The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
For having nuclear arms?
Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?
Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair
Hypocrites
Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?
Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair
Hypocrites
Page:
Well obviously, peace is better to conflict, but as and when Israel makes incursions into the West Bank, it is better to limit the civilian casualties. No? I would welcome a proper amnesty in which both groups reached mutual goals, but UN troops would be a good start eh.
Amnesty are never there when Israelis/Americans bear the brunt of a terrorist attack, that's because the untold truth about the Amnesty International concern is that it is a political pressure group masquerading as a charity for the underdogs of society. But sometimes it isn't the underdogs who suffer, and sometimes the underdogs aren't the people Amnesty think they are.
"...because the untold truth about the Amnesty International concern is that it is a political pressure group masquerading as a charity for the underdogs of society."
*smokes pipe*
Amnesty are never there when Israelis/Americans bear the brunt of a terrorist attack, that's because the untold truth about the Amnesty International concern is that it is a political pressure group masquerading as a charity for the underdogs of society. But sometimes it isn't the underdogs who suffer, and sometimes the underdogs aren't the people Amnesty think they are.
"...because the untold truth about the Amnesty International concern is that it is a political pressure group masquerading as a charity for the underdogs of society."
*smokes pipe*
Mutual recognition ? Lol nice pipe dream. You've got groups like the PLO and Hezbollah who want Israel annhilated and all of a sudden they're going to put their arms down and play happy families ? No way.
On the Palestinian side you have a lot of men who, were it not for their involvement in a terrorist group, would be nothing and insignificant. Whilst the conflict continues they have power, influence, popularity and they can do something major. Peace rolls along and they become unemployed. Whilst these large extremist groups exist there will not be any mutual recognition - unless the UN deploys to form a safe zone along the borders.
Human rights do mean a lot and are important, however some of us don't live in a dream perfect world, like some. Human rights groups have an inability to say "this person must be killed or removed". Doesn't matter if that person orchestrates suicide bombings and assasinations, human rights groups say he can carry on living amongst his neighbours. Well, I don't buy that, and best of luck to Israel if it rockets him.
Human Rights groups also pretend to put the interests of a country's people first, especially in the third world and middle east. Again, I believe this is untrue - it's the imposition of Western values on different cultures. If we don't do it here in the West, then China can't do it in it's own country. I'm not saying what China does sometimes is right, just that I ony judge what other countrys do by the values of the West, which increasingly puts the rights of the criminals and wrong doers before the victims - in the name of human rights.
Tell me, what right do the Israeli's have to face sucide bombing after suicide bombing ? What right do 3000 people have to be killed on bright morning over year ago ? What right does a palestinian have to strap on explosives and board a crowded civilian bus ? What right do the Kurds have to be attacked with nerve gas in their own lands ? Where's Amnesty on tv when those things happen ?
USUALLY WITH THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THEM.
Anyone who blames terrorist actions on things such as US foreign policy (or another governments policies) is justifying terrorism, plain and simple, no argument, you cannot defend terrorism and not take its side.
~~Belldandy~~
On the Palestinian side you have a lot of men who, were it not for their involvement in a terrorist group, would be nothing and insignificant. Whilst the conflict continues they have power, influence, popularity and they can do something major. Peace rolls along and they become unemployed. Whilst these large extremist groups exist there will not be any mutual recognition - unless the UN deploys to form a safe zone along the borders.
Human rights do mean a lot and are important, however some of us don't live in a dream perfect world, like some. Human rights groups have an inability to say "this person must be killed or removed". Doesn't matter if that person orchestrates suicide bombings and assasinations, human rights groups say he can carry on living amongst his neighbours. Well, I don't buy that, and best of luck to Israel if it rockets him.
Human Rights groups also pretend to put the interests of a country's people first, especially in the third world and middle east. Again, I believe this is untrue - it's the imposition of Western values on different cultures. If we don't do it here in the West, then China can't do it in it's own country. I'm not saying what China does sometimes is right, just that I ony judge what other countrys do by the values of the West, which increasingly puts the rights of the criminals and wrong doers before the victims - in the name of human rights.
