| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Should the US invade Iraq? |
| Yes |
|
68% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
@mdrop, i never said the rest of the world shouldn't have a say. i am just saying that if you want our money don't expect it without our politics & ideals. how can you say that we have no right to demand how the funds we give are used. if the US passes a couple million onto another country and specifies that it be used a certain way you feel that we have no right to check up on where the funds are used? no way.
i agree that US soldiers ought to be subject to world courts. it would be ridiculous for the US to hold other nations accountable but not our own. however, the idea that the US ought to pay for damages done in a war that we were dragged into is ridiculous. it is ridiculous to ask our military to bomb a target and then expect the US to pay for the damages done. i think the problem with current world ideologies is that they are far too ideal. this leads into a number of strange assertions on the part of the world community. i think countries need to look to themselves before they turn to outside sources such as the UN or US. i strongly believe in radical accountability and responsibility. unfortunately countries such as iraq and the balkans seem totally unwilling to cope in a healthy manor. i don't think the US should ever remove and replace world leaders. however, when it comes to international safety something has to be done. how can anyone feel comfortable knowing that iraq is developing nuclear & chemical weapons? i don't feel comfortable with the US, UK, russia, china, india & pakistan having these items.
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
Wed Jul 17, 2002 3:55 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by txiabxyooj
you can't say that the US is all bad as was being suggested.
I don't think anybody here was really US bashing. The few people who gave examples of bad US foreign policy did this in reply to "blind" pro-US posts that exemplified US internal policy of brain washing their population (this is not a conspiracy theory on my part, but rather a normal state of affairs in "democratic" countries where the government needs to convince their constituency that they are doing a good job). Some of us on these boards have somewhat neutral points of view and we thought we would share them with our US friends in hopes of broadening their world views. That's all. The intent was not to burn US flags or anything like that. Just showing you the other side of the same coin. As you said: "there are good and bad things that go on in any governments foreign policy." We just want to make sure you're aware of the bad, as well as the good (even though good may be different than what you're told in your country good is).
quote:
Originally posted by txiabxyooj
the US gives more money to the UN than any other single country, so when you refer to the US refusing to pay for damages done it only makes sense. why pay twice?
The problem is that US didn't pay the first time. As already pointed out, US refused to pay their dues to UN for many years. They also are trying to get their way with international courts now. US also sends troops on UN missions only when US deems they can benefit from it, not when they are needed. Mind you, as I said before, this is only one side of the medal. There is a positive one as well, but they should always be considered together. Neither one is better than the other. It's the same medal they both belong to. US is not a huge monster, but it's also not peaches-'n-cream either.
And on the topic of international aid. The whole project is a farce. International aid is organized by few individuals that have a strong desire to make a small difference. Kindda like paladins, or Mother Theresa. People who make a difference on individual basis. They are backed by people in the means that feel venerated and justified in their sloth if they contribute a very small part of it to the needy. It's much easier to have your secretary write a check for few thousand dollars and send it to some "food for third world countries" charity, while collecting a tax benefit from it, than it is to pick up a homless person from the street and attempt to give them a new beginning. Foreign aid never did help and never will help on a long term basis. Aid is just a way to make people with guilty conscience sleep easier at night. If you want to trully change the economic topography of the world, aid is not the way. Read up on G8 and Globalization a bit. You'll know what I'm talking about. A good starting point (albait, IMHO, somewhat biased on the other extreme) would be www.indynews.org. They have many offices around the world and you can get different news from different people. I find many of the articles "loaded" but at least you get many different perspectives so you can make up your mind "better" at the end.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
quote:
Originally posted by Val
We have the right to withhold funding to press for reform.
You signed the contracts to become a member of the UN. Pacta sunt servanda.
Pay your dues or cancel your membership...
All this talk of "rights." Yet no talk of duties and obligations. I have to agree with Gorath here. You have only the rights given to you by the contract and withholding your annual payments isn't it. There are "legal" ways of pressing for reform. Not paying your dues isn't one of it. That's like saying that you don't like management in your bank and you won't pay your loans until they change it.
