists one mistake which I
saw.  According to Doug, the unsuspecting Turkish player has two
options... If so, then the Gambit will work.  Such is not the case.

If Turkey opens with A Con-Bul, F Ank-Bla, A Smy-Con, then T can
exercise either option (resisting Austrian entry into Gre or
attacking Rum...) without the possible loss of Bul.  He simply orders
in F01, A Bul-Gre/Rum, F Bla S A Con-Bul.  Assuming the gambit is
attempted, this will result in a standoff, with Bul remaining ...
Turkish.

Thus, it would seem that for the Bulgarian Gambit to be successful,
it would be necessary for Turkey to have opened F Ank-Con, A Smy H in
the spring.

Further analysis will reveal that:

Austria: F Tri-Alb, A Bud-Ser, A Vie-Gal
Russia:  F Sev-Rum, A War-Ukr
Turkey:  F Ank-Bla, A Con-Bul, A Smy-Con

then Fall 1901:

Austria: A Ser S Rus F Rum-Bul might not be the best course for
Austria to follow.  Austria will definitely have more to gain by
allying with Turkey against Russia, once Russia has not committed A
War AND A Mos to the southern theatre.  If:

Fall 1901:  F Alb-Gre, A Ser S F Alb-Gre, A Gal S Tur A Bul-Rum OR
            F Alb-Gre, A Ser S Tur A Bul-Rum

and Turkey: A Bul-Rum, F Bla S A Bul-Rum then the whole of southern
Russia will fall to the A-T alliance.

Furthermore, even if Austria allies with Russia in the Bulgarian
Gambit, it is definitely forced into a western expansion route in
that Russia has now taken control of the Balkans.  This should not, I
think, be in the best future interests of Austria, in that Russia
would then have an unflanked position, and Austria might fact the
future problem of a two front war.

There are innumberable variations which might occur on Russia's part,
but the way the analysis was presented, it would appear that the
Bulgarian Gambit does not successfully cripple Turkey this early in
the war.

In the same issue Doug Beyerlein responded:

..Perhaps I was a little too vague in some of the details...for the
Bulgarian Gambit to succeed, Turkey must be talked into playing F
Ank-Con (or at least not to Bla in Spring 1901...I should have been
more specific in the original article.  However, actually, this
problem of the Turkish F Bla is usually not the case --- unless
Turkey launches a full attack (A Con-Bul, F Ank-Bla, A Smy-Arm)
against Russia in S01.  If the Turkish player has fallen for Russia's
Diplomacy and thus the Bulgarian Gambit, then the Turkish fleet
should be headed for the Aegean, and not the Bla.  Rarely will one
find the opening A Con-Bul, A Smy-Con, F Ank-Bla.  The occupation of
Bla by Turkey is generally too antagonistic to Russia to be allowed
to succeed regardless of Russia's plans.

In addition to the above discussion, Stehle addressed the larger
question of whether or not Austria should ally with Turkey instead of
Russia...For some odd reason or another, it seems that people who
voice their opinion on this matter of whom Austria should ally with
always choose Russia..I personally favor T as an ally when playing
Austria.  It is not that those expansion problems mysterously
disappear in the A-T alliance, but that if Austria can get Turkey
shunted northward, there is a fair possiblity (made even better with
Italian help) that Austria can slip in behind and make a fast grab
for Turkey's home centers.  Russia is crippled by Turkey as Turkey is
by Austria...This preference and plan is based on my experience and
observation throughout the years I've played...Hopefully, my present
and future Turkish allies will realize that the above discussion is
purely theoretical in nature and that, to me, a good ally is a far
more valuable asset than a good strategy.

Mark Berch then commented:

That final comment may sound like a standard disclaimer to avoid
having one's words used against oneself, but it is actually entirely
true.  The differences between alliances really do pale in comparison
to the differences between people.  However, Doug's statement that
the A Con-Bul, A Smy-Con, F Ank-Bla is "rarely ... found" is simply
not true.  My stats on 272 North American games shows this one at
34.9% --- the MOST common opening for Turkey.  Of those games, 38% of
the time, F Ank-Bla succeeds.  Thus, the configuration we are
discussing, F Bla, A Con, A Bul, occurs about 13% of the time, and is
the third most common configuration of Turkey after S1901.
Obviously, the prime goal for the AR diplomacy in this case is to get
T to open F Ank-Con, something that occurs less than 30% of the time,
because without that move, the swindle will not work.

