THE WAR

Here we are more than six-and-a-half years later, it's the infamous "black" month of October and the Grand Supercycle crash is apparently upon us. Last week the DJIA reversed from 8000 and on Monday stock prices literally crashed, cutting a record 550 points off the Dow in a single day (it was a kind of "Black Monday" as predicted in my October 26th article, "The Great Crash" ). Since Monday's debacle, a sucker's rally has lifted the DJIA to retest critical resistance at the 7600 mark. Now the market looks poised for an all-out collapse.

A parallel of what has recently taken place in the stock market occurred in 1990. On July 16th and 17th of 1990, the DJIA closed at a then record high of 2999.75, i.e., the psychologically important 3000 mark, and then sharply reversed course. Stock prices dropped a quick five percent and then rebounded briefly until August 2nd, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. A Persian Gulf Crisis and major oil-shock ensued that drove stock prices down to 20 percent below 3000 by October of that year.

This time around, as in 1990, stock prices reversed first and NOW an international crisis is likely to erupt, once again complements of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. With the stock market apparently in a late-October crash mode like in 1929 and 1987 (this crash very well may carry into November), Saddam Hussein is once again picking a fight with the U.S. Iraq today announced that Americans may no longer participate in United Nations' weapons inspections in Iraq. In response, the United Nations has warned of "serious consequences" for Iraq if Baghdad does not immediately cooperate with U.N. resolutions. In effect, since Iraq's action today violates the Gulf War ceasefire agreement, the "Mother of All Battles" is back on.

The problem, however, is that this time around you can bet Saddam Hussein is going to come out on top rather than the U.S. Why? Because as I have been trying to point out for the past six years, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991 were likely part of a large-scale strategic deception that integrally involves Russia and a future third world war.

Thus, the Grand Supercycle crash, the ultimate upset of prevailing expectations, is taking the shape I have been warning the world about for so very long- Saddam's Revenge. This revenge should entail a coming chemical SCUD missile attack against Israel, war in the Middle East and, eventually, a global nuclear war. What a tragic shame...

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

          "UN Warns 'Serious Consequences' of Iraqi Ban"

                        October 29th, 1997
                        By Anthony Goodman 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Security Council condemned  Iraq's 
decison  Wednesday to bar Americans from U.N.  weapons inspection 
teams  on  its  territory  and  warned  of  unspecified  "serious 
consequences" if Baghdad persisted.  

Iraq  earlier  gave  the  10 Americans among about 100 U.N.  arms 
personnel now in the country a week to leave,  as  from  Thursday 
morning.  

In  reaction,  the U.N.  special commission (UNSCOM) set up after 
the Gulf war to eliminate  Iraq's  weapons  of  mass  destruction 
immediately  suspended  all field operations,  such as inspecting 
suspect sites. But staff continued other duties.  

"The Security Council condemns the decision of the government  of 
Iraq  to  try  to  dictate  the  terms of its compliance with its 
obligation to cooperate with the special commission," the council 
said in a statement read at a brief formal  council  meeting  and 
backed by all 15 members.  

The  council  demanded  that  Iraq  "cooperate fully ...  without 
conditions or restrictions,  with the special commission  in  the 
implementation of its mandate." 

Certification   by   UNSCOM  that  all  Iraq's  weapons  of  mass 
destruction  have  been  scrapped  is  a  condition  for   easing 
sanctions imposed after its August 1990 invasion of Kuwait.  

"The Security Council warns of the serious consequences of Iraq's 
failure  to  comply  immediately  and  fully with its obligations 
under the relevant resolutions.  The  council  is  determined  to 
ensure   rapid  and  full  Iraqi  compliance  with  the  relevant 
resolutions and for that purpose will remain actively  seized  of 
the matter," the statement said.  

It also reminded Iraq it was responsible for the safety of UNSCOM 
personnel.  

The council reacted within hours of receiving a letter from Iraqi 
deputy  Prime  Minister  Tareq  Aziz  saying the U.S.  members of 
UNSCOM had turned it into an instrument of  Washington's  policy. 
He accused them of preventing UNSCOM from certifying that Iraq no 
longer  had  any forbidden weapons,  thus blocking the lifting of 
sanctions.  

