|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 26, 2009 03:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I am a little confused about your position because you have seemed to make conflicting statments....
So your previous position seemed to be that you want an internatinal court that has authority and an international police force that has power over the nations and with an army to enforce that power.
Now you seem to be reversing yourself. An international court with an army to enforce its will would be a world government.
It's not. It's just an organisation that deals with international strife. It doesn't tell anyone how to live.
Quote:
Quote:
It has nothing to do with "deserving" - if there is no mutual international consent, no generally accepted law and order which everyone submits to, then one reasoning for going into a war is as good as another.
No, going to war because you are attacked is not the same as going to war becaue the other country's leader said your leader is a moron.
Not if there is no international law. Because in that other country, calling a respected person a moron may be the same as an attack on the whole country that can be washed off only with blood.
I repeat: you either agree on mutual international laws and keep to it or everyone has their own laws and their own morals and ethics, and in that case those of the US (or any other country) are only one of many (equal).
Quote:
Quote:
The US didn't NEED any morality and ethics behind them to go to war, when Japan attacked them.
That seems to contradict your previous statemtnet that "You cannot demand national sovereignity on one hand and cite moral and ethics on the other." I think my example of the reason that the US went to war with Japan was a perfect example.
I wonder where you see a contradiction. Let's take this onto a smaller scale. Your neighbour is suddenly starting to build a fence on your grounds, so that you cannot enter it anymore and starts reaping the fruit growing there. Two possible cases:
a) There is something like law, order, police, courts that have the power not only to deal with the case, but to enforce the consequences as well.
In that case you go there, state your case and look what happens. You do not have the right to kill your neighbor because he is stealing your land, except if the law explicitely allows that.
b) There is no such thing and you are on your own. In that case you are responsible to no one, and free to act - however, you have been so from the start, the same as your neighbor. Maybe the land was his fanily's 500 years ago and he deems it correct if he takes it back. Maybe he simply feels superior to you and thinks he deserves it. Maybe it's the land his gods have given him his laws in ancient times and he wants it back.
In any case, in b) there is no yardstick and no one to explain anything to. You can do what YOU want or what YOUR codex of moral and ethics tells you to do, respectively, but there is no need to explain or justify anything, because it has no further implications. That's only true in case a).
@ blizzard
Polemics, polemics... it's that kind of unconstructive posts that do nothing but provoke a sharpening in tone.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 03:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A one world government can't work. Democracy only works well on a local area. Let's say there is a world wide government. China has the largest population in the world so they would get to dictate the laws for the rest of us. I don't want to be ruled from communist China. I want a local government that is accountable to me for their actions and policies. The values in China are different from the values I hold and different from the values held by the people living around me.
You do realize this is exactly the same argument that many of the original US states gave against a strong central federal government during the framing of the US Constitution, don't you? Small states were concerned that their values and needs wouldn't be represented in such a government because the big states would control everything owing to their larger populations. The problem was easily solved by a bicameral legislative body. Representation in the house is based on population; representation in the Senate is not. A similar model could be constructed for a world-government.
Not that I necessary want a worldwide legislative body, mind you. Just that your argument against it doesn't really hold much water and it's actually a bit ironic that you'd use it given US Constitutional history.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 04:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A one world government can't work. Democracy only works well on a local area.
Please define "local area". What is it? Your home? 10km radius? X population? WHAT?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ blizzard
Polemics, polemics... it's that kind of unconstructive posts that do nothing but provoke a sharpening in tone.
I guess my point is that a broader authority (such as the U.N.) isn't any more inherently just than individual countries, so the it really comes down to using wisdom to discern a.... wise/sound action from an unwise one.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not. It's just an organisation that deals with international strife. It doesn't tell anyone how to live.
You said it would have authority over the nations, its own army and the right to enforce its rulings. That seems like a supreme government to me.
Quote:
Not if there is no international law. Because in that other country, calling a respected person a moron may be the same as an attack on the whole country that can be washed off only with blood.
The difference is I believe in absolute morals and you don't. It is wrong to go to war over your leader being insulted even if a nation thinks it is ok. Morals are not made by some supreme international court of law that imposes its will (or even a voted on consensus) on everyone else.
