11-14-2004, 08:22 PM | #81 (permalink) | ||||||
Junkie
|
OK, in an attempt to get this thread BACK ON TRACK, I'll respond to irate's comments.
Quote:
How would I reform it? Well, I would either abolish or reform the concept of "Permanent" members of the Security Council. It may have reflected Real Politik in the post-WWII era, but I'm not so sure it's appropriate today. Of course, it's a difficult subject and I don't claim to have all the answers. Quote:
Quote:
I'm hope you see the hypocracy here. The UN should never be forced to act at all. By its very nature it is a democratic body. If the General Assembly or the Security Council vote against something, then that's a fact of life. It's called politics. And it happens everyday in the US and Britian and Sweden and.... in every democratic nation on Earth. The UN only acts when its constituent bodies/members so decide. If you have a problem with the lack of UN action in a particular circumstance, you should take it up with the coutnries that veto'd it or blocked the passage of the proposal. Quote:
Again, I hope you see the glaring inconsistency here too. Quote:
Proposed Programme Budget for the Biennium 2004-2005 - http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...npan015528.pdf Background to the Budget for Financial year 2004/05 - http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...NPAN017032.pdf Quote:
Secondly, contributing troops to UN actions is entirely voluntary. There is not "quid pro quo" in this aspect. You can't say "Well, we will give troops but we want to have more influence". It may transpire that way in essence (as the US does indeed have far more influence than, say, Ireland) but you can't enshrine that in the charter. Thirdly, and almost paradoxically, the US does in fact have more actual real influence and control over the United Nations than 98% of other countries with its permanent seat on the Security Council. In effect, the US can block, and regularly does, any action the UN SC undertakes or recommends. So your argument is not only invalid in theory, but also baseless in fact. Mr Mephisto Last edited by Mephisto2; 11-14-2004 at 08:25 PM.. |
||||||
11-14-2004, 10:55 PM | #82 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Never Never Land
|
Quote:
Jefferson: to James Madison. Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 “As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe ... The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? ... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property ... another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right ...if for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.” |
|
11-14-2004, 11:26 PM | #83 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Publius,
Given that the letter was written over 200 years ago, what do you interpret the bolded part to mean? Does it mean that legislators ought not to figure out how to make property ownership more equitable? Or does it meant that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")? You don't have to dig up more references, I've seen enough of your knowledge in this area to believe you have a good idea of how this question sits in relation to other information. Also, I'd like to know whether my facts are correct in this: The founders were categorically opposed to taxation (as roachboy was responding to this assertion), or taxation without representation?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
11-14-2004, 11:33 PM | #84 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Well Mr. Mephisto, I guess I sidetracked for a second there, but I don't really have much to add after your postings.
Other than to inform you that you had me off the fence until you threw the IMF, WTO, and World Bank into the mix! Seriously though, I thought those were Brenton Woods organizations instituted after WW2. What is their relation to the UN in terms of their basis for your including them as a function of that international umbrella institution? Hey look, I found something of an answer: Quote:
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
11-15-2004, 10:50 AM | #85 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Never Never Land
|
Smooth,
Great questions you have posed here so let me answer them the best that I can (with a little help from my friend, Jefferson). In response to your first question concerning the bolded section in Jefferson’s letter to Madison, the answer is the latter “that legislators are not capable of exhausting ways of making ownserhip more equitable (due to the problems of inequality being so "enormous")”. Of course Jefferson is speaking mostly of the property ownership of land but again this must be taken in the context of Jefferson’s view that an agrarian society was ideal. Further down Jefferson notes that, “if for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated (speaking of land at this point), we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation.” Basically what Jefferson is arguing for is that if we allow great inequalities of ownership to arise within society, it will be the duty of the legislators to ensure that these inequalities do not become “so far extended as to violate natural right”. In response to your second question concerning the “founders” it is first very important to note that lumping all of the “founders” together as having the same thinking is a mistake in itself for like all of us, each of them had significantly different ideas about how taxation (and government) should be handed. If, on the other hand, you are