Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Seven EP #226

From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1991 03:50:24 +0000

Issue #226 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL:

*************************************************************************
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple."
*************************************************************************

Chapter One contains:

BAGHDAD, AUSTERLITZ, BLITZKRIEG, KING'S GAMBIT, PASSCHENDAELE,
GET SOME, DRAGONS, BLACK OCTOBER

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:

DAWN PATROL, BERLIN, EL ALAMEIN, SQUALANE, UNGAWE,
BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE, CULLODEN, GANDALF'S REVENGE, GOODBYE BLUE SKY

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:

DEF CON 5, BORDEL, ERIS, MASADA, YALTA

And is published by jjcarette@watami.waterloo.edu/David Gibbs

Chapter Six contains:

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

And is published by mike@suna.computation.umist.ac.uk/Mike Reddy

Chapter Seven contains:

HELM'S DEEP, GROUND ZERO, GIBRALTAR, TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS,
DEF CON 4, OPERATION DESERT SHIELD

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

Table of Contents:

Diplomacy Programming Project Update
Some letters from Steve Robinson and my responses to them.

----

The following was submitted by loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr/Daniel Loeb:

DIPLOMACY PROGRAMMING PROJECT
                    UPDATE ---- FEBRUARY 10, 1991

While in the US, I spoke to Jim Propp at MIT. He has written a paper
(unpublished) called "Three Person Impartial Games". While Diplomacy
is not an impartial game and there are certainly more than 3 players,
I think the ideas in his article contribute to the larger goal of the
DPP, that of studying multi-player games in general.

Below, I summarize some of the points in his article. For complete
information, contact me or Jim Propp for a photocopy.

(1) SUMMARY of article
(2) CONTEST
(3) IMPORTANT result which might concern diplomacy

------------------------

(1) SUMMARY of article

Impartial games are the simplest type of games, and are completely
understood in the two player case (see WINNING WAYS). These are games
in which the choices available depend only on the position, not on
whose turn it is. A player wins if the following player is unable to
play. (A game position can thus be completely described by its set of
possible resulting positions.)

For example, there is the game Nim in there is a pile of stones from
which you must remove stones. Each player must remove at least one
stone, but can remove as many stones as he likes. (Nim games are
denoted by the number of stones in the pile.)

Given two games G and H, the disjunctive sum of the two games is the
game G+H in which the two games are played simultaneously. Players can
play either in game G or in game H each turn at their choice.
The sum of G with itself n times is written n*G

In a two player game the players are called NEXT and PREVIOUS. In a
three player game, they called NEXT, PREVIOUS, and OTHER according to
what position they occupy at the table. A game with a forced win by
one of the players is called an N-game P-game or O-game.

Certain 3 player games have no forced win by any player. That is to
say, a coallition of any two player can prevent the third from
winning. Such a game is called QUEER (a Q-game).

(When more players are introduced, the number of game types escalates
rapidly.)

This is a possible algorithm for determining what is the type of G:

G is an N-game if it has some P game as an option
G is an O-game if all of its options are N-games (and it has at least
                one option)
G is a  P-game if all of its options are O-games
G is a  Q-game if none of the above conditions are satisfied.

Sample Games:   Type:
-------------   -----
the empty game  P
1               N
1 + 1           O
1 + 1 + 1       P
1 + 1 + 1 + 1   N
n*G             P,N,or O respectively if n=0,1,2 respectively mod 3

n               N (if n is not zero)

1 + 2           Q
1 + 1 + 2       N
1 + 1 + 1 + 2   N
(4*1) + 2       Q
(n*1) + 2       N,Q,or N respectively if n=0,1,2 respectively mod 3

(2) CONTEST

For two player games, the addition table is very simple:
a P-game plus a P-game is a P-game. A P-game plus an N-game is an
N-game. Wheras, an N-game plus an N-game can be either N or P.
This is summarized by the following table:

+ |     P       N
        --+-------------------
        P |     P       N
        N |     N       P or N

To prove the table is correct, you have to give an example of each
legal addition. For example,

(P+P=P)          0 + 0
        (N+P=P+N=N)      1 + 0, 0 + 1
        (N+N=P)          1 + 1
        (N+N=N)          1 + 2

And you have to prove that the forbidden examples never arise. For
example,

(P+P is not N)  Previous player has a winning strategy for both games
                separately. To win in both games simultaneously, he
                sees in which game his opponent moves, and he replies
                in the same game.
(N+P is not P)  Next player makes the winning move in the N-game.
                This reduces us to the case considered above.

