Time's Up for the UN
Mar 7th 2003, 10:47 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Time's Up for the UN
Time's Up
The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
By Max Abrahms
March 7, 2003
The Bush administration has billed what would be the 18th Security
Council resolution vote against Saddam Hussein as the "final
opportunity" for both Iraqi compliance and the U.N.'s "moral relevance."
This challenge to the U.N. may ring familiar. Last fall, President Bush
dared the General Assembly to ignore 12 years of Iraqi weapons
violations, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding,
or will it be irrelevant?" And in the early 1950s the Truman
administration similarly goaded the U.N. into action by dubbing North
Korean aggression as "an attack on the United Nations itself."
As a public-relations strategy, confronting the U.N. with its own
putative moral obligations makes perfect sense. But one thing is clear
=97 even if coalition forces end up fighting alongside a few blue
helmets, the U.N.'s decision will not carry any moral weight.
During the Cold War, this fact went uncontested. The bipolar world
paralyzed the Security Council as vetoes from either the Western or
Soviet bloc came to be the norm. By 1955, the Soviet Union had thwarted
the Council no fewer than 75 times. The U.N. was silent during the Cuban
Missile Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but these events
were seen for what they were =97 not morally ambiguous developments, but
the reality of Cold War jockeying.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of this was supposed to
change. President George H. W. Bush spoke of a "New World Order," which
would be dictated by international consensus based on universal norms.
On the surface, the 1991 Gulf War upheld this optimism. The so-called
international community roundly condemned Iraq's unwarranted invasion of
a sovereign country, and the ensuing war took place under the U.N.
banner. Within a week, the pariah state had been brought to its knees.
This was collective security at work.
Or was it?
In retrospect, the real amazement is not that the world had changed, but
that a transgression could ever enliven and rally such a disparate
coalition of states.
The 1990s fed the illusion of a moral United Nations, but only if
measured in terms the founders had never envisaged, such as in
peacekeeping and nation-building exercises. On hard security questions,
the U.N. remained =97 at best =97 a sideshow. It deferred to the world's
superpower, dragged its feet until disaster had already struck, or did
nothing at all. This was the story of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda.
Polling data consistently show popular support =97 at home and abroad
=97 for a U.N. solution to the Iraqi problem. But if the Bush
administration gives the Security Council one last chance for "moral
relevance," member-states' perceived national interests will as always
determine their vote.
Specifically, France's all-important vote would come down to its view of
whether a "non" at the Security Council is the best way to restrain the
"hyper-power" United States. On the one hand, France hopes vetoing a
U.N.-sponsored war could prove its place on the Permanent Five as a
counterbalance to American hegemony.
On the other, France recognizes this plan could backfire =97 if states
subsequently write off the U.N. as a forum for conflict resolution. In
light of the current wrangling within the Security Council, this is a
distinct possibility.
The other key state is Russia, whose ambivalence has less to do with the
moral basis of Iraqi regime change than the amount of cash a postwar
Iraq would put in its pocket.
As the chairman of the Russian foreign affairs committee recently put
it:
"There is an $8 billion state debt owed by Iraq to Russia, we have
serious oil interests, and the Iraqi market is a major buyer of Russian
goods. We need to hear a strong message from Washington that they
understand our concerns in this area."
From Mexico to Cameroon, the same cost-benefit strategic analysis will
determine the votes of the ten rotating Security Council members =97 not
eleventh-hour moral revelations, as U.N. enthusiasts seem to think.
"The United Nations is today an instrument through which its members try
to protect and promote their respective national interests," the
political scientist Hans Morgenthau pointed out almost 50 years ago. The
U.N.'s position on the war will not make the war or the U.N. itself any
more or less morally relevant. Yet if the U.N.'s decision contributes to
keeping Saddam in power, it could well make the world more vulnerable to
terrorist attacks.
The final opportunity for moral relevance has long passed, but the U.N.
may still be able to promote international peace and stability, starting
in the Persian Gulf.
=97 Max Abrahms is a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy.
=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0 =A0
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ahms030703.asp
=A0=A0=A0
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=3DThey accepted dishonour to have peace.
=3DThey will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
By Max Abrahms
March 7, 2003
The Bush administration has billed what would be the 18th Security
Council resolution vote against Saddam Hussein as the "final
opportunity" for both Iraqi compliance and the U.N.'s "moral relevance."
