Test underway

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 04:05 pm

John Howard continues to rub it in:

Three years ago there was criticism of the United States and her allies, including Australia, for not further using the processes of the United Nations.

The view was taken then that that was not going to work. We now, in relation to Iran, have the opportunity to see how full those processes can be made to work. It’s quite a test for the United Nations and we’re very keen that that test take place.

Heh!

Posted by Tim B. on 05/21/2006 at 06:48 PM
    1. Didn’t see Mr. Howard with Wolfie. Did Mr. Howard snicker, or guffaw?

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 21 at 07:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. John Howard is assuming that those critics share the aim of a non-nuclear Iran. I suspect they don’t.

      Posted by Ross on 2006 05 21 at 07:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. Lets see the most Un-sless organisation in the world step in and save the day, just out of curiosity haven’t thay been saving the the day since Gulf war 1 or did I miss something ( that’s right, I missed coruption.) OIL For FOOD or was that OIL for BRIBES. I’m all in a daze now better reaply cold compress to head.

      Posted by shocked and stunned on 2006 05 21 at 07:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. Nah, Mr. Howard is just saying, “Let’s feed them some more rope.”

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 21 at 07:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m sure Kofi Annan will put the icing on the cake of his Seceratary General tenure with some decisive action.
      Of course delivering his ultimatums by flying pigs.

      Posted by Hank Reardon on 2006 05 21 at 07:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Even now, with the left railing against operations in Iraq, they have every opportunity to try and do something to avert the iminent accident that is Iran. Will they do anything? No. They will wait until the situation requires the help of countries such as Australia and the US and then begin to do something,i.e, sniping from the sidelines.

      Posted by Nic on 2006 05 21 at 07:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. Heh, indeed

      Posted by Arty on 2006 05 21 at 07:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. Nic

      They will wait until the situation requires the help of countries such as Australia and the US and then begin to do something,i.e, sniping from the sidelines.

      Exactly.

      Our citizens bear the blood, sweat, tears and money, while these third rate hacks let their mouths, grow bigger then their asses.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 21 at 07:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. Its pointless trying to point it out to lefties that the UN is totally impotent against rogue states like Iran, North Korea. As far as the left wing lobby is concerned- Rule 1. America is to be blamed for everything.
      Rule 2. If there seem to be other glaring counter evidence- quickly repeat Rule 1.

      When Iran gets nukes, and waves them around – the idiot Lefties are just going to call for the US to unilaterally disarm its nukes. Heck with a lefty President like Hilary Clinton- America might just do that. Lefties will still blame America for not “aiding” the UN- and giving it “more aid”.

      Posted by Wylie Wilde on 2006 05 21 at 08:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. I suspect ABC-TV’s Barry Cassidy firmly believes Hillary Clinton will be the next president and Iran won’t be the Republicans’ problem for much longer. Yesterday on ‘Insiders’, Cassidy could find only one fault with Howard’s recent meetings with Bush. Cassidy believes that Blair and Bush are finished and wished that Howard had spent more time cultivating the “next generation of leadership” in the US rather than just making friends with Bush.

      Posted by Skeeter on 2006 05 21 at 08:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. Funnily enough, I haven’t noticed Greenpeace jumping up and down about how awful it is for the Iranians to want nuclear power, peaceful or otherwise.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 05 21 at 09:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. There was an amazingly instructive letter in today’s Australian which is worth reprinting in full:

      Due to the Iranian leader’s explicit comments regarding Israel, as well as his tenacious course of action in pursuing nuclear weapons, it seems that almost all reputable journalists and experts on Middle East affairs are warning of the possible grave danger in which the state of Israel finds itself.

      While there is serious debate on how immediate and to what degree this danger actually poses to the Jewish state, no one is denying Iran’s desire, led by its fanatic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for the destruction of the Jewish state.

      The main question is: what action, if any, should Israel take? It seems to me that Israel is in a catch-22 situation. If it does nothing, and relies on the existing, ineffective international diplomatic course of action, it will be accused by some, mainly in the Jewish quarter, of not defending its citizens; a legitimate argument that citizens of other states would undoubtedly use to support their government’s resolute action under such circumstances.

      However, if Israel chooses to pre-emptively attack Iran to prevent it from carrying out its repeated threat to launch a nuclear attack against it, the international community would inevitably express its instantaneous condemnation of the Jewish state’s actions.