asking what Jefferson’s view was on taxation then I think that his opinion was quit clear and speaks for itself. Jefferson: to Madison. Paris, Dec. 20, 1787. Speaking on the proposed Constitution for the United States. “I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes, and for that reason solely approve of the greater house being chosen by the people directly. For tho' I think a house chosen by them will be very illy qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations &c. yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves.” The founders were not (as a whole) so much opposed to taxation as they were to taxation without representation. (It is actually somewhat ironic that the American public actually paid more taxes after the Revolution then they did prior to the King.) So the real question here is, getting back to the topic of this post, are fees paid to the UN by the US government tantamount to taxation upon the American public without representation? I would argue that they are no more so then much of the taxation policies that our federal government currently has in place today. Why? Most of our tax code is decided with mere tacit consent of the Congress because the Congress has delegated its Constitutional obligation to governmental agencies and only intervenes when it is politically convenient to do so (also note here that nowhere does the Constitution, or for that matter most of the writing of our founders, give any power of taxation to the president, hmmm makes you wonder why he is always talking about it so much like he should be in control of it doesn’t it?). This in itself runs afoul of the ideals held by Jefferson (and other founders). However, laying these concern aside for the moment and returning to the fact that Congress has been given the power of taxation (see Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, and the 16th amendment) and that the President has the power to make treaties (with the consent of 2/3 of the senate) and shall have the power to appoint Ambassadors (again with the consent of the senate) (see Constitution Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2) then I find the argument that fees paid to the UN amount to a taxation on the US people without due representation unconvincing. Our government has been freely elected (whining liberals about stolen elections be damned), our national leaders have chosen as a matter of foreign policy that the benefits to be gained by participating in the UN offset the fees we are asked (not required) to provide, therefore I am lead to believe that because our elected representatives have determined that it is in the greater interest of our country to participate in this organization, and any dues paid the UN, therefore, were paid as a result of this decision, then the American people have been given representation through their elected government. If the American people believe that this government has not acted in their best interest then they are free to remove its leaders from power and elect those who they believe would do a better job of representing them concerning the best course for US foreign policy. (As an aside note: for those of you who are interested in learning more about our founders and what they believed I would recommend the following sight. http://www.claremont.org/ The Claremont Institute is a “conservative” intellectual think tank that believes in returning American politics to the ideals of our founders. Many of my professors from my undergraduate studies are Claremont Institute Fellows and contributing writers to this forum ... thus where I gained much of my knowledge of this subject matter.) |
11-15-2004, 11:12 AM | #86 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
it seems to me that most strict constructionists know full well that the desire to return to the founder's ideologies is problematic:
on interpretive grounds (original intent? huh?) on historical grounds (see above) and on political grounds (the contradiction it implies between original intent and a precedent-based legal system, for example). so the motive cannot really lay in the content of their politics--it is more about developing a way to frame attacks on what they understand as "judicial activism" by undercutting the ability of the legal system to respond to changing mores. they know--we all know--that jefferson was not a prophet. what he wrote was as tied to the period in which he wrote as marx was, as lenin was, as von hayek was. etc etc etc. it seems this tack brings us to distant shores. it seems difficult to get back from them.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
11-15-2004, 11:16 AM | #87 (permalink) | |
Upright
|
Quote:
Armed Robbery implies a violation of un unwilling party, by an aggressor party. Have you ever been to southeast asia? They are thrilled to have those factories and the wages they bring, even if those wages are significantly lower than in America. But comparing american wages and lifestyles to those in Asia, or French lifestyles to those in Russia for that matter, is plain ignorance. |
|
11-15-2004, 12:40 PM | #88 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
"Thrilled" is not the word I would use to sum up the feelings of the people I met. Maybe "hopeless suffering" would be more accurate. |
|
11-15-2004, 01:30 PM | #89 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Missouri
|
Here is some more info on the UN's oil-for-food program, the corruption, and the stalling of the investigation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer.