This challenge to the U.N. may ring familiar. Last fall, President Bush
dared the General Assembly to ignore 12 years of Iraqi weapons
violations, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding,
or will it be irrelevant?" And in the early 1950s the Truman
administration similarly goaded the U.N. into action by dubbing North
Korean aggression as "an attack on the United Nations itself."
As a public-relations strategy, confronting the U.N. with its own
putative moral obligations makes perfect sense. But one thing is clear
=97 even if coalition forces end up fighting alongside a few blue
helmets, the U.N.'s decision will not carry any moral weight.
During the Cold War, this fact went uncontested. The bipolar world
paralyzed the Security Council as vetoes from either the Western or
Soviet bloc came to be the norm. By 1955, the Soviet Union had thwarted
the Council no fewer than 75 times. The U.N. was silent during the Cuban
Missile Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but these events
were seen for what they were =97 not morally ambiguous developments, but
the reality of Cold War jockeying.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of this was supposed to
change. President George H. W. Bush spoke of a "New World Order," which
would be dictated by international consensus based on universal norms.
On the surface, the 1991 Gulf War upheld this optimism. The so-called
international community roundly condemned Iraq's unwarranted invasion of
a sovereign country, and the ensuing war took place under the U.N.
banner. Within a week, the pariah state had been brought to its knees.
This was collective security at work.
Or was it?
In retrospect, the real amazement is not that the world had changed, but
that a transgression could ever enliven and rally such a disparate
coalition of states.
The 1990s fed the illusion of a moral United Nations, but only if
measured in terms the founders had never envisaged, such as in
peacekeeping and nation-building exercises. On hard security questions,
the U.N. remained =97 at best =97 a sideshow. It deferred to the world's
superpower, dragged its feet until disaster had already struck, or did
nothing at all. This was the story of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda.
Polling data consistently show popular support =97 at home and abroad
=97 for a U.N. solution to the Iraqi problem. But if the Bush
administration gives the Security Council one last chance for "moral
relevance," member-states' perceived national interests will as always
determine their vote.
Specifically, France's all-important vote would come down to its view of
whether a "non" at the Security Council is the best way to restrain the
"hyper-power" United States. On the one hand, France hopes vetoing a
U.N.-sponsored war could prove its place on the Permanent Five as a
counterbalance to American hegemony.
On the other, France recognizes this plan could backfire =97 if states
subsequently write off the U.N. as a forum for conflict resolution. In
light of the current wrangling within the Security Council, this is a
distinct possibility.
The other key state is Russia, whose ambivalence has less to do with the
moral basis of Iraqi regime change than the amount of cash a postwar
Iraq would put in its pocket.
As the chairman of the Russian foreign affairs committee recently put
it:
"There is an $8 billion state debt owed by Iraq to Russia, we have
serious oil interests, and the Iraqi market is a major buyer of Russian
goods. We need to hear a strong message from Washington that they
understand our concerns in this area."
From Mexico to Cameroon, the same cost-benefit strategic analysis will
determine the votes of the ten rotating Security Council members =97 not
eleventh-hour moral revelations, as U.N. enthusiasts seem to think.
"The United Nations is today an instrument through which its members try
to protect and promote their respective national interests," the
political scientist Hans Morgenthau pointed out almost 50 years ago. The
U.N.'s position on the war will not make the war or the U.N. itself any
more or less morally relevant. Yet if the U.N.'s decision contributes to
keeping Saddam in power, it could well make the world more vulnerable to
terrorist attacks.
The final opportunity for moral relevance has long passed, but the U.N.
may still be able to promote international peace and stability, starting
in the Persian Gulf.
=97 Max Abrahms is a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy.
=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0 =A0
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ahms030703.asp
=A0=A0=A0
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
At the SF "Saddamites on Parade" Appeasement March:
Credit and Thanks to http://www.ProtestWarrior.com
"Protect Islamic Property Rights Against Western Imperialism!
Say No to War!"
[with picture of a burqa-wearing woman on a leash tied to a post]
"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has
Never Solved Anything,"
"Saddam Only Kills His Own People. It's None of Our Business"
"Communism has Only Killed 100 Million People. Let's Give it Another
Chance."
,,,,,,,,,,
=3DThey accepted dishonour to have peace.
=3DThey will have their dishonour, and war. --
Winston Churchill - 1938
-upon the return from Munich of
British PM Neville Chamberlain and
French Premier Edouard Daladier
having 'appeased' Hitler with the Sudetenland.
What would Sir Winston say now concerning the vile and cowardly
appeasement policies of Chirac, deVillepin and Schroeder regarding
today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?