      Once again, what is Israel to do? If recent history is anything to go by it should certainly not rely on the international community.
      Manny Waks
      B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission Inc
      Caulfield South, Vic

      The UN was originally set up to prevent exactly what it now facilitates. The slogan “Never Again” is really nothing more than a mere slogan.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 05 21 at 09:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. It’s quite a test for the United Nations and we’re very keen that that test take place.

      Outcome #1: Under intense pressure from Kofi & the Blue Hats, Iran capitulates, and ends it’s nuclear weapon program.

      Outcome #2: Under UNtense (i.e.,laughable)  pressure from Kofi & the Blue Hats, Iran continues, and developes nuclear weapons.

      Any wagers on which outcome we’ll see?

      Posted by rinardman on 2006 05 21 at 10:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. John Howard continues to rub it in….

      And so he SHOULD!

      Posted by Brian on 2006 05 21 at 10:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why are we all allowing Russia and China to decide what the rest of us will do?

      Posted by JerryS on 2006 05 21 at 10:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. If Iran does not behave, the UN will send them a letter saying how vewwy, vewwy concerned they are about it.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 05 21 at 10:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why doesn’t he go further and put his money where his mouth is, so to speak ?

      Australia should withdraw from the UN and stop funding this monstrous waste of resources and diplomatic effort.

      Posted by Jono on 2006 05 21 at 10:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. The “processes of the UN” haven’t worked too well in Dafur either.Despite recent hand wringing by Annan the genocide of the past three years continues.He always seems reluctant to do anything that might offend Arab Muslims even when they are engaged in the wholesale slaughter of Africans.

      Posted by Lew on 2006 05 21 at 10:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Watch this video which is of Hans Brix Blix responding to his character in Team America.

      Life imitates art…

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 05 21 at 11:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. OT – out of control boat crashes into PM’s residence – link

      —Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 05 21 at 11:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. #18 – Tsk, Lew, the UN has carefully studied the Darfur situation and declined to call it a genocide.

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 05 21 at 11:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. ROFL Nora, although a bit disappointing to see it was just some mildly inebriated casual boatie as opposed to greenpeace or similar “making a statement”.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 05 21 at 11:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Does anyone really think that Europe would mind if Iran nuked Israel?

      Europe, France especially, is hopelessly anti-Semitic (Google it, especially “I have killed my Jew. I will go to heaven”). If they can get Islam to do their dirty work for them they will be thrilled. Plus, if you buy ShrinkWrap’s theory on Europe & the guilt of the holocaust, having Islam kill off the Jews would absolve Europe of their guilt from the holocaust.

      So, Europe (a long supporter of the PLO) is OK-dokey with Iran killing off as many Jews as they can.

      If Israel or the US stops Iran, then they can blame us for harm done to those nice peaceful Iranians. After all Islam is the religion of peace. Also, Europe would be relieved to have Iran disarmed.

      See it is a win-win for Europe.
      On one hand, Jews dead. Europe wins
      On the other hand, US and Israel bad & Iran disarmed. Europe wins.
      What Iran has to do to get Europe to notice is nuke a European city, like Rome (head of the Christian church, not that a post-Christian Europe cares).
      But Iran is too smart to do that. Demographics are in Islam’s favour in Europe. Just wait 20-40 years an Islam can enforce their will (Sharia law, dhimmihood [sp?]) via the ballot box. Look at the cartoon riots. As Steyn said, that was the act of a house buyer declaring how he’ll remodel the kitchen when he owns the house. Islam knows it will soon own Europe, and they are just setting down markers on how things will change when they do.

      Posted by EvilDave on 2006 05 22 at 12:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. We aid and abet the documented crimes of the UN by trying to pretend that it is anything other that the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against humanity.  Only a massive act of evasion could keep anyone from speaking out against this travesty.

      There can be no good done in the name of the UN.  It is a mafia of dictator nations justifying each others barbarity, all the while daring us to name it.

      We are continuing to fight the enemy’s war. And pay for the privilege.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 05 22 at 12:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #21 Achillea.I wonder how many more Africans will have to be slaughtered by Kofi’s Arab friends before the event would be viewed as genocide by the UN.Still it probably doesn’t matter,the killing will continue either way,and the UN will continue to do nothing useful to stop it.After all if they could effectively ignore the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people over a period of three years why should they worry what it’s called.

      Posted by Lew on 2006 05 22 at 12:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. What about Howard for Secretary-General? I suspect that this could be quite useful in enraging and dividing lefties the world over…

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 05 22 at 12:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. All the UN is “good” for these days is (sometimes) feeding some starving, and some piss weak low level diplomatic spying. Everything else is a waste of money. I don’t know about our leaders but if they decided to close it down and start another one as a democratic only good guy club then I’d have some faith once again.

