Log in

View Full Version : The U$ Is THE Rogue State



Fires of History
30th April 2002, 01:31
Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who's The Biggest Rogue Of All? (http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPolicy/boffroguebig.cfm)

The U$!

Here are 25 perfect reasons why:

1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement--the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

4. April 2001, the US was not reelected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)--and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries. Although President Clinton signed the Treaty, he announced that the United States would oppose it, along with 6 others (including China and Russia). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to ratify. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC. In April 2002 the ICC was scheduled to go into effect after being ratified by the required 60 nations; the Bush administration announced that it might "unsign" the Treaty, something the United States has never before done.

6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.

7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling greenhouse gas emissions and global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001; no other country has chosen to abandon the treaty completely. In November 2001 the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakesh (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval. In February 2002 Mr. Bush announced a new plan to limit emissions--by measures that are to be strictly voluntary. The United States is the largest single producer of emissions, generating 20 percent of the world's total.

8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program). Meanwhile, the United States has escalated its opposition to the European Union's "Galileo" project, a 30-satellite space system for navigation and positioning that would rival the U.S. system. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the EU in December 2001 that "Galileo" would have "negative consequences for future NATO operations."

9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.

10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001.

11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa.

12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.

13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).

14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.

15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).

16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.

17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia. A further treaty banning the recruitment of children under 18 years of age by armies and rebel militias was approved by the UN General Assembly in May 2000 and took effect in February 2002. It has been signed by 96 countries and ratified by 18, but not by the United States which allows voluntary enlistment at 17.

20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.

21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.

22. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, followed by the 1994 Agreement relating to Implementation of Part IX (Deep Seabed Mining), establishing a legal framework for management of marine resources and preservation of the marine environment for future generations (including fish stocks, minerals, international navigation, marine scientific research and marine technologies). President Clinton submitted these treaties to the Senate in 1994, but they have not been ratified, as they have been by 135 and 100 countries respectively. The primary obstacle for applying them remains the absence of US ratification.

23. Long-time violator of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols, by detaining people and holding them in custody, at times without charges, and failing to notify their governments when they are foreign nationals. In recent months Canada and European countries have expressed frustration at the dearth of information available to them on many cases, as well as concern about reported mistreatment of some detainees.

24. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, January 2000: an international treaty sponsored by 130 nations, seeking to protect biological diversity from risks posed by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology. To date, it has been ratified by 13 countries and signed by 95 more, including United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, both Koreas, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Mexico. The United States has long argued that there is no reason for such a protocol and successfully weakened the accord, has not ratified it, and is not expected to do so.

25. Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26).

Ernest Everhard
30th April 2002, 08:03
So the US is the rougue state, not because it commits massive international crime and human rights violations, but because its not signing new laws that would make what is bad and illegal only more illegal. The reason the US doesn't sign these agreements is that they are invasions on its sovereignty.

vox
30th April 2002, 16:52
"The reason the US doesn't sign these agreements is that they are invasions on its sovereignty."

Good god, Ernest. This is a bit embarassing.

If you're very concerned about sovereignty, then you must be opposed to the WTO and many free trade agreements, correct? No, for you're on record as supporting free trade agreements and, in fact, recommended "reverse pressure" against the USA by other countries in order to stop gov't subsidies.

From tuna to gasoline to steroid-laden beef, we find the sovereignty of nations, including the US, undermined. Perhaps you need to check out Chapter 11 of NAFTA, yes?

Of course, for almost three decades the ABM treaty was fine, but now, suddenly, violates our "sovereignty." Nations entering into arms agreements is a threat. Corporations being able to restrict and change domestic policy on the grounds of "free" trade, however, isn't?

How bizarre these capitalists are.

vox

Ernest Everhard
30th April 2002, 18:12
last I checked I had very little to do with US international relations, so whatever I'm on the record saying doesn't matter.

vox
30th April 2002, 19:51
"last I checked I had very little to do with US international relations, so whatever I'm on the record saying doesn't matter."

I certainly hope that this was a joke, for it's laugh-out-loud funny.

Or is this the new and improved capitalist defense? Offer up platitudes and blanket assertions, say things in one post and say the opposite in another, and then say, heck, it doesn't matter what I say.

Interesting.

vox

Ernest Everhard
30th April 2002, 20:08
Quote: from vox on 4:52 pm on April 30, 2002
"The reason the US doesn't sign these agreements is that they are invasions on its sovereignty."

Good god, Ernest. This is a bit embarassing.

If you're very concerned about sovereignty, then you must be opposed to the WTO and many free trade agreements, correct? No, for you're on record as supporting free trade agreements and, in fact, recommended "reverse pressure" against the USA by other countries in order to stop gov't subsidies.