Especially concerning the same hideous applause given to deVillepin at
the UN Security Council that Chamberlain got when he waved that useless
piece of paper in the air....
Mar 7th 2003, 11:35 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>Time's Up
>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>By Max Abrahms
>March 7, 2003
What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
Why is it that webtv posters seem to be particularly clueless?
PB
>Time's Up
>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>By Max Abrahms
>March 7, 2003
What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
Why is it that webtv posters seem to be particularly clueless?
PB
Mar 7th 2003, 11:44 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>>Time's Up
>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>>By Max Abrahms
>>March 7, 2003
>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
Vichy?
================================================== ============
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>>Time's Up
>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>>By Max Abrahms
>>March 7, 2003
>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
Vichy?
================================================== ============
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
Mar 7th 2003, 11:47 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
le Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:44:55 GMT, dans l'article , ArKLyte a dit ...
>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
> Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
>
> Vichy?
Nah ... move it to Saigon. At least we know the United States won't attack
there. *snigger*
--
Desmond Coughlan
desmond @ zeouane.org
http: // www . zeouane . org
>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
> Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
>
> Vichy?
Nah ... move it to Saigon. At least we know the United States won't attack
there. *snigger*
--
Desmond Coughlan
desmond @ zeouane.org
http: // www . zeouane . org
Mar 7th 2003, 11:55 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
ArKLyte wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>>>Time's Up
>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>>>By Max Abrahms
>>>March 7, 2003
>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
>Vichy?
Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
Why are you not posting from webtv?
PB
>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>>>Time's Up
>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>>>By Max Abrahms
>>>March 7, 2003
>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
>Vichy?
Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
Why are you not posting from webtv?
PB
Mar 7th 2003, 12:22 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:55:09 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>ArKLyte wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>>>>Time's Up
>>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>>>>By Max Abrahms
>>>>March 7, 2003
>>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
>>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
>>Vichy?
>Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
It should be apparent from anyone paying attention that we don't
'own the U.N.'
>Why are you not posting from webtv?
>PB
I don't.
Ask your Irish Mommy to help you read the newsgroup properly.
================================================== ============
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
>ArKLyte wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
>>>>Time's Up
>>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
>>>>By Max Abrahms
>>>>March 7, 2003
>>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
>>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
>>Vichy?
>Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
It should be apparent from anyone paying attention that we don't
'own the U.N.'
>Why are you not posting from webtv?
>PB
I don't.
Ask your Irish Mommy to help you read the newsgroup properly.
================================================== ============
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
Mar 7th 2003, 4:13 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"ArKLyte" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:55:09 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:
> >ArKLyte wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:
> >>
> >>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Time's Up
> >>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>>By Max Abrahms
> >>>>March 7, 2003
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
> >>
> >>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
> >>
> >>Vichy?
> >>
> >Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
> >
> It should be apparent from anyone paying attention that we don't
> 'own the U.N.'
> >Why are you not posting from webtv?
> >
> >PB
> I don't.
> Ask your Irish Mommy to help you read the newsgroup properly.
> So cretin, you have moved here to escape me. As I have told you before,
get your little rocks off in your SUV while you are driving off that cliff.
You are so ridiculous you even embarress the rest of your conservative
cronies.
Now please, let the nurse take you back to bed and give you that highly
needed colonic irrigation.
Your pal;
momma's boy
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:55:09 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:
> >ArKLyte wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:
> >>
> >>>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Time's Up
> >>>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>>By Max Abrahms
> >>>>March 7, 2003
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
> >>
> >>Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
> >>
> >>Vichy?
> >>
> >Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
> >
> It should be apparent from anyone paying attention that we don't
> 'own the U.N.'
> >Why are you not posting from webtv?
> >
> >PB
> I don't.
> Ask your Irish Mommy to help you read the newsgroup properly.
> So cretin, you have moved here to escape me. As I have told you before,
get your little rocks off in your SUV while you are driving off that cliff.
You are so ridiculous you even embarress the rest of your conservative
cronies.
Now please, let the nurse take you back to bed and give you that highly
needed colonic irrigation.
Your pal;
momma's boy
Mar 7th 2003, 8:19 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ArKLyte wrote:
> >On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Time's Up
> >>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>>By Max Abrahms
> >>>March 7, 2003
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
> >
> >Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
> >
> >Vichy?
> >
> Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please.
news:[email protected]...