The contest is to fill as completely as possible the following
addition table for the three player case:

+ |     P       N       O       Q
        --+---------------------------------
        P |
        N |
        O |
        Q |

One point is awarded for each legal addition exemplified, and one
point is awarded for each proof that a certain addition is illegal.
Thus, a total score of 40 is possible.

(3) IMPORTANT result which might concern diplomacy

There is a certain game X of type Q which yields a Q-game when added
to any other game. Any game G that you consider at random is likely to
contain X as a "subgame" if it is sufficiently complicated.

It seems reasonable that a similar situation occurs even for 7-player
partial games. If so, that it is also likely that the game Diplomacy
contains a game X as a subgame. That would mean that under ideal play,
Diplomacy might very well be a 7-player stalemate.

Yours, Daniel Loeb, DPP
"Combinatorics: The Thought that Counts"

EMAIL   loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr (or else try loeb@frbdx11.bitnet)
HOME    150, cours Victor-Hugo; Appt B21, 33000 Bordeaux France
WORK    Departement des Maths et d'Info, Universite de Bordeaux I,
        351 cours de la Liberation, 33405 Talence Cedex France
PHONE(H)+(33) 56 31 48 26, (W)+(33) 56 84 60 88, (FAX) +(33) 56 80 08 37

My response to a letter from shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson
published in EP #223:

"it's sort of eerie how history and politicians repeat themselves."

That was my point.

"am i the only one who has thoughts like this, or are the news media
trying to manage this war?"

I got my quotes from the Wall Street Journal.  They had a lot of them
and I just published a few.  Obviously most the news media has a liberal
slant, the Wall Street Journal has a conservative slant.

"it seems that they want to do it in such a way as to increase the
drama and shock value of it."

This is obviously the goal of the media.  Ratings are everything.

"if the information was available and they could find a way to do it, i
think they would announce to the world (including sadam) the departure
time, destination, and mission of every flight"

I don't think so.  But they would put all the blood on the screen as
is possible.  They want high ratings.  I should point out that the
media does strengthen our society and does help point out weaknesses
in our society and government.  I do think the media has the right to
show blood on the TV screen but they don't have the right to announce
where troops are and when and who they are planning on attacking.  We
lost the Vietnam war because of stupid Presidential policies, the
media just pointed them out.  And I think all the media reporting of
flag burning anti-war protesters has only strengthened patriotic,
anti-Saddam feelings.

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

> I agree that not all reporters would report combat missions in detail
> before the fact, but a great many would, and one is all it takes to
> let the cat out of the bag.  Also, once one had done it, the rest would
> report and comment on the report. The reporters have been telling us
> (and Sadam) repeatedly when planes take off and which way they go. They
> also let everyone know exactly where each Scud hits whenever they can.
>
> A free press and broadcast media *is* vital to our health and strength
> as a nation, and no people can be truly free without being well and
> impartially informed.  Loose ships do sink ships (and down planes)
> though, so care and yes even censorship are necessary.  Censorship is
> not the dirty word the media would have us believe.  There are times
> such as this where there is a vital need to filter out certain stuff
> before it goes out to the public.  For the most part though the press
> serves us well.
>
> One more thing and then I'll get off the media's back.  If news is to be
> of any value at all, it must be impartial, and it must be news as
> opposed to speculation.  The stuff I've seen has done well on being
> impartial.  The media people have a need (especially in the broadcast
> media) to keep the story fresh and to have something new to cover and
> to say every hour or so at the longest.  This understandable need leads
> to a real problem though. Real life just doesn't cooperate and adjust
> to that kind of schedule. What happens is that a lot of experts and
> media types are interviewed and asked their opinions. That's not too
> bad in and of itself, but the speculation gets picked up and treated
> as though it were almost fact.  I saw on the news recently a question
> and answer session at a news briefing where some of the reporters
> asked questions based on the suppositions of other reporters at the
> same meeting. These people were treating "what if" questions posed by
> other reporters as statements of fact! I was amazed.
>
>
> Enough of that. I probably sound like I'm raving, but I'm not. I'm
> not angry, just opinionated.