Quote:
I repeat: you either agree on mutual international laws and keep to it or everyone has their own laws and their own morals and ethics, and in that case those of the US (or any other country) are only one of many (equal).
What is wrong with everyone having their own laws? And morality does not change regardless of what laws are in place. Laws don't make morality. What is moral exists regardless of what law exists.
If a supreme international court rules it is moral to invade Germany and rape everyone there it does not mean that it is moral to do so. Morals are absolute, not make up by some elitists sitting on a supreme international court.
Now I do know that there are countries who would love to dictate the actions fo the US. The countries that hate the US would certainly vote for policies that would hurt the US. There are nations that would love to vote for an international tax to redistribute wealth.
In your example of someone stealing my land, of course I would appeal to existing law. If we were on a desert island it would be moral for me to kill the thief to preserve my property if necessary. Since there is only one God I would know that no gods gave him my land.
Quote:
You do realize this is exactly the same argument that many of the original US states gave against a strong central federal government during the framing of the US Constitution, don't you?
Yes and they formed a weak central government. The Tenth Ammendment limits the federal government to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. But over the years the federal government has stolen more and more power of itself.
Quote:
Representation in the house is based on population; representation in the Senate is not. A similar model could be constructed for a world-government.
Except that the cultural differences across the US are small compared to the differences acrosss the entire world. The larger the goverment the less say the people have in the government. And there are no states that hate other states. There are countries that hate the US.
Quote:
Please define "local area". What is it? Your home? 10km radius? X population? WHAT?
There are lots of examples of local government. My home is a dictatorship run by my wife. My vote is "yes, dear." 
Town government is generally very responsive to the people, especially in a small town. The larger the town the less responsive the government is to the people.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 07:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's not. It's just an organisation that deals with international strife. It doesn't tell anyone how to live.
You said it would have authority over the nations, its own army and the right to enforce its rulings. That seems like a supreme government to me.
But it's jurisdiction would only be the relation between nations, not what happens within a land. We are talking about INTERNATIONAL strife. International means "between nations". So if Iraq would attack Kuwait this would be strife between nations. If China would threaten Formosa this would be strife between nation. If the US invades Iraq, this is strife between nations. I don't see how the power to rule about those and enforce them would constitute a supreme government.
Quote:
Quote:
Not if there is no international law. Because in that other country, calling a respected person a moron may be the same as an attack on the whole country that can be washed off only with blood.
The difference is I believe in absolute morals and you don't. It is wrong to go to war over your leader being insulted even if a nation thinks it is ok. Morals are not made by some supreme international court of law that imposes its will (or even a voted on consensus) on everyone else.
Quote:
I repeat: you either agree on mutual international laws and keep to it or everyone has their own laws and their own morals and ethics, and in that case those of the US (or any other country) are only one of many (equal).
What is wrong with everyone having their own laws? And morality does not change regardless of what laws are in place. Laws don't make morality. What is moral exists regardless of what law exists.
If a supreme international court rules it is moral to invade Germany and rape everyone there it does not mean that it is moral to do so. Morals are absolute, not make up by some elitists sitting on a supreme international court.
It's not quite so easy. Even though you claim that an absolute moral exist: since you approve of your country going to war in Iraq there seem to be circumstances in your moral that allow invading another country. Furthermore it must be very special circumstances, otherwise invasions might be pretty common.
Obviously then, your absolute moral depends on the specific, very relative, and objective circumstances of the situation, and I'd doubt that in that case the moral is still absolute. But that's irrelevant for the moment. The question is:
What circumstances would that be, for one, and how would we - the world - know, whether they are actually given?
So no matter the moral and ethics within a specific country, you still need a mutual definition of what would constitute a justification of going to war, and whether you believe in absolute morals or not doesn't matter.
You might see it this way: even if everyone believes in that it is wrong to murder another person - you must first prove that a murder has taken place, otherwise you cannot act on it. Which is what law and order is all about.
So even if everyone agrees on the circumstances that WOULD allow a war, you must first prove that those circumstances are given, if there shall be law and order on an international scale.
That's why you need an international court and it must have the power to enforce its decision, otherwise it makes no sense.
