Welcome Guest!
 1world
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
The Coffee Table War - By Robert Fisk  Ravi Khanna
 Jan 29, 2003 16:33 PST 
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01C1_01C2C7CC.81290480
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The Coffee Table War
By Robert Fisk
The Independent
26 January 2003
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=373317

In Britain, newspapers scream their arguments for war. In America, they do it with books, heaps of them, coffee table books recalling the attacks of 11 September 2001, paperbacks pleading for peace in Iraq, great tomes weighed down with footnotes extolling the virtues of "regime change" in the Middle East. In New York, the publishers as well as the media have gone to war.

Just read the titles of the 9/11 books - many of them massive photo-memorial volumes - on America's newsstands: Above Hallowed Ground, So Others Might Live, Strong of Heart, What We Saw, The Final Frontier, A Fury For God, The Shadow of Swords... No wonder American television networks can take the next war for granted. "Showdown in Iraq", CNN announces. "Prepared for War." No one questions its certainty. I protested during a live radio show earlier this month that the participants - including an Israeli academic, a former Irish UN officer, a Vietnam vet, Tony Benn and others (including myself) - were asked to debate not whether there should be a war in Iraq, but what the consequences of that war would be. The inevitability of conflict had been written into the script.

The most recent and most meretricious contribution to this utterly fraudulent "debate" in the United States is The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (Random House, New York) by Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA spook and an ex-director for "Gulf affairs" at the National Security Council. It's the book that all America is supposed to be talking about and its title (the "Threatening Storm" is, of course, a copy-cat version of The Gathering Storm, the first volume of Winston Churchill's Second World War history) tells you all you need to know about the contents.

Just as George W Bush last year tried to dress himself up as Churchill fighting appeasement, so Pollack twice pretends that the world is confronting the same dilemma that confronted Britain and France in 1938. The Allies could have won in a year, he claims, if they had gone to war against Hitler then. The fact that Britain and France, though numerically stronger in troops, were weaker in modern armaments - whereas the United States today can crush Saddam's forces in a week - is not allowed to interfere with this specious argument. Pollack accepts that Saddam is not Hitler, but once more Saddam is dressed in Hitler's clothes - just as Nasser was the Mussolini of the Nile during the Suez crisis of 1956 - and anyone who opposes war is, by quiet extension, a Nazi sympathiser.

Before and immediately after the start of the Second World War - the real Second World War, that is - British publishers deployed their authors to support the conflict. Victor Gollancz was a tireless defender of British freedoms. By 1941, we were publishing the best-selling Last Train from Berlin by Howard K Smith, the brilliant American foreign correspondent's chilling account of life in Nazi Germany before the US entered the conflict.

But these were often works of literature as well as ideology. What is happening in the United States now is something quite different: a mawkish, cheap-skate attempt to push Americans into war on the back of the hushed, reverent, unimpeachable sacrifice of 11 September.

Pollack's "arguments" for war in Iraq, if that is what they can be called, need to be carefully deconstructed lest this 494-page tome achieve the iconic status it is clearly intended to acquire. Here, for example, are some of his conclusions: "The greatest advantage of an invasion [of Iraq] is the near certainty of its outcome... if the United States were to launch a full-scale war against Iraq, we can have high confidence in victory... The costs of that victory are unclear, but even the worst-case estimates are not catastrophic. These conclusions are also widely held within the US military." Being rid of Saddam Hussein, Pollack writes, would be "an enormous boon to US foreign policy" because it would free Washington to "pursue other items on our foreign policy agenda". An invasion of Iraq "would assure the moderate Arab states that we were serious about removing him... " and "allow us to reduce our presence in the Gulf region, especially Saudi Arabia" (where "our military personnel dislike the rigid regulations and inhospitable accommodations").

