babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Bush's ultimatum to the U.N.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Bush's ultimatum to the U.N.
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 September 2002 08:55 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In calling on the U.N. to "show some backbone" by confronting Hussein, Chimpy made the following statement, with il duce by his side:

"The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant."

Hello? We're already in the 21st century.

Hello? "Peacekeeping" is not warmaking.

Smart politics though. Shift the blame to the U.N. Make them accept your premise regarding "regime change." Then go it alone, with poodle boy by your side of course.

My way, or the highway. What a guy.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 15 September 2002 08:59 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, the UN has been splendid at keeping the peace - it has done so well in Rwanda, in Kashmir, it was so helpful in Bosnia and it has done so well with Saddam Hussain and ensuring he complies with resolutions.

Peacekeeping implies keeping the peace (ie preventing war), the UN has failed to do so on many notable occasions.

Maybe it should just stick to nonmilitary areas unless it is prepared to back up its diplomatically designed resolutions with some sort of enforcement that works.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 15 September 2002 09:02 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's the suicide squeeze play. If the U.N. says "up yours, George", and Curious George sticks to his word about going it alone, then we all will live in a less secure world in the end.

It's a turning point for the U.N. for sure. Is it going to move from being a largely clandestine extention of U.S. foriegn policy to an unabashed one?

The U.N. is between a rock and a hard place, and I think they'll do what they can to thwart the guy who put them there.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 15 September 2002 09:03 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And which guy put them there?


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 15 September 2002 09:13 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Funny thing is, if the U.S. and the U.N. decided it was going to put and end to tyranny, that is, to systematically rid the world of dictators like Saddam, with war as a final all else fails option, I'd probably be for it, if it was applied in a non-partizan way.

I say this in the belief that such a thing is workable, and that the war option would not need to be resorted to very often, if we took a long term, patient course of action.

However, there is no real move to democracy here, and the U.S. is still comfortable with other tyrannies it has under it's control.

It's funny, all other revolutions have had a period where they've exported their ideology, but the ideological export of the U.S. has always been merchantilism, and never democracy.

It's funny no one has brought into question George Bush's usurpation of the Presidency.

If I was Saddam, part of my rhetoric would be to say that I'd only treat with the rightful president of the U.S., Al Gore.

I noticed when the Iraqi foriegn minister called George W. Bush "an idiot", no one jumped to Georges deffence.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 15 September 2002 09:26 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am with you on the first point, and I agree that if it was genuine, most people would also go for it, and now is the time for that to happen, before weapons proliferate more than they have so far. (One theory is that democracy in Iraq would have a knock-on effect on other countries in the region etc., which unsettles many, especially the US, because initially that democracy might well be extremely anti-Western).

However, to some extent, even with military action as a last seldom-used resort, that 'new world' plan would require many of the UN members to contribute more in terms of forces/military and perhaps to invest in them more and build them up. How does one persuade China to become democratic, maybe it is inevitable that they will as they get more economically powerful and make more contact with other countries. But many inhabitants of many countries feel very uneasy about committing their 'boys' to overseas adventures with the benefit, at least visibly to them, being only to the nation involved (you should have seen the reticence with which the UK accepted its troops being in Afghanistan for 6 months).

Ironically, one of the tenets of Islam that seems to have potency, that all Muslims have a duty to others, means that maybe there should be a Muslim UN, as it were, and a Muslim peacekeeping force - the Arab league would be a good place for this to start, were it not filled with many pro-US ruling elites.

So, the difficulty is that for the UN to enforce democracy, it needs to not use the West's power and might, as that inevitably smacks of imperialism, but to replace it requires using troops from many of the countries it might have to enforce democracy on.

No easy answers.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 15 September 2002 09:39 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the U.N. is trying to move to that kind of peace keeping force. African nations are more involved with African problems, for example.

I thought it quite insane, to be honest, for the U.N. to have sent Italian peace keepers to Somalia, and Belgian peace keepers to Rwanda, given the past history. I don't think it was coincidence that the Belgians, and not Canadians under Dallaire in Rwanda were selected for execution. While the Belgian government would like to be in denial that it had to do with their brutal colonial past, and everything to do with Dallaire, such a view has been shown to be without basis.

I don't think a plan to move the world to democracy has to take on China from the start. It's obviously not an undertaking that can be done on all fronts at once. A fairly open deffinition of democracy, with basic elements of liberty in a constitution should be agreed upon, and a time table set for nations to move to these principles, with a graduated penalties for non compliance for missing targets.

