Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Alexander Sheppard · 2005-03-01 23:32:05

It seems to me to be a reasonable point to make that you cannot seriously call for a humanitarian intervention, unless you want everyone to laugh hysterically, while you are carrying out aggression and breaking the UN charter left and right. The UN is of course mainly a tool of the powerful countries; and the most powerful country is the US.

It is indeed hard to take an organization very seriously which has its charter broken in the most ridiculous ways and, nevertheless, has a leader (Annan) who, at the time of the transgression, cannot even bring himself to admit that it is real.

First the US must cease breaking international law. Then, after those responsible have been put on trial, it can talk about helping to stop any crimes of others that are occuring(through the UN, of course, not unilaterally).

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-02 01:31:52

Cindy:-

Where is the Leftist outrage about THIS?

Yes, exactly.
The fixation on America as the source of all evil is evidently pathological in its intensity among our left-leaning friends. Just imagine for a moment the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' by the morally-challenged Left if the blood of the 800,000 Tutsis, or the 70,000 black Muslims in Darfur, had been on American hands.
The furore over that would be unimaginable in its venom - and quite rightly so - and yet neither the U.N. nor the International Socialists have managed to work up any more than mild disapproval over it. The same media who verge on hysteria about alleged American atrocities are curiously muted in their condemnation of this shameless slaughter.

And the Arab murderers in Darfur, killing their own Muslim brothers and sisters, are tacitly supported in their butchery by the same Arabs who squawk and squall at any perceived slight by America, and then proceed to 'punish' the evil West by planting bombs and blowing up innocent people. Again, this behaviour is somehow seen as less criminal because it's 'incited by Western imperialism', or some such nonsense.

Yes, it's definitely Twilight Zone stuff when it comes to left-wing morality, I'm afraid.

Palomar · 2005-03-02 05:42:01

It seems to me to be a reasonable point to make that you cannot seriously call for a humanitarian intervention, unless you want everyone to laugh hysterically, while you are carrying out aggression and breaking the UN charter left and right. The UN is of course mainly a tool of the powerful countries; and the most powerful country is the US.
First the US must cease breaking international law.

*So it's okay for the UN to turn a blind eye to 70,000+ people being murdered in the Sudan and NOT call it "genocide" -- let the perpetrators get away with it -- because the U.S. is breaking international law?

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-03-02 06:12:10

It seems to me to be a reasonable point to make that you cannot seriously call for a humanitarian intervention, unless you want everyone to laugh hysterically, while you are carrying out aggression and breaking the UN charter left and right. The UN is of course mainly a tool of the powerful countries; and the most powerful country is the US.
First the US must cease breaking international law.
*So it's okay for the UN to turn a blind eye to 70,000+ people being murdered in the Sudan and NOT call it "genocide" -- let the perpetrators get away with it -- because the U.S. is breaking international law?
--Cindy

No its not alright, But there appears to be a complete lack of interest in doing anything by any country. Least of all Sudans neighbours.

To even get to the area we will need to have to through the main area of sudan or to come another way. Probably through Libya or Chad.

The USA and GB will not be able to do it...we are too stretched by being in Afghanistan and Iraq to be able to put anything like the force needed into the area. And the area is so volatile almost like the situation in Rwanda that we cannot use airpower to bomb the fighters into behaving we cannot tell them apart from the air and it is so confused that there is no real targets to bomb, what is needed is ground troops.

So the UN cannot do it it has no standing army. it has to have member countries involved and no one is interested. So where is Russia, France, China, India in this they are doing nothing so much for diplomacy.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-02 07:16:12

First the US must cease breaking international law. Then, after those responsible have been put on trial, it can talk about helping to stop any crimes of others that are occuring(through the UN, of course, not unilaterally).

Okay, first off "international law" is meaningless. Without a body to enforce a law it is merely a suggestion, the UN has neither the means nor the authority to enforce it's "laws", therefore they are merely guidelines to be followed or not by the member states as circumstances warrant. As it stands, some want to blame the US for acting without UN approval while ignoring that the UN failed to act to enforce its own resolutions. The UN has no authority, moral, legal or otherwise.