      Posted by ratman on 2006 05 22 at 02:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. While we’re bagging France:

      The Complete Military History of France

      Gallic Wars – Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.

      Hundred Years War – Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; “France’s armies are only victorious when not led by a Frenchman.”

      Italian Wars – Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

      Wars of Religion – France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

      Thirty Years War – France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

      War of Devolution – Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

      The Dutch War – Tied

      War of the Augsburg League/King William’s War/French and Indian War – Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three “ties” in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

      War of the Spanish Succession – Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough , which they have loved every since.

      American Revolution – In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the formerly English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome”, and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; ” France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”

      French Revolution – Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

      The Napoleonic Wars – Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

      The Franco-Prussian War – Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France ‘s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

      World War I – Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French gene pool.

      World War II – Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

      War in Indochina – Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

      Algerian Rebellion – Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

      War on Terrorism – France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to the Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.

      [courtesy Gophergas]
      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 22 at 02:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh MentalFloss, you are brutal!  Funny, but brutal.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 05 22 at 02:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. Except that France was largely saved by the Australians under Monash.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 05 22 at 02:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. Ye have such little faith.  Kofi will come through. He’s is aggressively making the determination of how to appease Iran.  After 5 years of postulating, he will triumphantly welcome Iraq as a nuclear power and we can all give a sigh of relief that the threat of Iran gaining nuclear weapons is over.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 05 22 at 03:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #28 No matter how many times I read that it never ceases to give me a grin.
      Another good one is “For Sale. French military equipment, excellent condition, never used only dropped once.”

      Posted by Hank Reardon on 2006 05 22 at 03:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Howard likes to be droll sometimes.

      The UN is largely composed of authoritarian states and kleptocracies.

      They have succeeded in replicating the Orwellian theatre necessary to the status quo in their own lairs in the heart of the organisation.  It’s full of the language of justice while covertly servicing the interests of what has become a club of thieves and killers.

      It’s most brazen fraud has been to claim just this about the United States, a nation whose record, while not perfect, is a standing and shaming rebuke to cheap tyrannies.

      Its latest triumph has been the dimunition of the idea of human rights as a ‘western construct’ – a poison which kills the spirit of the UN Charter and the wholly good intentions of the Allies who founded it.  The ideological foundations of that demolition provided by western ‘intellectuals’, of course.

      Eventually the gap widens to the point of farce, to take the Human Rights Commission and its equally flawed ‘reformed’ successor, the Human Rights Council, as only one example.

      What was it Mark Steyn said about dog shit and cream?

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 05 22 at 03:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. I watched some stupid female journalist on BBC World this morning argue that it would be wrong for Britain to pursue nuclear power, yet Iran pursuing nuclear power was “their right”.

      I can’t believe she was dumb enough not to see her own contradiction.

      Posted by tdw77 on 2006 05 22 at 03:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. What was it Mark Steyn said about dog shit and cream? 
      That its a poor substitute for cheese cake?

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 05 22 at 03:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. anagallis at 26:
      What about Howard for Secretary-General? I suspect that this could be quite useful in enraging and dividing lefties the world over…

      This had great potential for giving all lefties the face of a cat’s backside!

      “Howard will retire…”  The Aussie Left rejoices….

      “…to become Secretary General”  The Aussie (and possibly other) Left goes nuts in a spasm of indignation, mouth-frothing and wide eyed madness.

      Oh, please let it be so.  Even the threat would be worth watching.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 05 22 at 05:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. Off topic,

      While no-one was looking, another country just joined the UN’s happy family

      Montenegro is now the tallest nation in the world.

      Posted by AussieJim on 2006 05 22 at 05:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. anagallis at 26:
      What about Howard for Secretary-General? I suspect that this could be quite useful in enraging and dividing lefties the world over…

      This had great potential for giving all lefties the face of a cat’s backside!

      “Howard will retire…” The Aussie Left rejoices….

      “…to become Secretary General” The Aussie (and possibly other) Left goes nuts in a spasm of indignation, mouth-frothing and wide eyed madness.

      Oh, please let it be so. Even the threat would be worth watching.

      Why woud you wish that on JWH? callous bastards! What has Howard ever done to you?