My response:

"> I agree that not all reporters would report combat missions in detail
> before the fact, but a great many would, and one is all it takes to
> let the cat out of the bag."

I agree that the military should be allowed to review reports.  I disagree
with the amount of censorship that they are using and how it is done.  For
example, they have passed a lot of rules about not showing soldiers in pain.
This is obviously not needed for national security.  I do agree with the
Israelis when they pulled the satellite on a reporter with a big mouth.

">If news is to be
> of any value at all, it must be impartial, and it must be news as
> opposed to speculation."

But I believe that any type of news should be allowed.  I wouldn't mind
never seeing the anti-war stuff for example and would prefer a network that
ignored all the anti-war protests.

As to the speculation, in general I like this type of stuff although the
media keeps saying that Saddam is not a mad man when he obviously is.

Eric Klien

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

> I agree that the military should be allowed to review reports.  I disagree
> with the amount of censorship that they are using and how it is done.  For
> example, they have passed a lot of rules about not showing soldiers in pain.
> This is obviously not needed for national security.  I do agree with the
> Israelis when they pulled the satellite on a reporter with a big mouth.

Agreed on all points. I understand their desire to shield us from seeing
soldiers in pain for PR reasons, but that is indeed going too far.  The
only legitimate reason for censoring news is national security.

> But I believe that any type of news should be allowed.  I wouldn't mind
> never seeing the anti-war stuff for example and would prefer a network that
> ignored all the anti-war protests.

I'm not sure the anti-war protests should be ignored completely.  I
don't care to see it either, and I too would tune it out, but it does
represent the opinion of a significant if relatively small slice of the
population. They should however be balanced by coverage of the rallies
in support of the troops and poll results which portray accurately the
the relative numbers of people who hold each view. In other words, we
shouldn't pretend it isn't happening, but we should make it abundantly
clear that mainstream America is solidly behind our president and our
troops.  Let's not let the tail wag the dog, but amputation is a bit
much.  Like you though, I'd rather watch a network which ignored them.

I'm glad you got the message which I messed up sending. I wasn't sure
it went the second time.

> As to the speculation, in general I like this type of stuff although the
> media keeps saying that Saddam is not a mad man when he obviously is.
>
Speculation is fine *IF* it is clearly labeled as such. What I object
to is the tendancy of the media (mostly the broadcast media) to elicit
speculation and through later repetition (frequently out of context) to
make it appear to be fact.  The people at the Pentagon won't give them
the depth and detail of information they want for whatever reason, so
they get an opinion.  This opinion gets batted around enough and
gradually the line between hard information and speculation begins to
get fuzzy. I'm not against speculation; I like it too.  I'm against
fuzzy lines.

Often the information wanted by the press simply doesn't yet exist in
the form they want.  It takes time to gather together the statistical
facts and intelligence data.  It's not like a sporting event where the
score is always known.  Sometimes the information needs to be withheld
for security reasons. Sometimes there are political reasons for wanting
to withhold information. That is wrong, but the first two reasons are
legitimate, and in the case of the first reason it is unavoidable.

As for Sadam being a madman, it depends on what is meant.  Is he
mentally ill? Perhaps schizophrenic?  I'm not sure.  He certainly seems
megalomanic enough.  He seems to view himself as a combination of
Nebuchadnezzar and Mohamed.  He talks a lot like Hitler did about
"secret weapons" and "revenge weapons."

When he tried to say that his agression against Kuwait (Arab vs. Arab)
was really an attempt to establish Palestinian ownership and rule of
Israel, this was seen in most of the world as ridiculous and as a
pathetic attempt to gain allies in the Arab nations.  The fact is though
that Sadam knows the Arab mindset better than we do, and he actually
did gain some support through his absurd claim. The PLO is with him
as are Yemen and many people in other nations in the region.

Sadam knows that the Arabs hate the Jews and have since the days of
Ismael and Isaac.  Most Arabs will accept almost anything if it betters
the chances that one day Israel will cease to exist.  He also knows that
the people of that region are very prideful and afford a lot of respect
to anyone who will stand up and spit in the giant's eye. He is playing
successfully on these sentiments and doing it with a canny skill.