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 15 September 2002 09:42 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I know it sounds appealing and progressive, but it's a slippery slope you're on once you start defining other country's governments for them. But of course, a lot of people living under fascist regimes are looking for outside help. The most important thing is that we allow them to set the agenda, not us.

Personally, I don't think the west has to do much right now except put its own house in order. The majority of these regimes would fall of their own accord if the various powers of the world (countries and corporations) would stop propping them up. Many would have fallen decades ago.

Once you've gotten to the point where you're not responsible for many of the things you purport to be fighting, then you can start weighing the pros and cons of pro-democratic intervention. At the moment it's a case of not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Spring Hope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 417

posted 15 September 2002 09:49 PM      Profile for Spring Hope     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"if the U.S. and the U.N. decided it was going to put and end to tyranny, that is, to systematically rid the world of dictators like Saddam, with war as a final all else fails option, I'd probably be for it, if it was applied in a non-partizan way."

Yep, Jacob-two-two, agreed with your caution on that. It was one of the sacred taboos in the discussions which went into the League of Nations, before the UN as well as before founding the latter. But, America wants its own rules again.


From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 15 September 2002 10:05 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The U.N. is between a rock and a hard place…
…and stands on the precipice of going the way of the League of Nations.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 16 September 2002 12:44 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks a lot, Woodrow Wilson.
From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 16 September 2002 01:02 AM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been called worse.
quote:
You will say, "Is the League an absolute guaranty against war?" No; I do not know any absolute guaranty against the errors of human judgment or the violence of human passions but I tell you this: With a cooling space of nine months for human passion, not much of it will keep hot. I had a couple of friends who were in the habit of losing their tempers, and when they lost their tempers they were in the habit of using very unparliamentary language. Some of their friends induced them to make a promise that they never would swear inside the town limits. When the impulse next came upon them, they took a street car to go out of town to swear, and by the time they got out of town they did not want to swear. They came back convinced that they were just what they were, a couple of unspeakable fools, and the habit of getting angry and of swearing suffered great inroads upon it by that experience. Now, illustrating the great by the small, that is true of the passions of nations. It is true of the passions of men however you combine them. Give them space to cool off. I ask you this: If it is not an absolute insurance against war, do you want no insurance at all? Do you want nothing? Do you want not only no probability that war will not recur, lout the probability that it will recur? The arrangements of justice do not stand of themselves, my fellow citizens. the arrangements of this treaty are just, but they need the support of the combined power of the great nations of the world. And they will have that support. Now that the mists of this great question have cleared away, I believe that men will see the truth, eye to eye and face to face. There is one thing that the American people always rise to and extend their hand to, and that is the truth of justice and of liberty and of peace. We have accepted that truth and we are going to be led by it, and it is going to lead us, and through us the world, out into pastures of quietness and peace such as the world never dreamed of before.

quote:
Let us sweep aside all this language of jealousy. Let us be big enough to know the facts and to welcome the facts, because the facts are based upon the principle that America has always fought for, namely, the equality of self-governing peoples, whether they were big or little-not counting men, but counting rights, not counting representation, but counting the purpose of that representation. When you hear an opinion quoted you do not count the number of persons who hold it; you ask, "Who said that?" You weigh opinions, you do not count them, and the beauty of all democracies is that every voice can be heard, every voice can have its effect, every voice can contribute to the general judgment that is finally arrived at. That is the object of democracy. Let us accept what America has always fought for, and accept it with pride that America showed the way and made the proposal. I do not mean that America made the proposal in this particular instance; I mean that the principle was an American principle, proposed by America.
Click.

Edited to add: This was 1919.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: SHH ]


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 16 September 2002 10:30 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
…and stands on the precipice of going the way of the League of Nations

Unfortunately, you are echoing Bush's speech writers. But what did happen to the league of nations? Well, it failed to stand up to a man who threatened his neighbours and waged wars of conquest and occupation on invented pretexts.

In this historical context, if the UN is to avoid becoming the league of nations, it must stand up to Bush rather than Iraq.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 September 2002 10:40 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed. The UN became a joke because it allowed the U.S. to make it a joke.

When Americans talk about the UN, which they have been taught to think of as a joke and a threat, they inevitably set it up, hand it Catch-22s.