More seriously, and far more sinister in the context of the Middle East, removing Saddam "would sever the 'linkage' between the Iraq issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict". In the long-term, "it would remove an important source of anti-Americanism" and produce a positive outcome "if the United States were to build a strong, prosperous, and inclusive new Iraqi state... a model of what a modern Arab state could be". Invading Iraq, Pollack adds, "might not just be our least bad alternative, it potentially could be our best course of action".

Now even putting aside one of the ex-CIA man's first assertions - his claim that the US military supports an invasion, which, according to a number of Pentagon generals, is simply untrue - Pollack's argument for war is breathtakingly amoral. War is the right decision, it seems, not because it is morally necessary but because we will win. War, far from being a symbol of the total failure of the human spirit which involves immense suffering and the death of innocents, has become a viable and potentially successful policy option. It would free up Washington's "foreign policy agenda", presumably allowing it to invade another country or two where American vital interests could be discovered. An invasion would be reassuring for "moderate" Arabs (presumably our still-loyal, pro-American Arab dictators) while at the same time rescuing those poor American boys from their "inhospitable" barracks in Saudi Arabia. Since Pollack also advocates a sizeable US military presence in post-invasion Iraq, one can only wonder at what kind of accommodation he thinks the Americans will find amid the ruins of Mesopotamia.

And that all-important "linkage" between Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli war will be over. This theme occurs several times in Pollack's text, and the narrative - in essence an Israeli one - is quite simple: deprived of the support of one of the Arab world's most powerful nations, the Palestinians will be further weakened in their struggle against Israeli occupation. Pollack refers to the Palestinians' "vicious terrorist campaign" without the slightest criticism of Israel. He talks about "weekly terrorist attacks followed by Israeli responses" [sic], the standard Israeli version of the conflict. The author regards America's bias in favour of Israel as nothing more than an Arab "belief". Advocating an Arab federal system of government, Pollack approvingly quotes Israeli authors and then says, disingenuously, that "we do not know how the Arabs would react" to an Israeli retaliatory attack on Iraq. If this is really true, we might as well close down the CIA.

Erased from the pages of Pollack's deeply cynical book, of course, are any references to Israel's occupation of Palestinian land; illegal Jewish settlements; Madeleine Albright's revolting comment that the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children under sanctions might be "worth it" in the struggle against Saddam; and Donald Rumsfeld's visits to Iraq in 1983 when the Beast of Baghdad was already using weapons of mass destruction in his war against Iran.

Also missing, of course, is any reference to the scandalous infiltration of the former UN inspectorate, Unscom, by Mr Pollack's former employers, the CIA. Indeed, he even makes the false claim that Unscom was "evicted" by the Iraqis (this crops up on page 233) when in fact the inspectors, already discredited by the CIA's interference, were withdrawn by Richard Butler prior to one of President Clinton's missile bombardments. Needless to say, there is equally no mention of former UN weapons inspector and ex-Marine Major Scott Ritter whose own tiny volume opposing the war - War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know (Profile £4.99) - is a mere 96-page flea-bite on the back of the pro-war literature now being churned out in Washington.

Again, at the end of his dreary tract, Pollack returns to the Saddam/Hitler parallel which he originally professes to deny. Britain and France chose not to go to war with Germany in 1938. "We face a similar choice with Iraq today." Thus political dishonesty reaches out to fantasy.

But is it any wonder? As I was reading Pollack's dreadful book with its tired prose, in which "the wheel of fate" turns against Saddam for whom inspectors are "the last straw" - by their clichés, thou shalt know them - the latest bit of fantasy was seeping out of Washington and London.

Stories of further attacks - on the Lincoln Tunnel and the Golden Gate bridge in the States - have been mixed with all the scare stories Britons have been fed these past few weeks: smallpox, dirty bombs, attacks on hotels and shopping malls, a chemical attack on the Tube, the poisoning of water supplies, "postcard target" attacks on Big Ben and Canary Wharf, the procurement of 5,000 body bags, 120,000 decontamination suits, survival classes for seven-year-old schoolchildren, new laws to quarantine Britons in the event of a biological attack (please God this would involve Mr Blair's incarceration in Downing Street too) - there seems no end to this government terrorism. Do they want Osama bin Laden to win? Or is this merely part of the countdown to war on Iraq, the essential drug of fear which we all need to support Messrs Bush and Blair?