He is willing to trade enormous amounts of Iraqi life and wealth for
personal prestige and position.  He gasses his own people and overruns
his neighbors.  He is indeed *Very Much* like Hitler, both in his
tactics and in his goals.

This clearly makes him a monster and a world-class menace.  But is he
insane? Maybe. Hitler was unbalanced, and Khadafy is too.  I think
Sadam can fairly be called a madman, but it is a different sort of
madness.  It is a madness of attitude and purpose rather than a
clinical thing.  He is more evil than insane.  Sort of like Khomeni was.

One thing I do know. The region won't be stable as long as he is alive.

Oh well. I've written too much again. I hope I haven't bent your ears
(eyeballs?) overly much. Bye for now.

Steve

My response:

"I'm not sure the anti-war protests should be ignored completely."

I'm saying if there was some right wing channel that didn't show
anti-war protests, I would prefer to watch it.  I don't believe that
the media must be balanced.  Leaning towards the right would be fine
with me.  By the way, pro-war protests don't interest me either.  So
I want a right-wing newsprogram that doesn't waste my time showing
protests.  Some opinion polls would be OK though.

"Often the information wanted by the press simply doesn't yet exist in
the form they want.  It takes time to gather together the statistical
facts and intelligence data."

This is true.  It is boring hearing the media whine that the military
hasn't told them the exact amount of Iraqi forces destroyed.

"As for Sadam being a madman, it depends on what is meant."

I mean that he is so unable to think rationally that he will be dead
or imprisoned within 30 days.  If he had any ability to think
rationally, he would have begun to pull out of Kuwait once U.S.
troops began to land in Saudia Arabia.  And he definitely should have
withdrawn before the Jan 15th deadline.  He also does a lot of things
that gain him little but hatred from the world.  For example, his
huge oil spill was a real dumb move.  If he keeps it up, the anti-war
Green movement may become pro-war!

Hitler had the same type of mental problems.  He should have
surrendered a year or two into WWII.  He would have been allowed to
keep Germany and possibly some of his conquered territories like the
Rhinelands.  Instead he committed suicide after ruining his country.

"Most Arabs will accept almost anything if it betters the chances
that one day Israel will cease to exist."

Quite true but Syria has pointed our that Iraq's attacks on Israel
have caused many nations to send a lot of money and weapons to
Israel.  Iraq is not even helping the anti-Israel cause.

Khadafy is not a mad man because he has managed to stay in power
despite a military confrontation with the U.S.  Not many leaders have
pulled that off.  Khomeni was also not a mad man since he was able to
stay in power until he died of old age.  His people seemed to like
him also.  Basically, I would consider people like Khadafy and
Khomeni on the same level as Stalin.  Ruthless and interested in
gaining more power, but smart enough to know their limits.

Eric Klien

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

Hello, Eric.

As usual EP is great.  I continue to enjoy the quote comparison.  I hope
you will keep that up.  I had seen the Lisbon Leapfrog in DD.  It was a
good article and well worth the reprint.  Tell your author of Instant
Diplomacy that he should follow up with more articles on tactics,
strategy, and openings. His analysis is concise and correct.

Bye for now.

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

> I'm saying if there was some right wing channel that didn't show
> anti-war protests, I would prefer to watch it.  I don't believe that
> the media must be balanced.  Leaning towards the right would be fine
> with me.  By the way, pro-war protests don't interest me either.  So
> I want a right-wing newsprogram that doesn't waste my time showing
> protests.  Some opinion polls would be OK though.

I'd prefer to watch it too.  I feel that the factual component of the
coverage should be neutral rather than balanced. A news item can be
slanted to either side very easily by design or by accident by choosing
selectively which truths to include and which no omit. No one can cover
every story or every aspect of the ones that are covered. An approach
which is merely balanced need only include stories whose slants cancel
out over time. The factual part of the news should have no tilt at all.

On the other hand, the editorial stuff can have a tilt, and I'd like to
see some right wing leanings there.  It wouldn't hurt to have a
conservative news channel/network; it would certainly help in balancing
the coverage as a whole.  The media people deny it all the time, but the
public is well aware that the media of all types today have, as a whole,
a *STRONG* bent to the left.  If there was a conservative network, I
believe that the ratings would soon show that the left leaning media
are seriously out of step with mainstream America.  We are clearly a
more conservative nation than the media make it seem that we are.