For those of us who still want a UN, there is only one solution: yank it out of New York and try again, this time without a Security Council.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 16 September 2002 12:24 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've been called worse.

Get over yourself. I meant Woodrow Wilson, not you. He talked the talk, and then balked the walk when it came to joining the League, which undermined the organization from the beginning.

Bush et al are undermining it now. The UN, after all, has been a minor annoyance in the US' drive to colonize the world. With the UN out of the way, there will no longer be an international body to deny legitimacy to any more obscene US adventures around the planet.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 12:27 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well what does anyone expect from an entity that can fight it own battles? It seems the U.S. is all
about might making right. If the U.N. is supposed to be all about the alternatives that I'm told abound, then why hasn't anything happend anywhere other than where the U.S. goes?

Perhaps the problem is that when you think the best course is to sit and do nothing, nothng ever gets better. 10 years now since the Gulf War and still the U.N. hasn't brought Hussain to justice in the way "alternative" supporters say should have happened in Afghanistan and such. Even in Rhwanda there is still nothing happening.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
singh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3081

posted 16 September 2002 12:43 PM      Profile for singh        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To paraphrase Tennessee Ernie Ford, sixteen ignorals of United Nations directives and what do you get? Answer: an international body seen as impotent, and a Middle eastern leader willing (perhaps eager) to sacrifice his own suffering people. But what would you expect from a man who gassed 5,000 to 10,000 of his own people.... for being a minority group.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: singh ]


From: victoria | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 16 September 2002 12:56 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But what would you expect from a man who gassed 5,000 to 10,000 of his own people.... for being a minority group.

And who helped him with that?

quote:
The two guardians of global order also expedited Saddam’s other atrocities—including his use of cyanide, nerve gas, and other barbarous weapons—with intelligence, technology, and supplies, joining with many others. The Senate Banking Committee reported in 1994 that the U.S. Commerce Department had traced shipments of "biological materials" identical to those later found and destroyed by UN inspectors, Bill Blum recalls. These shipments continued at least until November 1989. A month later, Bush authorized new loans for his friend Saddam, to achieve the "goal of increasing U.S. exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...," the State Department announced with a straight face, facing no criticism in the mainstream (or even report).

Britain’s record was exposed, at least in part, in an official inquiry (Scott Inquiry). The British government has just now been compelled to concede that it continued to grant licenses to British firms to export materials usable for biological weapons after the Scott report was published, at least until December 1996.

In a February 28 review of Western sales of materials usable for germ warfare and other weapons of mass destruction, the Times mentions one example of U.S. sales in the 1980s, including "deadly pathogens," with government approval, some from the Army’s center for germ research in Fort Detrick. Just the tip of the iceberg, however.


Click!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 01:24 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I refer the honourable members (and maybe just some members!) to this post as it is equally applicable here...
From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 01:48 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If no one had ever attacked Israel or even attack Israel in the last few years then I would expect that Israel would not be using any of the tactics it is using now.
From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 01:50 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If by Israel, you mean the bit that some call Palestine, I couldn't agree with you more...


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 02:05 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Old ploy Ape and it still doesn't work.

Palestine was taken from those who lived there who were enslaved and given to those who helped to enslave them.

Palestinians were offered a state of their own and turned their nose up at it and chose war over peace. But I din't see where this blame game will help to resolve even one thing. So far it hasn't and I question why it is brought up in the first place.

If there is to be peace then all will have to find a way to live together. Maybe it would be better if talk was directed at reasonable solutions to some of the major problems.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 02:08 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Am I misunderstanding you, Slick, you lay some blame down in your post above, and your logic (that action breeds reaction) is impeccable which is why I reversed it to show that it applies to either side, and then you say the blame game gets nowhere - fine, well stop doing it then!


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 02:23 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Am I misunderstanding you, Slick,

You misunderstand me??? Holy flying fucking pigs! How could you think such a thing?

From the link you posted here,to another thread, where the "who started the aggression" ploy got implied here. By you.

So I guess you as usual I might add, misunderstood what I was saying in reply to what you had said. Or implied.

Which is about where Israel is at this point. Some group attacks and then inturn is attacked and then complains that it was attacked while planing the next attack.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 16 September 2002 02:24 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Palestinians were offered a state of their own and turned their nose up at it and chose war over peace...