From tuna to gasoline to steroid-laden beef, we find the sovereignty of nations, including the US, undermined. Perhaps you need to check out Chapter 11 of NAFTA, yes?

Of course, for almost three decades the ABM treaty was fine, but now, suddenly, violates our "sovereignty." Nations entering into arms agreements is a threat. Corporations being able to restrict and change domestic policy on the grounds of "free" trade, however, isn't?

How bizarre these capitalists are.

vox


I have in previous posts, in the GPT section, come out opposed to WTO programs and supported initiatives put forth by institutes like the ILD. The WTO and the IMF are sometimes misguided, I agree. What my reply was to, was your assertion that I'm on the record supporting free trade agreements, yet I am for national sovereignty which is infringed upon by institutions like the WTO.

Fires of History
30th April 2002, 21:23
The NAFTA example is apt.

Citing NAFTA, the United Parcel Sercive (UPS) is suing the Canadian government for $160 million.

Why? Because, according to UPS, the Canadian government is 'wrongly' supporting Canada Post, and Canada Post has 'unfair' revenue breaks and subsidies.

This is the equivalent of FedEx suing the U$ government for subsidizing the U$ Postal Service.

'Free' trade is a joke at best, and a threat to any so-called 'sovereignty' of nations at worst.

And Ernest, while many of your posts are laced with bits of logic, it is ridiculous to say that the U$, of all countries in the world, has the right to defend its supposed sovereignty. Mostly because it is the only nation that does so on such a regular basis. Which begs the question: Is it really 'sovereignty' we're talking about?

Is the international community supposed to settle for the U$ rarely going along with any international agreements? And pulling out of ones they have already committed to?

The point stands. While the international community at large willingly enters into a plethora of binding agreements, the U$ for some reason feels it has a 'right' to stay out whenever it suits their purposes, or even pull out of already signed ones if they become burdensome for some reason.

The U$ claims again and again to be a 'friend to the world,' but their record shows otherwise. It's more like, 'We're your friend if it benefits us and goes along with our plans.' How more rogue can you get?

PaulDavidHewson
1st May 2002, 18:20
"5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries. Although President Clinton signed the Treaty, he announced that the United States would oppose it, along with 6 others (including China and Russia). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to ratify. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC. In April 2002 the ICC was scheduled to go into effect after being ratified by the required 60 nations; the Bush administration announced that it might "unsign" the Treaty, something the United States has never before done. "

they also added something else that would make it legal for them to extract any USA citizen being trialed there with military force.

Btw: I live in the Hague, I was there when Milosevic was brought in by helicopter.

Fires of History
2nd May 2002, 00:40
My main point was that this will NOT be the last time a corporation sues a government.

When a corporation can sue a government, what worse threat to sovereignty is there?

Ernest Everhard
2nd May 2002, 01:26
corporations can sue governments all the time, the benefit and pitfall of corporations is that they are granted the legal rights of individuals. In a legal sense its not that different from a person suing a government. Its actually quite healthy for a government to have accountability.

Astrofro2001
2nd May 2002, 02:37
I'm heavily anti-Bush so all these agreements that we stepped out on, in my oppinion are caused by Bush's belief that we must be put above the rest of the world. How can a country actually ellect such a leader.

Fires of History
2nd May 2002, 05:38
Ernest,

I think you missed the point that the Canadian government is being sued for subsidizing its OWN postal service.

How is this accountability?

UPS is just upset that more people are using Canada Post instead of them. Less profits, that's their main beef.

'Free' trade agreements are a threat to sovereignty.

And why should a corporation have the same rights as an individual? It's a business opportunity, not a person.

Ernest Everhard
2nd May 2002, 06:36
same rights and accountability as an individual, by the way the US govt. doesn't subsidize the US postal service.

Fires of History
2nd May 2002, 13:01
"same rights and accountability as an individual"

Uh...I asked why a business should have the same rights as an individual.

"by the way the US govt. doesn't subsidize the US postal service."

Perhaps that is why an amerikkkan-based corporation decided it was justified in suing the Canadian government for subsidizing its own postal service? Oh, I forgot, every country should be administered like the U$. Yeah, sovereignty is assured through 'free' trade agreements alright...

Smoking Frog II
2nd May 2002, 14:05
You are right.

The US definitly have a policy/plan to undermine the world using trade by isolating counties such as Cuba to fill their own F***ing pockets with gold.

I agree that President bush is a total nutter who has someone telling him what to do. He shouldn't be president or politician e.t.c.
What a damn nutter.