      Posted by entropy on 2006 05 22 at 06:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. We shouldn’t forget that if nothing else the UN serves as a symbol of the ideals that came around post WW2 and in this role it is very important.  The symbolism of western alliances and the idea that rogue states and war criminals will pay from a united international community, even if it never happens, seems to have had its importance underestimated.
      Consider that perhaps the only reason Iran now so loudly and openly pursues its goals is because of how totally undermined the UN has been in the last years with the politicking that led to Iraq.  I find it ironic for Mr Howard to put forward a test to the very processes that he has helped weaken.  Consider that perhaps the only reason that the US and Oz now go through the UN so eagerly is because they are so totally militarily and financial stretched on two fronts in Iraq and – now resurging – Afghanistan.
      Now don’t get me wrong, Iran is guilty of many crimes and deserves to be punished but consider that had we not so undermined the UN process in the rush to invade Iraq, had we not so casually disregarded the symbolism of western alliances that the UN represents and then utterly failed in, if not physically, then at least in the war of propaganda to demonstrate victory, consider then if perhaps the current climate with the threat of nuclear Iran might not even exist at all.
      Simply put the UN, even as an inactive organisation, as so many of you here voice still serves as a very important symbol of a western unity.  To continue to undermine it or abolish it will only lead to more disorder and it is in this total free-for-all that the lunatics come to power as history saw prior to its inception.

      Posted by iampeter on 2006 05 22 at 06:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. Mark Steyn on dog shit, ice cream and the UN:

      It’s a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog faeces and mix ‘em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That’s the problem with the UN. If you make the free nations and the thug states members of the same club, the danger isn’t that they’ll meet each other half-way but that the free world winds up going three-quarters, seven-eighths of the way.

      Posted by Arty on 2006 05 22 at 06:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Howard at the UN would be somewhat degrading for him, but to the free world, it’s a useful tool: he will either make it function correctly, or he will keep it out of the way. And I don’t think there’s a reader here who doesn’t hate the Lefties banging on about international law and the UN conventions – eliminating that would certainly be a feather in the cap of the union-busting PM of ours.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 05 22 at 06:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. #23 you’re right – France and most of Europe are indeed hopelessly anti-semitic and yet for form’s sake are obliged to feel guilty about their part in the Holocaust. This may explain why they also hate the US so much. As for sharing the guilt with Islam – I think they’d prefer to create a situation where Israel is forced to act over Iran, by equivocating and generally f***ing about until Iran has or uses an atomic weapon and Israel has to retaliate in kind. Then they can point their collective, enlightened European fingers and say,“Look at what bad people the Jews are”. Subtext – they deserved the Holocaust and we didn’t really do anything wrong when we sent millions of our fellow citizens to be starved and exterminated, so stop trying to make us feel bad.

      Posted by jobreborn on 2006 05 22 at 06:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. #39 – “We shouldn’t forget that if nothing else the UN serves as a symbol of the ideals that came around post WW2 and in this role it is very important.  The symbolism of western alliances and the idea that rogue states and war criminals will pay from a united international community, even if it never happens, seems to have had its importance underestimated”

      Apply that logic to the Australian legal system. It’s not perfect, but if equivalent statements were made in its defence, it would rightly be considered toothless, ineffectual and a waste of money. As you say it’s symbolism, but symbolism only. No one pays for this exercise in symbolism, except we poor silly taxpayers.

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 05 22 at 06:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. had we not so undermined the UN process in the rush to invade Iraq, had we not so casually disregarded the symbolism of western alliances that the UN represents and then utterly failed in, if not physically, then at least in the war of propaganda to demonstrate victory, consider then if perhaps the current climate with the threat of nuclear Iran might not even exist at all.

      Are you kiddng me? There is so much nonsense in that statement I don’t know where to begin. How about with the nonsense about the “rush” to the Iraq war, which was delayed for what, a year and a half, while Bush futilely waited for something other than mewling complaints and mealy-mouthed equivocation to emerge from that body considering the situation in Iraq. And then there is the bizarre assertion that Iran wouldn’t be a nuclear threat if we had disregarded some sort of “symbolism.”

      Tourist-brochure-level pro-UN propaganda; what a thing to first read this early in the morning.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 05 22 at 07:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. entropy @ 38

      Hey, I’m doing my troll impersonation. Not great, but its out there.  The quality of our trolls recently gives me heart that I’m a contender!!

      Question:  Why isn’t the Eurovision song contest 2006 a MAJOR topic for this blog?

      Bloody Blair asleep at the wheel again!

