We have now received a response from an American, Phillip Toler, whose essays have appeared previously on Axis of Logic. Mr. Toler has taken the trouble to respond from the perspective of one United States resident.

Please read his article entitled 'The United States and the WTC Three, A Study in Controlled Demolition’. Except for applying formatting, we have not edited his text in any way; it appears here exactly as he submitted it. For ease of comparison, the text of 'The Enemy Next Door’ follows Mr. Toler’s work.

- Axis of Logic editorial team

The United States and the WTC Three, A Study in Controlled Demolition

By Phil Toler

"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."

- James Garfield 1881

Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield was assassinated.

Paul Harris has hit the nail squarely on the head. Though I have long been aware of what his essay "The Enemy Next Door" chronicles in brutal detail, his solemn recitation is still a painful read. And while one might lament what he has to say, it would do no good to try to frame this as opinion because it is nothing but bare-faced fact and history, one that the more conscious Americans would so love to forget, especially if they never knew it in the first place.

History shows us that the urge to empire can lead in only one fatal direction — its dustbin. Just as all the others to go before, the United States is convinced that now that history has been eclipsed by the new reality of its leadership, it will not be subject to mere laws of nature, whether human or otherwise. But it not only will — the process is well-advanced as I write.

A tempting metaphor to depict the United States is a hopeless alcoholic uncle who can print his own money to fuel his addiction, but it is worse than that. Far better are the first three steel framed buildings in history to be destroyed by fire collapsing in free fall on September 11, 2001. On the surface, they appeared to be the epitome of symbols for American wealth and know how. They housed businesses that generated millions of dollars, and scores of government agencies like the FBI, SEC, and so on. Yet though they enjoyed a wide no-fly zone around them, it was penetrated by aircraft supposedly piloted by crazed Arabs which impacted two of the buildings, and allegedly brought them down in free fall. The third, WTC 7, fell in exactly the same way though it wasn’t damaged at all.

The conventional wisdom  was created by a passport found near the buildings that was purported to belong to one of the 'hijackers’, as absurd as that seems today, and phone calls that identified the 'hijackers’ as Middle Eastern, which is no less absurd. Can you tell, for example, an Arab from an Israeli? By the middle of the afternoon, the jury had returned a verdict of guilty and the judge pronounced a death sentence, yet no real evidence was, or has been since, presented.

The resulting chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq have benefited immensely the so-called neocons who spend as much time in Tel Aviv as Washington advocating a takeover of the Arab Middle East, and the oil and "security" related companies who fund their think tanks and profit off their wars. They even published a document that called for such an atrocity, but it is all unmentioned in the 'free’ press. Could it have something to do with the fact that the owners of the 'free’ press sit on the same boards of directors as those of Halliburton, Bechtol, and the notorious Carlyle Group? The average American hasn’t a clue.

It is this seeming paradox that has the world scratching their heads in wonder — why can’t they figure out what’s going on in their own name? There are a thousand reasons with the top two being: even if we do know what’s happening, there isn’t squat we can do about it, and, just as important, we’re too busy living ersatz lives to care. So the real question is, how did it come to this?

The key to understanding this outcome is the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank, which is none of the above, dictates the amount of US currency in circulation, and therefore its value, and by extension economic and foreign policy. If this sounds like a non sequiter, bear with me. Though it is called the "Fed", it is entirely privately owned. So, you might ask, who has the power to print money and loan it to the government with interest that is guaranteed against tax receipts? Peter Kershaw provides the answer in Economic Solutions where he lists the ten primary shareholders in the Federal Reserve banking system:

The Rothschild Family – London

The Rothschild Family – Berlin

The Lazard Brothers – Paris

Israel Seiff – Italy

Kuhn-Loeb Company – Germany

The Warburgs – Amsterdam

The Warburgs - Hamburg

Lehman Brothers - New York

Goldman & Sachs - New York

The Rockefeller Family - New York

Since they control the U S Federal Reserve Bank, it’s pretty obvious that they control economic policy down to the last centime.  Perhaps this is why one of Richard Nixon’s legacies was the dissolution of the Breton Woods agreement whereby member entities that printed fiat money did so as long as it was backed by gold reserves. Between the Vietnam war, low taxes, a recession and skyrocketing oil prices, America withdrew from that agreement, and the Fed fired up the printing presses. The result was an average inflation rate for the decade following of 11.35%, which echoes the first decade after the Fed was established in 1913, 14.97%.