To do this, Turkey must be encouraged to attack either Italy or
Austria, since either a standard defensive stance, or an attack on
Russia, is inconsistant with F Ank-Con.  If Austria is to be the
supposed target, Italy may have to be brought in, and when T falls it
will be a tricky business to persuade Turkey to change sights
immediately and head for Rum or Greece.  It would seem that the best
set-up would be for Russia to make a firm promise of A War-Gal, and
then break it, making Turkey mad enough to accept Austria's offer of
support into Rum.  That will make for a difficult chocie for F Con.
If he does F Con-Bul(ec), then he runs a risk of F Rum retreating to
Bla.  If he does F Con-Bla, he gives up a second build.  There are
obvious risks to Russia in a plan which involves him betraying Turkey
on the first move and not attacking him at the same time.  I frankly
see very little chance of persuading Turkey to do the other option,
viz, A Bul-Gre if Russia has failed to open A War-Gal.  All T would
get from that is a weakened Austria, since F Alb would be expected to
guard Gre.  One alternative there might be for Italy to stage an
attack on Austria that Turkey thinks will distract F Alb.

I am starting the following 11 player game described by
pdja@caen.engin.umich.edu/Pete D Jennings:

Starting positions:  All seven normal Great Powers start with their
normal units and positions.
   Iberia has F Portugal, A Spain, and F Tunis.
   Scandinavia has F Norway, A Denmark, and A Sweden.
   Transbalkania has F Greece, F Rumania, A Serbia, and A Bulgaria.
   Low Countries have F Belgium, A Holland, and A Ruhr.
   ** Note that the Ruhr contains a supply center for the purposes
      of this game.

Other than this crowded setup, the game starts with Spring 1901 and
continues on just like a normal game.

The countries are A-H, E, F, G, Ib, It, L, R, S, Tr, Tu.

From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson:

Hey Eric!

From the news I saw yesterday, it is clear that we need to step up our
assistance to the Iraqi resistance.  Intelligence information and a
total supression of Saddam's air power are needed first.  Food,
medicine, etc. are also sorely needed.  We shouldn't pretend to be
neutral on this; Saddam must go!

On another topic entirely, I have great respect, admiration, and genuine
liking for the Brits.  Do you really suppose they think poorly of us,
and if so why?  It's no crime to be a great nation, and after all our
British heritige is largely responsible for our success and fine way
of life.  If we were so bad, we wouldn't have the whole world busting
to get in.  Some people treat it as a crime or immoral for a nation
not to be third world and act as if we owe the third world some debt
because they are poor and we aren't.  This is silly.  Our affluence
comes from political stability, size, and robust entreprenurial effort.
The third world countries can't do much to affect their size, but the
other two ingredients are well within reach, and it is purely a matter
of choice as to whether they want them or not.

All too often individuals (and sometimes nations) find a perverse
comfort in the status of victimhood and go to great lengths to claim
and cultivate this.  Victimhood is blamed for every failure and is an
excuse for every lack of effort.  Who victimizes these people?  Well,
to hear it told, it is all of the people who haven't figured out how
to join the Victim Roll yet.

Wow! Reading over this, it is really weird.  I've rambled over three or
four loosely connected (at best) topics.  I've been to the Old World
(or first world) in the UK, the New World (or second world) in the dear
old USA, and the Third World in Iraq and so many others.  I've also
painted with an uncharacteristicly broad brush in my generalizations.
Oh well.  It's late; I must be tired.  Forgive me.

Steve

My response:

"We shouldn't pretend to be neutral on this; Saddam must go!"

That's how I would do it.  I would start off with food shipments to
the Kurds.

"On another topic entirely, I have great respect, admiration, and genuine
liking for the Brits.  Do you really suppose they think poorly of us,
and if so why?"

The Brits like us.  A lot of other people don't.  The Jordanians for
instance.  The Chinese and Russians like us though.  Actually, we
are liked and respected more than at any time since WWII ended.

"Some people treat it as a crime or immoral for a nation not to be
third world and act as if we owe the third world some debt because
they are poor and we aren't."

These people should be ignored.  If I was in charge, foreign aid to
third world countries would be dropped to near zero.  I would allow
their citizens to immigrate into our country, though.