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 05 22 at 07:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. I have to strongly disagree, we should have waited on Iraq. Saddam wasn’t going anywhere, it would have been far more efficient to invade Iran. The US has hated the Iranians since 1979, Saddam only since 1990. Iran is also one main ethnic group, the Shia, none of this melting pot crap that we have to put up with in Iraq. Also they have had recent experiences of democracy, they do have free elections even if they are limited in the power that these official hold. Iran being removed also would freeze out Chinese and Russian influences while giving a far greater access to a steady oil supply.

      Posted by cjblair on 2006 05 22 at 07:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Arty #40 thanks: ‘faeces’ and ‘ICE-cream’, not ‘cream’.  Some refreshment on a hot day, I guess.

      Andrea #44, spot on.  And what exactly is the ‘UN process’?  Not to misquote Mark Steyn again:

      “The good people of Darfur have been entrusted to the legitimacy of the UN for more than two years and it’s killing them. In 2004, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan took decisive action and appointed a UN committee to look into what’s going on. Eventually, they reported back that it’s not genocide.”
      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,19056736-7583,00.html

      Ditto Saddam, Bosnia, Rwanda etc, etc

      Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 05 22 at 07:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. cjblair.  You say we should have waited on Iraq.

      Waited how long exactly?

      “Diplomacy” was going full bore for what, a year or more before the invasion?  Here’s the question.  How long do you give the UN & its talk-fest merchants before you go another route?  One year?  Two?  Five?  Ten?

      How long should we have waited?  No prevaricating, now.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 05 22 at 07:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. #43 compared the UN to the Australian legal system and that is what the UN process is.  It’s a far from perfect system that nonetheless is necessary to maintain order.  I agree with your points about UN’s various failings on a global scale but that’s not the point.  Here in Melbourne a teenager is beaten to such an extent that he is now a cripple for life while those that did that to him got a six year sentence – how is that fair since the victim has received a life sentence?  So do you suggest that we should have individually organised militias policing the streets?  Hey lets start a gang called “The Coalition of the Willing”… we’ll bring justice to the mean streets…

      Do you see what I’m saying?  I agree that Iran is a threat and would probably be a nuclear threat later rather than sooner anyway, but I’m simply explaining what I believe to be the importance of the UN.

      And in regards to the original topic by Tim I repeat:  I find it to be an exercise in hypocrisy to “test” a system that one has so openly just undermined.

      Posted by iampeter on 2006 05 22 at 07:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. #10 John Howard was described by ABC news as “jetting about the world” and “BURNING UP FOSSIL FUELS CROSSING THE ATLANTIC” tonight-how can the guy LIVE with that on his conscience -and besides he might be burning up precious aviation fuel that could be used to launch Foreign Co Respondint on another useless,frothy,free travel rort round payed for in blood,sweat and tears by the reluctant Australian worker and taxpayer.I know who I’d rather be funding.
      On Sunday,ABC Inciters made sure they spent twenty five minutes on very idle speculation concerning the likelihood of (a)Costello becoming Prime Minister in the near future and (b) the likelihood of Bomber not sinking without a trace in the near future and (c)the likelihood of Bill Shorten Union Official and not even a Member of Parliament yet -becoming Beazley’s successor.
      They cleverly allowed FOUR and a HALF MINUTES to discuss the “problems” of Aboriginal Australians in their communities.
      Tonight Red Kezza (sledged by a Media Section critic in the Oz for having a boring programme) decided to divert us with a twenty minute wail about Psychiatric health of “detainees” read illegal immigrants.More blackmailing techniques from naughty Kezza.Nanny Attard WILL give him a dressing down….

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 22 at 08:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Those that choose to do or go the U.N. way, read these words, you may have to change a few, OR insert another word OR line, BUT…..

      When they came for the communists,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a communist.

      When they locked up the social democrats,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a social democrat.

      When they came for the trade unionists,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a trade unionist.

      When they came for the Jews,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a Jew.

      When they came for me,
      there was no one left to speak out.

      Martin Niemöller

      …..if you have a brain and/or a scintilla of sense, one should be able to get the premise.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 22 at 08:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. Crash, I suggest a valium.  And lay off the italics too. I heard there is a shortage and the price has doubled overnight.

      Posted by entropy on 2006 05 22 at 08:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. will this cure the italic’s?

      Let us pray…lol.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 22 at 08:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. France is getting its act together,organising “boot camps” for the occupiers of the Banlieus.They are being encouraged to sing the Marseilles? every morning..I would not have believed it but I actually heard it ….

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 22 at 08:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Another attempt

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 22 at 08:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Four Cnrs tonite “The Aryan Brotherhood” and how it devoured America.Look out World it’s coming to get you. Oh it’s by the BBc I think.

