U.s. makes plans for invading the netherlands

[Armpit 0]

If you´re really interested what this "Invasion of Hague act" is about, you might want to search the web for information on ASPA (American Servicemen Protection Act) and it´s relation to the ICC.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ June 11 2002,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is stating the consequences if the self-righteous Euro's grab one of our soldiers without our permission ( we have our own military justice system).  We are no longer involved with the ICC and the ICC should not be poking its nose into our affairs.  <span id='postcolor'>

That's exactly what Milosevic thought also.

USA has forced several countries to cooperate with the Hague and to turn over suspected war criminals. By that logic, it should also follow the laws it forces others to follow. You can't both eat the cake and have it. Either you accept international agreements or you stay out of international affairs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it does, its now understands the consequences.<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't be too worried. USA is not suicidal. Other EU countries and most likely Russia would support Holland.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">those beautiful green leaves will make those US military guys really happy <span id='postcolor'>

Only if we can use 'em to break up our outlines.  Heh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The complaint isnt that America does something, the complaint is that America only does something out of self gain. The US has never gotten envolved in a conflict just to help people. Never ever. <span id='postcolor'>

This is a load, and Somalia is the antithesis.  I can hear the bashers now:  "Hah!  Foolish yank, clearly the U.S. was after the vast Somali oilfields!  Or the Tibanna gas mines... or you wanted an African foothold for an offensive against the Congo, to obtain the blue diamonds needed for your ape-killing lasers!"  <insert your favorite ulterior motive here>  Now, please allow me to state a few (seemingly unrelated) facts:  Almost 7,000 Marines and sailors died to take a crummy eight-square mile island in WWII.  Over 58,000 servicemen died in Vietnam (a war, I might add, in which we did not have a National interest).  These examples are, of course, the tip of the iceberg.  "Why post these numbers, Oppressor, which only serve to prove your warlike tendencies?"  Glad you asked!  These figures show that we have never been afraid to endure (sometimes catastrophic) casualties when necessary.  Knowing this, if we had an interest in Somalia, do you REALLY think eighteen dead soldiers would have made us pull out?  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The second gripe is the way the US choses to solve the problem. Go in with bombers, blow up roads, bridges, railways, powerplants, warehouse districts and so on. Where does that leave the civilians when the US walks away? Crawling in the dust most likely... <span id='postcolor'>

Exactly when have we trashed a country and walked away?  Let's consider some examples.

WWII:  This one's so obvious and refutes so much of your statement that it's not worth mentioning.

Korea:  Nope, no mass attacks on infrastructure during this mostly defensive war.

Vietnam:  Again, a defensive war.  If our military HAD been permitted to take the fight to North Vietnam, it might have ended differently.  

Gulf War:  Sorry, but as long as the mustache is running the show, I don't think we'll be sending the Army Corps of Engineers into Baghdad.  Knock off the WMD research, bring a non-lunatic to the table, and we'll talk.  And please don't give me that garbage about how we're starving Iraqui citizens.  Try putting the blame where it belongs, on the drone who spends his country's oil revenue on his sixteen (at last count) presidential palaces instead of providing for his people's welfare.

Kosovo:  The region was trashed long before we got involved; of course, in this situation we're damned for not acting sooner.

Afghanistan:  Newsflash -- we're still there; haven't walked away yet.  The question now is, how do you "repair" an infrastructure that never existed in the first place?  At least with the Taliban out the people have a chance to improve their situation.

But please, enlighten me.  Who are these other countries fighting selflessly, without any self-interest whatsoever, that we should model ourselves after?  Examples, please!

Semper Fi

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 11 2002,23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Indychuck @ June 11 2002,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ June 11 2002,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am dutch and im not the slightest bit worried ....... any gi who lands on your beaches we will just give loads of our fine produce (yes the green leafy substance). No fight in em left then <span id='postcolor'>

Hehe Only fight you'll see then is over the last chocolate bar<span id='postcolor'>

yup...those beautiful green leaves will make those US military guys really happy <span id='postcolor'>

LOL  that reminds me. Anyone seen "History Of The World Part 1?"

<span style='font-size:57pt;line-height:100%'>"Roman Red!" </span> 

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ June 12 2002,02:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><snip>

.