Eric Klien

From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson:

> That's how I would do it.  I would start off with food shipments to
> the Kurds.

Sounds good to me.  Let's start shooting down helicopters too.  Also,
let's start killing any tanks that move.  Make him shut them down for
the duration.

> "On another topic entirely, I have great respect, admiration, and genuine
> liking for the Brits.  Do you really suppose they think poorly of us,
> and if so why?"
>
> The Brits like us.  A lot of other people don't.  The Jordanians for
> instance.  The Chinese and Russians like us though.  Actually, we
> are liked and respected more than at any time since WWII ended.

I'm glad to hear it.  I don't give a hoot what the Jordanians think of
us, but the Brits are a different matter.  We share common values and
heritige.  Dennis Summerbell's comments made me think that maybe our
generally good feelings toward the Brits were not reciprocated.  I'm
glad to know that my concern was misplaced.

> "Some people treat it as a crime or immoral for a nation not to be
> third world and act as if we owe the third world some debt because
> they are poor and we aren't."
>
> These people should be ignored.  If I was in charge, foreign aid to
> third world countries would be dropped to near zero.  I would allow
> their citizens to immigrate into our country, though.

Agreed and agreed.  We have helped so many for so long that it has
become expected by many of them.  It is felt by many of the recipients
that this is not a gift or a loan from a well meaning friend but rather
a debt we owe them for being poorer, for holding their anti-US tirades
to a dull roar, or for allowing us the "privilege" of guarding them
against their enemies.  We should only give aid in cases where it meets
*our own* objectives.  The US taxpayer shouldn't be burdened with the
operating costs of any nation but our own.  With our bloated and
inefficient government, it is all we can do to pay for our own upkeep.
Gifts should be minimal and far between.  They should be one time things
and not "grandfathered" into ongoing subsidies.  Loans should be rare
also but preferred over gifts.  Most importantly, we should make it
abundantly clear that we expect repayment in full and on time.  Any
nation which is delinquent should be barred from any further help
until the matter is satisfactorily resolved.  This may seem hard, but
"big daddy America" can no longer afford his dependents' "allowance."

The one exception I would make is Israel.  Given their location,
the strength and number of their enemies, and the fact that they are
the only stable, democratic, and consistantly friendly to us nation in
the critical Middle East, our continuing support is justified.  Even in
this case though, we should work to help them become less dependent on
our help.  I have to respect these guys.  They genuinely seem to *want*
to take care of themselves: they fight their own battles, and they pay
for as much as they are able themselves.  Looking over the above reasons
for their importance to us and their need, Israel is not much of an
exception after all.  We should help them on a regular basis because:
1) It is in our own interest to do so each time.  2) The need will come
up on a regular basis due to the unique threat posed to these people.

I'm all for a fairly open immigration policy.  New blood is good for us.
Immigrants founded this country, and they are healthy for us now.  There
should be some degree of restriction though.  We should try not to
become one great big refugee camp.  Historically, immigrants to the US
have come looking for opportunity not instant wealth.  Our streets are
paved with sweat not gold, but they *do* lead upward for those who are
willing to climb as opposed to being carried.  There are limits to the
number of people we can absorb in a given year, but this number is
quite large, particularly if they settle in a spread out fashion rather
than all in one place.  Potential immigrants should be screened to weed
out terrorists and the like.  We have very little of that sort of
activity here, and we should vigorously work to keep it that way.  One
other thing we should be careful of is whether the potential immigrant
might have and therefore be able to pass along any tough (or impossible)
to fight, dangerous, and contagious disease such as malaria or Aids.
These restrictions would exclude a very small percentage of applicants
for immigration.  That's good because we want immigration to be fairly
open.

One other thing.  Immigrants should be expected and strongly encouraged
(if not required) to aquire a working knowledge of spoken and written
English.  The US has no official language, but the de facto national
language is English, and proficiency in English is necessary for a
productive existance in all but a very few locations in the country.
If I emmigrated to France some day, I would fully expect to have to
learn the French language to get by.  That is as it should be.  I would
retain my knowledge of English and use it in my private life and
wherever it was appropriate, but for dealing with the public, reading
street signs, etc. I should use French, the language of my new home.