Fight for what you believe in
Fight the Capital
Wear your red star, for Che and Fidel

Nateddi
2nd May 2002, 14:07
Welcome to the board comrade

Ernest Everhard
2nd May 2002, 19:13
a business shouldn't have the same rights as an individual, a corporation should.

That way, they are as legally accountable as an individual for its actions.

As for the suing of the canadian govt. That was a treaty to which all parties involved had agreed to. The EU recently moved against the US in international courts to have the US lift banana tariffs. It happens all the time, its good that its happening, cause it lets us know that these legal faculties that have been set up to establish a fair legal playing field is working.

truthseeker
2nd May 2002, 21:48
the US Govt. DOES subsidize the US Postal Service. the US Postal service is NOT privatized. with all due respect, where do you get your misinformation? please do me, us a favor... and this is how i play: if you're unsure then don't say definite things, if you just don't know then don't act as if you do, if you are sure then by all means fire away, but your statement is blatantly wrong. what you said could very well affect the outcome of this argument. let's keep these debates clean and sound. let truth prevail... here are some useful links below:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-06-01.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49658,00.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-01.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49614,00.html

Ernest Everhard
3rd May 2002, 01:08
The fact that its a public corporation does not mean that its subsidized, do you know what that means? Certainly, the US government and people 'own' the US postal service. But the Government does not provide any artificial discounts to the US postal service, the only advantage it has is tax exemption, because it is a government organization.

truthseeker
3rd May 2002, 15:37
Everhard:
"The fact that its a public corporation does not mean that its subsidized, do you know what that means?"
here is a definition of subsidized: to aid or promote with public money. the us postal service receives tax dollars to help keep it going.
"Certainly, the US government and people 'own' the US postal service." the us govt. gives it our money, the govt. also does NOT allow any other mailing agency to do what the USPS does, that's a monopoly. like we have a choice? we don't, so we really 'own' then? i'd have to say no b/c the govt. practically runs the damn thing.
"But the Government does not provide any artificial discounts to the US postal service, the only advantage it has is tax exemption, because it is a government organization." what? what did you just say? i'm afraid you aren't making any sense. take a look at what subsidized means again. it's a frickin govt. owned and run operation. it's far from being privatized, they want more money (our money).
again, take a read on these links. explains things pretty well i believe:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-06-01.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49658,00.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-01.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49614,00.html

guerrillaradio
3rd May 2002, 17:06
Quote: from Fires of History on 12:40 am on May 2, 2002
My main point was that this will NOT be the last time a corporation sues a government.

Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't be able to sue a government?? Why not?? What happens if the government genuinely does wrong??

Ernest Everhard
3rd May 2002, 19:24
Quote: from truthseeker on 3:37 pm on May 3, 2002
Everhard:
"The fact that its a public corporation does not mean that its subsidized, do you know what that means?"
here is a definition of subsidized: to aid or promote with public money. the us postal service receives tax dollars to help keep it going.
"Certainly, the US government and people 'own' the US postal service." the us govt. gives it our money, the govt. also does NOT allow any other mailing agency to do what the USPS does, that's a monopoly. like we have a choice? we don't, so we really 'own' then? i'd have to say no b/c the govt. practically runs the damn thing.
"But the Government does not provide any artificial discounts to the US postal service, the only advantage it has is tax exemption, because it is a government organization." what? what did you just say? i'm afraid you aren't making any sense. take a look at what subsidized means again. it's a frickin govt. owned and run operation. it's far from being privatized, they want more money (our money).
again, take a read on these links. explains things pretty well i believe:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-06-01.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49658,00.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-01.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49614,00.html


wow, truthseeker, are you really this dumb.

first you argue that the USPS is subsidized, to prove this you link to a bunch of cato (goodguys at cato) and foxnews articles in favor of PRIVATIZATION.
Then you say that the US government gives subsidies to the US postal service, when all I see are the emergency funds that were requisitioned in light of the anthrax scare.

ofcourse is 'far from being privatized' but that hardly means its subsidized.

The US government doesn't disallow other organizations to do what the USPS does. Its simply too unfeasible for any other organization to peform the service the USPS performs. Not even the brilliant minds at cato have it right this time, at least in my opinion.

yeah you're links explain why it should be privatized, thats a whole other argument, and we can get into it if you want, but they don't state that its subsidized, which its not...

vox
3rd May 2002, 21:18
As I recall, the topic of corporations being able to sue gov't was brought up as a result of Ernest suggesting that sovereignty is the reason that the US does not ratify international agreements. I question that reasoning, for the US is eager to join certain international agreements that undoubtedly weaken sovereignty, and NAFTA is an example of that.