I am sick of hearing this line. The deal the P.A. rejected offered the Palestinians what amounted to a reservation system run by a quisling and denied the right of return to refugees. It was a bad deal, but anti-Palestinian pundits keep dusting off the "Oh, they had their chance but they blew it" argument.
Which, even if it were true, would hardly justify continued Israeli aggression in the O.T.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 02:35 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BD, I think Slick is talking about in 1946/7.

Slick, you've truly lost me now - I linked to that thread for the only post I have made in it rather than the general thread - it was to do with the UN and the US (read it, you might like its logic!). As for Israel/Palestine, you can take the attacks as far back as they go and someone's always got a gripe (right back into the olden days BC!), so your response (which seemed to be saying Israel is not to blame, its the Palestinian terrorists) misses half the picture!


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 02:35 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You have to start somewhere.

quote:
Which, even if it were true, would hardly justify continued Israeli aggression in the O.T.

Israeli aggression in the O.T. does not stem from the refusal of the Palestinian state by Palestinians. It stems from the attacks that have come from the O.T. on civilians.

If the P.A. would address the bombings and actually work to prevent them then there would be absolutly no justification or even and understanding why of the aggression within the O.T.

Arafat through the P.A. had neither, the want nor the ability even if he had the want, to limit or stop the bombings.

And so it is that if you can't control the poeple you represent enough to see that they live in some form of peaceful association with those around them then as a rule someone else will and chances are, you will not like the way the manage that.
This is one of the reasons they are in effect penned in the O.T.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 16 September 2002 02:49 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're using an arbitary stopping point in your logic/argument, though:

quote:
Israeli aggression in the O.T. does not stem from the refusal of the Palestinian state by Palestinians. It stems from the attacks that have come from the O.T. on civilians.

As though they came out of the blue...

The attacks on civilians originate from the OT - that is territories that are occupied by an army/force. And have been for over 30 years.

(now take the logic back beyond that etc... it never stops - so if we have to draw an arbitrary point, why not today, here and now?)


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 03:36 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
so if we have to draw an arbitrary point,
why not today, here and now?)

We have no choice but to choose and arbitrary point as the blame game is cylindrical and only drives the wedge further.

Here and now seems to be the only logical place to draw the line. But that means that the Palestines must stop and stop others from the next bombing.

Israelis must stop aggression in the O.T. and pull out. A new deal must be worked out that is suitable to both Israelis and Palestinians land wise and it has to stick.

So who is going to blink first?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 16 September 2002 03:39 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If no one had ever attacked Israel or even attack Israel in the last few years then I would expect that Israel would not be using any of
the tactics it is using now.

While I don't expect either logic or much knowledge to come from slick willy, he might consider that the last time Israel was involved in an attack was in 1982, when Israel, in an attempt to wipe out the PLO, attacked Lebanon.

This was following the 1978 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

By the way, willy, what happened in Sabra and Shatila 20 years ago today?


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 September 2002 03:48 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
David Corn of The Nation on Bush's speech:

quote:
The President cited the numerous times the UN Security Council has declared Iraq in breach of resolutions ordering it to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. But Bush presented no heretofore unknown information about the threat posed by Iraq. And he offered no specific proposals on how to deal with the threat--real or hyped. He was making a case for despising Hussein (as if that was needed). But his case for war against Iraq remained vague. His message was, either you do something, or I will. That is, Bush said nothing new.

The speech was a lecture. Claiming he desired a United Nations that is "effective...and successful," Bush tried to guilt-trip the General Assembly into accepting his hardline approach. He argued the UN must do so in order to be taken seriously: "All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" Worrying about the strength and credibility of the UN is a new position for the Bush administration, which has repeatedly ignored or opposed consensus positions of the UN, such as its support for an international criminal court. (A partial list of these instances appears in the preceding column; click on the link below.)

But Bush signaled that actually he, too, held no true respect for the UN. For in the nut-graph (as a newspaper editor would call it) of his speech, Bush declared that if the UN decides his particular course of confrontation with Iraq--whatever that might entail--is not appropriate, he is willing to defy the body and move against Iraq on his own. "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions," he said. "But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council's resolutions will be enforced--the just demands of peace and security will be met--or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will lose its power." In keeping with his with-us-or-against-us approach to foreign policy, he was telling the UN that its standing depends upon on whether it agrees with him.



From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 September 2002 04:14 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
and stands on the precipice of going the way of the League of Nations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The US sabotaged the League of Nations. As a partial result, a second world war occurred, Europe was divided for fifty years, etc, etc.