.

.

Exactly when have we trashed a country and walked away?  Let's consider some examples.

<snip>

.

.

.

Vietnam:  Again, a defensive war.  If our military HAD been permitted to take the fight to North Vietnam, it might have ended differently.  <span id='postcolor'>

Ever heard of Agent Orange?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever heard of Agent Orange?<span id='postcolor'>

Yep.

?

Semper Fi

[advocatexxx 0]

You all overestimate US military. Sure we have one of the most advanced technology and one of the best trained soldiers, but all of that means jack shit. It's a capitalist democracy. People have to be with you or else they'll revolt. We're not slaves of a dictatorship. Unless the government deliberately wanted to plunge the country into the second great depression then I doubt they would go into a full scale war against Holland or any other country for that matter.

US Military has taken a defensive stance and will most likely keep it unless we do invade Iraq, though I think Hussein will eventually allow the UN inspectors in as he knows if the US invades he stands no chance, not to mention most if not all mid-east countries would greatly criticize america.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ June 12 2002,04:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever heard of Agent Orange?<span id='postcolor'>

Yep.  

?  

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Well, if spraying a carcinogenic defoliaging chemical across entire jungles isn't trashing a country, what is?

[Indychuck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ June 12 2002,04:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL  that reminds me. Anyone seen "History Of The World Part 1?"

<span style='font-size:57pt;line-height:100%'>"Roman Red!" </span> <span id='postcolor'>

Hehe. You guys go ahead. I'm going to walk around here for awhile

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Indychuck @ June 12 2002,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe. You guys go ahead. I'm going to walk around here for awhile  <span id='postcolor'>

"Do you care if it falls?"

"If what falls?"

"The Roman Empire."

"Fuck it!"

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 11 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's exactly what Milosevic thought also.

USA has forced several countries to cooperate with the Hague and to turn over suspected war criminals. By that logic, it should also follow the laws it forces others to follow. You can't both eat the cake and have it. Either you accept international agreements or you stay out of international affairs.<span id='postcolor'>

That's ironic.  Whenever action is required, all these countries have the expectation that the U.S will act on their behalf. They often turn around and complain feverishly with wild conspiracy charges and claims. You can't have your cake and eat it as well.  Regarding the Balkans, that was an idiotic move by Clinton.  We should have never got involved there.  That was an internal European problem. Now the US is going to be sitting on its arse there babysitting for the next 300 years. of course, we have been sitting in every country that has stated major wars in the last century, so why am I surprised?

These people cry that the U.S is overinvolved in the world, yet criticize the U.S as being "isolationist" when it even suggest a more hands off policy?  which is it going to be?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, if spraying a carcinogenic defoliaging chemical across entire jungles isn't trashing a country, what is?<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, you get partial credit.  Mostly my fault, for using a general term such as "trashing" to refer to willy-nilly destruction of infrastructure.  As far as defoliation, this is a perfect example of how retarded our policies (political, not military) were in hindsight.  Attacking forests instead of the root source (i.e. North Vietnam) -- brilliant move!  However, I suspect that in the long run our troops suffered much more than the Vietnamese jungles.

Semper Fi

[Longinius 1]

"The US does something out of self gain. So tell me why that is so bad since EVERY country does everything out of self gain."

I didnt say it was bad that they did things out of selfgain. I said that the complaint was based on this. Mainly because the bull that surrounds it about how the US is helping people and saving lifes. Just come clean and say it the way it is instead of trying to come across like the saviors of the world.

"It doesnt make any country evil to want to take care of its people and considering all the aid the US gives to other countries who spit in our face Id say we are a pretty good country."

So, the ends justifies the means? I don't agree. A nation can indeed be considered evil just for taking care of its people. What do you think the Nazis claimed to be doing if not looking after the people?

"Strange, hardly ever hear about the netherlands in world news but always the US in them. Dont criticize our helping until you have every country in the world knocking at YOUR door asking you to do stuff and trying to balance all that.

Ohg and by the way, looked up this bill that passed and I couldnt find it anywhere nor did your link work. Put a working link up please."

The US is not alone in helping others, far from it. There are nations pulling a heavier load, when compared to national wealth. As for that bill, it isnt the bill alone. The statements made by American politics stating the same things is worrying enough.