|
11-15-2004, 03:17 PM | #90 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Hilarious.... The report out today, 21 billion dollars in kickbacks for Saddam from the Oil for Food program, 2x as much as they expected.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
11-15-2004, 04:52 PM | #91 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
|
11-15-2004, 06:26 PM | #92 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Both statements are true: capitalism needs social stability to keep chugging along. otherwise the unhappy (impoverished) might rise up. it also costs a hell of a lot of money to control a pissed of and disenfranchised population (witness wars and imprisonment). capitalism also needs poverty to keep chugging. there are so many reasons that it's difficult to list them. maybe from the outset I can list it gives us a good reason to work hard. gives us a scapegoat when things go wrong. gives the entire system a ready work force to do the grunge work. keeps wages lower. What you are pointing out would probably be best understood as one of the internal inconsistencies within capitalism. marx believed that capitalism sowed its own seeds of destruction by creating conditions that were objectively incompatible with each other (need social stability, need social instability). Thus, once the inconsistencies became apparent, challenges would arise and the system would implode. So we are left with discussing the theoretical implications of capitalism versus what we are working with currently. Given that capitalism is here, its global, and doesn't really look to be on the decline in the near future, there is still an argument over how it operates. There is nothing "natural" about the way any economic system works. Economic interaction, like I would argue all human interaction, is a social construction. That doesn't make it fake or illusory, but it does mean that human beings can change the rules. There is no external, objective, intrisic force that prevents human beings from realizing a different "flavor" of capitalism. But to the extent that we reify capitalism, we will be unable to understand that there are no rules other than the ones we ourselves create. At some points in time, capitalists have come to understand this and promote stablizing programs. I'm not too happy about it, I'd like the thing to wither away myself. But we'd need to look at Friedman's writings more carefully to assess whether he also understood that the "necessity" of poverty to the smooth running capitalist economy must be understood with a healthy dose of realization that the long-term effects create very real problems to the system.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
11-15-2004, 06:43 PM | #93 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Poverty in the developed world is wealth in the developing world. Most people who complain about poverty in nations like the US have never seen true poverty.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
11-15-2004, 07:06 PM | #94 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Of course poverty is relative, but we measure it absolutely. I'd much rather we measure relative poverty, but then our numbers of impoverished would be staggering. (BTW, relative poverty is measured by those living under half of the median income). I don't know how you can come up with a statement that others haven't seen "true" poverty, which implies an objective state, when you started with the notion that poverty is relative. There are a number of misconceptions packed into your second sentence, but that's not for this thread I think.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
11-15-2004, 08:47 PM | #95 (permalink) | |
Twitterpated
Location: My own little world (also Canada)
|
Quote:
|
|
11-16-2004, 12:06 PM | #96 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: under the freeway bridge
|
Wow....You all certainly have a lot to say.
I was called away by a family crisis and ended up half way across the country....I am still studying the info from Mr. mephisto's first post and weighing in all of the comments. and can't wait to finish reading all of the posts.
__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci |
11-17-2004, 07:14 PM | #97 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: Gor
|
I wonder how Saddam survived the UN sanctions?
Quote:
Hussein's illegal oil revenue put at $21.3 billion 'Staggering' violations of U.N. sanctions seen By Pauline Jelinek and Desmond Butler ASSOCIATED PRESS November 16, 2004 WASHINGTON – Over more than a decade, Saddam Hussein's government raised more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting U.N. sanctions against Iraq, including the humanitarian oil-for-food program, congressional investigators estimated yesterday. That's double the $10 billion the Iraqi president previously was alleged to have siphoned off. The earlier estimate included only the oil-for-food program. The new, higher number includes illicit profits from efforts like the illegal smuggling of oil in the years of sanctions that preceded the humanitarian program that began in 1996. "The magnitude of fraud perpetrated by Saddam Hussein in contravention of U.N. sanctions and the oil-for-food program is staggering," Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said yesterday as his Senate Government Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations began a hearing on the matter. --*-- Of course, Saddam had to learn to survive Bill Clinton speaking very, very sternly about him. |
|
11-18-2004, 11:48 AM | #98 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
My God!!