If the US now sabotages the UN by insisting on its own right to decide all international questions, it will reap a whirlwind.

As long as the US is ready to fight all wars on its own, with no help whatsoever from others, this should present no problem, except to its citizens whose lives it is sacrificing.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
singh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3081

posted 16 September 2002 04:49 PM      Profile for singh        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The US sabotaged the League of Nations. As a partial result, a second world war occurred,

I think the behavior of England, and especially France, at the treaty talks in Versaille had a lot to do with the war in Europe, 1939-1945.


From: victoria | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 04:53 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
While I don't expect either logic or much knowledge to come from slick willy

Which is what makes you a good example of why there will not be peace in the Middle East.
Do you have a hate on for Jews Arch. What do I care? You can't even talk about it on a message board without having to use personal attacks.
So what's the story Arch, anyone who disagrees with you isn't logical? The my way or the highway attitude is what has gotten the Palestinians the shit kicking they have gotten so far. Is the logic working now?

Is your point that the Israelis have done terrible horrible things? Well fuck Arch, who knew about that? That and worse are happening in plenty of places. Is it all Isreal's fault? Hell no Arch it takes two to tango and the Palestinians are dancing step for step with the Israelis. So whipdee fucking doo. Is that going to stop anything at all? Not a chance Arch. Because no one wants to stop fighting. Not really. If they did want to stop they would.

So just how much pity should be placed at the feet of either side when they both charge hell bent for leather into more bombign Israelis and more killing Palestinians?

So go fuck yourself Arch. You wouldn't know what logic or knowledge is if someone tattooed the definition on your hand and stapled it to your face.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 16 September 2002 05:22 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
When Americans talk about the UN, which they have been taught to think of as a joke and a threat, they inevitably set it up, hand it Catch-22s.

Americans are ‘taught’? As in ‘fetch the stick’? Humm. A tad condescending dontcha think? I guess we can quibble whether the US made the UN a joke or the UN made a joke of itself first, but if the UN is widely perceived to be a joke, (and I assure you, it is), one has only to look as far as the WCAR and the members, and non-members, of the Human Rights Committee to find an explanation that’s more substantial than mass mind-control.
quote:
As long as the US is ready to fight all wars on its own, with no help whatsoever from others, this should present no problem, except to its citizens whose lives it is sacrificing.
Rightly or not, it is already seen to be that way by most.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 16 September 2002 05:56 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rightly or not, [the UN] is already seen [as a joke] by most.

By most who? According to this Gallup poll, the UN had an approval/disapproval rating (amongst US respondents) of 58/36 in February, slightly up from 54/38 a year earlier.

Admittedly, that is slightly lower than the approval of Georgie Porgie (65/28), but if 58% approval is a joke, Dubya has got to be worth at least a good chuckle.


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
jean chretien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2693

posted 16 September 2002 06:18 PM      Profile for jean chretien     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
of course Americans are going to approve of something they pretty much control...The UN has in my opinion became a joke, they have themselves as well as teh US to blame for this.

When you have the biggest contributor to the UN acting on its own and ignoring what the UN says unless they agree to it, and other nations not listening to UN resolutions and the UN not really doing much, you get what we have here today. Which is an organization which lacks integerty! Sad


From: Ottawa | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 September 2002 06:56 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Americans have an odd schizophrenia about the UN. They haul it out when convenient, and then turn around and use it as a punching bag or some trash-talking when convenient.

Example: Jesse Helms and many southern Repubs like to bash the UN and play games with the US's back contributions (which is perpetually in arrears anyway) in order to score domestic brownie points.

Then, on the other hand, the US uses its position on the Security Council to ram through resolutions it wants on Iraq and uses its veto power to prevent resolutions on the behavior of the USA in other nations, so that the General Assembly has to then use the Third World majority to get resolutions through.

So it is not surprising that Americans generally favor the UN, by a slim majority - the USA bullies it into doing what the USA wants and ignores it all other times and in the ignoring-process, hauls out the hoary old flag-waving jingoistic crap that got every President what he wanted since the 1950s.

Reagan thumped Grenada. For what? To take the minds of Americans off the 1982/3 recession.

Bush Sr. thumped Iraq. For what? To get his popularity up.

Clinton thumped Iraq and Sudan. For what? To get a little feel-good going.