Second, the UN has demonstrated its ineffectiveness almost since the time of its inception. It has demonstrated corruption time and again, most notably perhaps the Oil for Weapo-- excuxe me Oil for Food program in Iraq. The UN has time and again refused to act in situations that it supposedly exists to prevent. But now, with tens of thousands of people being slaughtered, they do nothing. Not so much as a call for action and yet some people still focus their fury on America for not bowing to this organization? Pardon me, but this is looney.

Grypd points out some valid issues that need to be considered. While the UN has abdicated its responsibility in focusing attention on the problem, no nation is concerned enough to act either. Ground troops in central Africa? Pass. That's the general consensus, grounded in national interest for all participants. Or non-participants as the case me be.

Further, if the US were to act they would merely draw a firestorm for acting without UN approval from the same people who ignore the UN's total unwillingness to do anything. No one needs nor wants to go in and anyone who does will only be villified for it.

Were it totally my call, all things being equal I'd go in and turn the place into a colony, but that isn't going to happen. There was a time when these sorts of things would be dealt with swiftly because a colonizing power had a vested interest in doing so, now we have created a situation in which horrible things occur in backward countries that nobody cares about because no one has any real interest in the outcome.

While I'm going to draw some criticism for saying this, just think about it. If Africa was still carved up between European powers how long do you think this sort of thing would continue? How many civil wars and how much unrestrained tribal fighting would be sweeping the countrysides? How long before someone intervened?

We like to think that imperialism is all bad, self-rule is noble, international cooperation is wonderful and powerful states doing whatever they damn well please are dangerous. But when you add all the supposed good, more and more people die. It just seems better because the dead are people that no one doing the counting gives a shit about.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-02 08:05:17

Well said, CC!
Actually, I got some way into a post quite similar in many respects to the one you just submitted. But I abandoned it.
You've said much of what I wanted to say, anyhow, and made a better job of it, too!

Your views on Africa apparently coincide with thoughts I've had about the situation for many years. In theory, of course, I want black Africans to govern their own countries. I'm sure everyone feels that way. But in practice, they all make such a hash of it and indulge in so much tribal slaughter (politely called civil war) that I have to wonder, as you do, whether colonialism would, on balance, promote the greater good.
Having said that, colonialism itself opens up so many opportunities for abuse of the indigenous populations that we simply can't go that way again. It's unthinkable.

Your comments regarding the ludicrously unsustainable moral indignation of the Left at anything and everything America does or doesn't do, echo my own opinion exactly, by the way.
Nicely put.
:up:

Palomar · 2005-03-02 08:42:40

*I've just discovered another strange attitude.

Elitism is "wrong" if it's on a -national- basis. Everyone must be included (socialist).

However, elitism is "okay" on an -individual/private- basis. Anyone can be excluded (capitalist).

:laugh: Wooooooo!

I wonder if the cornerstone of that sentiment isn't resentment against the U.S. for -- currently -- being the leader in space exploration and etc.?

And if you're INclusive on both counts, you're contemptuously branded "a socialist."

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-02 11:00:36

Having said that, colonialism itself opens up so many opportunities for abuse of the indigenous populations that we simply can't go that way again. It's unthinkable.

Yes, evils of its own.

Perhaps some form of "enlightened colonialism" is possible, colonization with the intent of assimilating local populations rather than subjugating and exploiting them?

Probably a hopeless fantasy that if tried would unleash countless horrors to replace those currently given free reign.

As it stands, nothing will be done. <hangs head>

Cindy:

Elitism is "wrong" if it's on a -national- basis. Everyone must be included (socialist).
However, elitism is "okay" on an -individual/private- basis. Anyone can be excluded (capitalist).

In my experience, people who despise national elitism and demand some sort of artificial equality (aside from actually being socialists) are themselves elitists. After all, they're smarter than us dumb clods and know better how we all should live.

They also despise capitalism in general, except of course if they themselves happen to be rich capitalists, and they never have any qualms about accepting contributions from those whose practices they claim to loathe.

And if you're INclusive on both counts, you're contemptuously branded "a socialist."