There was some corruption by Saddam Hussein!! Well then, we should disband the UN entirely. We can't have any hint of corruption in a cross-national body. No no no... The same way we should disband Haliburton and the US Military and NATO and the EU and NAFTA and the IMF and the.... ad nauseum /SARCASM Mr Mephisto |
11-18-2004, 12:05 PM | #99 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Anyway, the point is, (oh yeah, he is in Ireland, as well) that he stated everyone knew what was going on. There was no scandal. All the deals between Turkey and Iraq were known to the US government, and allowed because they were economically harmed by the sanctions but are our allies. He said that the individuals who may have taken bribes ought to be punished if they stepped outside the boundaries, but as far as the billions of dollars being shifted around, that was all known to the world stage. In fact, he reminded the audience that quite a number of US companies directly and indirectly benefitted from the trading. I don't remember all of the details, but it will either be shown again or maybe is posted on DemocracyNow!'s website (if they post streaming video of their segments, I don't know).
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
11-18-2004, 12:33 PM | #100 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: Missouri
|
Quote:
Your position seems to be that the U.N. does lots and lots of good things reasonably well that don't necessarily get big headlines. That's fine, but are you saying the corruption, which now appears to have lead to the funding of terrorists, isn't worthy of honest debate or should not be considered when evaluating the U.N.? You have put a lot of thought and typing into your defense of the U.N. (which I think everyone here appreciates), but are we just like lawyers here--hired to pick a side--or can we talk about all of the issues and try to put them into context? For me, I think the corruption is a bad thing, particularly when you look at the nations involved in the oil-for-food program. I think the U.N. is pretty weak in international peacekeeping, slow to react when genocide or massive catastrophies hit, fails to stand by its resolutions if force may be required, and leans a little to anti-US in my opinion. I think it does a lot of humanitarian good, but wastes a lot of money and is inefficient in many respects. I think it is a mixed bag. We shouldn't disband it, but should not be afraid to criticize it. Imagine if the Bush administration were responsible for similar corruption in the U.S., had tried to block any investigation, and tried to defend itself by saying that it spends a lot of money on kids programs and aids research and poverty programs. I think this thread would read a little differently. |
|
11-18-2004, 12:38 PM | #101 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
Other than the portion I quoted of your post, I agree with you. There is room for an honest discussion of the corruption of the U.N. But only after the discussion over whether or not the U.N. is totally worthless has been completed. If there is no middle ground from one side (those who despise the U.N.), there is no value in discussing the very real corruption of the organization. |
|
11-18-2004, 12:43 PM | #102 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: Missouri
|
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2004, 12:44 PM | #103 (permalink) | |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Quote:
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
|
11-18-2004, 01:09 PM | #104 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
|
|
11-18-2004, 01:43 PM | #105 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: Missouri
|
Quote:
Not everyone that criticizes the U.N. wants it disbanded, most don't. Because some do is no reason to view the U.N. with rose-colored glasses and not debate the good and bad. The original post seemed to be an honest request for information and debate on the U.N. as a whole. |
|
11-18-2004, 01:58 PM | #106 (permalink) |
Loser
|
As I said, I agree with you. The original post is essentially worthwhile. But it was followed by a number of posts from people asserting and defending their assertions that the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. Hardly productive contributions or productive methods of thinking through problems.