Bush Jr. thumped Iraq and Afghanistan. For what? To distract attention from his perceived illegitimacy and domestic incapability of delivering a program on the economy that doesn't just give it all away to rich people.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 16 September 2002 07:13 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So it is not surprising that Americans generally favor the UN, by a slim majority - the USA bullies it into doing what the USA wants and ignores it all other times and in the ignoring-process, hauls out the hoary old flag-waving jingoistic crap that got every President what he wanted since the 1950s.

So what good is a U.N. that can be bullied by just one of it's members? Surely the rest of the world could stand up to the U.S.A through the U.N. and bring them around to behaving in a fashion more befitting a member of the security council.

Maybe what should be happening is the other member countries that can and will suffer no ill will from the big bully, get on with greatly expanding the military of their own respective countries to the point where the U.S.A will bloody well do what it's told or else.

I suppose Canada could fairly quickly redirect spending and increase taxes to get our share of the forces up to the task but I would imagine things like the social safety net and education and health care would take a hit.

So just how important is the U.N. to Canadian Babblers?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 16 September 2002 07:25 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what good is a U.N. that can be bullied by just one of it's members? Surely the rest of the world could stand up to the U.S.A through the U.N. and bring them around to behaving in a fashion more befitting a member of the security council.

Uh, kinda hard for the"rest of the world" to stand up to the Yanks when they have veto power.

quote:
Maybe what should be happening is the other member countries that can and will suffer no ill will from the big bully, get on with greatly expanding the military of their own respective countries to the point where the U.S.A will bloody well do what it's told or else.

I was going to write something along the lines of "well that's the kind of thinking that put the world under the gun during the cold war blah blah blah" when it occurred to me that I would take a half-decent Cold War over the current Pax Americana.

You would think/hope that after more than 4,000 years of human civilization, we'd get beyond the point where pointing guns and bombs at each others heads would be the only way to get everyone to play nice and stop acting like shits to each other. But I guess not.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 16 September 2002 09:49 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is exactly how I feel:

quote:
You would think/hope that after more than 4,000 years of human civilization, we'd get beyond the point where pointing guns and bombs at each others heads would be the only way to get everyone to play nice and stop acting like shits to each other. But I guess not.

I remain convinced that what the world needs is not the UN but a kindergarten for world leaders. "Now children, play nice."


From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 17 September 2002 02:23 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So go fuck yourself Arch. You wouldn't know what logic or knowledge is if someone tattooed the definition on your hand and stapled it to your face.

Aw geez willy. Sorry. I suppose what I wrote was uncalled for. After all, you could be treasurer of the Hog Heaven chapter of Mensa for all I know.
I guess that after a few months of reading what I interpreted as your uninformed, if strongly asserted, opinions on the Middle East, I concluded that you didn't know what you were talking about.
My apologies.

If I may offer a suggestion; perhaps you might want to try to temper your churlish predilection for profanity. Whenever you do occasionally make a valid point it is sometimes lost in your vulgarity. By adopting this slight modification in your delivery you might henceforth cease to come across as an ignorant yahoo.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 17 September 2002 10:57 AM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Uh, kinda hard for the"rest of the world" to stand up to the Yanks when they have veto power.

So does Russia, China, France, and Britain. So who do you think has used their veto power the most?

I think it is always a bad idea for one nation to become so strong over all other nations as I feel it can lead to exactly the problems that we have now with the U.S. becoming less and less constrained. The West has not had much concern over it because we are on friendly terms with the U.S. and understand that those guns will never be turned on us.

But as we grow to know eachother globaly, we find ourselves and our attitudes incommon with other nations that do have undesirable aspects but more incommon with us that even some countries of the West.

And so we need to stick up for those we can befriend and at the same time help them shed the undisirable aspects that cause problems jsut as we must do the same here.

But at times, in order to do that, we have to have the ability to help sort things out and sometimes that means standing between or helping to win a fight militarily.

If the U.S. finds itself left out of the loop and the problems that need to be handled with a military action, handled then it makes the U.S. just that much less important.

Americans hate few things more than being left out of the game. Like most bullys. And to remove the jingoistic tendancies from the global table it would make sense to construct a world military that isn't to oppose the American military, but to make it redundant.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
BarnOwl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3091

posted 17 September 2002 11:19 AM      Profile for BarnOwl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Americans hate few things more than being left out of the game. Like most bullys. And to remove the jingoistic tendancies from the global table it would make sense to construct a world military that isn't to oppose the American military, but to make it redundant

That would be a tall order. Considering that the U.S. "defense" budget is larger than all the money spent by the next eight largest military powers combined. I'm not convinced that global harmony would be achieved if only more nations would spend more money on war technology.