>                It is boring hearing the media whine that the military
> hasn't told them the exact amount of Iraqi forces destroyed.

Isn't it though. Sometimes I just want to tell them, "Grow up!".

> "As for Sadam being a madman, it depends on what is meant."
>
> I mean that he is so unable to think rationally that he will be dead
> or imprisoned within 30 days.  If he had any ability to think
> rationally, he would have begun to pull out of Kuwait once U.S.
> troops began to land in Saudia Arabia.  And he definitely should have
> withdrawn before the Jan 15th deadline.  He also does a lot of things
> that gain him little but hatred from the world.  For example, his
> huge oil spill was a real dumb move.  If he keeps it up, the anti-war
> Green movement may become pro-war!

I agree that the things Sadam does are very frequently irrational.  I
wouldn't go so far as to say that he is mentally ill to the point that
he has no control over what he does or is unable to discern the
wrongness of it.  Put another way, if he were being tried in an
American court for the things he has done and is doing and I were the
judge or a member of the jury, I wouldn't accept a plea of innocent by
reason of insanity or even guilty but insane.  He knows full well what
he is doing and does it anyway.  Sadam is guilty as *#@~, and he should
be held fully accountable and responsible.

Sadam is prideful and narcissistic to an unreal degree.  He would rather
lose his life and see his country devestated than "loose face".  He
really seems to believe that he can profit by martyring his country
and perhaps himself.  He seems to believe that he can ride this one out
and that in doing so he will gain power and prestige no matter how badly
his country is battered in the process.  He doesn't seem to believe that
the coalition forces will/would kill him.  Personally, I'd like to see
him tried for war crimes and publicly hanged.  Better still if the
trial was held in Egypt or Saudi Arabia and an Arab hand trips the
trap.  It would probably have to be in America or England though to
ensure that the jury wasn't tainted by Sadam's sympathizers.

I agree. The oil thing will work against him with all but the PLO
and the rest of the worst of the world's crazies. Execution by making
him eat the stuff would be an attractive option.  Does the prohibition
on cruel and unusual punnishment apply to international war crimes
trials if they are held in the US?  Aw come on. How about just this
once? Pleeeeeeeeaaase???

> "Most Arabs will accept almost anything if it betters the chances
> that one day Israel will cease to exist."
>
> Quite true but Syria has pointed out that Iraq's attacks on Israel
> have caused many nations to send a lot of money and weapons to
> Israel.  Iraq is not even helping the anti-Israel cause.

Sadam felt he had to do this in order to garner support for his side
among at least a small part of the Arab world.  By attacking, he got
the support of the PLO and the co-operation of Iran.  The populations
of all of the Arab members of the coalition contain vocal elements that
support Sadam because they will support anyone, however bad, who strikes
at Israel.  He will, if he lives, gain a great deal of stature among
Arabs everywhere for having done this.  They may even forgive many of
his attrocities on this basis alone.  He also hoped to draw Israel into
the war.  If he had been able to do this early on before everyone was
totally committed, he would have gained *a lot* of support.  Even now
much of the vigorous support for the coalition would become grudging
support if Israel joined in.  They should wait until later for their
pound of flesh.

> Khadafy is not a mad man because he has managed to stay in power
> despite a military confrontation with the U.S.  Not many leaders have
> pulled that off.  Khomeni was also not a mad man since he was able to
> stay in power until he died of old age.  His people seemed to like
> him also.  Basically, I would consider people like Khadafy and
> Khomeni on the same level as Stalin.  Ruthless and interested in
> gaining more power, but smart enough to know their limits.

I don't give Khadafy much credit for staying in power after our strike.
The Lybians hate our guts as most Arabs do.  They are prideful in the
Middle Eastern way too.  Khadafy stood up to us in their eyes.  We are
quite aware that he is a criminal and a terrorist kingpin who kills
innocent civilians for no rational reason.  But to the Lybians he is a
hero.  Don't try to figure it; this is not reasoning for thinking
people.  You have to be fanatical and loony to even approach this level.