If California wants to outlaw a gas additive that was found to be toxic and is polluting the ground water, I believe that the state has that right. A Canadian company, however, does not, and brought suit against California to list the ban. When Canada outlawed MMT in order to protect public health, suit was brought against the government of Ottawa by a US company and Canada was forced to overturn the law.

If sovereignty was an issue, then why would US leaders be so anxious to get NAFTA passed? Why would Bush want to expand it using the FTAA?

It was the reasoning that Ernest used that I questioned, and I still do.

vox

truthseeker
4th May 2002, 07:26
you know, i think this is it... it's entirely too hard to hold a decent conversation on here. dude, the usps is subsidized. there is no other organization like it b/c it's against the law. the usps gets tax payer money, why do they have to go to congress to get things approved? yes the guys at CATO do have it right, if you dont think so then take it up with them but it's your "oppinion" right? dude, you are a dumbass. i'm sorry to come down on you so hard but your argument is just dumb. i think the only way i'm going to really get any GOOD and HONEST discussion here is to actually speak to socialists in person. it's not privatized, it's subsidized. yeah, they make a little revenue but not enough b/c it's govt. owned and ran. no dude, you are the dumb one here. i'm sorry but this is my last post. i'm out, this place takes up too much of my time and i never get any good rebutals... just people talking out of their ass like you ernest. you're dumb dude, you just dont like being wrong. that's it, that's all i can come to. you can reply back i suppose but i'm not even going to look at this place again. it would behoove me to. i'll talk to socialists on campus who might have an idea what they're talking about.. maybe they'll actually admit that they dont know everything. it's really upsetting that there are people like you in this world. too dumb to realize that they're dumb? i certainly hope not, change dude.... drop your pride and seek truth. i pity people like you. you know what's wonderful about this last post? i get the last say, that's it. and you're still wrong. that makes it even better. so long.

Ernest Everhard
4th May 2002, 07:56
its funny, cause the usps is neither privatized, or subsidized...

Capitalist Imperial
4th May 2002, 23:18
I think there are a few points we are missing here. I think most of us can agree than
neither pure communism nor pure capitalism exists. The present systems that
contemporary empires are based on lie on a spectrum between the two theoretical
ideologies. Also, we could argue all day about the acadmic principles of each system,
but real world data proves that Capitalism is the much better system. The
free-marketcapitalist system that America represents has produced the strongest
economy that has ever existed, and the best standard of living ever. Even America's
poor live relatively well. This is a measurable fact. Notions of exploitation of thirld world
countries for the most part amount to nothing more than making excuses for nations that
have not been as industrious and ingeneous (and to some extent lucky) as the US has
been. I mean, please, exploitation? What do you call standing in line 4 hours for a loaf of
bread? Killing 50 million people (Stalin)? What more needs to be said??? Another
consideration is that capitalism encourages individual innovation and acheivement. This
principle is proven in reality in thatthe vast majority of technological innovation that has
benefitted humanity in the last 150 years has come out of the United States. This
includes both the computer you are looking at and the internet you are communicationg
through. Also, we discuss exploitation of smaller countries by the U.S, but fail to address
the fact that the US is by far the most humane and alturistic country on earth, both in
terms of dollars spent (debt relief and direct monetary aid) and in people and
organizations contrributing service and aid abroad. When there is a major naturalk
disaster, what is the only country to contribute money and resources to assist in aid? The
USA. I cant remember a time when the Soviets, Cuba, or China contributed to foreign
relief of any kind. Finally, immigration. The USA has quite a challenge accomodating the
thousands of immigrants (worker-class, mind you) that enter its borders daily. Many of
these people are risking both their and their family's life just for an opportunity to get in.
Why? Because capitalist "workers" still live much better than communist or socialist
"workers". Needless to say, China, Cuba, and the then Soviet union (failed
system,remember?) had no immigration problem. Their border control budgets were
allocated to keep people in!!! Its a self explanatory phenomenon!!! So, we could argue
academic and philisophical principals all day, but real world data and behavior makes it
self evident that the American form of Capitalism is by far the best system going today.
Also, I have been pretty much discussing economic aspects of capitalism, to say
nothing of the personal freedoms and the opportunity given to Amercian citizens to
pursue success and what makes them happy. These fundamental principles are, to say
the least, severely hindered by centrist governments. Look at real world activity, and
you see the best real world system.

BatistaNationalista
6th May 2002, 04:23
You guys make me laugh.

U$ ameriKKKa, ha ha ha.

You don't even know anything, just posting your propaganda.

guerrillaradio
6th May 2002, 14:10
Quote: from BatistaNationalista on 4:23 am on May 6, 2002
You guys make me laugh.


The feeling's mutual, sonny...