Here is an example: invading Iraq, the US claimed evidence about the existance of WMDs in Iraq, delivered by the secret services, but wouldn't present them.
Imagine you were at court and the attorney would claim having secret evidence that they couldn't show. That's against any legal procedure. Consequently that cannot be accepted.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 07:40 PM |
|
|
Elodin, when you say that you don't want someone else than the US government rule over you, here's what's funny: Iraq is not in USA. How come USA invaded it? This isn't only about USA. Consequently, saying "I only want to be ruled by my own government" has no basis, because in Iraq this doesn't apply, and an international strife like JJ says happens BETWEEN NATIONS, which means your beloved government isn't the only one involved.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 20:07, 26 Aug 2009.
|
Perhaps the Iraq war was just the bloated US central government acting with its stolen powers? Just posing the question. 
How come both Democrats and Republicans always promise to shrink the government but wind up growing it phenomenally?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 08:13 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:14, 26 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
How come both Democrats and Republicans always promise to shrink the government but wind up growing it phenomenally?
That's pretty easy. In a nutshell, to run for office and get elected, every politician, regardless of party affiliation, needs money. To get money, each politician has to make all sorts of promises to lobbyists and other fundraisers, both at the local level and the national level. In order to keep those promises, Congressmen will pork up every bill with all kinds of unrelated crap, earmarks, etc. All that crap costs taxpayer money and increases the Federal budget.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
How come both Democrats and Republicans always promise to shrink the government but wind up growing it phenomenally?
That's pretty easy. In a nutshell, to run for office and get elected, every politician, regardless of party affiliation, needs money. To get money, each politician has to make all sorts of promises to lobbyists and other fundraisers, both at the local level and the national level. In order to keep those promises, Congressmen will pork up every bill with all kinds of unrelated crap, earmarks, etc. All that crap costs taxpayer money and increases the Federal budget.
It was rhetorical. I knew the answer. In basic terms, politicians are hos. Hos before bros.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 09:10 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
But it's jurisdiction would only be the relation between nations, not what happens within a land.
It would dictate how nations are to interact and determines if a nation can defend its interests. There are 55 Muslim countries around the world. They could all vote in a block and say "no, you can't attack our Muslim brother even though they sponsored a nuclear terrorist attack on your soil" and hamstring the US.
The US would be a fool to give away its sovereignty in foreign affairs.
Quote:
So no matter the moral and ethics within a specific country, you still need a mutual definition of what would constitute a justification of going to war, and whether you believe in absolute morals or not doesn't matter.
Nah, The US doesn't need a panel of judges to determine what is moral and the world as a whole will never agree. There are countries that are like minded who ally themselves together. That is as it should be. The world has nothing to fear from the US. The US has been the defender of freedom around the world. The US even helps rebuild a country when it has to attack it. No other nation in history has ever done that.
Quote:
You might see it this way: even if everyone believes in that it is wrong to murder another person - you must first prove that a murder has taken place, otherwise you cannot act on it.
Nah. If a person breaks in my house and murders my wife and I catch him I'm not going to let him go until everyone agrees that he is the murderer. I don't need your permission to stop him. The US does not need your permission to combat terrorism.
Quote:
That's why you need an international court and it must have the power to enforce its decision, otherwise it makes no sense.
I don't think so. It would favor one nation's interests above another. Each nation must retain domestic and foreign sovereignty.
@Death
Quote:
Elodin, when you say that you don't want someone else than the US government rule over you, here's what's funny: Iraq is not in USA. How come USA invaded it?
1) To combat terrorists.
2) Sadaam claimed to have WMDs, in violation of his terms of surrender.
3) Saddam supported and financed terrorists, including giving financial support to families of suicide bombers.
4) Saddam was a mass murderer.
The US has been fighting side by side with Iraqis against terrorism. The US has been at war with terrorists, not at war with Iraq.
Quote:
This isn't only about USA. Consequently, saying "I only want to be ruled by my own government" has no basis, because in Iraq this doesn't apply, and an international strife like JJ says happens BETWEEN NATIONS, which means your beloved government isn't the only one involved.