From: Frozen Middle of Nowhere | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 September 2002 11:35 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since the lion's share of the arms industry is located in the US, increasing military spending worldwide would probably simply consolodate US power even more.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
BarnOwl
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3091

posted 17 September 2002 12:02 PM      Profile for BarnOwl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a good point ronb. After all, America is the world headquarters for Wars-R-Us. It's their game and they pretty much own all the marbles.
From: Frozen Middle of Nowhere | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 17 September 2002 12:12 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So does Russia, China, France, and Britain. So who do you think has used their veto power the most?

Well,thisis a selection of Security Council resolutions the US has vetoed, just pretaining to Israel. I'll keep looking for more...

Okay done. The USSR/Russia has use dtheir veto the most (120 times), the US second with 74 and the UK gets the veto bronze with 32. However an interesting pattern emerges when you look at the timing of the vetos: the Soviets used their veto 79 times betweem 1946 and 1955 while the US used most of theirs between 1976 and 1995. click.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: black_dog ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 17 September 2002 12:37 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since the lion's share of the arms industry is located in the US, increasing military spending worldwide would probably simply consolodate US power even more.

Yep, all those AK47's you see soldiers toting around the world were made in factories in Ohio. Same with the FAL, the most popular choice of rifle for armies worldwide. FN is just a belgian front company for the US arms industry.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 September 2002 12:49 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to this page (scroll down), the AK-47 or copies thereof is manufactured in 18 countries including the U.S.

Semi-automatic versions only can be manufactured in the U.S., legally. I'm told, however, that it's a fairly simple matter to convert an assault rifle to full automatic.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rici
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2710

posted 17 September 2002 01:13 PM      Profile for rici     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility,

quote:
The United States is the lead exporter of small arms and light weapons through state-sanctioned export programs, on which it openly reports. Because the majority of illegal small arms were once legally owned, it comes as no surprise that the U.S. is also a major source of black market arms.

From: Lima, Perú | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 17 September 2002 01:17 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That would be a tall order. Considering that the U.S. "defense" budget is larger than all the money spent by the next eight largest military powers combined. I'm not convinced that global harmony would be achieved if only more nations would spend more money on war technology.

While that is true it isn't what I was driving at.
Who says that someone would need to out spend the U.S.? The idea is to create and supply a military force under the U.N. that can respond very quickly and most effectively to the problems that can at this point only be handled by the U.S. military.

Thus take away the need for the U.S. to respond unilateraly to problems that require a military force, that at present the U.N. can only finger wag at. This I feel would remove the U.S. from the position of global policeman.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 September 2002 01:28 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you're missing the point here. The US aren't reluctant, retiring wallflowers here. It wants to be the world's police force. Just like Rome did. That way they get to enforce the laws that benefit their elites. Look how they react to an International Court of Justice, how do you think they would react to a an International Police Force?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 17 September 2002 01:38 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This I feel would remove the U.S. from the position of global policeman.
For decades the US has been begging its allies to carry more of the weight in this arena. They haven't. If the UN is ineffectual as a result, it seems unfair to point the finger at the US.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 17 September 2002 01:43 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It wants to be the world's police force. Just like Rome did

Ok, based on what?


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 September 2002 02:08 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For decades the US has been begging its allies to carry more of the weight in this arena.

Just as for decades the US allies have been begging the US to pay its dues and carry its weight in this area. The US is hardly the largest contributor to UN Peacekeeping efforts. As of July, there were a total of 691 US nationals participating in Peacekeeping operations.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 17 September 2002 02:12 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wants to be the world's police force. Just like Rome did
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, based on what?


Slick: wich part are you disputing the U.S-as-global-policemen-thing or the Rome thing? 'Cause you said the same thing about the U.S's role above.

quote:
Thus take away the need for the U.S. to respond unilateraly to problems that require a military force, that at present the U.N. can only finger wag at. This I feel would remove the U.S. from the position of global policeman.

The Romans, though, weren't global policemen. They were an empire, spreading what they felt was their superior culture to the barbarians.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 17 September 2002 03:15 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...or, they were enforcing Roman laws throughout as much of the world as they could. Same outcome.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184

posted 17 September 2002 03:33 PM      Profile for Slick Willy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Slick: wich part are you disputing

Well I am not disputing anything I just don't understand how you got to your answer that the U.S. wants to be the global policeman.