Iraq's action was in response to  a  resolution  adopted  by  the 
Security  Council last week threatening a ban on travel abroad by 
Iraqi officials who  interfere  with  UNSCOM  teams.  Since  that 
resolution  was  adopted  by 10 to none,  but with abstentions by 
China, Egypt, France,  Kenya and Russia,  Baghdad might have felt 
it could defy an apparently divided council.  

But the council statement, drafted by Britain and agreed on short 
notice,  demonstrated  that  all  15  members  were  united  when 
confronted with a blunt Iraqi challenge.  

A U.S. official said the council statement would have been issued 
even sooner if the Chinese delegation had not  had  to  wait  for 
instructions from superiors involved with President Jiang Zemin's 
current state visit to Washington.  

UNSCOM's  New  York-based  executive chairman,  Richard Butler of 
Australia, told reporters: "What cannot happen is that the United 
Nations be told by one member state which of its personnel is  or 
is not acceptable...  

"Who  is  next?  Today  the  United  States,  tomorrow the United 
Kingdom, and so on. This is wrong," Butler said.  

He also said he was  calling  off  a  two-monthly  visit  he  was 
scheduled to make to Baghdad beginning Nov. 7, accompanied by his 
deputy,  Charles  Duelfer,  an American.  Consultations on Friday 
with a team of visiting Iraqis had also been canceled.  

He said UNSCOM used the services of about 1,000 people in a year, 
many on short-term missions.  But it had  a  full-time  staff  of 
about 160 -- some 60 in New York and 100 in Baghdad.  

In his letter to the Security Council, Aziz said the "very large" 
number   of  American  members  of  UNSCOM  "render  the  special 
commission an institution influenced to a  large  extent  by  the 
American  hostile policy aimed at fulfilling the American illegal 
and illegitimate objectives." 

Iraq was "ready to continue" cooperating with  UNSCOM,  "provided 
that  no individuals of American nationality shall participate in 
any activity of the special commission inside Iraq," he said.  

Aziz also repeated a long-standing demand for the  removal  of  a 
U.S. U-2 spy plane which works with UNSCOM. He said the aircraft, 
based   in   Saudi  Arabia,   provided  "deliberately  misleading 
information with  a  view  to  create  problems  and  superficial 
crises."  He said it could be replaced by an Iraqi aircraft or by 
a plane "belonging  to  a  neutral  state  that  has  no  special 
objectives against Iraq." 

Aziz  also  said  Iraq  was  prepared  to  receive a committee of 
Security Council members -- except from the United States  --  to 
verify Iraq's claim it no longer had banned weapons.  

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

                        Los Angeles Times
                     October 10, 1997, Friday

         "SADDAM'S SECRET WEAPON IS WORSE THAN IMAGINED;
            ARMS: A MYSTERIOUS MISSILE FIRED AT ISRAEL 
                  HAD ONLY TO HINT AT BIOLOGICAL
          WARFARE TO PERSUADE BUSH TO END THE GULF WAR."

                       BY AVIGDOR HASELKORN 

(Avigdor Haselkorn,  a strategic analyst,  has recently completed 
a, book on the role of mass destruction weapons in the Gulf War.) 

   In  the  aftermath  of  the  Gulf  War,  the  spread  of  mass 
destruction weapons and long-range missiles in  the  Middle  East 
has  accelerated.  The buildup of chemical and biological weapons 
arsenals by rogue regimes is readily  observed  and  is  directly 
traceable to Operation Desert Storm. This is the real, undeniable 
Gulf War syndrome.  

   How  can  we  explain  such  adverse results from a war fought 
under the banner of the "new world order" and aimed to disarm the 
nuclear,  chemical and biological  capabilities  of  a  dangerous 
dictator?  

   Recent   information  indicates  that  the  Middle  East  came 
remarkably close to the brink of disaster in 1991.  In the  early 
morning hours of Feb.  25, a strangely armed Iraqi missile landed 
in southern Israel.  It was an Hijarah,  an Iraqi variant of  the 
Soviet Scud B, topped with a concrete and metal warhead.  Israeli 
military  intelligence  suspected  that  it  might  have  been  a 
primitive biological warhead.  