Such people would never contemptuously brand anyone a socialist.
:;):

Palomar · 2005-03-02 11:08:09

Having said that, colonialism itself opens up so many opportunities for abuse of the indigenous populations that we simply can't go that way again. It's unthinkable.
Yes, evils of its own.
Perhaps some form of "enlightened colonialism" is possible, colonization with the intent of assimilating local populations rather than subjugating and exploiting them?
Probably a hopeless fantasy that if tried would unleash countless horrors to replace those currently given free reign.
As it stands, nothing will be done. <hangs head>

*Last night on Bill O'Reilly's show a guy in Ohio was interviewed -- of Italian descent, standing in line at a pizza joint, talking on his cellphone. A woman of a different race thought he wasn't moving quickly enough or ignoring her, whatever; she smacked him. He brushed it off, and then in comes her 290-pound boyfriend. He began punching and hitting the guy on the cellphone (this was all caught on tape).

The man assaulted sustained a broken jaw, broken orbital rim (eye) and another injury I can't recall.

There were at least 6 other adult males standing in the small area where this was occurring. No one helped. They just all stood there, watching in disbelief.

The guy seemed (rightfully so, IMO) -- during the interview with O'Reilly -- more bewildered and hurt that no one stepped up to help him. He cited "The Good Samaritan Law" and wondered if Ohio had one; he could not fathom why no one helped him. I think part of the reason no one interfered is because it was interracial incident, but I have no idea.

Anyway, it's the same thing happening on a larger level as Darfur/Sudan goes.

What's the use of having the UN around? That's my point.

The guy assaulted in the pizza parlor may as well have been alone with his attacker.

Same difference.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-02 11:19:30

Anyway, it's the same thing happening on a larger level as Darfur/Sudan goes.
What's the use of having the UN around? That's my point.
The guy assaulted in the pizza parlor may as well have been alone with his attacker.
Same difference.

In both cases you have bystanders with no interest in the outcome either way, and in both cases the bystanders don't want to risk anything just to do a good deed.

In the case of the guy in the pizza parlor, I point out as one factor among many that people are overall encouraged not to engage in violence ever, subject to criminal prosecution. They are discouraged from and in many places prohibited from being armed, and most people don't know how to fight anyway. So all these people standing around thinking "I should do something but I don't know this guy, I'll probably get smacked around and if I kick his ass I'll probably get arrested. Screw it."

Apply that to the Sudan situation. All these bystander nations, don't really care and don't want to get beat up. Using ground troops is the military equivalent of entering into a brawl with no weapons, as opposed to bombing something and going home. Finally, even if they do go in and win they'll have the UN berating them for the effort.

In both cases, maybe we'd be well served making it more acceptable to resort to violence in certain types of situations. No one wants to answer questions in a police station after intervening in an assault and no nation wants to deal with a chorus of internationalist whining for an equivalent action. Reduce the penalties for doing the right thing and we all win.

Palomar · 2005-03-02 13:58:42

Well said, CC!

*Well I'll give you two gentlemen credit I think you deserve: At least you're both willing to discuss the issue of Darfur/Sudan: You two, who have taken a lot of criticism regarding other political views you have in common (similarities) or share regarding another current aspect of world affairs.

This subject comes up -- which I should think would be of interest and concern to everyone -- you guys address it while others here (usually vocal about anything else) clam up.

It sure makes me wonder and seems mighty peculiar.

It's frustrating that nothing is being done. Everyone knows it's happening...no one can or will DO anything about it. :realllymad:

If it's all just turning a blind eye and playing games, why have the UN? A difference that makes no difference IS no difference.

Last thought: How can anyone claim to care about what's going on in Iraq and yet be so quiet about Darfur/Sudan?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-02 14:05:55

Last thought: How can anyone claim to care about what's going on in Iraq and yet be so quiet about Darfur/Sudan?

Because in Iraq they can blame the United States of America.

BWhite · 2005-03-02 14:40:01

I agree with everyone. US out of the United Nations, now!

= = =

PS - - Like the proverbial dog chasing the bus, be very caerful what you pray for. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1109797343

BWhite · 2005-03-02 17:10:24

Or, if we wish the UN to follow us into Sudan, what nation should send troops to supplement 50,000 US soldiers?

Even 20,000 US soldiers plus 2,000 Brits & Aussies and some Indians and Pakistanis would do some good.

We do need to deploy US forces to Sudan for two reasons. (a) End the horrific violence and (b) deny al Qaeda another failed state, like Afghanistan, to base their operations in.