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 22 at 08:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. Reaches into toolkit. Brings out the deitalicizer. There!

      Posted by paco on 2006 05 22 at 08:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. #28 Mentalfloss You forgot an important one.

      Germanic Invasion

      Losing the protecton of Rome (literaly hiding behind Italian skirts) Gaul is invaded by Germans.  Enjoys this so much adopts the name of a leadng German tribe, the Franks, as the name of the country.  France is born!

      Posted by noir on 2006 05 22 at 09:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Ahhh yes…Paco Man….defender of the poor and oppressed…well never mind…lol. Thanks, paco.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 22 at 09:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. We shouldn’t forget that if nothing else the UN serves as a symbol of the ideals that came around post WW2 and in this role it is very important.  The symbolism of western alliances and the idea that rogue states and war criminals will pay from a united international community, even if it never happens, seems to have had its importance underestimated.

      The problem with your “symbol” is that it been a toothless one almost from the beginning.  The UN is a collection of bureaucrats and leeches, corrupt and decadent.

      But since you view the UN as all-important, enlighten me.  Which war criminals have paid thanks to a united international community under the United Nations?  Which nations have had wars stopped because the UN stepped in?  What international crisises have been resolved thanks to the UN?

      Note:  I know that the UN has had some successes in the health front.  We are talking about maintaining the “…ideals that came around post WW2…”, which means keeping the peace.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 22 at 09:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. #59: Aw shucks, Cid, ain’t nothin’ any red-blooded American wouldn’t have done. Or any red-blooded Aussie, for that matter.

      Posted by paco on 2006 05 22 at 09:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. How does one end italics. Would it be by typing in the appropriate tag?

      Posted by mythusmage on 2006 05 22 at 10:27 AM • permalink

 

    1. The only thing less comprehensible than British humor are Aussies imitating British humor.

      Posted by mythusmage on 2006 05 22 at 10:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. #49 – That was my point. The people in Melbourne who crippled a teenager are scum and got a six year sentence. Perhaps it should have been more (or less), I don’t know the circumstances, but at least they were brought to account. But agree with #60. The UN does zero, zilch, FA, diddly squat when millions are killed. The lucky ones are merely crippled or lose limbs. No one, ever, has been brought to justice through the result of UN actions.

      ((Shite : mabe they have, perhaps I should have Googled that))

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 05 22 at 10:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. mabe = maybe – read your work

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 05 22 at 10:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. #60 You’ve forgetten the deterrant value of the UN there, buster. I know plenty of would-be dictators who had second thoughts when they realised that there could be sanctions!

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 05 22 at 11:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. #23 EvilDave

      Look at the cartoon riots. As Steyn said, that was the act of a house buyer declaring how he’ll remodel the kitchen when he owns the house.

      That’s a great quote.  🙂  Do you have a link to the article?  I’d love to read the rest.

      Posted by ekb87 on 2006 05 22 at 11:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 41 Anagallis – John Howard will never be Secretary General. There will never be a white, male Secretary General whose first language is English. Never. Forget it.

      Problem for the UN is (and a running theme in Mark Steyn’s work), the Anglosphere (mostly US, UK, Oz) is running a counter to the UN, and is wealthy, organised and gets things done.  JoHo is an Anglosphere man to his boots.

      Long term prediction: the world will divide between UN and Anglosphere. Rivalry but no war. Eventually some non-Anglo countries will get sick of the slow, inefficient ways of the UN and join the Anglosphere. Examples: Japan, China, India, various other Asian countries (e.g. Singapore, Thailand, S. Korea), some Eastern European countries (e.g. Poland), maybe some W. Europeans (e.g. Netherlands, Denmark) and also our good mates Israel.  Eventually Canada and NZ will be dragged into line.

      The UN will then be dominated by France, Germany and Russia, and contain most of Latin America, Middle East, all of Africa and some of Asia (e.g. Bangladesh, Indonesia).

      Posted by Effing & Blinding on 2006 05 22 at 11:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. We shouldn’t forget that if nothing else the UN serves as a symbol of the ideals

      “Symbols” and “ideals”, without concomitant action, are parody. Thus the UN is not only impotent, but risible.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 05 22 at 11:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 64 No one has, ever, been brought to justice by the result of UN actions.
      Well, the North Korean invasion had a UN response, but only because the USSR had boycoted the session due to a previous dustup. They never did that again.
      I do agree with most all here that the UN is mostly a place for thirld world nations to pretend they’re important and just serves to delay or prevent any meaningfull action.
      Perhaps the worst result of the Iraq war is it prevents the US from taking strong and effective action against Iran before Isreal blows them to kingdom come.