The bottom line on this economic control by private interests has many ramifications but a great place to start is to comprehend that what costs $1910.99 today could have been purchased in 1913 for a single hundred dollar bill. More ominous are the economic 'cycles’ over that interval. When the dollar inflates, the assets denominated in it increase accordingly. By lowering interest rates and increasing the supply of money, or debt, the Fed gins up the value of everything. At some point, those who call the shots convert out of the dollar into either a stable currency or a commodity such as gold, then rapidly decrease the supply of money and raise interest rates so that the value of assets fall.

For the owners of those assets that do not owe money on them, at least they can keep them in hopes prices will return to what they purchased them for. For the others, the bank simply calls the note and repossesses the assets owed on and if they are a big enough bank, or well-connected with the Fed and know the deflation is coming, life is good. For the rest, pure misery ensues. This alternating cycle manipulation makes wealth accumulation child’s play if you’re on the A Team — otherwise you’re on your own.

To finish our economics lesson, consider the fact that banks are only required by law to have on hand ten per cent of the amount they loan. This is glibly called 'fractional reserve’ banking. Thus, when the bank gives you $100,000 to go with your down payment, say $20,000, they’ve doubled their money before you even leave the building. If you found out you had lost your job before you could make the first payment, the banks $10,000 temporary liability would be handily offset by the $20,000 they got from you. Plus, they can sell the house for the $120,000 it is theoretically worth and their total profit is $140,000!

But let’s say you pay it off exactly on time. That $100,000 mortgage loan for 30 years at 5% interest results in a total principle plus interest income of  $193,255, and it’s all profit. When the loan is made, your account is magically credited the $100,000 which is offset by the debit to pay the lien holder of the property that now belongs to your bank. There is no actual movement of funds from your bank’s accounts excepting the $10,000 in deposits that must be moved into reserve status until it is replaced by debt repayments or deposits. Now you know why there’s a bank on every corner.

So what does all this have to do with country full of zombies unable to take control of the government that aggressively invades other nations that are no threat, something we used to justifiably vilify Germany for? A lot, actually. We have isolated the forces that induced the Congress to abdicate their Constitutional duty to print our currency and regulate its value, and have found one of them to have boasted : "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild uttered these words in 1790 and his descendents evidently took them to heart.

So if who writes the laws is trumped by who controls the currency, Americans will have lost control of our ship of state for almost 100 years. That means that virtually all elections since then have been manipulated. This means that bankers have tilted the playing field to their advantage for almost a century, and perhaps that explains the fact that a pre-Fed nickel costs five dollars today. They’ve incited the wars, dictated the peace treaties, and collected interest plus principle often times from all parties to the conflicts. And the people have fed their sons, daughters and taxes to the dogs of war, all the while thinking God and Country had something to do with it. And to this day, only a handful of us are aware of these facts. That must mean the bankers have had a great deal of success in controlling the information flow for the last century, as well. Perhaps this explains the dismal job a Federalized public school system so famously metes out to its victims, the students and to a large degree the teachers, all under the thumb of politicized administrators.

It might also explain the garbage that dominates the output of Hollywood’s movie and television industries. It certainly explains why it takes two incomes to raise a family on even a modest scale. And since the government has been controlling the drug trade for a century and using the profits to finance off-the-book black operations to bludgeon anyone that threatens to horn in on the take, or worse, threaten the supply, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan, we see the hand of the bankers at work, yet again. This list could go on and on, but Paul is right in demanding some responsibility on our part, and I have no mea culpa for that, because, after all, we were given a Constitutional Republic, and the founders told us constant vigilance would be necessary to maintain it. Well, my fellow Americans, we flat blew it.