|
11-18-2004, 04:01 PM | #107 (permalink) | |||
Junkie
|
Quote:
Do I think corruption should be ignored or accepted without criticism? Absolutely not. In fact, if you check my posts, I've noted that there are problems and that they need to be addressed; I've said this consistently from my very first post. I drew analogies (which everyone knows should not be taken literally) between other "corrupt" organizations and the UN. No one (in their right mind) suggests things are always black and white. The UN = imperfect, therefore it should be disbanded. Nope. I'm afraid not. The UN = imperfect, like everything else in this world, therefore it should be improved whilst not forgetting the incalculable good it does. Quote:
With regards to the UN being weak in peacekeeping, you have to remember that the UN has no forces of its own. It relies upon a Security Council decision to deploy troops and upon constituent member states in supplying those troops. Unless you allow the UN to have its own forces (and no one is suggesting that), or empower it to compell countries to provide troops, then this is an unfortunate reality. And I can only imagine the howls of derision that would entail if I suggested that UN be allowed to compell America to furnish troops and material; which I don't believe it should by the way. Secondly, the UN has done massive good with its existing peace-keeping efforts in Burundi, Cote D'Ivoire, Liberia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Haiti, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, The Golan Heights, Lebannon and the Middle East. Has it deployed troops everywhere it should? Absolutely not. Why not? Because the proposals have been vetoed (by the US in several circumstances), because the political will has not been there or the troops have not been forthcoming. Ireland, I'm happy to say, has a long history of providing UN PeaceKeepers when requested. But Australia (where I live) is not as generous; neither is the US. Is the UN slow to react to genocide and ethnic cleansing? Yes, I believe it is. And some recent travesties are terrible examples of this (Rwanda and Sudan etc). But the UN often has its hands tied. People have to get it into their heads that it's not the UN that is delaying things (do you really believe some bureaucrat in New York is sitting in an office gleefully stamping DENIED on requests for aid and assistance?), but that it is the fact that consensus is needed before proceeding. In other words, there is often much time spent debating rather than acting. And whilst as long as the UN remains a "voluntary body" this will continue. Nation states put their own selfish goals ahead of the common good. Countries play politics will General Assembly proclamations or support for Security Council proposals. It's politics and it's unfortunate as it costs people their lives. But the UN saves far far more lives that are lost by inaction. Inaction that would be endemic were the UN not to exist in the first place. You mention that the UN is slightly anti-US. Well, the General Assembly may be that way but, I hate to tell you, that's because the world is slightly anti-US. The UN acts as the GA and Security Council dictates. Often the GA will vote a particular resolution or proclamation (and they are all entirely non-binding) but it is the Security Council that has the teeth, if you will. And there the US has more power than anyone else. Quote:
I'm also not trying to avoid debate (indeed, I think I'm doing my best to foster debate), but I am reacting to some of the sillier statements made on this thread. I've it before and I'll say it again. The UN is so very very much more than the Security Council and the General Assembly. Without it the world would be an unquestionably worse place. But like all huge bureaucracies, it needs constant improvement and maybe even some fundamental changes. Mr Mephisto |
|||
11-18-2004, 05:50 PM | #108 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Missouri
|
Well, I don't have much left to complain about and can't say there is much disagreement on my part with the above. Two thoughts though:
1) Re: the oil-for-food problem, I don't think the analogy to a single senator being corrupt is quite apt--I think the corruption is tied directly with the U.N. personnel relating to a U.N. administered program. I think it is more like an administration that violates the law by systematically and illegally aiding its contributors and, is therefore, a governmental problem that cannot be blamed solely on the contributors that profitted. 2) About the resolutions of the security council, and I may be focusing too much on Iraq, it seems that there is a lot of talking and foot stomping, but too much reluctance to follow through when threats made. That may be a product of the nations involved, I don't know, but I think it weakens the power of the institution. Edit: Here is another story relating to screw-ups at the highest level and a potential no-confidence vote for Annan. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_041119115027 Last edited by aliali; 11-19-2004 at 10:01 AM.. |
11-19-2004, 11:30 AM | #109 (permalink) |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
ouch
The UN staff union, in what officials said was the first vote of its kind in the more than 50-year history of the United Nations, was set to approve a resolution withdrawing support for the embattled Annan and senior UN management. News like this and the other problems surrounding the UN and Annan this year make the entire establishment look bad. Other than the obvious impotence of the UN (security-wise), my biggest problem with the UN has been this guy and I will not shed a tear should he lose his position. Edit: I just saw that aliali's posted the saem link Last edited by KMA-628; 11-19-2004 at 11:34 AM.. |
Tags |
nations, ringing, sucesses, united |
|
|