Tell me, what right do the Israeli's have to face sucide bombing after suicide bombing ? What right do 3000 people have to be killed on bright morning over year ago ? What right does a palestinian have to strap on explosives and board a crowded civilian bus ? What right do the Kurds have to be attacked with nerve gas in their own lands ? Where's Amnesty on tv when those things happen ?
USUALLY WITH THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THEM.
Anyone who blames terrorist actions on things such as US foreign policy (or another governments policies) is justifying terrorism, plain and simple, no argument, you cannot defend terrorism and not take its side.
~~Belldandy~~
Firstly the report I mentioned - and others by B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights (USA), etc - are based on a combination of first- and second-hand reports. They detail atrocities on both sides. They are, by any sane measure, impartial and even-handed.
Secondly, it is not a case of choosing between aerial bombardment or ground assault on Palestinian land. There is a third option: an end to occupation, attack by neither ground nor air, two states, mutual recognition, a chance of peace. Israel is occupying and settling land beyond its borders, land that belongs to the Palestinian people: this is the crucial issue, and only a reversal of this policy will bring peace. Not bombing, not on-off incursions, not military occupation: just decolonisation.
Belldandy wrote:
> I care nothing for Amnesty and all the other whining groups. They simpy
> inflame situations and do little to solve the real problem there, thought
> they'd like to believe otherwise.
Thank you for writing this. My cue, I think, to bow out of this increasingly pointless argument. You win. Might is right. Human rights mean nothing. Less jaw-jaw, more war-war. U S A, U S A, U S A...
Secondly, it is not a case of choosing between aerial bombardment or ground assault on Palestinian land. There is a third option: an end to occupation, attack by neither ground nor air, two states, mutual recognition, a chance of peace. Israel is occupying and settling land beyond its borders, land that belongs to the Palestinian people: this is the crucial issue, and only a reversal of this policy will bring peace. Not bombing, not on-off incursions, not military occupation: just decolonisation.
Belldandy wrote:
> I care nothing for Amnesty and all the other whining groups. They simpy
> inflame situations and do little to solve the real problem there, thought
> they'd like to believe otherwise.
Thank you for writing this. My cue, I think, to bow out of this increasingly pointless argument. You win. Might is right. Human rights mean nothing. Less jaw-jaw, more war-war. U S A, U S A, U S A...
Hmm..six weeks of relative peace in Israel/Palestine.... two palestinian sucide bombers in 24 hours = Israeli incurions again.
Doesn't take a genius to see which side started this new round of violence does it.
I care nothing for Amnesty and all the other whining groups. They simpy inflame situations and do little to solve the real problem there, thought they'd like to believe otherwise.
Incidentally, the Israeli's wouldn't have to fight in urban areas if the Palestinians didn't use the towns to hide in and make explosives... still, I don't see anyone shouting "civilian casualties" at the Palestinians anytime.....
The fact is, the Palestinians are cowards and seemingly blind too the obvious. They need peace more than Isreal does. Israel is still prosperous and trading with the outside world, the Palestinians aren't and cannot. One day, the Palestinian terrorists are going to do something that steps over the line and find Israel will hit back hard. Not incursions, full scale warfare. Anyone who watched the news on 9/11/2001 may remember than in the first half hour a Palestinian group claimed responsibility, then as the scale was known they denied it and Al Queda was proven to be to blame. The point is that if the had of been the Palestinians then by now the conflict there would have been ended. UN troops would have been sent in, the groups hunted down and "removed", Arafat exiled, peace.
It's plainly obvious that diplomacy will not work at the moment. The UN needs to establish itself in force between the tow nations, then they can get talking, as long as the UN has the mandate to open fire on either side that tres to breach the divide. I know that they'll never have to open fire on Israel...can the smae be said fo the Palestinians ? No.
~~Belldandy~~
Doesn't take a genius to see which side started this new round of violence does it.
I care nothing for Amnesty and all the other whining groups. They simpy inflame situations and do little to solve the real problem there, thought they'd like to believe otherwise.
Incidentally, the Israeli's wouldn't have to fight in urban areas if the Palestinians didn't use the towns to hide in and make explosives... still, I don't see anyone shouting "civilian casualties" at the Palestinians anytime.....