[Longinius 1]

"Ahhh yes, I agree redrogue. We have seen the world try to deal with its problems in its own way, we like to call it WW1 and WW2. And we know how that ended and who had to come in and help."

Like the US had a choice in wether or not to stay out of those conflicts. They were WORLD wars, not Euro wars.

"There are more things that US has done without resorting to military action, but those anti-war ppl seem to focus on certain actions, rather than US solving things diplomatically."

Want to focus on other issues? If the US is so willing to help others, so bent on freedom and liberty for all, why have the people of Tibet recieved no help? Why didnt they stick in it and keep trying to help out in Somalia? When the shit hit the fan everyone pulled out. As far as I know there are not even any efforts to give them support anymore, support of any kind, from the US. Am I wrong?

"This is a load, and Somalia is the antithesis."

Politics sent the US to Somalia, not the will to help others. If it was the will to help others, the US wouldn't have pulled out in a hurry. They would have stuck with it and seen it through.

"Over 58,000 servicemen died in Vietnam (a war, I might add, in which we did not have a National interest)"

That war was about preventing communism from spreading, the highest order of the day for the US at the time. Very much so about the national interest.

"Exactly when have we trashed a country and walked away? Let's consider some examples."

Vietnam (agent orange, search and destroy missions on villages, relocation of population), Iraq (mass destruction of infrastructure effecting mainly civilians), the Balkans (again, mass destruction hitting hardest on the population)...need more?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ June 12 2002,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 11 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's exactly what Milosevic thought also.

USA has forced several countries to cooperate with the Hague and to turn over suspected war criminals. By that logic, it should also follow the laws it forces others to follow. You can't both eat the cake and have it. Either you accept international agreements or you stay out of international affairs.<span id='postcolor'>

That's ironic.  Whenever action is required, all these countries have the expectation that the U.S will act on their behalf. They often turn around and complain feverishly with wild conspiracy charges and claims. You can't have your cake and eat it as well.  Regarding the Balkans, that was an idiotic move by Clinton.  We should have never got involved there.  That was an internal European problem. Now the US is going to be sitting on its arse there babysitting for the next 300 years. of course, we have been sitting in every country that has stated major wars in the last century, so why am I surprised?

These people cry that the U.S is overinvolved in the world, yet criticize the U.S as being "isolationist" when it even suggest a more hands off policy?  which is it going to be?<span id='postcolor'>

That is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with the ICC. The issues here are simple. A majority of the world countries have agreed to have an international court to make sure that war criminals get punished.

USA doesn't want to play along and the rest of the world is pissed at USA over that. On the other hand, Clinton would have signed the ICC bill for sure. So it is yet again not a US being stupid thing, but Bush being stupid. You really ought to throw that guy from a very tall building. He is going to wreck all of your international relations.

[habdoel 0]

the us got something to hide for the icc? Why are they afraid of justice?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Oh dear- how unexpected  ANOTHER US/EU 'debate' (in which neither side ever give anything)

I suppose it would be amusing if it wasnt so sad.

We might as well formalise this and turn it into "The Fortnightly Debate On US/EU International Relations" or FODONUSINTRELAT for short.

Its clear many Europeans have little understanding of the USA and that many Americans have little understanding of the countries of Europe

I remember reading recently in another forum some americans stating that post Sept.11 Spain and Germany were on the brink of an 'Islamic revolution' and that the 'Moorish' would reinvade spain LOL  -they really believed it! they clearly had no idea-

And now we get Europeans talking about what would happen if (when?) the US 'invaded' the netherlands- I mean COME ON PEOPLE- it ISNT going to happen.... if the US militarily invades Holland in the next 50-75 years ill eat my proverbial hat.

(even in 75 years things would have to have got pretty out of control)

Thanks Redstar for stoking the flames (by the way its people with these kind of [all capitalists are evil murders][except the ones who give us money] beliefs who Irish Americans give money to when they support the IRA)

Go on then Redstar tell us how the U.S. SHOULD act (try it without cut/pasting from www.stopfascist-us.net or whatever)

And whoever criticised the media for only reporting the bad stuff from the US-

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT!  THEYRE THE F\/<{ING MEDIA!

they ALWAYS report the bad stuff

as for the BBC being 'notoriously' anti-american (where...in America?) could you give some examples?