Also, our confrontation with him was quite limited.  It wasn't even a
tiny fraction of what we are doing in Iraq in the typical hour.  By
using your definition of madman as someone whose policies and actions
are so off the wall as to knowingly get him killed prematurely, all
people who are willingly martyred for a cause they sincerely believe
is worth it is are madmen.  That would include many of our own troops
who have gone to the war zone realizing they may die fighting for what
is right and who still do so willingly.  I do see your point, but that
definition has its limits.  Sadam may be a madman. But if so, he is a
willing madman who knows the wrong in what he does, and he should be
held accountable and made to pay the ultimate price.  Sadam's principal
characteristic is his tremendous evil.  The world will sigh a great sigh
of relief when this monster is exterminated.

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

Hello, Eric.  I note with pleasure that you seem to have many of the
same conservative beliefs and inclinations that I have.  Is the
population of Mass. as a whole really as liberal as they seem from
here?  Is Chappequidic Teddy really that popular up there?  It amazes
me how much the people will forgive and follow anyone named Kennedy.
Do you keep your ideology to yourself, or do you speak out and then
duck?  Seriously though, is the Northeast (and Massachusetts
specifically) really a bastion of liberalism?

{Any stuff which is written back and forth between us about Iraq and   }
{Sadam is OK by me to print.  I'm not specifically requesting any piece}
{of it be printed, but any of it that you think might be of interest to}
{readers can be printed with my blessing.  I sort of hope to see some  }
{feedback from this to see what other people think and are saying about}
{the war and about our favorite tyrant.                                }

Thanks.
                                      Steve

My Response:

Massachussetts is a liberal state.  But we just elected a Republican
governor.  On the other hand, we voted against a tax decrease.  Well,
at least the liberal Duke became extremely unpopular and refused to
run again for governor.

I write Kennedy nasty letters every once in awhile, but he keeps
getting relected.

For the record, I am a member of the Libertarian party.  I don't like
the tax and spend policies of the Republicans or Democrats.

Eric Klien

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

> Massachussetts is a liberal state.  But we just elected a Republican
> governor.  On the other hand, we voted against a tax decrease.  Well,
> at least the liberal Duke became extremely unpopular and refused to
> run again for governor.

Thank heavens for that!  Since "the Duke" got some experience in a tank
during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, perhaps we could send him
to the Persian Gulf ... ?  Just a little wishful thinking.

> I write Kennedy nasty letters every once in awhile, but he keeps
> getting relected.

Money talks.

> For the record, I am a member of the Libertarian party.  I don't like
> the tax and spend policies of the Republicans or Democrats.

I have no party affiliation, and I adamantly refuse to aquire one.  I
am politically conservative with a clear libertarian bent.  The
Republican Party consistantly fields the candidate I prefer though
often it is a matter of the lesser of the evils.  The people who
vote a straight party line have more or less opted out of the political
arena.  If I registered with the Republicans and always voted a uniform
Republican ballot, I would be saying "Send whatever loser you want, you
can count on my vote no matter what."  This is pretty much what has
happened to the Democrats in recent years.  They have such a large
number of ethnic and special interest groups who vote for whoever they
put forward, that a small ultra-liberal cadre within the party chooses
the party's candidate.  That these candidates and what they stand for
are way off base with the population as a whole is shown every four
years like clockwork in the presidential election.  I won't guarantee
*anyone* my vote.  Let them court it and earn it.  I can't think of
a single time I have voted for anything but a Republican, but each
time it has been the result of a careful consideration of the records
and views of the candidates not of their party affiliation.

I hold with the 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution.  The
federal government has usurped the role of the states in an
unconscionable manner and degree.  Think of the tens of thousands of
laws and regulations which Congress has written which have nothing
to do with powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution
or denied to the states by that same document.  Every one is
unconstitutional.  Congress has stretched the concept of "the general
welfare" far past the breaking point.  This fiasco is almost certainly
irreversible at this point, and that is one of our nations greatest
and most lasting tragedies.