Don't get mad at me because I believe in each nation being soverign in its domestic and foreign affairs. If your nation wants to give such authority to an international panel of judges, be my guest but don't get mad at others who think such an idea is terrible.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 10:41 PM |
|
|
Ok, thanks for avoiding "I'm sorry, but". And I mean that thanks.Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
But it's jurisdiction would only be the relation between nations, not what happens within a land.
It would dictate how nations are to interact and determines if a nation can defend its interests. There are 55 Muslim countries around the world. They could all vote in a block and say "no, you can't attack our Muslim brother even though they sponsored a nuclear terrorist attack on your soil" and hamstring the US.
The US would be a fool to give away its sovereignty in foreign affairs.
Wel, there was no freaking NEED to attack them, because the normal way to go would be this:
1) The US would investigate the terror bombing and find evidence that a muslimic country had financed the nominally independent terror group that did it.
2) The US would take the case to court
3) the court would be held and there would be a result
4) Depending on the result the enforcement part would act or not.
If you go to the police and report that burglars robbed you, you are not supposed to charge the hide-out of those burglars personally.
Quote:
Quote:
So no matter the moral and ethics within a specific country, you still need a mutual definition of what would constitute a justification of going to war, and whether you believe in absolute morals or not doesn't matter.
Nah, The US doesn't need a panel of judges to determine what is moral and the world as a whole will never agree.
It's not a question of determining what is moral, it is a queszion of ACTING so. I know full well what is right and wrong and don't need anyone telling me. Still, sometimes I act differently - and need a mod telling me what IS ok and what is NOT.
And therefore at this point all discussion stops. This is sheer blind arrogance. The US are not ABOVE the law. Nor ARE they the law or the moral yardstick.
End of discussion.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 12:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The world has nothing to fear from the US.
From what you described, I think they do, since the US basically can do whatever it wants.Quote:
Don't get mad at me because I believe in each nation being soverign in its domestic and foreign affairs. If your nation wants to give such authority to an international panel of judges, be my guest but don't get mad at others who think such an idea is terrible.
I wouldn't mind your idea at all, if you kept it to yourself that is. Invasion breaks that like... totally.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 02:07 AM |
|
|
Errrrr I think the US would be stupid to go to an international court to ask for permission to defend itself after a nuclear attack. It is time to make a glass parking lot.
Quote:
And therefore at this point all discussion stops. This is sheer blind arrogance. The US are not ABOVE the law. Nor ARE they the law or the moral yardstick.
Errrr a group of people can't just get together and say "We are the Supreme International Court of International Law. You will bow to our will and do as we command." Well, they can but the US won't be getting them a shrubbery to appease them.
Clicky
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 02:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Errrr a group of people can't just get together and say "We are the Supreme International Court of International Law. You will bow to our will and do as we command." Well, they can but the US won't be getting them a shrubbery to appease them.
LOL
You really don't get it? They don't command the US what to do within its borders. It can do whatever it want. However, the moment it involves another nation is the moment the US already "commands" what to do with that other nation.
I'd say "We are the United States of America. You will bow to our will and do as we command." is more appropriate, because it reflects real life better.
And the US actually dictates since it's the US who goes into someone else's borders. The "group of people" you mentioned do not get into any borders, they dictate inter-border relationships so to speak.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 02:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The world has nothing to fear from the US.
Oh, the citizens of Irag will be glad to hear that.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 02:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The world has nothing to fear from the US.
'Course it does.
You, for example.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 04:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The world has nothing to fear from the US.
'Course it does.
You, for example.
But only the part of the world that hates the truth, for I wield the truth as a mighty weapon that lays low their dark plans. 
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 05:19 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:19, 29 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
1) To combat terrorists.
2) Sadaam claimed to have WMDs, in violation of his terms of surrender.
3) Saddam supported and financed terrorists, including giving financial support to families of suicide bombers.
4) Saddam was a mass murderer.
The terrorists responsible were in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. So let's cross off 1.