Bye for now.
                                   Steve

Another message from shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson:

> I really think that the Kurds and Shiites will be too tired to kill
> each other once Saddam is out.  My only question is will the Kurds and
> Shiites win against the Baath party?  I think they will, but...
>
> By the way, part of my reasoning is that the Kurds have mostly just
> flown the Iraqi flag in battle, saying that they want to work with
> their fellow Iraqis, not just the Kurds.  There have been some other
> little signs of rational reasoning among the Kurds and Shiites based
> in Iraq.

I hope you're right.  The Iranians may not allow the Iraqi shiites be
independent.  My real concern is that the rebels will fail altogether.
The longer it takes, the more Saddam will consolidate his power and the
less chance the rebels will have.  Since we quit too soon and we are not
aiding the rebel cause in any overt way, the best hope for the removal
of Saddam is an assasination.  The ones who are close enough to do it
are kept quite comfortable by the dictator, so this may be unlikely
unless the unrest becomes so intense that someone begins to feel that a
takeover has become possible.  Right now, anyone who tries to kill
Saddam is dead meat whether they succeed or not.  This is a strong
deterrant no matter what the liberal "criminologists" may tell you.
Still, martyrs are not completely rare in the Middle East.  There is
room for hope, but we had better not count on his removal when we sit
down to make our foreign policy plans for the next few years.

My response:

"Since we quit too soon and we are not aiding the rebel cause in any
overt way, the best hope for the removal of Saddam is an assasination."

I hope you're right.  I think it will take continuous unrest caused by
food shortages to overthrow him.

"They should be one time things and not "grandfathered" into ongoing
subsidies."

Right, continuous aid is worse than useless.  Trade, not aid!

"Given their location, the strength and number of their enemies, and
the fact that they are the only stable, democratic, and consistantly
friendly to us nation in the critical Middle East, our continuing support
is justified."

I think we should cut off aid until their socialist government becomes
capitalistic.  Hopefully all those Russian immigrants will overthrow the
socialist Israeli government.  By the way, it isn't surprising that the
two biggest recipients of U.S. aid, Israel and Egypt, are socialist.  Aid
is evil in the long run.

"One other thing.  Immigrants should be expected and strongly encouraged
(if not required) to aquire a working knowledge of spoken and written
English."

First, we should start encouraging U.S. citizens to speak English.
Bilingual schools are a really bad idea.

Eric Klien

From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson:

> I hope you're right.  I think it will take continuous unrest caused by
> food shortages to overthrow him.

I'm worried that you are correct on this.  Food, medicine, fresh water,
and the like are the one thing that *will* be sent to Iraq regardless
of Saddam's actions.

I've got a sick feeling about this.  Please convince me that what I'm
beginning to believe is not so.  Consider this.  Bush went to the
American people and asked for support for his position that we must fight
to liberate Kuwait.  He said that freeing Kuwait was our only goal, but
one of the major reasons that the people supported the war was their
belief that Saddam would be stopped, ousted and perhaps killed.  We were
repeatedly told of how Saddam had gassed the Kurds and oppressed his own
people.  We were told how Saddam's potential for this sort of agression
against his neighbors and his own people would be eliminated.  We were
told that this war was about naked agression.  The Kurds and the Shiite
minority were encouraged to revolt, supported covertly by our CIA, and
emboldened by our invading forces.

Now, we won't even shoot down the helicopter gunships or halt Saddam's
tanks.  We even pushed the UN security council to abandon the idea of
stipulating in the cease-fire resolution that Saddam not oppress the
Kurds and other rebels.  Saddam is hounding them to their deaths right
now.  They are huddled in misery and terror against the Turkish and
Iranian borders and against the borders of coalition-held Iraq.
The naked agression continues.

I hope I'm not hopelessly naive in still believing that the US is a
compassionate nation.  We got the Iraqi rebels into this, and now we
are abandoning them.  We said, "Come on. Saddam is weakened.  You can
take him!"  Then we left Saddam enough power to ensure that the rebels
could *not* win.  This is cold and cruel, and it makes me sick to the
core.  This isn't the outcome I believed in when Bush asked for my
support and got it.  Make no mistake, I still believe whole-heartedly
that the war was just and necessary.  But we stopped too soon, and the
way we have abandoned the very rebel forces that we encouraged so strongly
leads me to believe that the early halt of hostilities was calculated
with just this result in mind.  How I hope not!  Like I say, I'm just
sick over this.