I believe in defending the rights of the individual against the weight
of the bureaucracy.  The individual citizen is crushed under it all.
One outfit which claims to stand for this sort of thing
(and *occasionally* does) is the ACLU.  I think of them as the
(Un)American Crazy Lunatic's Association.  These people are dangerously
liberal!  There really should be someone who will stand for the average
Joe on the street who doesn't champion every degrading,disgusting,
anarchist, demoralizing, amoral, destabilizing, commie-lib thing which
comes along.  I am libertarian in bent, but I'm *NOTHING* like those
ACLU types!!!  I hate to even claim to have libertarian views if:
     A.) The person I'm talking to doesn't know what a libertarian is
         and isn't.
                                 or
     B.) I don't have the time or opportunity to explain fully.
I just don't want to be confused with that crowd.

Well, as usual I've written too much.  I guess I'm just enjoying this
running conversation a lot.  It just wouldn't work at snail-mail speed.
This may be the most compelling reason for our hobby to shift to a
largely e-mail environment.  The Game is important, but the friendships
which develop and the rapport and understanding which develop are even
more so.  This is what will knit us together.  E-mail is *much* better
for conversation.

Bye for now, and have a good weekend.
                                           Steve

P.S. Did you read the article in Reader's Digest (Feb. 1991, I think)
     about the IRS and its abuses?  SHUDDER!

My response:

I vote nearly straight Republican, with the exception being that I
automatically vote for any Libertarians that are running.  I did vote
for one Democrat in the last election because he proposed using
education instead of force in our "drug war".  (I believe the
position was attorney general.)

I have fun with organizations like the ACLU who send me mail.  I
return their postage paid envelopes with notes like "I'll join if you
emphasize defending the first amendment."

Yes, I read the Reader's Digest article.  Basically, the problem is
big government and therefore 1) People have little rights when the
big government is abusing them.  2) Big government requires lots of
money so there is a much higher probability that people will have tax
problems.

Eric Klien

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

> I vote nearly straight Republican, with the exception being that I
> automatically vote for any Libertarians that are running.  I did vote
> for one Democrat in the last election because he proposed using
> education instead of force in our "drug war".  (I believe the
> position was attorney general.)

Even the Libertarians can submit some bad candidates. Giving them (or
anyone) a rubber stamp dilutes a voter's power and weakens the selection
process within that party.  Sometimes a small party will put forth a
loony candidate because they can be fairly certain that even a good
third party candidate has little chance of winning in our system, and
they therefore don't put enough effort into recruiting quality people.
Also, it can sometimes be that a small party still trying to make the
big time has more to gain by getting attention than by getting votes.
Then on the other hand, Mondale and the Duke were pretty loony.
I wonder what the excuse was for that.

> I have fun with organizations like the ACLU who send me mail.  I
> return their postage paid envelopes with notes like "I'll join if you
> emphasize defending the first amendment."

That's pretty good!  I usually just seal them and return them empty
in order to make them pay the postage.  The notes are an improvement.

> Yes, I read the Reader's Digest article.  Basically, the problem is
> big government and therefore 1) People have little rights when the
> big government is abusing them.  2) Big government requires lots of
> money so there is a much higher probability that people will have tax
> problems.

Sad, but true.  There was another article on the deceptive and mindless
way the federal budget is arrived at.  It was pretty good, but it was
quite depressing.

One of our Senators from South Carolina, Earnest Hollings, is proposing
raising taxes to cover the war.  He voted against the authorization of
the use of force when polls then and now say that 70+% of the people of
this state disagree with him.  He is a typical tax and spend Democrat.
He will take *any* opportunity to raise taxes.  Any pretext will do.
He is banking on the patriotism of the people of South Carolina and of
the nation as a whole to get a tax increase on the statement that it
will be used to finance the war.  If this thing passes, what are the
odds that it would go away after the war is over?  What are the odds
that we would only be taxed the amount that our part of the war costs
minus the amount our allies pitch in toward our costs?  What are the
odds that the extra money would go toward the war in the first place
rather than to new programs?  What are the odds that the new spending
programs would even be limited to the amount collected by the new tax?
Well, let's put it this way.  What are the odds that the Social Security
"trust" fund has a nickel left in it?  What are the odds that this
*specifically dedicated* money went where it was supposed to over the
years?  Let's put it in perspective.  What are the odds that Sadam
is really a nice guy who wouldn't hurt anyone and adheres to the
Geneva Convention?  That's the highest probability mentioned on this
page, bar none!  I've never voted for this worm, and I never will.
Thank heavens our other Senator, Strom Thurmond, has some sense left.