But here is my objection to the hypocrisy of many of the foregoing posters - - it is more important to you to bash the UN than to seek a genuine solution - - which can only involve the deployment of US troops. And for that we need a draft.

= = =

Never forget, I have never denied that Saddam regime change was good.

My criticism has been the Bush desire to do it on the cheap, with too few soldiers and too little financial investment and to stick his middle finger in thr world's face while we did it.

Palomar · 2005-03-02 17:15:42

But here is my objection to the hypocrisy of many of the foregoing posters - - it is more important to you to bash the UN than to seek a genuine solution

*Nope. I'm not merely bashing the UN (unless, of course, you consider hard criticisms and expressions of frustration as "picking on them" somehow, i.e. "bashing" [puh-leeeze]). I am seeking a genuine solution.

Will it involve deployment of more U.S. troops? Why should it?

Let the UN get off its collective duff and do something about it.

I'm perplexed by your use of the word "hypocrisy." Is that a feeble attempt to get a rise out of people? Regardless, it's unfair in this context.

I've not seen any evidence of hypocrisy in two other persons here who've chimed in on the Darfur/Sudan situation AND have considered solutions. As for myself, sincerely -- I don't believe I'm being hypocritical because I do want the situation in the Sudan addressed; I want those murders labelled for what they are: "Genocide." And I want the UN to take measures against the perpetrators.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-02 17:26:04

Cindy,

"WE" are the United Nations. It has no army.

Which nation should contribute troops?

Palomar · 2005-03-02 17:36:08

Cindy,
"WE" are the United Nations. It has no army.
Which nation should contribute troops?

*Have a certain percentage of troops taken from every member nation who has a standing army. If any member of the UN with a standing army refuses to comply, penalize them. Otherwise, I don't know.

If it's up the U.S. to do the job, as Cobra pointed out (I think...it's been a long day, I'm currently multitasking) -- we'll get damned for doing it.

But someone's got to do something. Doing nothing is not an option -- regardless of nationality.

--Cindy

P.S.: And why the heck doesn't the UN have an army (yeah, I should probably know better than to ask that...but I'll ask it anyway)? I thought the UN has peacekeeping troops?

BWhite · 2005-03-02 17:40:52

Cindy,
"WE" are the United Nations. It has no army.
Which nation should contribute troops?
*Have a certain percentage of troops taken from every member nation who has a standing army. If any member of the UN with a standing army refuses to comply, penalize them. Otherwise, I don't know.
--Cindy

Okay then, suppose I agree with you. Make a new rule, member nations MUST comply with UN calls for troops or be penalized.

The US also? If Kofi Annan says send US troops, here or there, do we do it?

Who is the commanding general?

Grypd · 2005-03-02 17:42:12

Well said, CC!
Actually, I got some way into a post quite similar in many respects to the one you just submitted. But I abandoned it.
You've said much of what I wanted to say, anyhow, and made a better job of it, too!
Your views on Africa apparently coincide with thoughts I've had about the situation for many years. In theory, of course, I want black Africans to govern their own countries. I'm sure everyone feels that way. But in practice, they all make such a hash of it and indulge in so much tribal slaughter (politely called civil war) that I have to wonder, as you do, whether colonialism would, on balance, promote the greater good.
Having said that, colonialism itself opens up so many opportunities for abuse of the indigenous populations that we simply can't go that way again. It's unthinkable.
Your comments regarding the ludicrously unsustainable moral indignation of the Left at anything and everything America does or doesn't do, echo my own opinion exactly, by the way.
Nicely put.
:up:

When you see that under colonialism though there was no political power given to the indigenous population at least they had a legal system that gave commen people protection and a quarantee of property law.

There was an organised system that put education and medical services as well as transport available. Leaders didnt "eat" there population or deliberatly wreck the most impressive agriculture system just to score political power. And major foreign buisness couldnt just cause a cou'Detat to install a majorly corrupt official as a new head of state. And leaders dont put there whole country into debt just to get a lovely new palace and a really good peice of military equipment to show of to their neighbours.

Many things where done wrong under colonialism but actually it seems (maybe under a set of western eyes) that things where better then than they are now.