_________________
(@) |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 4:15 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@MoonDragon, some humanitarian projects do actually work, although sadly I must agree that most of them are just futile attempts to get a clear concience.
I've been followin the globalisation movement, WTO and world bank for a few years now, and like I said in a previous post, the thing that these factions call "freedom of the marketplace" is actually just a tight, semi-military and economic net that insures the well-being of Europe and US by keeping everybody else out of business. It kills fair trade and deepens the gap between countries.
When the new WTO rules and regulations were proposed by Europe and US, most of the smaller members refused to sign them. Their refusal would have been enough to prevent these new regulations, so US and Europe threatened to pull out all of the investements and humanitarian money, raise tolls sky-high and place all resisting countries to the terrorist-list. Now that's what I call free trade!
World bank has probably caused more damage than it has helped repair. It has been economically proven that the collapse of south-asian economy, after a staggering rise, was partly caused by the unbelieveable actions of World Bank. Also refusing to forgive the debts of third-world countries, debts that were basically forced, is unbelieveable. How can a institution try to convince people that they are trying to help poor countries and balance economy and at the same time work together with WTO and snuff out the only possible chance these countries have to get out of their misery.
I don't like indynews that much, too many zealots and misinformation.
@txiabxyooj, knowing where the money goes and trying to control internal or external politics of a sovereign country are two different things. Sure if you give $2M to a country for food and rebuilding infrastructure, you have the right to demand that the money is used where it was supposed to. But claiming to have the right to intervene with their methods or politics because of that is unforgiveable and unethical.
And if I recall correctly, nobody asked NATO to bomb Balkan. UN was against it, as were many NATO allies. It was supposed to be a standard peace-keeping mission, which I approve, but NATO wanted to test it's new smart bombs and smashed the infrastructure of couple of countries to rubble. I know people from there, from both sides and although they are grateful that the worst conflict is over (things are still pretty hot in some places), they are really angry to NATO for destroying their country. like I said, you don't make any new friends and lose existing ones by going "rambo" on countries just because you can.
And for the funding, these are separately funded projects, mainly from nordic countries and some european countries. They receive staff from UN, but the money comes from elsewhere. And US, who destroyd the factories and caused the disaster in the first place, has refused to give one single dollar to the program. This is what I mean by leaving things half-done. You need also to help in the rebuilding. If you don't clean up your messes, don't complain when they blow up in your face at a later date.
Finally, although this is getting pretty close to US-bashing, it's not entirely focused on the US. Europe is doing a lot of the same mistakes, only on a smaller scale. But there is a fundamental different between the mentality of foreign policies and the use of miiltary. I didn't know wether to laugh or cry when I heard Bush promising at least one Gulf War-scale conflict during his precidency. I though people wanted peace, go figure. Gung-Ho! 
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 4:46 pm |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
@moondragon, it is a little different from the bank situation: the obligation might better be discribed as membership dues & not a loan payment. one way to show displeasure with an organization is not to pay your dues until a situation is fixed. however, this is not an option in the case of your loan payment. you have to go shopping for another bank or credit organization. so, your comparison falls apart here. by the way, aren't all political leaders trying their hardest to convince us they are doing a great job and everything is all right?  that is part of the political game in any country where officials are elected. whereas, in many countries it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with you political leaders; if you happen to disagree you had better keep your mouth shut or else you might find yourself on the wrong end of the barrol of a gun. think china or stalin's (& lennon's) russia.
thanks for the links i'll be sure to check them out. if i seem to over-react to your comments on the states it is because i am used to the constant attacks that are leveled on a daily basis. but, i appreciate your friendly opinions...the more informed i can be the better!
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 4:52 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@txiabxyooj, the puppet show that we call politics is the same in every country. Since when did staying in power become the main reason for politicians, who are supposed to be there making our lives better and deciding what's best for the public. I'm not sure if there has ever been such an goverment.