For these stories provide a vital underpinning to pro-war literature. In the United States, the intellectuals' support for war in fact goes far further than Kenneth Pollack's insipid book. In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, for example, Johns Hopkins University Professor Fouad Ajami, constantly disparaging the Arab world for its backwardness, its lack of democracy, its supposed use of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "as an alibi for yet more self-pity and rage" announces, "with sobering caution... that a war will have to be waged". The "Rubicon has been crossed," he writes. And - here's the line for fantasy-lovers to remember - "any fallout of war is certain to be dwarfed by the terrible consequences of America's walking right up to the edge of war and then stepping back, letting the Iraqi dictator work out the terms of another reprieve."

The logic of this is truly awesome. America has to go to war because it threatened to do so. Its threat has become the cause of war; peace would therefore be more terrible than war. As New York St Lawrence University Professor Laura Rediehs remarked in a perceptive essay in Collateral Language (eds John Collins & Ross Glover, New York University Press), one of the best books on the linguistics of this conflict, in a Cosmic Battle between Good and Evil of the kind Bush imagines, the taking of innocent lives by us is justified because we are good. But when the other side kills innocents, it is unjustified because the other side is evil. "What makes the deaths of innocent people bad, then, is not their actual deaths, but the attitudes and feelings of those who killed them."

It is almost a relief to turn to Milan Rai's War Plan Iraq: 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn't Launch Another War Against Iraq (Verso £10), in which Noam Chomsky's seminal essay reminds readers of the acts of terror carried out in our name - by Turkey against the Kurds, among others. The book's "10 Reasons" for opposing an Iraqi invasion include the humanitarian disaster that could follow war, the lack of any connection between 9/11 and Iraq, the likely establishment of a pro-American Saddam "clone" in Baghdad, the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the fear that Arabs have of Bush rather than Saddam, and the danger of a post-war world recession.

Better still for those who oppose an Iraqi war, go back to an excellent book published 11 years ago by Kenneth R Timmerman, The Death Lobby (Fourth Estate), just to remind ourselves who constructed the monster of the Tigris river.

War, as I never tire of boring friends by repeating, is primarily not about victory or defeat. It is about death. And in this context, I can only quote the most moving contribution towards the anti-war campaign in Collateral Language, that of Amber Amundson whose husband Craig of the US army was killed in the Pentagon on 11 September, 2001. "Will the invasion of Iraq really bring us to a more peaceful global community?" she asked her nation's leaders. "... If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible brutality [of 11 September] by perpetuating violence against other human beings, you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband."


Forwarded by:


If the information from 1world helps you gain a better understanding of the issues you care about, then please consider making a contribution by clicking on this link http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=surya&p=oneworld
_________________________________
Ravi Khanna, Director
voices from the global village
1world communication
P. O. Box 2476
Amherst, MA 01004
phone: 413-253-1960
cell: 617-620-9640
fax: 413-253-1961
e-mail: onew-@igc.org
subscribe to 1world communication's listserve by sending an e-mail to: 1worldcommunica-@topica.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/03