The fact is, the Palestinians are cowards and seemingly blind too the obvious. They need peace more than Isreal does. Israel is still prosperous and trading with the outside world, the Palestinians aren't and cannot. One day, the Palestinian terrorists are going to do something that steps over the line and find Israel will hit back hard. Not incursions, full scale warfare. Anyone who watched the news on 9/11/2001 may remember than in the first half hour a Palestinian group claimed responsibility, then as the scale was known they denied it and Al Queda was proven to be to blame. The point is that if the had of been the Palestinians then by now the conflict there would have been ended. UN troops would have been sent in, the groups hunted down and "removed", Arafat exiled, peace.
It's plainly obvious that diplomacy will not work at the moment. The UN needs to establish itself in force between the tow nations, then they can get talking, as long as the UN has the mandate to open fire on either side that tres to breach the divide. I know that they'll never have to open fire on Israel...can the smae be said fo the Palestinians ? No.
~~Belldandy~~
Cyclone wrote:
> Odd how the Bush family financed the Nazis in the 30s.
Yeah, strange how Britain sent back several ships containing hundreds of jews before the Second World War kicked off, isn't it ? A British official declared that Germany was safe for them......
Hindsight is brilliant, but completely useless in most cases, like this one. Alls that matters is we stop Iraq now, not delve into the past endlessly, as far as atrocities and wrong doing goes, Britain has a long list of them which makes the USA's look like a quick shopping list.
~~Belldandy~~
> Odd how the Bush family financed the Nazis in the 30s.
Yeah, strange how Britain sent back several ships containing hundreds of jews before the Second World War kicked off, isn't it ? A British official declared that Germany was safe for them......
Hindsight is brilliant, but completely useless in most cases, like this one. Alls that matters is we stop Iraq now, not delve into the past endlessly, as far as atrocities and wrong doing goes, Britain has a long list of them which makes the USA's look like a quick shopping list.
~~Belldandy~~
Well, I would question how much Sharon is 'roundly applauded' for his actions; it seems like everyone is against him with the exception of the US, itself no angel. But to return to this time and again, all these heart-wrenching stories would surely be averted by the greatest perversion of all: the fact that an indiscriminate bombing sortie over the skies of the West Bank would kill more innocent people, but would give less cause to the likes of Amnesty International and all the other groups with an anti-Israeli agenda to criticise Israeli foreign policy. Look, you cannot tell me that, however many people lose their life for no good reason, isn't better than bombing whole towns at a time in which almost everyone is innocent. So yes, while there are numerous (and often completely unfounded) stories of Israeli atrocity, its better than the alternative of bombing them all, like the US did over Baghdad last time. During the Blitz, there were no cases of German soldiers shooting English schoolkids, no, they just blew apart the whole of London instead. Perversely, Israel would be doing better- or should I say, less worse- on the media side, if they were to take an indiscrimate approach. It would be so much easier to do that, no other country with Israel's military capacity would resort to fighting in an almost guerilla-style fashion. It's not out of choice, understand that, it's not.
And to be honest, I'm a little tired of the media campaign against Israel, Amnesty included. The Sunday Times two months ago sent into Jenin its own freelance reporter with no axe to grind, to get to the bottom of it. She found that Israel had comitted war crimes, under the strictest criteria, by taking pragmatic decisions to save lives. But there was no massacre. For example, they used a Palestinian gentleman as a human shield, to stop a nearby house shooting at them when they opened their door (reason why: to keep an injured Palestinian boy no older than 8 or 9 safe from the streets, hurt from a wayward rock intended for an Israeli soldier). OK, so it's not textbook, but it saved lives. This is still illegal, but pragmatic and practical none the less. She also found that many of these stories that find their way onto the pages of Amnesty and other similar publications are often based on single-person, second-hand evidence, that in any other situation, the inquiring minds of Amnesty/ Guardian/ BBC/ et al would be very sceptical about. But because its Israel, they all nod their heads and lap it up. Don't talk to me about media wars, Israel has its back against the wall especially in the area of the media. It's one of the Palestinian's strongest cards.
So you go on believing all the stories you like, anyone can make them up, who's going to question them? I care about the politics, so even when there's a suicide bomber, I don't really get too upset about the fatalities, more upset about the repercussions for the peace process and inevitable Israeli retaliation. That's what gets me. I know that Israel doesn't shoot old women with a cane coming out of the hospital, or any other story I've heard, it's simply not true, it's a fabrication, a tissue of lies.