In one of Douglas Adams' books, don't remember which one, the characters met the real ruler of the universe. According to a theory, the ideal ruler is the one with the smallest desire for power. Because of this, the leader was a isolated man who had no ambition and who didn't even know he was the leader, thus he made all the right choices. I wish something similar could be done in real life 
I don't think you have been overreacting, I might have, though. It's nice to discuss these things with people who don't go all patriotic on us and call us un-american (which I am since I'm not american  ) and euro-trash because we dare to question the methods of USA.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:12 pm |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
@moondragon-->ahh, plato's system of ideal government. the philosopher ruler...too bad that it will never happen. i don't think there ever has been or ever will be. unfortunately human nature isn't that nice & people are always going to try to grab for power. even in kindergarten or preschool you can watch as children form miniture social structures based on power and control.
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 7:13 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
I don't like indynews that much, too many zealots and misinformation.
As I said, some of the articles are "loaded" and somewhat extreme. But I've found that they have a lot of links to "good" places, so it may be a good starting point if one wants to do some research. With a grain of salt, of course.
The thing is, regardless of what my involvment in this thread may suggest, I don't obsess about such topics very much. I don't really know any better links, so if you have suggestions, be my guest. 
quote:
Originally posted by txiabxyooj
...in many countries it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with you political leaders; if you happen to disagree you had better keep your mouth shut or else you might find yourself on the wrong end of the barrol of a gun. think china or stalin's (& lennon's) russia.
Actually, US and Canada come to mind. In US the "politically incorrect" show got finally canceled, and this coincidentally came just as the host made some (in retrospect innocent and true) comment about terrorists not being cowards, because they don't sit thousand miles away pressing buttons to blow people up. There were few other instances recently...
But it gets even better in Canada. Paul Martin, who was a runner up for party leadership after our current Prime Minister and who is better known as "the people's man" was fired from the cabinet by Prime Minister. Despite all the BS from the Prime Minister's office, the whole country knows he got fired because he was actually a political threat and was gotten rid of. Soon after, an article got published in one of the largest newspapers criticizing the government vigilante policies and low and behold, 3 days later, the publisher of the newspaper gets fired by the parent company. And would you know it, the parent company is owned by the Prime Minister's friend that got many concessions *hush hush* that keep being thrown out of serious inquiry by incompetent opposition parties. At least in China you know that if you say something about the government they'll shoot you. Here, they tell you you're perfectly free to say anything, but you better watch it, 'cause...
P.S. His name was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. You should not compare Russia during Lenin's time to Russia during Stalin's era. (Regardless of what your "capitalist pig" teachers thought you. )
_________________
(@) |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 9:42 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@MoonDragon, http://www.oneworld.net/ comes to mind. They state their sources well, so you know where you are getting that information from. They focus on the human rights-issues, as well as environment. I find it a lot nicer to read than indynews. A big plus for me is the "local" version for Finland, although I read the other versions too.
I think every western country has atleast some political censorship in the media. It's just so well hidden that it's hard to spread. And like MoonDragon pointed out, which is worse: knowing you are under hard censorship or thinking that the media is telling you everything?
I can't remember the origin of this quote. If I remember correctly, he was an anarcho-pacifist philosopher in 19th century America. Even so, here goes:
"There is no man so badly imprisoned than he, who thinks that he's free"
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 10:28 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
I can't remember the origin of this quote. If I remember correctly, he was an anarcho-pacifist philosopher in 19th century America. Even so, here goes:
"There is no man so badly imprisoned than he, who thinks that he's free"
Yet there is none so noble as he who will die for that freedom, and to bring that freedom to others.
I know what freedoms I do and don't have and I believe the American system treats most of it's members fairly.
quote:
Originally posted by mDrop
Actually, US and Canada come to mind. In US the "politically incorrect" show got finally canceled, and this coincidentally came just as the host made some (in retrospect innocent and true) comment about terrorists not being cowards, because they don't sit thousand miles away pressing buttons to blow people up. There were few other instances recently...
The show was getting terible rateings, ABC was talking about canceling it before the comment.
And about the US pulling out of the Mid-East, some of the more fanatical governments have made no secret of the fact that they would like to invade the moderates. Especially Saudi Arabia. And if the entire region is controlled by fanatics then it will not only be very bad for us it will be bad for every country that buys oil form the region, and it will be worst of all for people of the Mid-East. Just look at the human rights in Afghanistan one years ago, do you really think the people of the Mid-East would be better off if they all lived like that? |
|
Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:49 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Sorry, I'm braking my abstination rule because I just couldn't resist this...