2. It's words like these that remind me of the administration's backing off the WMD charge and former president Bush saying in a state of the union speech, "Weapons of Mass Destruction related programs." We went to war with Iraq because we were SURE (or so we were led to believe by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest of the dirtbag neo-cons) that Saddam had WMDs. Now you're saying that we're justified going to war, costing 10s of thousnds of lives, untold billions of dollars, untold damage to our international prestige, because Saddam effin' said he had WMDs?
3. Rrright. Please be more specific as to which groups he financed. Did he finance the IRA? They're a terrorist group. How about Shining Path? They're a terrorist group. Guess what he didn't finance? The sonsasows who brought down the towers.
Yes, the world is aware that he gave thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Let me repeat. Palastinian suicide bombers. Guess what their targets were? Actually. Don't guess. Encouraging some people to answer me is dumb seeing as how the lies and half-truths some people say only infuriate me.
4. Yes, Saddam was a bad man who did awful things to his people. But the world is full of bad dictators who do awful things to their people. Point 4 is moot.
You surely missed the key part to the Downing Street memo where the they pointedly said, "facts were being fixed around the policy."
Do you have any effin' clue what that means? It means we were effin' bamboozled. But you're incapable of seeing it for the truth.
The truth is, we Americans have much more to fear from our own fractured, isolated, and paranoid religious right than we do from the swarthy saracens.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 27, 2009 06:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Encouraging you to answer me is dumb seeing as how the lies and half-truths you say only infuriate me.
Quote:
Because you're what John Steward would call, "a partisan hack."
I do not lie and I am not a partisan hack. I am an independent conservative.
I would appreciate it if you would lay off the insults and just address the issues. A discussion would be much more productive if we don't try to see who can out insult the other..
Quote:
The terrorists responsible were in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. So let's cross off 1.
No, Saddam was an active sponsor of terrorism and as you admitted, he compensated the families of suicide bombers. I will list more of his connections below.
2) You seem to be unaware that Congress saw the same intelligence reports as Bush and practically every member of Congress wanted to invade Iraq.
Saddam lied about having WMDs and that is one of the things the intelligence reports went by.
Perhaps you would care to watch the 60 minutes interview with Saddam's interrogator.
Clicky
3) Here is a link that discusses Saddam's support and financing of terrorism.
Clicky
Quote:
Abstract: Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.
You should read all of the below article, I'm just quoting some of it.
Clicky
Quote:
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had extensive ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, according to an official report published by the Pentagon’s Institute for Defense Analyses and released through the Joint Forces Command.
That report, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, came up with some startling revelations in its 59 pages:
• Saddam’s Iraq trained terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq and in 1999 sent 10 terrorist-training graduates to London to carry out attacks throughout Europe.
• Saddam’s Iraq stockpiled munitions (including explosives, missile launchers and silencer-equipped small arms) at its embassies in the Middle East, Asia and parts of Europe. (Pages 3-4)
• In September of 2001, Saddam’s Iraq sought out and compiled a list of 43 suicide-bomb volunteers in a “Martyrdom Project.” (Pages 7-8)
• The report contains language from a captured Iraqi document which references an attempted assassination of Danielle Mitterand, wife of French President Francois Mitterand, by car bomb. (Page 11)
• The report’s authors describe Saddam’s Iraq as a “long-standing supporter of international terrorism” including several organizations designated as international terrorist organizations by the US State Department. (Page 13)
• Among the organizations that captured Iraqi documents indicate were supported by Saddam’s Iraq were: (Pages 13-15).
Fatah-Revolutionary Council (Abu Nidal Organization). ....
Palestine Liberation Front .....
Renewal and Jihad Organization .....
Islamic Ulama Group .....
The Afghani Islamic Party .....
Islamic Jihad Organization ......
Islamic Jihad Organization (Egyptian Islamic Jihad). .....
In other words, Saddam’s Iraq had a longstanding relationship with the co-leader of Al Qaeda.
• Captured documents show that Saddam’s Iraq was training non-Iraqis in Iraqi training camps a decade before Operation Desert Storm, including fighters from the following nations: Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea, and Morroco. (Pages 15-16)
Quote:
The truth is, we Americans have much more to fear from our own fractured, isolated, and paranoid religious right than we do from the swarthy saracens.
I find nothing to worry about with from the "religious right" in the US.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