I know what I've said won't change the minds of the people set against Israel, I just despise the failure of some people to read between the lines, to examine media agenda, to see how biased and fantastic some stories are. Personally, I read widely, take nothing written in the papers as verbatim, and generally try my best to take in as much information as possible without believing any one source wholeheartedly. You have to remember that journalism is a very dirty, unscrupulous profession.
And to be honest, I'm a little tired of the media campaign against Israel, Amnesty included. The Sunday Times two months ago sent into Jenin its own freelance reporter with no axe to grind, to get to the bottom of it. She found that Israel had comitted war crimes, under the strictest criteria, by taking pragmatic decisions to save lives. But there was no massacre. For example, they used a Palestinian gentleman as a human shield, to stop a nearby house shooting at them when they opened their door (reason why: to keep an injured Palestinian boy no older than 8 or 9 safe from the streets, hurt from a wayward rock intended for an Israeli soldier). OK, so it's not textbook, but it saved lives. This is still illegal, but pragmatic and practical none the less. She also found that many of these stories that find their way onto the pages of Amnesty and other similar publications are often based on single-person, second-hand evidence, that in any other situation, the inquiring minds of Amnesty/ Guardian/ BBC/ et al would be very sceptical about. But because its Israel, they all nod their heads and lap it up. Don't talk to me about media wars, Israel has its back against the wall especially in the area of the media. It's one of the Palestinian's strongest cards.
So you go on believing all the stories you like, anyone can make them up, who's going to question them? I care about the politics, so even when there's a suicide bomber, I don't really get too upset about the fatalities, more upset about the repercussions for the peace process and inevitable Israeli retaliation. That's what gets me. I know that Israel doesn't shoot old women with a cane coming out of the hospital, or any other story I've heard, it's simply not true, it's a fabrication, a tissue of lies.
I know what I've said won't change the minds of the people set against Israel, I just despise the failure of some people to read between the lines, to examine media agenda, to see how biased and fantastic some stories are. Personally, I read widely, take nothing written in the papers as verbatim, and generally try my best to take in as much information as possible without believing any one source wholeheartedly. You have to remember that journalism is a very dirty, unscrupulous profession.
Fountain of Knowledge wrote:
> So, to tie up this
> section of my argument, yes Israel takes controversial decisions, yes
> there are lots of heart-wrenching stories of innocents killed, but the
> gross civilian casualties is minimised to the very best of their
> ability by the Israeli army. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but
> it's sure as hell better than blowing the whole West Bank up, as they
> so easily could.
The Amnesty report I posted the link for states the opposite. Civilian areas are deliberately targeted. Demonstrations are policed militarily, with random firing of live and plastic coated metal ammunition. Children are killed, some as a result of dangerously wayward fire, others 'deliberately targeted'. Killings such as these are routinely uninvestigated. Palestinian civilians are collectively punished for suicide bombings and other other attacks: houses are demolished, crops uprooted, curfews imposed and towns cut off from the outside world. Medical teams are obstructed and attacked. The Israeli campaign is not about minimising civilian casualties, but about instilling fear in the civilian populace.
This is state terror, pure and simple. And yet you seem to be suggesting that we should be grateful that the Israelis aren't 'blowing the whole West Bank up'. This demonstrates the underlying misconception in the posts that both you and Belldandy have made on this topic - that Isreal is fighting a defensive war. On the contrary, this is a colonial war; not so much about stopping terrorism (a fairly recent and tragic innovation of Palestinian resistance), but settling on occupied land, creating 'facts on the ground'.
The Palestinian leadership - corrupt and ineffective though it is - agreed on mutual recognition with Israel, based on pre-1967 borders, as far back as the late seventies. This is the only way the Middle East will ever be at peace, a fact recognised by the entire international community minus the US and Israel. During the 1990s - the decade of the 'peace process' - Israel increased the number of West Bank settlers from 100,000 to 200,000. These settlers lived in Jewish-only settlements, connected by Jewish-only roads. Palestinians were evicted from their land so that this could happen. These are the same settlers that AI reports 'have killed and attacked Palestinians with almost complete impunity'. The parallels with settler colonialism in the British Empire are all too obvious. This process was resisted by the Palestinians - as is their right under international law - which led to the military occupation we see today: of daily humiliation, checkpoints, beatings, and extra-legal instant 'justice'.