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
Just look at the human rights in Afghanistan one years ago, do you really think the people of the Mid-East would be better off if they all lived like that?
Need I point out that it was US who instated that regime in the first place?
_________________
(@) |
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 3:02 am |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Need I point out that it was US who instated that regime in the first place?
Didn't the Taliban overthrow them in '96? |
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 6:34 am |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
@moondragon, you need to rethink lenin. believe me when i was younger i used to be a big lenin fanboy. but, since the opening up of the kremlin's papers it has become very obvious that lenin set the stage for stalin. who founded those darn secret police in the first place? who created the atmosphere or control and fear? lenin was a ruthless man who was more politically lucky than savy. unfortunately the lenin that has been historically recorded in the annals of history never existed. he was not a noble visionary who stood for the people. rather, he was an upper class member of the aristrocacy who believed in his ideals more than the welfare of the people. check out the new biography by Robert Service titled Lenin. it provides a sneak peek at the real lenin while maintaining its objectivity(the book neither attacks nor supports lenin & the conclusions it draws are well founded in historical data).
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:09 pm |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
I've missed a couple of days and too many posts to reply to individually, so I will reply somewhat generically:
In terms of military actions currently being taken, one must be careful to distinguish the US from NATO from the UN. Neither the Gulf War nor the present action in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN. These forces were primarily NATO, with a few extras thrown in (i.e. Pakistan in the current fracas in Afghanistan). One cannot say the US is acting unilaterally for the most part. Of course, that is not the same thing as unanimous support from the world. Many posts here against US involvement overseas are from countries who have allied themselves with the US.
Cal Thomas, a conservative political columnist here in the US (who I often don't often agree with, but with whom I agree with to some extent on this issue) characterizes the situation in world politics this way (paraphrasing, not quoting): Europe has chosen in recent years to focus on internal tranquility, unity and economics, and has lessened its involvement in world affairs outside of its borders. While doing so, they have not focused their attention to maintaining their military capabilities. The US is the only western country left actively seeking a role in making the world safe outside of their realm, and with the military capability to do so on their own.
Now, the only problem with the above is that it ignores NATO and the idea that the EU (if they could ever agree on military action on a continental scale) can act in concert to be a force. As I pointed out earlier, the US is not acting alone in its military actions. Of course, the US is also taking the lead role in these actions.
Now I am not saying I want the US to be the world's policeman. But, I do argue that the US has a right to military involvement in other countries to make peace (or work towards it) to protect our own interests.
I will not comment on the policies of the World Bank. While I have enough of an economics and finance background that I could argue a position, I lack the knowledge of what they actually have done to know whether it is good or bad. I will comment on the idea of debt forgiveness, though: it has it's pros and cons. It's good, in the sense that alleviating debt may allow a country to spend more money on building its economic base (if the money saved is actually used to do so). It's bad, in the sense that it does not promote fiscal responsiblity - why worry about improving your economy so much if you will get free cashed infused into it to prop it up. Not quite on point, but debt for a government can be a good thing - a balanced budget is not economically neutral.
War is not caused by economic inequality. Rich countries don't attack poor one because of their poverty, nor do poor countries attack rich countries because of their wealth. It is caused by, in no particular order: 1) Greed. A rich country can make war better than a poor country. A poor country is not likely to attack its richer (and presumably better militarily equipped) neighbor for its resources; it will attack its poorer one where it is more likely to win. Or a rich country may get involved in a war to protect it's economic interests, but that's not the same as attacking a country because the countries are unequal economically. 2) Or it can be greed for political power. (What first comes to mind is the Falkland Islands, which are not really significant to England. When Argentina invaded the British controlled Falkland Islands in 1983, England promptly drove them out, more on principle and to flex military might than out of a need to keep the Falkland Islands part of the UK. [Can anyone say Spain v. Morocco the past few days, arguing over an island smaller than a soccer field?!] The other thing that comes to mind is WWII, when Germany wanted to rule all of Europe.) 3) Ethnic / religious animosity.