*Nope. I'm not merely bashing the UN(unless, of course, you consider hard criticisms and expressions of frustration as "picking on them" somehow, i.e. "bashing"[puh-leeeze]). I am seeking a genuine solution.

They do deserve the contempt they are getting. But so does China for being more interested in the Oil that the Sudan produces, Russia for not wanting to spend the money, and France for not wanting the possibility that it might get soldiers killed and showing that its aircraft carrier is a brand new floating nuclear powered scrap heap, and of course losing its moral authority to blame the USA.

So what can be done as there is no way that we could get any forces spared by the USA and GB....they are too extended. And the local african forces are frankly....thugs with guns. Chad and Libya have for what is Africa reasonable trained troops(they used them in the war they have been fighting for years but who would trust either to do anything.

So the UN is frankly trying a paper exercise condemn but not too strong. Threaten but not with dates that require action. And of course lie, Big lies and of course statistics.

Palomar · 2005-03-02 17:46:33

Cindy,
"WE" are the United Nations. It has no army.
Which nation should contribute troops?
*Have a certain percentage of troops taken from every member nation who has a standing army. If any member of the UN with a standing army refuses to comply, penalize them. Otherwise, I don't know.
--Cindy
Okay then, suppose I agree with you. Make a new rule, member nations MUST comply with UN calls for troops or be penalized.
The US also? If Kofi Annan says send US troops, here or there, do we do it?
Who is the commanding general?

*Yes, Bill -- you've rightfully discerned that I am as great a military mind as Napolean. :laugh:

Heck, I'm better than Napolean, Patton and Ike combined!

I really don't know, Bill. That's just an honest answer.

Apathy and nonaction ISN'T an answer. Not when thousands of people are being slaughtered like cattle because of their skin color.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-03-02 17:55:44

I can honestly say that the way to sort out the UNs inaction is to actually give it an enforcement arm. A UN army of peacekeepers.

I can honestly also say that the Idea of a UN army of peacekeepers controlled by the UN really worries me. The UN is a bureaucratic red tape knightmare which is easily dominated by those small countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe that treat there populations as fodder. (Zimbabwe is leader of the Human rights sub committee of the UN). And to give it a modern Hi tech army that would likely have regiments put into it out of control of the regiments goverment and to be very Hi tech and paid by me the taxpayer to be very wrong.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-02 18:42:25

Bill wants to know which troops to send to Sudan.
In responding, allow me the privilege of being antagonistic and simplistic, a privilege usually reserved for the Left. :;):

When the Coalition went into Iraq, some of the most vocal objectors were France and Germany, among others. They cited American 'individualism' gone mad and the (imaginary) flouting of U.N. rules.
My opinion is that this was actually much closer to hypocrisy than anything Bill has seen from recent posters at this thread. I'm more than a little suspicious that the anti-Iraq voice was as loud as it was, not because of high-minded concern for 'international law', but to divert attention away from other things.
I believe Chirac, Schroeder and Putin are rotten to the core. I think they were all involved in making money from the misery of the Iraqi people under Saddam, and the sanctions imposed against him. I don't think they could give two hoots for the law or could care less about the Iraqi people.
Yet, in spite of this, Chirac and Schroeder etc. became the darlings of the Left. Why?
CC:-

Because in Iraq they can blame the United States of America.

In its simplest form, this is the rationale for all of the otherwise irrational gibberish spouted by the left-wing nuts all over the world. Again I say: "Well said, CC."

Now, considering countries like the United States, Britain, and Australia etc. have stepped up to the plate and done the right thing, even in the face of the mindless loud protesting of the amoral Left, perhaps it's time for the U.N. to put its honour where its hypocrisy is and insist on French, German and Russian troops on the ground in Sudan. Hell, let's get Chinese troops in there, too!
It would be fascinating to see how little of the inevitable 'collateral damage' would find its way into the news when caused by Russian troops, or French troops, or Chinese troops, wouldn't it?! And wouldn't it be fun watching the international media, if any news of massacres and mayhem were to leak out, searching desperately for some way to blame America for it! :laugh:

Of course, none of this will ever happen. The U.N. has no real clout of its own to impose such deliciously just recompense on people like Chirac and Schroeder - and it wouldn't be those two old reprobates who'd suffer anyhow, just some poor dumb French, German or maybe Russian troops sweating it out in Sudan.
And any pressure the U.N. can bring to bear is mediated only by international public opinion and, in this case as well as all others, as far as I can tell, that international public opinion has been usurped by the vocal Left - aided and abetted by the left-wing media.