The occupation of territory that didn't belong to Iraq - in this case Kuwait - was the pretext for the Gulf War, a conflict you are now keen to reprise. The occupation of Palestine continues to this day, and Sharon's brutal repression of resistance is roundly applauded. I see a double standard.
> So, to tie up this
> section of my argument, yes Israel takes controversial decisions, yes
> there are lots of heart-wrenching stories of innocents killed, but the
> gross civilian casualties is minimised to the very best of their
> ability by the Israeli army. It's not nice, it's not pleasant, but
> it's sure as hell better than blowing the whole West Bank up, as they
> so easily could.
The Amnesty report I posted the link for states the opposite. Civilian areas are deliberately targeted. Demonstrations are policed militarily, with random firing of live and plastic coated metal ammunition. Children are killed, some as a result of dangerously wayward fire, others 'deliberately targeted'. Killings such as these are routinely uninvestigated. Palestinian civilians are collectively punished for suicide bombings and other other attacks: houses are demolished, crops uprooted, curfews imposed and towns cut off from the outside world. Medical teams are obstructed and attacked. The Israeli campaign is not about minimising civilian casualties, but about instilling fear in the civilian populace.
This is state terror, pure and simple. And yet you seem to be suggesting that we should be grateful that the Israelis aren't 'blowing the whole West Bank up'. This demonstrates the underlying misconception in the posts that both you and Belldandy have made on this topic - that Isreal is fighting a defensive war. On the contrary, this is a colonial war; not so much about stopping terrorism (a fairly recent and tragic innovation of Palestinian resistance), but settling on occupied land, creating 'facts on the ground'.
The Palestinian leadership - corrupt and ineffective though it is - agreed on mutual recognition with Israel, based on pre-1967 borders, as far back as the late seventies. This is the only way the Middle East will ever be at peace, a fact recognised by the entire international community minus the US and Israel. During the 1990s - the decade of the 'peace process' - Israel increased the number of West Bank settlers from 100,000 to 200,000. These settlers lived in Jewish-only settlements, connected by Jewish-only roads. Palestinians were evicted from their land so that this could happen. These are the same settlers that AI reports 'have killed and attacked Palestinians with almost complete impunity'. The parallels with settler colonialism in the British Empire are all too obvious. This process was resisted by the Palestinians - as is their right under international law - which led to the military occupation we see today: of daily humiliation, checkpoints, beatings, and extra-legal instant 'justice'.
The occupation of territory that didn't belong to Iraq - in this case Kuwait - was the pretext for the Gulf War, a conflict you are now keen to reprise. The occupation of Palestine continues to this day, and Sharon's brutal repression of resistance is roundly applauded. I see a double standard.
Odd how the Bush family financed the Nazis in the 30s.
I agree with your point about auxillary groups sticking their nose in: the whole point of pressure groups is that they push for different issues, not all back each other on every issue. I dislike the way these irrelevant groups just take one look at the issue and say, "me too". It's a load of rubbish. Why not just have a banner saying, "Freedom for Palestine- and stop destroying the Ozone Layer while you're at it".
Like Fountain Of Knowledge syas (and I agree on this), it's far harder to stand for what you believe in and stay true to it through whatever happens than to constantly change views to suit public opinion or whatever happens to be trendy at the moment.
Groups such as CND are examples of this - my local branch are campaigning for no war on Iraq, they want America and the UK NOT to attack a state with nuclear weapons ? Er...yeah right guys, great thinking there. Same goes for the TUC, and Greenpeace who have all stated opposition. They have no relevance, Greenpeace demonstrated it's p.poor knowledge of terrorism by claiming those two ships shipping nuclear waste back to Britain were terrorist targets. Yeah right, nice one. If you were a terrorist groups would you;
a) Attack, by sea, an armed flotilla carrying at least two 30 calibre guns, over 40 UKAE police armed with MP5 submachine guns, body armour, grenades, Repeater shotguns an sniper rifles, as well as the onvoy being within easy reach of RAF planes and helicopters. NOt forgetting the fact that even if you were to get the material you then have to escape alive with it, back to your terrorist group, which then needs at least two weeks to put it in a bomb (if the material was bomb usables - it isn't as Greenpeace know full well...could be used for a dirty bomb though). During that two weeks you have to pray that the sonic boom in the sky isn't a jet fighter and you'd have large units of American and British special forces hunting you down.
b) Ask Iraq for it, if you're an Islamic extremist then odds are you'll be okay.