Lastly, I will bash the UN. While I like the idea of the UN in theory, in practice it is a powerless sham. Votes in the general assembly where everyone participates are often meaningless as they are unenforcable. (The US, Israel, various Arab states, the former Yugoslavia, and many other countries have all thumbed their noses at resolutions passed therein which they disagreed with.) The security counsel has more teeth, but few countries are allowed to participate, and 5 have absolute power to individually veto any vote. Countries complain the UN is biased - the US is worried for its peacekeepers, the Arab states complain it's anti-Islam, Israel complains its anti-Semitic, African countries say it maintain the unequal economic status quo, etc. UN military actions rely on VOLUNTARY troop contribution; so if the UN wants to send peacekeepers to the former Yugoslavia, any country is free to say NO for their own troops even if the UN has voted to do it. The idea of an organization working for world peace and prosperity appeals to me, but the UN ain't it.
_________________
The world itself shifts and changes and fades to mist like the strings of a minstrel's harp, and mayhap the dreams we forge are more enduring than the works of kings and gods.-Robert E. Howard
=Member of the RPGDot Shadows, The Nonflamers' Guild, and The Alliance of Middle Earth= |
|
Fri Jul 19, 2002 2:26 am |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@Bilbo, by saying that US has the right to attack other countries in order to ensure peace and protect its own interests, you justify the actions of every single "terrorist" country in the world that you are fighting against. If you have the right to go abroad and attack countries on you discression, howcome they don't have that same right?
To the US-hostile arab countries, US is the biggest threat to their interests, why don't they have the moral right to attack you? I sense a bit holier-than-thou attitude...
And making war to achieve peace, I've never understood that. War is affected by economical inequality. Large economical gaps and poverty cause instability and internal conflicts. And from this suffering and chaos rise extremist groups who threaten the world. For example, in a recent article about AIDS in Africa, a study suggested that 70M people will die in the next 20 years and they warned that this will lead to large-scale chaos and war inside Africa, which will in turn lead to terrorism. So, if the US is so righteous, maybe you should give some thought in imporiving the health care there, so we could avoid this thing alltogether. There has been some improvements, but there's a long way to go.
It's true that even in countries that have even a little bit of stability, like Europe or US (I'm not saying we are doing that good either, economical gaps are huge in western countries too, getting bigger all the time), there will always be extremists and dangerous factions, there has been a large uprising of fascism and neo-nazism in Europe during the past 10 years. But if majority of the people are satisfied and the overall level of stability is high enough, these factions will not gain enough power to pose a real threat. And about that fascism, at the same rate as Europe's economical gap has widened and common people have been put to a tight spot, the support for these extremist movements has grown. People are slowly starting to realize what is happening around them and they react strongly, although in a completely wrong way... I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of civil wars in "civilized" western countries in the next 20 years.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Fri Jul 19, 2002 11:02 am |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
@mdrop. there is a hugh difference between what terrorists do & war. terrorists claim to be defending their national interests, but they go about it in an unconscionable way. how can you justify killing innocent people? (this is where i expect you to reply by spouting off the numbers of casualties caused in US & nato actions in the past. however, the difference lies in stating viable targets. the US targets military & important pieces of a countries infastructor such as power & communications centers. whereas, terrorists choose random non-combatants as targets. i would feel more sympathy for some of these so called terrorists organizations if they were busy targeting military installations. but, they seem much more content sitting on a bus waiting for large numbers of children to enter so they can blow themselves up. there is most certainly a difference between collatoral damage & intentionally targeting civilians.)
also, the ideal that someday there can be world peace is at present little more than an ideal. histroy has shown that the only way to prevent war is to be prepared to go to war. the best deturent to war has always been war. this is the paradox of peace. i think it is reasonable to hope that someday things will change but at present it would be foolish to entirely dismantle our military forces. it is all a question of balance & power; the world isn't ready for the utopia that you seem to have in mind. realistically i have to wonder if human kind will ever be capable of maintianing a world without war.
anyway, i am heading out for the weekend & don't know if i will have access to a computer. so, i look forward to returning monday morning to an interesting discussion of world politics!
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Fri Jul 19, 2002 4:20 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