   The incident left U.S. decision makers, especially Gen.  Colin 
Powell,  in  a  quandary.  Although  there was no agreement among 
intelligence analysts as to the meaning of the "stone age"  Scud, 
the  possibility  that  it was a warning shot on Saddam Hussein's 
part could not be dismissed.  President  Bush  knew  that  if  an 
unconventional   warhead   fell  inside  an  Israeli  city,   the 
retaliation would be swift, possibly even with nuclear weapons.  

   If the missile carried a biological warfare  payload  of,  for 
example, anthrax agent, it could have caused heavy casualties. It 
was  unclear  whether  the  Iraqis  had the warhead technology to 
spray the spores in the air as an invisible aerosol,  which could 
be inhaled.  But,  U.S.  defense intelligence warned,  "effective 
dissemination of the agent was not even necessary if a biological 
weapon warhead were  to  be  used  as  a  terror  weapon  against 
civilian populations." 

   The  president  knew  that  even if he allowed the Israelis to 
intervene in western Iraq to neutralize the  Scud  threat,  there 
was  no  guarantee  that  they  would  be  completely successful. 
Moreover,  the missile appeared to  have  been  fired  from  deep 
inside Iraq, which would have greatly expanded the search area.  

   Under  these  circumstances,  Bush  had  little  choice but to 
abruptly  order  the  "suspension"  of  hostilities,   in  effect 
submitting to Iraqi strategic blackmail.  

   Bush can blame his military planners for this sorry outcome of 
the  war.  Not only was there an almost catastrophic intelligence 
failure in the Gulf,  for example with regard to locating  Iraq's 
chemical/biological  weapons cache,  but the missiles kept coming 
despite claims by coalition pilots of total kills  that  amounted 
to  300%  of  the entire Iraqi inventory.  After the second salvo 
into Israel,  the CIA warned,  "We cannot rule out that Iraq will 
escalate  to  strategic  i.e.,  countercity,  including  civilian 
targets chemical attacks--perhaps during its next strike." 

   Saddam Hussein did not resort to his mass  destruction  option 
because those were last-resort weapons.  However, intelligence in 
both Israel and the  U.S.  estimated  long  before  the  war  had 
started  that  when  the chips were down,  Saddam would use those 
weapons without hesitation.  

   When the ground war started on Feb.  23  and  Iraq's  defenses 
crumbled,  the  door  to  Baghdad  was  wide open.  Jerusalem and 
Washington both expected that Saddam would take  drastic  action. 
Israel's  defense minister Moshe Arens on Feb.  27 phoned Richard 
Cheney,  his American counterpart,  to  warn  that  Saddam  could 
resort   to   chemical  warfare  against  Israel  "exactly  now." 
Accordingly,  Arens said,  "Israel must take action to neutralize 
this  threat." This assessment and Israel's preparations to enter 
the war undoubtedly played a major role in Bush's decision  later 
that day to end the fighting.  

   In  hindsight,  the  intelligence conception of Saddam's last-
resort strategy,  the prevalence of which was unaffected  by  the 
controversy  over  the  Hijarah,  seems  to have been vindicated. 
Before Desert Storm,  Saddam  armed  191  weapons,  including  25 
warheads, with anthrax agent, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. Rolf 
Ekeus,  then chairman of the  U.N.  Special  Commission  for  the 
disarmament of Iraq, said:  "Their use, which seemed to have been 
possible at any time,  would have  killed  millions  of  people." 
Unless  the  war  ended when it did,  unless Bush heeded Powell's 
warning against fighting past  the  "rational  calculation,"  the 
Middle  East  would  have  likely  plunged into a full scale mass 
destruction exchange between Iraq and Israel.  

   But stopping the war entailed a steep price. The conflict left 
Saddam on his throne,  and it also convinced Iran,  Syria,  Libya 
and  North  Korea  that  mass  destruction weapons and long-range 
missiles  are  the  new  praetorian  guard.   Increasingly,  low-
tech/low-cost   chemical   and   biological   arms  are  seen  as 
instrumental for exercising  political  blackmail  and  shielding 
terrorist  activity.  Little  wonder  that a "Club MAD" (for mass 
destruction) has emerged with rogue countries helping each  other 
develop  the  most  deadly  capabilities and the means to deliver 
them.  They aim not only to hold Israeli,  Saudi and South Korean 
cities hostage, but in due course Japanese and European as well.  