> ArKLyte wrote:
> >On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 00:35:33 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] (Thom Wilkerson) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Time's Up
> >>>The U.N. is already morally irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>>By Max Abrahms
> >>>March 7, 2003
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>What the **** has this to do with travel in Europe?
> >
> >Maybe we are going to move the U.N. to a more preferred location?
> >
> >Vichy?
> >
> Good idea. The US might then get the idea that it does not own the UN.
Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please.
Mar 7th 2003, 8:53 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:19:19 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please.
Why did you WANT to have it, in the first place ? Did you think that it would be easier to
control the UN, it being there ? LOL
======
Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please.
Why did you WANT to have it, in the first place ? Did you think that it would be easier to
control the UN, it being there ? LOL
======
Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
Mar 7th 2003, 9:03 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Magda" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:19:19 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ...
> ... Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please.
> Why did you WANT to have it, in the first place ? Did you think that it
would be easier to
> control the UN, it being there ? LOL
WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there before
WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please get
that trash off our land.
> ======
> Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:19:19 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ...
> ... Then MOVE it off our soil. PLEASE! With YOUR money please.
> Why did you WANT to have it, in the first place ? Did you think that it
would be easier to
> control the UN, it being there ? LOL
WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there before
WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please get
that trash off our land.
> ======
> Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
Mar 7th 2003, 9:40 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there before
... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please get
... that trash off our land.
You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind turned it's
"trash"... LOL
======
Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there before
... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please get
... that trash off our land.
You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind turned it's
"trash"... LOL
======
Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
Mar 7th 2003, 9:53 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Magda" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ...
> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there
before
> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please
get
> ... that trash off our land.
> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind
turned it's
> "trash"... LOL
For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and my
money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or what
it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY
purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid french
monkey, take it.
> ======
> Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> ...
> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there
before
> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please
get
> ... that trash off our land.
> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind
turned it's
> "trash"... LOL
For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and my
money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or what
it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY
purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid french
monkey, take it.
> ======
> Where are we going to and why are we in a handbasket ?
Mar 7th 2003, 10:08 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"jeb" wrote:
>"Magda" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
>> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>> ...
>> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there
>before
>> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please
>get
>> ... that trash off our land.
>> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind
>turned it's
>> "trash"... LOL
>For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and my
>money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or what
>it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY
>purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid french
>monkey, take it.
On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will
assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US.
PB
>"Magda" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
>> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>> ...
>> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was there
>before
>> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW, please
>get
>> ... that trash off our land.
>> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind
>turned it's
>> "trash"... LOL
>For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and my
>money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or what
>it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY
>purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid french
>monkey, take it.
On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will
assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US.
PB
Mar 7th 2003, 10:11 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "jeb" wrote:
> >"Magda" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
> >
> >> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> >>
> >> ...
> >> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was
there
> >before
> >> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW,
please
> >get
> >> ... that trash off our land.
> >>
> >> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind
> >turned it's
> >> "trash"... LOL
> >
> >For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and
my
> >money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or
what
> >it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY
> >purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid
french
> >monkey, take it.
> >
> On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will
> assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US.
> PB
heh, that's pretty funny, Ireland the great aggressor!
news:[email protected]...
> "jeb" wrote:
> >"Magda" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:03:11 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "jeb"
> >
> >> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
> >>
> >> ...
> >> ... WE didn't have anything to do with it, thank you, since it was
there
> >before
> >> ... WE were born. But that's history. That was then, this is NOW,
please
> >get
> >> ... that trash off our land.
> >>
> >> You didn't mind it while it served your purposes... Now that the wind
> >turned it's
> >> "trash"... LOL
> >
> >For as long as I've been alive it's just been using up my resources and
my
> >money. Please get this trash off of US soil. I don't give a shit who or
what
> >it served before, it's a blight, an expensive blight. It never served MY
> >purposes. As long as I've been aware of it I minded it a LOT. Stupid
french
> >monkey, take it.
> >
> On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will
> assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US.
> PB
heh, that's pretty funny, Ireland the great aggressor!
Mar 7th 2003, 10:36 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Time's Up for the UN
"jeb" wrote:
>"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will
>> assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US.
>heh, that's pretty funny, Ireland the great aggressor!
Do you know what irony is?
No, I thought not.
PB
>"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On further reflection, I propose that we leave it in NYC. It will
>> assist in the great plan to have the world take over the US.
>heh, that's pretty funny, Ireland the great aggressor!
Do you know what irony is?
No, I thought not.
PB