What we did, folks, was sell our souls to the devils in the banker’s suits. We settled for life-sapping, one-dimensional jobs to appear prosperous. We became mesmerized by sports and entertainment and the 'stars’ they produced creating our own American royalty. And as the content of these entertainments became ever more degraded, we allowed the corrosion to rot the fabric of social responsibility right out of us. So now we smugly drive around in our massive SUVs with flags fluttering repeating ad nauseum via cell phone that we’re the greatest country in the world. The founding fathers would have no way to conceive how we could have allowed their blood and hard work to turn into a fascistic war machine intent on subjugating the world, all the while spouting platitudes about how honorable our intentions are.

Like the collapsed WTC towers, the American experiment was imploded behind a cloak of deceit, and we took a big fat bribe to look the other way. I’m ashamed for all of us, and I, for one, offer my deepest apologies to Paul and the rest of the world for our National Disgrace.

© Copyright 2005 by AxisofLogic.com

Originally published by Axis of Logic, September 5, 2005

The Enemy Next Door

The 'shunning’ of an individual is the act of deliberately avoiding association with him or her. The historical punishments of ostracism and exile were forms of shunning. Today, shunning in an official, formalized manner is practiced by only a few religions, although it continues to be practiced informally in every sort of human grouping or gathering.

Shunning aims to protect a group from members who have committed acts seen as harmful to the shunning organization, or who violate the group's norms.

- Adapted from the Wikipedia

For many religious groups, shunning might be seen as the ultimate act by disconnecting an individual from the group. Historically, the practice is sure to have been initiated for extraordinarily flimsy reasons from time to time – but as a social agent to ensure civil behaviour, it is a powerful tool. It serves a function similar to the amputation of a right hand in Islam.

In more modern times, occasions arise when one or several countries choose to 'shun’ another nation as a way of trying to influence a change in the behaviour of that nation. Think of the United States’ embargo on Cuba, sanctions levied against bad actors by the United Nations (like Libya, Iraq), the Canadian sanctions against South Africa, eventually adopted by most of the British Commonwealth. That last example is a model of what can be accomplished with international condemnation; although the world’s sanctions against Apartheid cannot claim full credit for the turnaround in South Africa, it was a powerful incentive to those who sought to bring about changes there.

This is an article about the United States of America. From the outset, let me admit that there is tremendous credit due to the US for a wide variety of social, humanitarian, artistic, scientific, intellectual accomplishments. But this small group of people, ruled by an even smaller group of thugs, is truly the epitome of the 'tail-wagging-the-dog’ syndrome. The US comprises a small fraction of the world but it sees all the rest of the world – and, for emphasis, ALL the rest of the world – as its servant, its supplier of cheap goods and labour, its warehouse, its flea market, the place to play with its guns.

Both Canada and Mexico can reasonably think of the United States as our best friend. But it is also clearly our worst enemy. Indeed, I will argue here that the United States is the enemy of ALL nations. It’s a little tougher for Canada and Mexico because the Beast lives next door, but also a little easier because at least they haven’t sent in the troops.

Now, we’ve all heard the rebuttal that 'not all Americans are like that’, and that is certainly true. The US has at least as many decent humans as any other nation, more than some. But a country premised on 'we the people …’ cannot shirk the responsibility for what they do as a group. The actions of the US are the actions of the whole population, by definition … the US constitution does not begin with 'we, some of the people’.

Many outside the US have waited patiently for them to outgrow their juvenile delinquency, but they show no sign of maturing. We have waited patiently for the good citizens of the US to corral the bad, but they persist in failing to do so. And now that they are acting out again and threatening the peace and security of the entire planet, it is high time that the rest of us took matters into our own hands.

The rest of the world should join hands and shun the United States.

America, the country, really does believe it is better than anyone else. That America is entitled to as much of the resources and riches of the planet as it wants and it doesn’t matter whomever else might have to suffer or go short. That all other nations are enemies if they don’t march to the American drum in virtually any arena you might care to mention. That it has the right, indeed the obligation, to enforce its will wherever it sees fit by whatever means it wants. That it has the right to invade sovereign nations as a way of deflecting attention from some domestic political scandal or if there is some new weapon that needs a good field testing. That killing of foreign civilians doesn’t really count because they’re always in season and there’s no quota. That somehow a bullet-ridden and trigger-happy American society is in every way superior to any other place on earth.