Bye for now.
                                    Steve

My response:

It currently looks like our government is going to profit in the
current fiscal year from the war, raising taxes would be completely
ridiculous.  Assuming we have a two month war, costs would be 30
billion dollars.  These costs are *including* the costs of replacing
used weapons in future fiscal years.  Nearly 42 billion dollars has
been raised so far to cover war costs.  I bet we don't hear any
congresscritters asking to lower taxes if our government ends up with
a profit from this whole deal.

Eric Klien

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

> It currently looks like our government is going to profit in the
> current fiscal year from the war, raising taxes would be completely
> ridiculous.  Assuming we have a two month war, costs would be 30
> billion dollars.  These costs are *including* the costs of replacing
> used weapons in future fiscal years.  Nearly 42 billion dollars has
> been raised so far to cover war costs.  I bet we don't hear any
> congresscritters asking to lower taxes if our government ends up with
> a profit from this whole deal.
>

Would we actually profit?  Would the extra 12 billion dollars be sent
if the costs didn't go that high?  I sort of doubt it.  Anyway, the
war will probably last more than two months considering the fact that
it's been almost one month already, the ground war hasn't started yet
and probably won't for a couple of weeks anyway, and the ground part
will be necessarily slower.  Also, there will be a large cost involved
in bringing our troops and equipment home.  There is also the cost of
having sent the forces over there and maintained them there for half a
year.  This will add up.  I just hope our coalition partners will fork
over all of the loot or nearly all.  After all, every one of them stands
to gain much more than we will, and we have the vast majority of the
force there and will take the vast majority of the casualties and
monetary losses.  I wonder if they *will* fork over the costs.  I tend
to be pessimistic, but the pledges we have received so far have far
exceeded what I thought would happen.  Before I start feeling too good
though, I'll wait to see the green stuff.  You can't spend pledges.
Another thing I wonder is how much aid we have had to promise some of
our partners (like Syria) to get them to join the coalition?  How far
will this cut into the contributions we will get toward the war costs?
A not unlikely scenario would be a country which pledges ten million
dollars to the effort after having been privately offered fifteen
million for their lip service support.  What do you bet it happens?  I
wonder if we would ever know?

Congresscritters only know one way to move taxes, UP!  Even the
so-called tax breaks are at best temporary slow downs in the rate of
tax increases.  The suggested tax increases will be much larger than the
cost of the war.  The attempt to get the increases passed will begin
before the total cost of the war can be calculated.  This makes
overstatement easier.  The money won't go toward the costs of the war.
All sorts of new spending programs and expansions of old ones will be
introduced, and in the coming years the new deficits will be blamed
by the liberal congresscritters on the fact that we didn't give
sanctions more time while Kuwait was being raped, burned, tortured,
and plundered on a scale the world has rarely seen.  It makes me sick.

Did you hear a while back where one of Saddam's prisoners had faked a
bad British accent in order to clue the people back home that he was
being forced to say what he said (as if anyone doubted it anyway)?
Our buddies in the media (CNN included - with Saddam watching) were
very quick to point this out.  They went so far as to get a tape of
the man talking which predated the war and made an on the air
comparison pointing out the obvious difference!  The man had correctly
assumed that the Iraqis would not know the difference since their
first language was Arabic not English.  He had been clever and had
risked everything to let the people back home - his family and the
government - know what was going on.  The media just had to give it
away though.  It was news, I'll grant them that, and I found it very
interesting.  I'll bet Saddam did too.  He shoots his own commanders for
failing to succeed against impossible odds; I wonder what he did to
that man?!!  I think we can assume he was beaten brutally at the very
least, and he was probably murdered.  Way to go Bernie!  What a hero!!!

Oh well, I'll sign off now because now I *am* ranting.  I don't rant
all that often.  Really.

Steve

My response:

The ground war will be a lot shorter than expected.  At this point,
Saddam has lost about 50% of his tanks and other ground weapons.  We
could easily roll into Baghdad in a few days.  We are trying to win the
war without entering Iraq or Kuwait, and I think there is a 51% chance
that his own people will kill him and a ground war will never occur.

Eric Klien

Publisher comments:

Quote is by Jesus in Luke 14:26.  By the way, I am running out of quotes.
Please send some my way!

******************************************************************************
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.
******************************************************************************