Maybe BBC america (or whatever its called) is completly different from the BBC i watch but i dont get any 'anti-americanism' from it- it challenges US politicians etc very strongly but it does that to UK and other politicians too.

Everybody seems to call the BBC anti- 'me'

Israelis call it anti Israeli ,Americans seem to think its anti US and recently there was a complaint from the Muslim council of Britain that it was being anti-muslim    *so if everyones pissed off with them they must be doing something right  

The US wont invade, but i find it worrying that the US Senate

feels it NEEDS to use the (impotent) threat of military intervention to show the EU how it feels.

Fact is Many Europeans dont trust the US and many Americans dont trust the EU-

As for ME i dont trust either the fat old men of the US senate OR the fat old men on the EU.

The fact that even WE in this forum argue so much even though we share the common bond of a kick-ass computer game doesnt really auger well does it....

Maybe we should stop letting our governments talk/act for us and make up our own minds about things .....after all our elected representatives are supposed to represent our views

Do Americans really think the threat of military intervention is necessary to scupper the ICC in pursuing Americans,

etc.

do they really care?

Do Europeans really think there was another

(non military) way of pursueing Osama Bin Laden after Sept the 11?

etc.

do they really care?

will Europeans stop stereotyping Americans as fat, stupid ,

rightwing christian fanatics ,insensitive to the outside world , selfish and arrogant cowboys?

will Americans stop stereotyping Europeans as snivelling

ignorant communists ,two faced wimps with no military to speak of and an arrogant stuck up attitude?

Do we care enough to see beyond our respective governments and see each other as human beings?

Unfortunatly probably not.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 12 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh dear- how unexpected  ANOTHER US/EU 'debate' (in which neither side ever give anything)<span id='postcolor'>

Stuff both the EU and the US.

[Texican 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ June 12 2002,07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

"The US does something out of self gain. So tell me why that is so bad since EVERY country does everything out of self gain."

I didnt say it was bad that they did things out of selfgain. I said that the complaint was based on this. Mainly because the bull that surrounds it about how the US is helping people and saving lifes. Just come clean and say it the way it is instead of trying to come across like the saviors of the world.

Strange, Longinus, I think i DID say we have self interest, you qouted me saying we have self interest and then tell me to come out and say it. DO you really read my sentences.

"It doesnt make any country evil to want to take care of its people and considering all the aid the US gives to other countries who spit in our face Id say we are a pretty good country."

So, the ends justifies the means? I don't agree. A nation can indeed be considered evil just for taking care of its people. What do you think the Nazis claimed to be doing if not looking after the people?

Hate to tell you this, Longinus, then every country is evil, every country has self interest and is ruled by it.

"Strange, hardly ever hear about the netherlands in world news but always the US in them. Dont criticize our helping until you have every country in the world knocking at YOUR door asking you to do stuff and trying to balance all that.

Ohg and by the way, looked up this bill that passed and I couldnt find it anywhere nor did your link work. Put a working link up please."

The US is not alone in helping others, far from it. There are nations pulling a heavier load, when compared to national wealth. As for that bill, it isnt the bill alone. The statements made by American politics stating the same things is worrying enough.

I didnt say the US was alone in helping but I will tell you this we have every country knocking at our door, while some other countries have only a few, the more people you have to please the harder it is.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 12 2002,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA doesn't want to play along and the rest of the world is pissed at USA over that. On the other hand, Clinton would have signed the ICC bill for sure. So it is yet again not a US being stupid thing, but Bush being stupid. You really ought to throw that guy from a very tall building. He is going to wreck all of your international relations.<span id='postcolor'>

Hello denoir....my old arch-nemisis *strokes white cat*

This whole debate was started by an outragous claim that the US was going to invade the Netherlands to save GI Joe from ICC. Quite a few people have asked for sources on this and NONE have been forthcoming.

I did a little search for bills specifically mentioning the Netherlands. None were found. I did a little search for "war crime" and I got a number of them....NONE of them mentioning the Netherlands or mentioning ANYTHING close to "invasion".

http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107rssTvQ::

Closest thing I found was this bill, debated in both the House and the Senate.