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

                 BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
                     October 10, 1997, Friday

                 "Newspaper warns Iraq may embark 
               on another Kuwaiti-style 'adventure'"

      Source: 'Al-Quds al-Arabi', London, in Arabic 8 Oct 97
             Text of report by London-based newspaper 
                'Al-Quds al-Arabi' on 8th October

   Numerous signals are emanating from Baghdad these days;  these 
reflect a state of concern and frustration and remind us  in  one 
way  or another of the period that preceded the Iraqi invasion of 
Kuwait.  Maybe this is the reason why the US  administration  was 
prompted to rush to send the giant aircraft carrier Nimitz to the 
Gulf region.  

   True,  the  US statement issued in the wake of the decision to 
cut short the carrier's routine tour of south Asia and return  to 
the Gulf spoke of a desire to impose respect for the no-fly zones 
in  southern  Iraq  and  to  prevent  any  Iranian  aircraft from 
violating them  again,  but  it  is  also  true  that  Washington 
received  information  to  the  effect that Iraq is preparing for 
some kind of action to extricate itself from the current state of 
siege which is claiming thousands of lives from among its  people 
every month, and there is no sign of an imminent way out.  

   The  Iraqi  official rhetoric against the US administration is 
continuing;  the same thing applies to the  UN  inspection  teams 
headed  by  Butler.  Iraqi officials daily complain about the two 
parties' humiliating practices against their country.  

   In addition to the  statements  made  by  Iraqi  Deputy  Prime 
Minister  Tariq  Aziz  in  which  he  strongly  criticized the UN 
inspection teams and their impossible demands,  Iraqi Information 
and  Culture  Minister  Hammam  Abd-al-Ghafur  has  held  the  US 
administration  responsible  for  not  implementing   scores   of 
humanitarian  contracts that Iraq submitted to the United Nations 
in implementation of the oil-for-food agreement  ;  the  contract 
concerning the purchase of ambulance vehicles was cancelled,  and 
the same thing applies to the spare parts needed for the  transit 
oil  pipelines,  in  addition  to  other medical and humanitarian 
contracts.  

   Iraqi officials are fully aware that the UN  inspection  teams 
will  not submit a report confirming that Iraq is free from mass-
destruction weapons,  no matter how cooperative  Iraqi  officials 
are.  And even if the commission submits such a report,  there is 
no guarantee that the oil blockade will be lifted under Clause 22 
of Security Council Resolution 687,  which  stipulates  that  the 
blockade be lifted once it is declared that Iraq is free from the 
prohibited weapons.  

   The  US  administration  links the lifting of the oil blockade 
imposed on  Iraq  with  Iraq's  efforts  to  prove  its  peaceful 
intentions,   even   after   all   mass-destruction  weapons  are 
destroyed- an impossible condition which means that the  blockade 
will not be lifted in the near or distant future.  

   In  the  light  of  this situation,  this state of despair and 
frustration could prompt the Iraqi government to embark on a  new 
adventure  to  break the current deadlock,  draw attention to the 
tragedies caused by the blockade,  and try to shuffle  the  cards 
internationally and regionally.  

   The   current  stage  of  calm  on  the  Iraqi  front  is  not 
reassuring, because the Iraqi government does not normally remain 
silent about the  violation  of  its  sovereignty  in  the  north 
through  the  Turkish  invasion  and the Iranian air raids on the 
Iranian opposition's bases in southern Iraq.  

   Iraq  experienced  states of siege before,  which prompted its 
president to say on more than one occasions, "severing necks, not 
livelihood" and this phrase was a prelude to occupying Kuwait. It 
is noted that the same tone is persistently repeated these days.  

   The Security Council, on which Iraq is greatly relying to lift 
the blockade,  has become one of the US State Department's organs 
following  its  policies.  The Iraqis feel that the international 
community has disappointed them regarding this situation.  

   It is a duty to warn of some kind of an  Iraqi  surprise  that 
could  make the unexpected expected,  because Iraq has had enough 
and its ability to display self-restraint is now rock-bottom.  

   The certain thing is that any adventure  on  which  the  Iraqi 
government embarks will prove costly for it,  but more costly for 
its neighbours, since Iraq has nothing to lose.  

