Re: [fh ot] Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Star s)

Glover, Owen wrote:

> Why is the FCT necessarily anti-NAC? Since 1776 the US and UK have
been

*Sputter*  Try the late 1860s!	We fought two wars since 1776 (AWI,
1812), and damn near had British warships and troops intervene in our
First Civil War.

> pretty well allied. The GZG history stated that the FCT breakaway was
a
> fairly tame affair "sabre rattling" and token shots fired. I also
thought

Hrm. . . maybe not anti-NAC in behavior, but philisophically.  I see FCT
as a safety valve for NAC--a dumping ground for militant US
nationalists, conspiracy theorists (who would see in British troops
occupying the US a validation of their One World Government Black
Helicopter nonsense), Gun Nuts (FCT Const. likely has a clause
permitting all inhabitants to own tactical nuclear weapons), Xenophobes
(Damn British Furriners!), the Irish population of Boston (OK, maybe
this is a bit farfetched) and other types who would otherwise be a
destabilizing influence in the NAC.  Before anyone points out
California's reputation for liberalism, I've been told that's mostly in
LA and San Francisco, so if those two cities catch nukes during the
Second American Civil War, then it makes sense.

> that the Sa'eed Khalifate - IF relationship would be similar to Saudi
-
> Iraq?

That would presume the IF was as rational as the Saudis are--which ain't
the case.  The IF, I think of as Lybians, and the Khalifate I think of
as people who think the Lybians are liberals.

John M. Atkinson