Astonishingly, Americans seem to have a hard time grasping that other folks might be a little annoyed about all that.

Bombs and Bullets

Consider their military adventures. The United States claims to be a nation of peace lovers and officially it has been at peace since the end of the Second World War. Except, that is, for their attacks on:

• China (1945-46)
• Korea (1950-53)
• Guatemala (1954, 1967-69)
• Cuba (1959-60)
• Belgian Congo (1964)
• Vietnam (1961-73)
• Cambodia (1969-70)
• Grenada (1983)
• Libya (1986)
• El Salvador (1980-92)
• Nicaragua (1981-90)
• Panama (1989)
• Iraq (1991)
• Somalia (1993)
• Bosnia (1995)
• Sudan (1998)
• Yugoslavia (1999)
• Afghanistan (2001-02)
• plus a grudge match currently underway in Iraq (since 2003)
• Plus "police action" in Colombia re: drugs (ongoing), an insurrection in Chile (1973) and numerous other covert bombings conducted by, or under the direction of, the CIA 

From 1945 to the early years of the 21^st  century, the US attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments and to crush more than 30 populist movements fighting against insufferable regimes. In the process, they bombed about 25 countries, killed several million people, and condemned many millions more to lives of agony, poverty and despair. Oh yes, and they’re presently sabre-rattling against Iran and, maybe, North Korea. [Forgive me if I’ve forgotten any military excursion here; it’s hard to keep track.]

Most of this activity took place during a time when the United States was allegedly in a defensive posture. In reality, the United States has never been in a defensive posture. It’s short history is one of expansionism; first through movement to the west coast, then economically in the rest of the Americas (where the profits can be derived without the overhead of actually running the countries).

At this point, thanks to George W. Bush’s September 2002 document entitled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’ (NSS), we know with certainty that the United States intends to rule the world. They will act unilaterally to attack wherever and whenever they wish and they have already demonstrated that they mean it. Given their propensity for field-testing their high-tech weaponry, should they really be surprised that most other nations fear them? And is it rational for them to think that those who fear them are going to like them?

But it isn’t quite as simple as worrying about American bombs. Because they don’t drop them everywhere. There are actually some places that the US considers to be alright. Canada for one, although they often think we are cheeky buggers who they’re one day going to have to squash. Britain for another, although one wonders if the US only thinks well of them because of the recent lapses of British common sense in supporting Bush’s military adventures.

Let’s Make a Deal

Ask any country that’s ever entered into a trade agreement with the United States how well it worked out for them. The US bargains with a fisted glove, despite George Bush’s remarks in the second paragraph of the NSS: "In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage." He couldn’t even get past the second paragraph without lying.

The fact is, the financial instruments that operate the world – the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund – are all tools of American diplomacy (I use the term loosely since diplomacy is not a strong suit for America, never has been). Oil, that most precious commodity, the thing that seems to attract American military excursions like flies to a corpse, is priced in US dollars giving the United States an unprecedented trading advantage over every other nation. The Yankee buck is used as the currency standard in most parts of the world despite its shaky foundations and the tremulous state of the American economy. By default, then, the currencies of the rest of the world are subservient and unstable because of their measurement against the flaky dollar.

The list of agreements entered into by the US that they have ignored, abrogated, or violated is long; and it has grown exponentially in recent years. Without even looking beyond the borders of North America, the US record of honouring its commitments is appalling. The Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have been sad examples of the way the US bullies its 'partners’. It routinely ignores rulings of the dispute resolution panels that it doesn’t like, it slaps unjustified tariffs against its partners and dares them to do something about it. It fully expects the other partners to live with and adhere to the agreed upon rules, but it has no intention of doing so itself.

Naturally, these examples should serve as warnings to anyone else foolish enough to think they can enter into equal agreements with the US. It should be clear to all that no trade agreement with the United States is ever predicated on the 'win-win’ principle, but only on the premise that all the chips will end up on the American side of the ledger. It is almost pathological that the US cannot abide the idea of both sides winning something because that means something was left on the table that they could have grabbed.