      Posted by lmassie on 2006 05 22 at 11:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. #66, anagillis…..yeah, I forgot the terrible power of sanctions!!  Oh, the horror!  The humanity!!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 22 at 12:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Perhaps the worst result of the Iraq war is it prevents the US from taking strong and effective action against Iran before Isreal blows them to kingdom come.”

      How is the US prevented from taking action against Iran? We could take action tomorrow, with or without UN approval. We’re talking about action against Iran from the air, not ground troops.

      Personally, I love the idea of a true United Nations, nations who are united by something OTHER than that they can be called nations. Right now, that’s the single factor that all UN members have in common. There is no “uniting” factor at the UN.

      I agree with whoever said above that the US, UK, Australia, Japan, India, Canada, New Zealand, some eastern european nations such as Poland and even some western european nations, would join us. But membership isn’t granted simply based on geographically being a nation. The governments would have to be free, demcratic governments. They would have to sign a pledge to enforce whatever they voted for, eliminating countries like France and Germany from membership. Being caught aiding someone like Saddam, while he’s under UN sanctions, behind the back of other members would be grounds for membership revocation. That would eliminate many countries, including Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq. Let’s leave the old UN to them.

      Posted by JerryS on 2006 05 22 at 12:17 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Simply put the UN, even as an inactive organisation, as so many of you here voice still serves as a very important symbol of a western unity.”

      The problem is that reality isn’t going to change if we all believe in the UN and work hard toward their goals without question. The concept that belief in symbols alone can change reality is not merely delusional, but dangerous. It gives the believers carte blanche to do whatever they want, and when their actions fail to produce the results they want, instead of realizing it’s their actions at fault, they can simply blame the unbelievers, or the insufficiently faithful believers, for the failure.

      It always ends in a witch-hunt for people to blame, as we slide ever more quickly into a new dark age.

      Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 05 22 at 12:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. How is the US prevented from taking action against Iran? We could take action tomorrow, with or without UN approval. We’re talking about action against Iran from the air, not ground troops.

      Not a chance in hell will the US do anything against Iran besides bitch and moan a little.  Bush has zero crediblity or political capitol left, either in the US or the rest of the world.  Wars only work out for those who start them if they win.  Think Truman, Johnson, Carter (hostages), Bush the first and now Bush the second.  Pity too.  It was a great chance to sort out some of the Middle East.
      Politicians never, ever learn that winning an election doesn’t mean they’re suddenly a military genius.  Read Cobra II(Iraq II) or any book on Vietnam.  Depressing for a When in doubt, shoot first kind of guy like me.

      Posted by lmassie on 2006 05 22 at 12:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. You cannot allow a piece of corruption to symbolize your ideals without corrupting the ideals.  When the symbol is overrun by a reality that includes mass death and mass rape and the biggest financial scam in history, how could anyone think that this is the proper entity to embody our ideals?

      And which tyrants have been frightened by UN sanctions?  Name one.  If there is any such creature, I guarantee that Uncle Sam was standing behind the UN petty bureaucrat with a big gun.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 05 22 at 01:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hear hear! If Hillary becomes President I’m moving to Oz.

      Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 05 22 at 01:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. This isn’t the global test that John Kerry was talking about two years ago, is it? (snicker)

      Posted by PW on 2006 05 22 at 02:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. MD Try Montana instead. Aussie politics are far to the left of those in the US.  Howard’s party is the Liberals, and they’re just that.  The other parties, except for a minor rural party, range from union thugs to loony leftoids (might be a word).  The worst deal, is if these fringe parties get a couple of percent of the vote, they get seats in Parliment, which after a close election, gives them a voice in government.  Kind of like Nader or George Wallace having to be accommodated to get a bill passed.
      They also have something called “Question Time” in Parliment which would be great if set in a pub, but in Parliment sounds disgracefull.  About the only way they can get away with that, is they can’t get sued for what’s said there.

      Posted by lmassie on 2006 05 22 at 02:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Not a chance in hell will the US do anything against Iran besides bitch and moan a little.”

      the same was said about Iraq.

      “Bush has zero crediblity or political capitol left, either in the US or the rest of the world.  Wars only work out for those who start them if they win.”

      The US did not start this war, but it will end it.

      “Think Truman, Johnson, Carter (hostages)”

      Carter started a war?