   Hopefully the Iraqi government will not behave recklessly  and 
the  international  community  will  make a move to ease,  if not 
lift,  the  blockade as soon as possible.  And if a surprise is a 
must,  let it be delayed until after Iraq reinforces the internal 
front,  opens  up politically to national forces and broadens the 
circle of participation  in  decision  making  through  a  larger 
degree of democracy.  

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

       "Oil prices jump as U.N halts Iraq disarmament work"
                 Wednesday October 29 8:09 PM EST 

LONDON,  Oct  29 (Reuters) - Crude oil prices jumped on Wednesday 
as tensions between Iraq and the United Nations resurfaced  after 
the world organisation announced it would temporarily suspend its 
disarmament  operations in the petroleum-producing Middle Eastern 
nation.  

The U.N.  decision followed an announcement  by  Iraqi  President 
Saddam  Hussein  that  Baghdad  would  cooperate with U.N weapons 
inspectors but wanted U.S members of the team to leave  within  a 
week.  

London  futures  for  bellwether  Brent  blend crude closed up 21 
cents at $19.65 a barrel.  

Dealers scrambled into oil futures in London and  New  York  amid 
renewed  concerns  that  Baghdad  might decide not to renew crude 
exports under the U.N.  oil-for-food exchange when the deal comes 
up review in December.  

Iraq said it would continue to cooperate with other U.N.  weapons 
inspectors,  at least temporarily but Washington said the ban  on 
U.S. members of the team was unacceptable.  

Washington  later  issued a statement saying that Iraq's move has 
``potentially grave consequences.'' 

At stake for world oil markets are about a million barrels  daily 
of  Iraqi  sales  the  special  oil-for-food arrangement aimed at 
getting food and medicine to Iraq's poor.  

Amid booming oil winter demand,  a cut of that supply could  send 
prices spiralling, dealers said.  

``This looks like an attempt by Iraq to drive a wedge between the 
United  States  on one side and France and Russia on the other,'' 
said Christopher Bellew of brokers Prudential  Bache  Futures  in 
London.  

``There is the possibility that the 'oil-for-food' deal might not 
get renewed which would definitely lift prices,'' he added.  

Iraq  is  near  the  end of it's second six month long ``oil-for-
food'' deal that allows $2 billion worth of oil sales in exchange 
for food and medicine.  

Many oil traders have already factored a third oil  deal  in  the 
first  half  of  1998 into their calculations and even a delay in 
starting the third deal could lift prices, Bellew said.  

``The news is certainly more bullish than bearish,''  Bob  Finch, 
head of independent trading company at Vitol SA, said.  

The Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations,  Nizar Hamdoon,  said 
his government had decided to ban American arms inspectors out of 
``frustration'' with trade sanctions that have been left in place 
since the 1991 Gulf War.  

But the leadership in Baghdad stopped short of cutting ties  with 
the United Nation completely.  

Instead,  it  posponed  a  threat to suspend ties with the United 
Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) charged with disarming Iraq's 
prohibited weapons and said it would continue to work with UNSCOM 
in a ``manner respecting Iraqi sovereignty.'' 

Earlier this week Hamdoon  said  ``it  is  premature  to  discuss 
whether there will be a third round (of oil sales).'' 

Wide-ranging  sanctions in place against Iraq for more than seven 
years can be lifted  only  when  the  U.N.  Security  Council  is 
satisfied  that  all Iraq's chemical,  biological,  ballistic and 
nuclear weapons potential have been destroyed.  

Crude oil prices in dollars per barrel: 

                                            Oct 29   Oct 28
               IPE December Brent           19.65     19.44
               NYMEX December light crude   20.74     20.45

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

                   Global Economy Faces Trouble 

                       By Charles J. Hanley 
                     AP Special Correspondent 
             Sunday, October 26, 1997; 1:26 p.m. EST 
                        
 The talk these prosperous days, from Wall Street to Wuhan, is of 
 boundless economic horizons.  But just over the horizon  lies  a 
 familiar patch of troubled waters, a blue-green whirlpool called 
 the Persian Gulf.  
                        
 As  the  global  economy sped ahead in 1997,  navigating through 
 market  dips  and  Asian  currency   scares,   optimists   began 
 speculating about a ``repeal'' of the laws of boom and bust. But 
 they'd better repeal the laws of internal combustion first.  

 A  check of America's gas tank tells you why:  The United States 
 is importing more than half the oil it burns.  And Persian  Gulf 
 petroleum is even more important elsewhere in the world economy, 
 especially  in  parts  of  Asia  where  the  optimism already is 
 tempered by currency crises and stockmarket slumps.  
                        
 It's been a generation since the industrial world first  learned 
 what an oil crisis could mean.  
                        
 At that time,  in 1973,  an Arab embargo led to a quadrupling of 
 oil prices and a world recession.  A  few  years  later,  Iran's 
 revolution  produced  another  global  oil  squeeze and economic 
 slump.  

 In those years,  the United States  relied  on  imports  for  as 
 little as one-third of its oil.  
                        
 The  new  heavy  dependence  on  foreign  oil  troubles  some in 
 Washington.  Hazel O'Leary,  the former energy  secretary,  said 
 earlier  this  year  that ``we need a wake-up call'' that only a 
 new oil price shock might provide.  
                        
 Oil traders,  of course,  don't need reminders.  When  the  U.S.  
 aircraft  carrier  Nimitz rushed to the Persian Gulf this month, 
 amid heightening tensions there,  crude oil prices jumped almost 
 $2 a barrel, to more than $23.  
                        
 That  ``crisis  of the month'' may be subsiding,  but the twists 
 and turns of the Gulf whirlpool remain unpredictable: 
                        
 --In the Gulf's tight quarters,  crowded with American,  Iranian 
 and other naval vessels,  miscalculations and mishaps easily can 
 escalate into confrontation.  

 --Iran and Iraq might clash  over  Iraq's  sheltering  of  anti-
 Iranian guerrillas, a flashpoint for tensions in recent weeks.  

 --Iraq  might draw U.S.  or broader international retaliation if 
 it  violates  ``no-fly''   zones   or   rejects   U.N.   weapons 
 inspections.  

 --Terrorists  might  again attack American forces in the region. 
 If an Iranian link is uncovered,  a major  Gulf  showdown  could 
 result.  

 Crises like these would each affect the flow of oil in different 
 ways.  For  one  thing,  long-distance pipelines make the region 
 less dependent on Gulf shipping than it once was.  But any  Gulf 
 conflict  inevitably  would  drive  oil  prices  up  sharply and 
 quickly.  And the waves and ripples from such an emergency, even 
 if short-lived, would reach everywhere.  
                        
 America's oil imports have been climbing since the mid-1980s, as 
 domestic oil production declined by more than  25  percent.  The 
 U.S.  appetite grew in the '90s with the booming economy and the 
 popularity of sport utilities and other gas-hungry vehicles.  So 
 far this year,  imports have supplied 55 percent of consumption, 
 one-fifth of that coming from the Persian Gulf.  
                        
 In Asia, the heavier dependence grew even more quickly.  
                        
 China,  an oil producer,  became an oil importer in 1993  as  it 
 modernized  industry  from  coastal  Shanghai  to  inland Wuhan.  
 Expanding automobile ownership across East Asia may  help  boost 
 global consumption from today's 73 million barrels a day to over 
 90 million by 2010, energy analysts say.  

 Already  operating  at  more  than  90  percent  capacity,   oil 
 producers will scramble to keep up.  The  big  energy  companies 
 have  big plans for the Caucasus and Central Asia,  but the flow 
 from many of those fields lies years over the horizon.  

 Until then,  the  Gulf,  with  its  oil  and  its  crises,  lies 
 comfortably  --and uncomfortably -- closer at hand.  It's a fact 
 of life sometimes forgotten as stock indexes have risen on  Wall 
 Street, but never forgotten in the whirlpool itself.  

 ``My  job  is  stability,''  a  U.S.  destroyer  captain  told a 
 reporter in the Gulf earlier this year.  ``Because if this  neck 
 of  the  world  blew  up,  what would really suffer is the world 
 economy. That's what it all comes back to -- economics.'' 

 EDITOR'S NOTE -- Charles J. Hanley has reported on international 
 affairs for The Associated Press since 1976.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                    ARTICLES FOR FAIR USE ONLY
-----------------------------------------------------------------