On the horizon is the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and despite the obvious failings of FTA and NAFTA, other North and South American countries have given serious consideration to entering into trade agreements with the United States. Some have already foolishly signed on the dotted line.  They need only look at the record of the way America adheres to its bargains with its closest neighbours to realize that the United States considers the rest of the world to be nothing more than its supplier of cheap raw materials and labour, and the place that it wishes to dump its surplus and its crap.

Playing well with others

One of the most sensible things ever created by the countries of the world is the United Nations. Its problems and weaknesses are huge, but most stem from four things: the foolish concept of the Security Council; the American belief that the sole function of the UN is to service the domestic and foreign interests of the United States; the failure of the US to live up to its commitments to the UN; and the US determination that nothing the rest of the member nations want or think is relevant if it doesn’t suit the United States.

If the US was being given a grade school report card for its United Nations activities it would be given the lowest grade possible and the teacher would surely note that the US does not play well with its peers. Indeed, the United States does not seriously consider that it has peers. There is a good chance the teacher might think the US needs professional intervention to deal with its obvious psychopathic tendencies.

Currently on the table is a draft agreement for United Nations reform and renewal. It is well-recognized internationally that the UN has shortcomings and members from many nations have worked long and hard to prepare a draft proposal for addressing those weaknesses. The United States has made some 700 changes to the document that they insist will be necessary before they will agree to the rest. The parts they are willing to leave in place are the vague 'lets play nice’ homilies that are unenforceable and make no commitments; the parts they want changed or removed provide a solid roadmap to showcase the disagreements the US has with the rest of the world on almost every imaginable global issue.

Think back again to President Bush’s statement: "In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage." It is difficult to credit that there is anyone, anywhere, including within the United States, that could make that statement with a straight face. Where the US is unable to win agreement from other countries, it threatens. It starts off with gentle remonstrance but the stakes very quickly rise to trade and even military threats: it takes guts to stand up to the US and only a few countries have the clout or temerity to do so (China and Cuba, respectively, come easily to mind).

But the reason these difficulties arise in the first place is there is no room in the eyes of the United States for compromise. President Bush again: "Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists." This narrow black-versus-white approach (an appropriate metaphor for the US) allows for no compromise, it permits no neutrality. It is the classic schoolyard bully approach to problem solving.

As a further example, consider the American attitude to such concepts as the International Court of Justice. The US refuses to be a part of it because they will not put themselves in the position where someone else has the power to judge them or the activities of their citizens. They believe that international law governs everyone but them: they were quite prepared to judge the Third Reich at Nuremburg and Manuel Noriega (after he finished being useful to them) and Saddam Hussein, and so on, but they refuse to accept that anyone, anywhere, has the right to judge them or one of their citizens.

Freedom

The United States prides itself on being free. Its citizens have come to believe that this includes them although any outsider can easily see that the only freedom in the US is the freedom of the elite to get richer and richer. The US operates on the principle of 'free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich’ in an astounding display of law-of-the-jungle mentality. The rich and the elite of the US enjoy the biggest and best of everything while the lower castes fend for themselves.

This is a nation with wealth and privilege beyond measure, yet it houses vast numbers of poor and downtrodden who are left to wallow on their own. A timely example is in front of the world as we all watch with horror and consternation the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is clear that the US was unprepared for this disaster despite having all the resources imaginable, despite having plenty of notice that this event was about to occur, despite having years of warning that it would occur some day. It is not lost on anyone that the slow and feeble response of the Bush administration to this catastrophe is coloured by who the victims happen to be.

The US was founded on the principle of democracy, the republican form of democracy, but it has been many years since it practiced democracy or even believed that it should. We all know its elections are unfair contests of rich against rich, often with unscrupulous polling practices to ensure the right person wins. And we all know that once elected, the winners are ensconced for the sole purpose of lining their own pockets and those of their backers.

Yet the United States strides around the world with the alleged aim of installing 'democracy’, by force if necessary, even if the people affected would rather not have it. There is a proselytizing fervour to the missionary zeal with which the US pledges to 'free’ the rest of the world. It cannot be stated more clearly that the US interest in other nations is solely as providers of cheap raw materials and labour, and as market places. They are quite content to accept the rule of dictators in those nations who are willingly serving US interests (Saudi Arabia, for instance).