First off you will notice this bill and the corresponding "Rome Statute" to which this is a reply were started and dealt with by Clinton first....NOT Bush. Clinton deferred it to the Senate and so has Bush. Blame the Senate for holding it up, not some blind "Bush did it!" So please quit blaming him for everything (I'm sure something else will come up to complain about).

Also you will notice a few phrases, and given the blind hatred and distrust I see HERE is some reasonable language:

It is the sense of Congress that the United States should--

(1) maintain a policy of fully supporting the due process rights of all United States citizens before foreign tribunals, including before the International Criminal Court;

(2) continue to participate in negotiations of the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court and as an observer in the Assembly of States Parties in order to--

(A) ensure that the rules of procedure and evidence and elements of crimes adopted by the International Criminal Court conform to United States standards of due process, are formally adopted by the Assembly, and fairly applied by the International Criminal Court's judges and prosecutors;

(B) seek a definition of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute that is consistent with international law and fully respects the right of self-defense of the United States and its allies; and

© ensure that United States interests are protected in the negotiations over the remaining elements of the International Criminal Court regime;

(3) provide appropriate diplomatic and legal assistance to United States citizens, especially United States servicemembers and their dependents, who face prosecution without full due process in any forum, including, if applicable, before the International Criminal Court; and

(4) undertake, in all diplomatic negotiations related to international legal matters, to ensure that no United States citizen, especially United States servicemembers and their dependents, will face frivolous prosecutions or prosecutions without full due process of law.

NOWHERE does it say the US won't praticipate in the ICC, in fact the very opposite...that it WILL participate. It merely states that the US will ensure the rights of its citizens and servicemen are not breached, and that due process is duely followed.

If this is the wrong bill someone be so kind as to post the appropriate legislation. And quite throwing out "Well its supported by everything your politicians are saying".....agian....please give references, so that they may be properly debated.

And given some of the blind comments and unsubstantiated claims that are easily BELIEVED here, I think you are partly to blame for any souring of "international relations" as well.

AND CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY MY PICS KEEP CRAPPING OUT ON ME!!!!! (I use sphosting)

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 12 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh dear- how unexpected  ANOTHER US/EU 'debate' (in which neither side ever give anything)<span id='postcolor'>

And I was jsut thinking the other day that its been a long time since we had a good Flame War. Way I figure it its all being stored up and gonna burst out into a real doozie of a Flame War 2.

[Guest]

Clinton was the one that signed the bill. Bush withdrew the signature.

You have so many factual errors in that post that I won't bother going through them for you. Read this instead:

CNN article on US ICC rejection

[WKK Gimbal 0]

I just had a huge lump of dark bread with semi-hard boiled eco eggs, mayonaise, salt & pepper. It was great. Yum.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 12 2002,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Clinton was the one that signed the bill. Bush withdrew the signature.

You have so many factual errors in that post that I won't bother going through them for you. Read this instead:

CNN article on US ICC rejection<span id='postcolor'>

"President Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000, but amid concerns it might infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens and federal employees abroad, including members of the armed forces, it was never sent to the Senate for ratification."

That would mean CLINTON never sent it...LIKE I SAID...it was deferred to the Senate...."for advice" is what the bill I mentioned said, and as stated before is in DIRECT response to this treaty (the "Rome Statute").

So once again CLINTON didn't do it, and clearly didn't do it before he left office, sloughin' it off on to Bush for a decision. Since CLINTON never sent it to the Senate AFTER HE SIGNED IT (which means NOTHING...it just LOOKS good), it was clearly politically motivated and was only meant to make him look good (especially given the pardon scandal he had when he left).

Another U.S. objection was that it "goes beyond the operation of legal institutions and can determine what is a crime of aggression," a senior administration official said.

Again...the bill I mentioned is in response to this, as well as the part I highlighted.

Please do not presume to explain to me the meaning or actions of my own political system, especially since I live with it, AND especially not from CNN.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ June 12 2002,16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just had a huge lump of dark bread with semi-hard boiled eco eggs, mayonaise, salt & pepper. It was great. Yum.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

Thank you for that much needed interlude