Er....b) anyone ?
No one in their right mind wants war. This doesn't mean that war should never happen because it does, and will continue to do so. Similarly, it will always be true that before a war there will be those claiming it isn't necessary, that it's wrong in some way.
History is both mankinds greatest asset, and it's greatest curse. An asset because we can learn from the past, a curse because we now revel in using hindsight.
Whatever you think, history remains consistent on one thing. Where military might is allowed to grow unchecked there will be war and all attempts to peacefully solve the situation will fail.
Boer War, World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam, The Falklands, The Gulf War, Enduring Freedom.... How many more wars must happen where our leaders are prevented from taking early action by a misled public or self interested poiticians ?
Every group, individual, country, that forestalls a war on Iraq any longer than necessary will cost people their lives, on the allied side, the IRaiq side, and the civilian side.
Every hour that goes past allows Iraq to fortify, hide weapons, recruit, plan and gather intelligence. These all prolong the eventual war, and the longer any war goes on the higher the bodycount, the higher the body count the greater pressure to end the war on Western policians, the greater the pressure the more force will be used by the military to end it.
As a side note, the United Nations should be disbanded if it cannot produce a resolution on Iraq - like the League of Nations it has failed us all by letting it come to this situation. A new body needs to be set up that will actually act, rather than rolling up in it's nice new Land Rover Discoveries after the event......
~~Belldandy~~
Groups such as CND are examples of this - my local branch are campaigning for no war on Iraq, they want America and the UK NOT to attack a state with nuclear weapons ? Er...yeah right guys, great thinking there. Same goes for the TUC, and Greenpeace who have all stated opposition. They have no relevance, Greenpeace demonstrated it's p.poor knowledge of terrorism by claiming those two ships shipping nuclear waste back to Britain were terrorist targets. Yeah right, nice one. If you were a terrorist groups would you;
a) Attack, by sea, an armed flotilla carrying at least two 30 calibre guns, over 40 UKAE police armed with MP5 submachine guns, body armour, grenades, Repeater shotguns an sniper rifles, as well as the onvoy being within easy reach of RAF planes and helicopters. NOt forgetting the fact that even if you were to get the material you then have to escape alive with it, back to your terrorist group, which then needs at least two weeks to put it in a bomb (if the material was bomb usables - it isn't as Greenpeace know full well...could be used for a dirty bomb though). During that two weeks you have to pray that the sonic boom in the sky isn't a jet fighter and you'd have large units of American and British special forces hunting you down.
b) Ask Iraq for it, if you're an Islamic extremist then odds are you'll be okay.
Er....b) anyone ?
No one in their right mind wants war. This doesn't mean that war should never happen because it does, and will continue to do so. Similarly, it will always be true that before a war there will be those claiming it isn't necessary, that it's wrong in some way.
History is both mankinds greatest asset, and it's greatest curse. An asset because we can learn from the past, a curse because we now revel in using hindsight.
Whatever you think, history remains consistent on one thing. Where military might is allowed to grow unchecked there will be war and all attempts to peacefully solve the situation will fail.
Boer War, World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam, The Falklands, The Gulf War, Enduring Freedom.... How many more wars must happen where our leaders are prevented from taking early action by a misled public or self interested poiticians ?
Every group, individual, country, that forestalls a war on Iraq any longer than necessary will cost people their lives, on the allied side, the IRaiq side, and the civilian side.
Every hour that goes past allows Iraq to fortify, hide weapons, recruit, plan and gather intelligence. These all prolong the eventual war, and the longer any war goes on the higher the bodycount, the higher the body count the greater pressure to end the war on Western policians, the greater the pressure the more force will be used by the military to end it.
As a side note, the United Nations should be disbanded if it cannot produce a resolution on Iraq - like the League of Nations it has failed us all by letting it come to this situation. A new body needs to be set up that will actually act, rather than rolling up in it's nice new Land Rover Discoveries after the event......
~~Belldandy~~
Page: