# The giant Scylla Thanksgiving crow eating thread. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 24, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049 "2003-11-24T22:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/381 "2003-11-28T21:22:30Z")
“Constant patrolling the no-fly zones and being shot at…” Yeah. Heard about that. Took some, what?..700 shots and didn’t hit once? Rather odd, don’t you think? Someone on these very boards suggested it was because he didn’t turn on his radar, because we’d clobber his radar. I find that plausible, how about you? Because without radar locking, he might as well have been trying to bring them down with a BB gun. “…The inspection circle jerk…” Was working. He didn’t have anything. You seem to have trouble absorbing that. “…Basing US forces in Saudi – al Qaeda uses that as a pretext for being heinous murdering pigs…” Entirely true! Completely irrefutable. Boy, you got us that time. But you neglected to make the connection between Osama and Saddam. That’s OK, nobody else could either. God knows they tried. (Is this all new information to you?) “…4) Iraq bisects Iran and Syria…” Can’t fault you on geography. Might even be relevent, I suppose, if two of the three weren’t mortal enemies. They had this war? You heard about that, right? Isreal bisects Jordan and Egypt, so they’re all co-conspirators? “…Now mention Guatemala…” OK, Guatemala. And if they ever forgive us, we still won’t deserve it. Can anybody else finish off this steaming load? I gotta go. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/382 "2003-11-28T21:27:33Z")
I was going to but I figured why waste my time. ---
**Author:** ![cedric45](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d07c76/32.png) [@cedric45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cedric45)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/383 "2003-11-28T21:39:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by World Eater \* > \*\*Why would anyone possibly vote for Bush in 2004? > > Seriously. \*\* The same reason that I (and others) voted for him in 2000, the OTHER choice was worse! I’m gonna vote because that’s my right and responsibility BUT when you gots only two choices and one sucks bigger than the other… The DEMs got a better choice in 2004? Don’t make me laugh! The Bush bashers never seem to be able to answer that one question… How’d things be if Gore had won? Answer: a heck of a lot worse! (now some liberal-self-appointed-guardian-of-the-truth will ask for a cite) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/384 "2003-11-28T21:46:17Z")
> [@](#): > > tamen sensu ac ratione perpendit diapentes spatium in duas epimorias habitudines **posse** dissolui sesquiquartam … Nam tertiodecimo problemate partis harmonicae **elucidator** Petrus Apponensis ita proposuit. -Something about **elucidator** ’s posse having trouble with oily harmonicas. Is that a euphemism for Bush? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/385 "2003-11-28T21:50:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cedric45 \* > \*\*… > The Bush bashers never seem to be able to answer that one question… > How’d things be if Gore had won? Answer: a heck of a lot worse! > \*\* He did win. They are a heck of a lot worse. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/386 "2003-11-28T22:04:09Z")
In tres partes omnia Iraqia divisa est. In hoc senor wences delenda jo momma. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/387 "2003-11-28T22:04:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lokij \* > \*\*And another time, we annexed a state by force for a pretty similar reason and nothing happened at all. ;\> \*\* Civil War anyone? And, Unless Paul Harvey lied to me (and he has many times before) some of the politicians that negotiated the annexation after the war were removed from office: something to do by overstepping their mandates. **cedric45** : My first impression was that Gore would have gotten a bigger coalition geared against the war on terror, Also that there would NOT have been a partisan OSP that told the administration just what it wanted to hear: > **[Iraqi defectors' weapons claims were 'false'](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/30/iraq.usa)** > > US military intelligence has concluded that almost all the claims made by Iraqi defectors about Saddam Hussein's alleged secret weapons were either useless or false, it was reported yesterday. Being that Gore would have been in check by the Republican congress: **yes, things would have been better**. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/388 "2003-11-28T22:21:10Z")
**Scylla** : I can certainly understand your frustration. I would never put up with it myself, so I don’t blame you for leaving. **lokij** : > [@](#): > > - I don’t see how my arguement was ‘frighteningly undemocratic’… just my take on the political realities as they have been for quite some time.\* No, what you wrote was: > [@](#): > > - Ok, I’m willing to say that I think Bush deliberately lied when he used WMD as a primary reason to go to war. I’m sure he used that lie to convince a reluctant population to go to war with Iraq…. > > \*\* I also think he was right to do it.\*\*\* So, your position is more than just a take on current “political realities”… it is also a value judgement. And your judgement appears to be that is okay for our leaders to lie to us, because we’re incapable of making rational decisions for our own good, or to bite the bullet and make “painful sacrifices,” and so on. I agree with you that politics in America mostly works as you describe it; the government employs “emotionally potent simplifications” – like “WMD,” or “terrorist” – so as to create “necessary illusions” within the domestic population – like “America stands for freedom!” – which, in turn, is basically how they manage to implement their policies (especially their foreign policies). It’s just that I find such a system reprehensible, and could never support an administration which employs those techniques so shamelessly. You and **Scylla** , on the other hand, seem to think that the system is okay. Judging from you last response, you would even have me believe that this is “democracy” in action. > [@](#): > > - When exactly was the last time a US president went before the people and congress and laid out in detail the reasons for choosing a military solution, complete with background and subtleties… including future ramifications and goals THEN waited for everybody to debate it ad infinitum and made their decision based on the results of that debate?\* Probably never, at least not as you describe it, but does this justify in your mind the fact that Bush lied to you to mislead your country into an unnecessary war? Whatever else might have been the case, Clinton didn’t try to justify bombing Serbia with outright lies, or claim that Milosvic possessed “WMDs” and was an imminent threat to the US. > [@](#): > > - Bush is nothing new at all, and the vitriol and anger we see at him is merely the mirror image of the kind we saw against Clinton when he was in office, such is partisanship.\* You know, I kinda resent these sorts of arguments. They boil down to little more than a subtle _ad hominem_: an accusation that I’m angry about the policies of the Bush administration solely because I’m partisan. That’s not true. I would be just as angry if these same policies had been pursued by a Democrat. For example, I condemn Clinton’s completely unprovoked attack on Niger, which was also a violation of the UN Charter. **Elvis** and I have even bumped heads over that issue. You cannot take the fully justifiable outrage many of us feel towards the Bush administration and reduce it to partisan bias. That’s a cheap and easy rhetorical dodge that does disservice to the very real grievances many of us feel. ---
**Author:** ![lokij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@lokij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lokij)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/389 "2003-11-28T22:28:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GIGObuster \* > \*\*Civil War anyone? > > And, Unless Paul Harvey lied to me (and he has many times before) some of the politicians that negotiated the annexation after the war were removed from office: something to do by overstepping their mandates. > > **cedric45** : > > My first impression was that Gore would have gotten a bigger coalition geared against the war on terror, Also that there would NOT have been a partisan OSP that told the administration just what it wanted to hear: > > [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1052334,00.html](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1052334,00.html) > > Being that Gore would have been in check by the Republican congress: **yes, things would have been better**. \*\* Actually I was referring to Hawaii, which happened well after the war. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/390 "2003-11-28T22:37:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding \* > \*\*…None-the-less, like **Brutus** ’s analysis that the war is motivated by only oil, your view that the war is motivated by the Big Dawg approach to the world, devoid of any hypocrisy about brutality to his own people and the blessings of democracy, is most refreshing. \*\* I never said that the war was motivated _only_ by oil. Certainly the most important reason, in a round-about way, but hardly the only one. ---
**Author:** ![cedric45](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d07c76/32.png) [@cedric45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cedric45)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/391 "2003-11-28T22:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Fuck those lies, amigo. Clinton made fighting terrorism a huge priority, and the guy fucking succeeded. 3,000 people were not murdered on Clinton’s watch. Bush’s “Operation Ignore” was responsible in large part for those deaths.** It’s obvious to anyone that the 9-11 attacks were in the planning stages during the Clinton adminstration. You can’t put together an operation that big by the weekend. Certainly this came about because Clinton’s ineffectiveness at doing _anything_ emboldened the terror mongers. “Hey, nothing happened after we killed those sailors in Yemen, let’s go for a bunch of civilians on their own soil!” Where was Clinton’s intellegence service? Your assertion that Bush is to blame for 9-11 is totally without merit OR morality. ---
**Author:** ![lokij](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/5e9695/32.png) [@lokij](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lokij)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/392 "2003-11-28T23:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha \* > \*\ ***Scylla** : > > I can certainly understand your frustration. I would never put up with it myself, so I don’t blame you for leaving. > **lokij** :No, what you wrote was:So, your position is more than just a take on current “political realities”… it is also a value judgement. And your judgement appears to be that is okay for our leaders to lie to us, because we’re incapable of making rational decisions for our own good, or to bite the bullet and make “painful sacrifices,” and so on. > > I agree with you that politics in America mostly works as you describe it; the government employs “emotionally potent simplifications” – like “WMD,” or “terrorist” – so as to create “necessary illusions” within the domestic population – like “America stands for freedom!” – which, in turn, is basically how they manage to implement their policies (especially their foreign policies). It’s just that I find such a system reprehensible, and could never support an administration which employs those techniques so shamelessly. You and **Scylla** , on the other hand, seem to think that the system is okay. Judging from you last response, you would even have me believe that this is “democracy” in action.Probably never, at least not as you describe it, but does this justify in your mind the fact that Bush lied to you to mislead your country into an unnecessary war? Whatever else might have been the case, Clinton didn’t try to justify bombing Serbia with outright lies, or claim that Milosvic possessed “WMDs” and was an imminent threat to the US.You know, I kinda resent these sorts of arguments. They boil down to little more than a subtle _ad hominem_: an accusation that I’m angry about the policies of the Bush administration solely because I’m partisan. That’s not true. I would be just as angry if these same policies had been pursued by a Democrat. For example, I condemn Clinton’s completely unprovoked attack on Niger, which was also a violation of the UN Charter. **Elvis** and I have even bumped heads over that issue. > > You cannot take the fully justifiable outrage many of us feel towards the Bush administration and reduce it to partisan bias. That’s a cheap and easy rhetorical dodge that does disservice to the very real grievances many of us feel. \*\* No… my opinion was that politicians lie to us, sometimes to get us to do necessary but unpopular things and sometimes for trivial or self serving reasons… that is reality and really past the point of being ok or not ok. Given the realities it’s understandable A. why lies happen and B. why lies get largely ignored. I then added my personal opinion that I felt we were right to go into Iraq… lie or no, that I approve doesn’t excuse the lie… but I’m not going to waste my time getting indignant about it either. I could, like you I suppose, get puffed up with righteous indignation every time the government panders to the lowest common denominator and sells lies and slogans to garner public support after making their decisions… but I just don’t have the energy I guess. Things have been this way for a very very long time and I don’t see them changing so the best thing I can do IMO is stay informed… look for the underlying truth and make my decisions from there come voting day. I don’t believe Bush led us to an ‘unnecessary war’ (though I think we probably disagree on what necessary is), that is YOUR judgment and as I said I think it’s a conclusion that an intelligent person could well come to. I said I believed the war was in our interests, that is MY judgment, that Bush sold it to the public with lies doesn’t detract from my belief that it was for the best. I wish our president hadn’t lied… but that doesn’t change anything really. I was speaking in generalities, fine… some of you are justifiably outraged at our president’s lies… good for you. I wonder if you’ve ever voted for an incumbent. ;\> But do forgive me if I see that there are SOME out there who were screeching about this presidency from day one and haven’t stopped since, so I have very little reason to believe righteous outrage about his lies regarding Iraq are their motivation. There were conservatives who were wailing and gnashing teeth from the moment Clinton took his oath and I wasn’t inclined to think they were being impartial when Waco, Monica, Whitewater, Haiti, Bosnia happened either. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/393 "2003-11-28T23:11:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lokij \* > As for oil being the reason for going, if we’d wanted oil we could have done as equally a radical policy change as invading and went back to supporting Saddam (or at least reducing sanctions)… propped up his sons in the future and bought all the sweet sweet oil we wanted. Or we could have just continued propping up the House Saud in the face of Arab outrage. Or we could have just subsidized the hell out of our own oil industry and started drilling here and pour money into the energy companies so they can produce alternative energy sources and went back to insularism. Oil is important but it’s just a commodity, just another factor in the decision… not the only one. I pretend like others to say that the oil in Iraq wasn’t a factor at all, that’s ridiculous… but I don’t think it was the primary one either. Drivel. So, all of these were possible options which mean that the war of aggression wasn’t necessary: Option One: “Go back to supporting Saddam” – You fight a war against the guy and spend ten years trying to squeeze him out of power because your once reliable lap dog lost the plot and became unstable _and now_ you want