From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 September 2002 10:23 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The King has spoken. Now dance to his tune. Democrats, remain on your knees:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36735-2002Sep18.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 19 September 2002 01:38 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...and just in case there's any doubt left about George's regal aspirations, here is his claim to the throne...

[click

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 September 2002 01:47 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ronb, even before you get that link up and running, I think I know the story you're referring to.

Some cute White House person has -- surprise! -- discovered that not only is Dubya distantly related to Winston Churchill and Diana Spencer (who were definitely related to each other), but Dubya is further indirectly descended from William the Conqueror!

It's my understanding that some huge percentage of people with Anglo surnames are indirectly descended from William the Conqueror. A lot of babblers are bound to be even more directly descended from William the Conqueror than is Dubya. (NB: I have no horse in this race: I am a Polish-Celt.)

At some point in every American presidency, someone tries this gambit. It tells us something about what the dominant cultural myths in the Anglo world still are. I guess.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 September 2002 01:49 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah. And I could be descended from King David and King Solomon
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 September 2002 02:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I often wish that Woody Allen could bring Winston Churchill back and set him up right behind every U.S. (or Canadian) power-monger or pundit who takes his name in vain, the way Allen got Marshall McLuhan to eavesdrop (in Annie Hall) on a pretentious culture-monger who was dropping his name -- and then denounce the guy for getting it wrong wrong all wrong.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 19 September 2002 06:08 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right now the USA is acting as world policeman. Is this bad or good? If this is bad what country would you like see take it's place. How about Iraq, or maybe China hey! how about the USSR. Be carefull now of the country you pick. You may get your wish.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 19 September 2002 06:25 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The U.S. is acting less like a global cop (Alright, folks, move along. Nothing to see here) than a mobster intent on whacking some small-time hood for disrespecting the godfather.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 19 September 2002 07:08 PM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yabbut, Don Dubya is making an offer that Hussein cannot refuse...or accept.

"One thing that history has taught us is that anyone can be killed."


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 19 September 2002 07:12 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe Saddam should invite Bush and Cheney to sit down and talk things out over dinner at some little Italian place...
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 19 September 2002 07:14 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Shouldn't that be Saddam's youngest son instead of Saddam? And wouldn't Tony Blair be there, or would he just drive the car?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 19 September 2002 07:19 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
skdadl: there was a cool article in a recent Atlantic Monthly on precisely that subject, all Arabs are statistically guaranteed to be descended from Mohammed, and all Europeans - Poles and Celts included, I would imagine - are likewise the children of Charlemagne. Proving it is the hard part...
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356

posted 20 September 2002 12:10 AM      Profile for Arch Stanton     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Many years ago I read in the Harper's Index that our chances of breathing a molecule from Julius Caesar's last breath are one in ten.

In other words, we share Caesar's breath once every ten inhalations.

I suppose we share a breath with Hitler or Torquemada or Jeanne d'Arc a few times per hour also.


From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 20 September 2002 12:47 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're also guaranteed to drink a bit of Napoleon's pee in your lifetime too.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 September 2002 12:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All this has got me thinking it's about time for a rousing chorus of "On Ilkley Moor Bar Tat."
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 20 September 2002 01:05 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm game. But then, you already knew that.

quote:
1. Wheear 'as tha been since ah saw thee, I saw thee,
On Ilkla Moor baht 'at?
|: Wheear 'as tha bin since ah saw thee? :|
On Ilkla Moor baht hat, baht 'at,
|: On Ilkla Moor baht 'at? :|

2. I were a coortin' Mary Jane, Mary Jane,
On Ilkla Moor baht 'at.
|: I were a coortin' Mary Jane, :|
On Ilkla Moor baht hat, baht 'at,
|: On Ilkla Moor baht 'at. :|

3. Tha's bahn to get thi death o' cold . . .

4. Then we shall ha' to bury thee, bury thee . . .

5. Then t' worms 'll come an' ate thee up, ate thee up . . .

6. Then t' ducks 'll come an' ate up t' worms, ate up t' worms . . .

7. Then we shall come an' ate them ducks, ate them ducks...

8. Then we shall all 'av etten thee, etten thee . . .

9. That's how we get our oahn back, our oahn back . . .



From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 December 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This turned into a fun thread after a while.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 January 2004 12:13 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Couldn't resist.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca