> large part of the benefit of joining the club vanish. In my mind those
> are big, big benefits worthy of the expenditure of big, big resources.

Rusty,

This is logical, though I still find the cost prohibitive to the benefit,
but that's just me, if one considers the motive for acquiring atomic
weapons is to use them against the United States. However, I don't see
this in most cases. This is obvious in the case of India and Pakistan,
for example, 2 countries who I cannot in any scenario imagine deploying
them against American targets.

In the case of Iraq, one forgets that the most likely target would be
Israel, the oil supply and industry of Saudi Arabia, or in-theatre forces
of the West Alliance, and not the domestic United States. Saddam Hussein
is not the world's most stable individual by any means, but he acts
logically according to his world view. His fault is that he misreads the
fortitude and resolve of his foe. One could argue in fact that the prime
Iraqi motivation for seeking weapons of mass destruction are in fact
deterrance, both against the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Now in the case of say, a Bin Laden, I can't really see the method of
delivery being a missile. Even with his wealth, he doesn't have the
resources to develop one independently. Purchasing one from say, a broke
Russian General, is a possibility, but again that would require shipment
to a suitable launch point, etc...this would require a willing or
inept country, technicians, fuel.

Much more likely is the suitcase bomb. Which exist by the way, in the
Russian arsenal. One of them is "missing"

Another name bandied about is North Korea. Again, IMHO the primary target
of North Korea would not be domestic U.S.A., but S. Korea, and/or U.S.
forces in S. Korea. Or, Japan.

Ask yourself too, why are countries like Britain, France and Germany so
opposed to this? Are they unreasonable? Are their motivations suspect?

-James

Hi,

I know very few will be interested in this...but it's lote-p and I can cry
if I want to :)

[As a personal aside, a good friend and basketball fanatic
organizes a large group to go to Grizzlies games 3x/year. Not just
nosebleed seats either, but near the court. This year, no one from the
Grizzlies ticket office would return his phone calls. He knew someone who
worked there and finally got tickets after approaching her personally.

As another aside, even though the Grizzlies are the "Worst Run Sports Team
in the History of the Universe[tm]", I've always really enjoyed going to
the games.]

Think of this too, as more commentary on U.S.-Canadian relations...

From today's Vancouver Sun:

-Snip-

If Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley wants to put to rest growing questions
about his integrity and honesty, he needs to call a news conference in the
next few days and bring the charts out. The ones that detail how he'll
lose $50 million US this year.

Because I don't believe it. And neither do many of you.

While I don't doubt Heisley will take a financial hit this season, I think
it will be half the amount he is claiming. And $25 million, while still a
lot of money to lose, doesn't sound nearly as bad as $50 million. It's
also a figure you could easily see being whittled down with some prudent
financial management, astute marketing and adjustments to the team's
ridiculous payroll.

Along with burgeoning doubts about his losses is mounting evidence that
Heisley and his management team have shown no interest in trying to make
it work here.

Over the last few days, dozens of season ticket holders have come forward
to say they were not contacted about renewing their seats for this season.
In fact, many of them had to phone the Grizzlies' front office to see if
the team was interested in having their business again.

Meantime, offers to help rally the Vancouver business community were also
ignored by Heisley's people.

Now the latest person to come forward with disturbing proof of Heisley's
complete indifference towards offers of help comes from none other than
David Radler, president and chief executive officer of the Hollinger
newspaper chain and one of the most powerful members of Canada's corporate
elite.

"I approached Mr. Heisley on five different occasions, a couple of times
in Chicago [where Radler is publisher of the Sun-Times] with offers to
help in some way," Radler told me this week.

"I even offered to take him to Winnipeg to meet with Izzy Asper [head of
CanWest Global] to talk about what might be done on the television side.
He never took it up. He showed no interest whatsoever."

Radler also suggested Heisley and his sales team explore the potential of
ticket sales outside the city of Vancouver. He even proposed using
Hollinger papers in the Interior and southeastern B.C. as vehicles to
generate some sales up country.

"I offered to take Heisley to Wrigley Field [home of the Chicago Cubs] to
check out the buses carrying fans to the game," said Radler. "Because my
contention was half the fans were from outside the Chicago area. From what
I called Iowa and Toledo. I thought the same opportunities might be there
for the Grizzlies."

Again, the suggestion was met with a barely stifled yawn.

Much has already been written about the organization's feeble efforts to
market to Vancouver's Asian community. And so the team will leave town
with no idea of what kind of revenue might have been generated with an
aggressive marketing campaign aimed at this potentially lucrative sector
of our community.

Meantime, a report in The Globe and Mail on Thursday quoted several
analysts who said they, too, doubted Heisley will lose anywhere near $50
million. One of those, Hadrian Shaw of Paul Kagan Associates, said he
estimated the team's losses to be about $17 million. While he conceded
that could change, he said it wouldn't be anywhere near $50 million.

If Michael Heisley was sincere about making a go of it here, and now says
he can't, he owes us an explanation as to how he arrived at this point. If
he were to sit down and explain why his losses are going to be as high as
he says, a lot more of us might accept his final decision.

Come to think of it, why didn't Heisley sound the alarms earlier? Why
didn't he say, 'We need to have a season ticket base of 12,000 or it's not
going to work.' Then, at least, the city could have rallied around that
challenge. But there was nothing.

Now, the best he can offer is an "I'm sorry." Well, I'm afraid "I'm sorry"
isn't good enough Mr. Heisley.

Look. We all understand the NBA in Vancouver is a stretch. Especially in
the current economic climate. We can see the empty seats. We can see the
vacant luxury suites. We know what Shareef and Big Country are being paid.
We understand how you can start seeing red in a hurry.

But I still think this $50 million figure is bogus. I think it's a lie. I
think Heisley decided early on, like Day Two, it wasn't going to work
here. And I think he decided, consequently, there was no point in
investigating any of the offers of help he was getting from people like
David Radler and others.

Maybe there is nothing Heisley can say now that will change how we feel
about him. Maybe he thinks he's better off not showing his face in this
town again. It would certainly be easier for him.

But I honestly never thought Michael Heisley was like that. I believed he
was different than other big league sports owners. I thought that
regardless of what happened down the road, his relationship with this city
would be built on a foundation of trust.

Not deception.

Heisley still has an opportunity to leave town with his integrity in tact.
He can show us how and why the losses are going to be as staggering as he
suggests they are. If he does I think we could all say, 'Okay. We
understand now. It's not going to work.' But to just walk away without any
kind of honest accounting to the fans is, well, cowardly.

Either way, we will soon see what Michael Heisley is made of.