------=_NextPart_000_01C1_01C2C7CC.81290480
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The Coffee Table War<BR>By Robert Fisk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The Independent<BR>26 January 2003 <BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=373317"><FONT
face=Arial>http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=373317</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial> <BR><BR>In Britain, newspapers scream their arguments for war. In
America, they do it with books, heaps of them, coffee table books recalling the
attacks of 11 September 2001, paperbacks pleading for peace in Iraq, great tomes
weighed down with footnotes extolling the virtues of "regime change" in the
Middle East. In New York, the publishers as well as the media have gone to
war.<BR><BR>Just read the titles of the 9/11 books - many of them massive
photo-memorial volumes - on America's newsstands: Above Hallowed Ground, So
Others Might Live, Strong of Heart, What We Saw, The Final Frontier, A Fury For
God, The Shadow of Swords... No wonder American television networks can take the
next war for granted. "Showdown in Iraq", CNN announces. "Prepared for War." No
one questions its certainty. I protested during a live radio show earlier this
month that the participants - including an Israeli academic, a former Irish UN
officer, a Vietnam vet, Tony Benn and others (including myself) - were asked to
debate not whether there should be a war in Iraq, but what the consequences of
that war would be. The inevitability of conflict had been written into the
script.<BR><BR>The most recent and most meretricious contribution to this
utterly fraudulent "debate" in the United States is The Threatening Storm: The
Case for Invading Iraq (Random House, New York) by Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA
spook and an ex-director for "Gulf affairs" at the National Security Council.
It's the book that all America is supposed to be talking about and its title
(the "Threatening Storm" is, of course, a copy-cat version of The Gathering
Storm, the first volume of Winston Churchill's Second World War history) tells
you all you need to know about the contents.<BR><BR>Just as George W Bush last
year tried to dress himself up as Churchill fighting appeasement, so Pollack
twice pretends that the world is confronting the same dilemma that confronted
Britain and France in 1938. The Allies could have won in a year, he claims, if
they had gone to war against Hitler then. The fact that Britain and France,
though numerically stronger in troops, were weaker in modern armaments - whereas
the United States today can crush Saddam's forces in a week - is not allowed to
interfere with this specious argument. Pollack accepts that Saddam is not
Hitler, but once more Saddam is dressed in Hitler's clothes - just as Nasser was
the Mussolini of the Nile during the Suez crisis of 1956 - and anyone who
opposes war is, by quiet extension, a Nazi sympathiser.<BR><BR>Before and
immediately after the start of the Second World War - the real Second World War,
that is - British publishers deployed their authors to support the conflict.
Victor Gollancz was a tireless defender of British freedoms. By 1941, we were
publishing the best-selling Last Train from Berlin by Howard K Smith, the
brilliant American foreign correspondent's chilling account of life in Nazi
Germany before the US entered the conflict.<BR><BR>But these were often works of
literature as well as ideology. What is happening in the United States now is
something quite different: a mawkish, cheap-skate attempt to push Americans into
war on the back of the hushed, reverent, unimpeachable sacrifice of 11
September.<BR><BR>Pollack's "arguments" for war in Iraq, if that is what they
can be called, need to be carefully deconstructed lest this 494-page tome
achieve the iconic status it is clearly intended to acquire. Here, for example,
are some of his conclusions: "The greatest advantage of an invasion [of Iraq] is
the near certainty of its outcome... if the United States were to launch a
full-scale war against Iraq, we can have high confidence in victory... The costs
of that victory are unclear, but even the worst-case estimates are not
catastrophic. These conclusions are also widely held within the US military."
Being rid of Saddam Hussein, Pollack writes, would be "an enormous boon to US
foreign policy" because it would free Washington to "pursue other items on our
foreign policy agenda". An invasion of Iraq "would assure the moderate Arab
states that we were serious about removing him... " and "allow us to reduce our
presence in the Gulf region, especially Saudi Arabia" (where "our military
personnel dislike the rigid regulations and inhospitable
accommodations").<BR><BR>More seriously, and far more sinister in the context of
the Middle East, removing Saddam "would sever the 'linkage' between the Iraq
issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict". In the long-term, "it would remove an