I'm coming to believe that our leaders want to keep Saddam in power in
order to prevent a Lebanon-like power vacuum.  They want to have him in
power so nobody (such as Syria or Iran) can take Iraq over in the turmoil
that would follow his ouster or death.  They want him weakened as much as
possible so he can't threaten anyone outside his borders any time soon.
This ensures that the important Iraqi oil reserves don't fall into a
Lebanon-like war zone.

This makes a kind of sense if you totally ignore the human part of the
equation.  This is the kind of hard calculating cruelty that Stalin
made a lot of use of.  We as Americans (and the coalition members as a
whole, too) can do far better.  Yes, killing Saddam or ensuring his
ouster would have been inconvenient and would have been messy.  But
just ask an Iraqi Kurd about inconvenience right about now.  My heart
goes out to those people.  I pray (literally) that we will find some
way to help them and abandon this course of action.  To leave those
rebels hanging with their backs against the wall like we have is
unconscionable.  It makes me ashamed.  Please convince me I'm wrong
about all this.  I want very much to be wrong.  Being right hurts.

> Right, continuous aid is worse than useless.  Trade, not aid!

I believe so.  It creates dependencies rather than removing them.
Jack Kemp once said something that relates to this even though he was
refering to domestic assistance programs when he said it.  Paraphrased,
it was something like this.  Liberals measure success by how many
people receive government help while Conservatives measure success by
how many people no longer *need* help.  That's a good principle.  Let's
try to help people in a way which lets them take care of themselves
rather than going around creating dependencies.  Liberals like big
social spending programs precisely because they create a dependence
on such programs and therefore on those programs' sponsors.

> I think we should cut off aid until their socialist government becomes
> capitalistic.  Hopefully all those Russian immigrants will overthrow the
> socialist Israeli government.  By the way, it isn't surprising that the
> two biggest recipients of U.S. aid, Israel and Egypt, are socialist.  Aid
> is evil in the long run.

We have no right to try to coerce their government into the economic
system we prefer.  They are our allies, not our children.  You *are*
correct in saying that we have every right to withhold aid for that or
any reason however.  I don't support the idea of stopping aid to Israel.
Whatever we think of their economic system (I too believe that
capitalism would be *much* better.), their political system is that of
a republic.  They are stable and friendly.  It is in our direct interest
to help them stay alive if we can.  Saddam and the leaders of Syria,
Iran, and Jordan are proof enough of what the alternative would be like.

"Overthrow?!!" Yikes! No coups please.  I hope you mean "replace" (by
means of the cast ballot).

> First, we should start encouraging U.S. citizens to speak English.
> Bilingual schools are a really bad idea.

I agree.  This is pretty much in the same vein with what I was saying.

Well, bye for now.  Enough of my pontificating for one day.

Steve

My response:

"We even pushed the UN security council to abandon the idea of
stipulating in the cease-fire resolution that Saddam not oppress the
Kurds and other rebels."

The UN security council just passed a resolution condemning the
surpression of the Kurds.

"I'm coming to believe that our leaders want to keep Saddam in power in
order to prevent a Lebanon-like power vacuum."

The truth is that Iraq's neighbors aren't thrilled about the Kurds and
Shiites winning.  The U.S. is currently listening to these countries.
If Saddam kills too many of his own people, we and most of the
coalition will change our minds.  Bush is going to start airlifting food
into Northern Iraq tommorrow.

"This makes a kind of sense if you totally ignore the human part of the
equation."

No it doesn't.  A democratic Iraq would be a great symbol of success for
other arab nations to emulate.

""Overthrow?!!" Yikes! No coups please.  I hope you mean "replace" (by
means of the cast ballot)."

Right.

Eric Klien

Publisher comments:

Quote is from p. 25 of "The Richest Man in Babylon" by George S. Clason.

I need guest publishers, scribes, and GMs.  I also need a roommate and I
live north of Boston.

Also does anyone know if posting this zine to
rec-games-pbm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu is sufficient to give it world-wide
distribution?

******************************************************************************
To join in the fun, send your name, home address, home and work phone numbers,
            and country preferences to Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com.
******************************************************************************

rec.games.pbm

Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Seven EP #240

Referenced By