The US notion of 'democracy’, at least within the current administration, is surely Orwellian, avoiding anything that would allow for a genuine rule of the people. In nominal democracies today there is a huge gap between the ruling elites and the general populace. In this neo-liberal world, leaders regularly betray campaign promises and the public interest in order to serve the needs of the corporations who ensured their election victories. Nowhere has this reached such a high art form as in the United States.

Democracy has steadily eroded in the United States, accelerated by the present administration. The Patriot Act and its successor have castrated the constitutional protections of the rights of individuals; the courts have been filled with pliable right-wing judges, threatening judicial independence and constitutional rights; corrupt election practices are rampant and the checks and balances system has been seriously disrupted.

Killing the rest of us

The United States is a dirty place. Despite its millions of square miles of open space, it has allowed industry to turn large swaths of the environment into cesspools. Rivers and streams are polluted, food sources are contaminated with both inadvertent and deliberate chemical additives, in many places the air gives a foul stench. While the US is certainly not alone in the world in this regard, the sheer volume of pollution that is produced by this conspicuous consumption society is staggering.

American administrations, particularly the current one, blithely ignore the evidence that even school children can grasp. Scientists the world over, excepting those few on the payrolls of the polluters, have been issuing dire predictions at least as far back as Rachel Carson’s 1962 warning in her book 'Silent Spring’. But no, global warming isn’t really happening; or if it is, it has nothing to do with any human activity. It is an interesting dichotomy that the scientists are heeded by leaders so long as they are saying things the leaders want to hear, ignored otherwise.

But the rest of the world knows. That’s why it struggled to produce what became known as the Kyoto Protocol after many attempts and many years of diplomacy. It is a horridly flawed agreement; but it is a first and critically necessary step to cleaning up our environment while there is some potable water and some breathable air remaining. The American response: the rest of the world can be damned, no one is telling us what to do.

Most of the world has reluctantly agreed that planting landmines is a nasty practice. While they may have had some military value in the days when troops rode horses or walked, their only value now is for containment of non-combatants. By far the greatest number of landmine victims in recent years is the population left behind when the armies go off to play elsewhere. The soldiers never remove the landmines so they remain buried, waiting for some unsuspecting peasant or child to die, or blow off a leg or two.

And so the world agreed to stop using them, to stop manufacturing, to remove all they could locate. The American response: they refused to sign on to anti-landmine treaties, they refused to remove those they have buried, they have recently decided to start manufacturing them again which can only mean that they intend to use them. The rest of the world be damned.

The United States has touted the need to control nuclear weaponry. However, if any further evidence was actually needed, their recent proposals to the United Nations draft agreement for reform make crystal clear that nuclear control is only for others. They have no intention of disarming, or reducing the nuclear stockpile, but everyone else should. And it is imperative that no additional countries gain nuclear weapon capability. The capability and right to obliterate mankind should rest entirely with the White House. The rest of the world be damned.

American soldiers have dropped depleted uranium (DU) on enemy combatants since 1991. It is lethal, it is horrid, and even though it doesn’t have the bluster and showmanship of a mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb. It is one of the ironies of history: the United States went to war against Iraq in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was full of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but finally they were forced to admit they were wrong and just couldn’t find those weapons. So the US has deployed its own WMDs in Iraq, in the form of the DU cluster bombs.

The United States has a long history of manufacturing, storing, selling and deploying WMD. As far back as the Second World War, there is clear evidence of use by the United States of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of WMD. Still, most of us who point fingers at the Americans are most familiar with their exploits in Vietnam. Agent Orange and napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam although the Americans also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and Green.

These products are actually herbicides, developed during the 1940s, and were used in Vietnam as defoliants to strip away the grasses and trees in order to deny the enemy hiding places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their extensive use in Vietnam compromised the health of many who came in contact with them, including American forces; and they were used in far greater concentrations than would be usual.

:: Article nr. 16070 sent on 24-sep-2005 02:50 ECT