important source of anti-Americanism" and produce a positive outcome "if the
United States were to build a strong, prosperous, and inclusive new Iraqi
state... a model of what a modern Arab state could be". Invading Iraq, Pollack
adds, "might not just be our least bad alternative, it potentially could be our
best course of action".<BR><BR>Now even putting aside one of the ex-CIA man's
first assertions - his claim that the US military supports an invasion, which,
according to a number of Pentagon generals, is simply untrue - Pollack's
argument for war is breathtakingly amoral. War is the right decision, it seems,
not because it is morally necessary but because we will win. War, far from being
a symbol of the total failure of the human spirit which involves immense
suffering and the death of innocents, has become a viable and potentially
successful policy option. It would free up Washington's "foreign policy agenda",
presumably allowing it to invade another country or two where American vital
interests could be discovered. An invasion would be reassuring for "moderate"
Arabs (presumably our still-loyal, pro-American Arab dictators) while at the
same time rescuing those poor American boys from their "inhospitable" barracks
in Saudi Arabia. Since Pollack also advocates a sizeable US military presence in
post-invasion Iraq, one can only wonder at what kind of accommodation he thinks
the Americans will find amid the ruins of Mesopotamia.<BR><BR>And that
all-important "linkage" between Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli war will be
over. This theme occurs several times in Pollack's text, and the narrative - in
essence an Israeli one - is quite simple: deprived of the support of one of the
Arab world's most powerful nations, the Palestinians will be further weakened in
their struggle against Israeli occupation. Pollack refers to the Palestinians'
"vicious terrorist campaign" without the slightest criticism of Israel. He talks
about "weekly terrorist attacks followed by Israeli responses" [sic], the
standard Israeli version of the conflict. The author regards America's bias in
favour of Israel as nothing more than an Arab "belief". Advocating an Arab
federal system of government, Pollack approvingly quotes Israeli authors and
then says, disingenuously, that "we do not know how the Arabs would react" to an
Israeli retaliatory attack on Iraq. If this is really true, we might as well
close down the CIA.<BR><BR>Erased from the pages of Pollack's deeply cynical
book, of course, are any references to Israel's occupation of Palestinian land;
illegal Jewish settlements; Madeleine Albright's revolting comment that the
deaths of thousands of Iraqi children under sanctions might be "worth it" in the
struggle against Saddam; and Donald Rumsfeld's visits to Iraq in 1983 when the
Beast of Baghdad was already using weapons of mass destruction in his war
against Iran.<BR><BR>Also missing, of course, is any reference to the scandalous
infiltration of the former UN inspectorate, Unscom, by Mr Pollack's former
employers, the CIA. Indeed, he even makes the false claim that Unscom was
"evicted" by the Iraqis (this crops up on page 233) when in fact the inspectors,
already discredited by the CIA's interference, were withdrawn by Richard Butler
prior to one of President Clinton's missile bombardments. Needless to say, there
is equally no mention of former UN weapons inspector and ex-Marine Major Scott
Ritter whose own tiny volume opposing the war - War on Iraq: What Team Bush
Doesn't Want You to Know (Profile £4.99) - is a mere 96-page flea-bite on the
back of the pro-war literature now being churned out in
Washington.<BR><BR>Again, at the end of his dreary tract, Pollack returns to the
Saddam/Hitler parallel which he originally professes to deny. Britain and France
chose not to go to war with Germany in 1938. "We face a similar choice with Iraq
today." Thus political dishonesty reaches out to fantasy.<BR><BR>But is it any
wonder? As I was reading Pollack's dreadful book with its tired prose, in which
"the wheel of fate" turns against Saddam for whom inspectors are "the last
straw" - by their clichés, thou shalt know them - the latest bit of fantasy was
seeping out of Washington and London.<BR><BR>Stories of further attacks - on the
Lincoln Tunnel and the Golden Gate bridge in the States - have been mixed with
all the scare stories Britons have been fed these past few weeks: smallpox,
dirty bombs, attacks on hotels and shopping malls, a chemical attack on the
Tube, the poisoning of water supplies, "postcard target" attacks on Big Ben and
Canary Wharf, the procurement of 5,000 body bags, 120,000 decontamination suits,
survival classes for seven-year-old schoolchildren, new laws to quarantine
Britons in the event of a biological attack (please God this would involve Mr
Blair's incarceration in Downing Street too) - there seems no end to this
government terrorism. Do they want Osama bin Laden to win? Or is this merely