to play footsie again. A somewhat bizarre and not entirely reliable tactic, I suggest. Option Two: “Continue to prop up the House of Saud” – well spotted! Trouble is many of the locals have a different view and no one knows how long they can be held off at the Pass. Which is why US.plc needed a Plan B _urgently_. And it’s also why Bush declared the intention to leave Saudi ASAP within two weeks of Saddam’s demise. It ain’t healthy for the US to remain there, even if it could. Option Three: “Subsidized the hell out of our own oil industry” – If you were to even glimpse the summary of the Cheney Plan you’d understand that the US cannot meet need from within. Indeed, by 2020 two thirds of US oil will come from overseas. Hence the need, according to Cheney, to diversify now. It was about oil, it continues to be about oil and the free flow of oil will always be the life blood of this capitalist empire and its trading partners. Feel free to have a read: [Short version](http://www.progressive.org/June%202002/klare0602.html) - **Recommended** _“With the American public fixated on the threat of terrorism, however, the Administration is understandably reluctant to portray its foreign policy as related primarily to the protection of oil supplies. Thus the third reason for the merger of the war against terrorism and struggle for oil: to provide the White House with a convenient rationale for extending U.S. military involvement into areas that are of concern to Washington primarily because of their role in supplying energy to the United States.”_ - succinctly put! [Long version](http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/394 "2003-11-28T23:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by minty green_ > **Fuck those lies, amigo. Clinton made fighting terrorism a huge priority, and the guy fucking succeeded. 3,000 people were not murdered on Clinton’s watch. Bush’s “Operation Ignore” was responsible in large part for those deaths.** Other posters have pointed this out, but allow me to join the chorus: **minty** , this is one of the stupidist things I’ve ever seen you post on these message boards. Osama didn’t start planning 9-11 on inauguration day, and it’s just a matter of chance that it didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch. Seriously. What Clinton policy would have prevented 9-11? How and when did Bush alter that policy to make us more vulnerable? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/395 "2003-11-28T23:23:55Z")
**London\_Calling** : Please. If liberating Iraq was about nothing but (or at least primarily about) oil, the US could have simply called for the lifting of sanctions. Indeed, given that there was plenty of support on the left and in the UN for precisely that – have you forgotten the constant bleating that the sanctions were starving Iraqi children? – such a move would have been painted as multilateral, nonpartisan and humanitarian. And it would have been a lot cheaper than going to war. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/396 "2003-11-28T23:27:02Z")
Clinton warned Bush that his most pressing priority would be al Qaeda. Bush didn’t give a shit. It doesn’t matter when they planned it. They didn’t _carry it out_ until they knew there was a half-wit in the White House. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/397 "2003-11-28T23:31:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > London\_Calling: Please. If liberating Iraq was about nothing but (or at least primarily about) oil, the US could have simply called for the lifting of sanctions. Sure. Tell me who _controls_ the oil in that scenario and who is the client of whom (Clue: Dear Mr Saddam, we would be very grateful if . . .) ? Read the report, it’s about control. No control, no empire. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/398 "2003-11-28T23:39:48Z")
Who needs the oil dollars more, us or Saddam? I’d have to say Saddam. Saddam is what you call a “motivated seller.” And oil is a global commodity, so even if Saddam refused to sell to the US, he would be selling to other countries, which would increase the amount of oil available to the US from other sources. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/399 "2003-11-28T23:42:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Clinton warned Bush that his most pressing priority would be al Qaeda. Bush didn’t give a shit. > > It doesn’t matter when they planned it. They didn’t _carry it out_ until they knew there was a half-wit in the White House. \*\* Again: bullshit. Do tell us what Clinton policy would have prevented 9-11. Don’t give me self-serving commentary made after the fact about what Clinton would have liked to have done – TELL ME WHAT HE DID. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049/400 "2003-11-28T23:43:24Z")
**Diogenes the Cynic** I will add this to your post: They didn’t carry it out until a halfwit that had a death wish for Saddam was there, :sigh: everything would have been easier if Orrin Hatch had not spilled the beans! 🙂 So, we got Osama’s base in Afghanistan, IMO It was Osama’s wish that the US get Saddam, I still maintain we just did his bidding, he just did not count that we could figure out so soon that he (Osama) was the culprit in 9/11. Still, Osama did read Bush perfectly: the preplanned target of him was going to get it in the end. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-giant-scylla-thanksgiving-crow-eating-thread/215049.md?page=21)