No. The U.N. is a useless 'Socialists' Club', whose every move is tainted with political calumny and corruption. It is hypothetically capable of doing great good, and it's not difficult to propose how that good could be achieved, but its purpose has been subsumed by despots and the Left for political ends.
As a 'hope-for-the-future', the U.N. is an abject failure ... a 'dead-man-walking'.

BWhite · 2005-03-02 18:47:50

Abandon the United Nations?

Done. I agree.

Now what?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-02 19:05:58

Bill:-

Abandon the United Nations?
Done. I agree.
Now what?

Umm.
I think you misunderstand, Bill. The U.N. was effectively abandoned long ago, by everyone except those who thought they might be able to use its Resolutions, however erroneously, as a flail for America's back.
That's why countries like Australia and America etc. have been doing the right thing, entirely independently of the U.N., for some years now. While countries like France, Germany etc. have been doing the opposite, with left-wing support.

Quote: "Now what?"
The world carries on as always, nation states jockeying for position and power. When America's power wanes, as it surely will some day, we'd better just pray we get an equally benign superpower to replace it.
But, you know what? .. I don't think we will. :bars:

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-02 19:07:16

We do need to deploy US forces to Sudan for two reasons. (a) End the horrific violence and (b) deny al Qaeda another failed state, like Afghanistan, to base their operations in.

Okay, we agree so far. Of course now that I admit that we actually have a selfish national interest I suppose I'm just a corrupt American imperialist using the <ahem> non-genocide to justify action. That's fine, I've been called worse.

But here is my objection to the hypocrisy of many of the foregoing posters - - it is more important to you to bash the UN than to seek a genuine solution - - which can only involve the deployment of US troops. And for that we need a draft.

Again with the draft. Okay, you mention a figure of 50,000 troops. Let's assume this is sufficient, along with a couple thousand Britsh and Australian troops. We have something like 110,000 troops in Europe right now waiting for an enemy that no longer exists. I'm sure France and Germany can take care of anything that might threaten them in the region, unless they start fighting each other as they've been prone to do. :;):

I'm aware that many of them are rear-echelon, but the point being a draft is not a foregone conclusion. Even if dramatic increases in troop numbers are needed there are other ways, if a truly visionary long-term mission were laid out I can think of ten people right now that would enlist with minimal prodding.

Oops, being all imperialist again, expanding the military to invade helpless African countries.

As for the UN being granted an army, the idea scares the hell out of me. If a disagreeable idiot child is thrashing around and yelling at you, you don't hand it a gun. By the same token you don't give an army to a corrupt and incompetent international debate club with delusions of grandeur.

And as Grypd mentions, we all know who'd being paying for it.

Not that I think you were proposing we do so Bill, merely stressing that it is not an option.

Shaun pretty much took care of anything else I had to say, so I'll leave it at that.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-03-01 23:32:05

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#27 2005-03-02 01:31:52

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#28 2005-03-02 05:42:01

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#29 2005-03-02 06:12:10

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#30 2005-03-02 07:16:12

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#31 2005-03-02 08:05:17

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#32 2005-03-02 08:42:40

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#33 2005-03-02 11:00:36

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#34 2005-03-02 11:08:09

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#35 2005-03-02 11:19:30

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#36 2005-03-02 13:58:42

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#37 2005-03-02 14:05:55

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#38 2005-03-02 14:40:01

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#39 2005-03-02 17:10:24

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#40 2005-03-02 17:15:42

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#41 2005-03-02 17:26:04

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#42 2005-03-02 17:36:08

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#43 2005-03-02 17:40:52

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#44 2005-03-02 17:42:12

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#45 2005-03-02 17:46:33

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#46 2005-03-02 17:55:44

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#47 2005-03-02 18:42:25

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#48 2005-03-02 18:47:50

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#49 2005-03-02 19:05:58

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#50 2005-03-02 19:07:16

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Board footer