part of the countdown to war on Iraq, the essential drug of fear which we all
need to support Messrs Bush and Blair?<BR><BR>For these stories provide a vital
underpinning to pro-war literature. In the United States, the intellectuals'
support for war in fact goes far further than Kenneth Pollack's insipid book. In
the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, for example, Johns Hopkins
University Professor Fouad Ajami, constantly disparaging the Arab world for its
backwardness, its lack of democracy, its supposed use of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict "as an alibi for yet more self-pity and rage" announces, "with sobering
caution... that a war will have to be waged". The "Rubicon has been crossed," he
writes. And - here's the line for fantasy-lovers to remember - "any fallout of
war is certain to be dwarfed by the terrible consequences of America's walking
right up to the edge of war and then stepping back, letting the Iraqi dictator
work out the terms of another reprieve."<BR><BR>The logic of this is truly
awesome. America has to go to war because it threatened to do so. Its threat has
become the cause of war; peace would therefore be more terrible than war. As New
York St Lawrence University Professor Laura Rediehs remarked in a perceptive
essay in Collateral Language (eds John Collins & Ross Glover, New York
University Press), one of the best books on the linguistics of this conflict, in
a Cosmic Battle between Good and Evil of the kind Bush imagines, the taking of
innocent lives by us is justified because we are good. But when the other side
kills innocents, it is unjustified because the other side is evil. "What makes
the deaths of innocent people bad, then, is not their actual deaths, but the
attitudes and feelings of those who killed them."<BR><BR>It is almost a relief
to turn to Milan Rai's War Plan Iraq: 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn't Launch Another
War Against Iraq (Verso £10), in which Noam Chomsky's seminal essay reminds
readers of the acts of terror carried out in our name - by Turkey against the
Kurds, among others. The book's "10 Reasons" for opposing an Iraqi invasion
include the humanitarian disaster that could follow war, the lack of any
connection between 9/11 and Iraq, the likely establishment of a pro-American
Saddam "clone" in Baghdad, the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, the fear that Arabs have of Bush rather than Saddam, and the danger of
a post-war world recession.<BR><BR>Better still for those who oppose an Iraqi
war, go back to an excellent book published 11 years ago by Kenneth R Timmerman,
The Death Lobby (Fourth Estate), just to remind ourselves who constructed the
monster of the Tigris river.<BR><BR>War, as I never tire of boring friends by
repeating, is primarily not about victory or defeat. It is about death. And in
this context, I can only quote the most moving contribution towards the anti-war
campaign in Collateral Language, that of Amber Amundson whose husband Craig of
the US army was killed in the Pentagon on 11 September, 2001. "Will the invasion
of Iraq really bring us to a more peaceful global community?" she asked her
nation's leaders. "... If you choose to respond to this incomprehensible
brutality [of 11 September] by perpetuating violence against other human beings,
you may not do so in the name of justice for my husband." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Forwarded by:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If the information from 1world helps you gain a better
understanding of the issues you care about, then please consider making a
contribution by clicking on this link </FONT><A
href="http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=surya&;p=oneworld"><FONT
face=Arial>http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=surya&;p=oneworld</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial>_________________________________<BR>Ravi Khanna, Director<BR>voices
from the global village<BR>1world communication<BR>P. O. Box 2476<BR>Amherst, MA
01004<BR>phone: 413-253-1960<BR>cell: 617-620-9640<BR>fax:
413-253-1961<BR>e-mail: </FONT><A href="mailto:onew-@igc.org"><FONT
face=Arial>onew-@igc.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial>subscribe to 1world
communication's listserve by sending an e-mail to: </FONT><A
href="mailto:1worldcommunica-@topica.com"><FONT
face=Arial>1worldcommunica-@topica.com</FONT></A><U><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></U></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><U><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified
Virus Free.<BR>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A
href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: 6.0.443 /
Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 1/10/03</FONT></U></DIV>

</BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_01C1_01C2C7CC.81290480--
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.