      “It was a great chance to sort out some of the Middle East.”

      which is exactly what it looks like is happening.

      “Politicians never, ever learn that winning an election doesn’t mean they’re suddenly a military genius.”

      Bush really wasn’t terribly interested in military action (or in anything much outside our borders) prior to 9/11. He was handed this situation, he did not create it.

      Back on point, yes, the US could take action against Iran tomorrow, if it were necessary. You may not like Bush or the US but don’t let that blind you to reality.

      Posted by JerryS on 2006 05 22 at 02:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. JerryS
      I voted for Bush and I’m as loyal as the next(so fuck you), but………..
      same said about Iraq.
      Not quite right.  Afghanistan was a success, that gave Bush the political power to go into Iraq.
      Sorry but we did start the current war. Sadam asked for it, but we did the invading.
      Carter failed to rescue the hostages, which directly lead to his defeat. Reagan “explained” what would happen to Iran if the hostages wern’t released.
      Trying to establish democracy in the Middle East is like trying to herd cats.  Men need a brain between their ears to run a democracy, not 3’ south of there.
      Bush was handed 9/11 then he,Rumsfeld and Cheney told the military how to wage the following wars against the advice of all serving military.  Sending a force into Iraq that was one third what the military said was needed, determining ROE and target lists against professional advice, gets American soldiers killed for no good reason.  Exactly what Johnson and McNamara did.  May they roast in hell.
      The US cannot go into Iran because no one will believe the intelligence, we do not have the manpower and an Iranian blockade of the Persion Gulf, successful or not, will cause a world recession.  Much as I’d like to see Irand turned into a sheet of green glass, If you think we’ll nuke em you’re dreaming.

      Posted by lmassie on 2006 05 22 at 03:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. You’d think the world had an infinite supply of italics the way you people squander this precious, precious resource

      Posted by Rob C. on 2006 05 22 at 03:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ya well, I was going to apologize for that but figured nobody would be that anal.  How do you know the little shits are turned off anyway?

      Posted by lmassie on 2006 05 22 at 03:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. #67 ekb87
      #23 EvilDave
      Look at the cartoon riots. As Steyn said, that was the act of a house buyer declaring how he’ll remodel the kitchen when he owns the house.

      That’s a great quote.  🙂 Do you have a link to the article?  I’d love to read the rest.

      It was a radio interview that may be found here:
      http://www.radioblogger.com/archives/february06.html#001376
      scroll to Feb 09, 2006
      It was with Hugh Hewitt, who’s voice I can’t stand, butI do read his transcripts (well, when Steyn is on).

      Posted by EvilDave on 2006 05 22 at 05:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. #82 – There’s this button called “Preview,” just to the right of the “Submit” one …

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 05 22 at 05:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. People, if you don’t quit messing with the comments (as in, not checking your code before posting them) I am going to turn off formatting. Today’s offenders are iampeter and lmassie. Don’t make me turn this blog around and drive it back home.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 05 22 at 06:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. Preview is my friend but he never writes, never calls…

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 05 22 at 06:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Andrea,
      Mia culpa, mia culpa, mia maxima culpa

      Posted by lmassie on 2006 05 22 at 06:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well I know that it’s improbable that Howard, a white Christian male, could become Secretary-General, but surely we could garner some support. Bush would stand with us, as would Blair (our dear colonial parents), all those little islander nations that depend on us for their survival, as well as the conservatively-led nations in Europe. Obviously the fascist countries wouldn’t support us (they benefit too much from having a spineless Secretary General).
      The Leftoids have a well-organised international political movement for these occasions – why not conservatives?

      And don’t forget that if there’s one the thing the man is damn good at, it’s winning elections.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 05 22 at 07:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Imassie against it.

      It’s a good idea.

      QED

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 22 at 08:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. O/T: How can we debate while Peter Garrett keeps turning?

      Posted by 2dogs on 2006 05 22 at 08:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. As far as I’m concerned, the UN is only good for stealing whatever isn’t nailed down, and sending in “peacekeepers” who hide in bunkers, except when they’re venturing outside for the occasional goatfuck.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 22 at 08:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. RebeccaH

      As far as I’m concerned, the UN is only good for stealing whatever isn’t nailed down,

      True. Starting with Kofi.

      and sending in “peacekeepers” who hide in bunkers,

      True once again.

      except when they’re venturing outside for the occasional goatfuck.

      Nope. Different story

      U.N. Sexual Abuse Alleged in Congo

      UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 15—U.N. peacekeepers threatened U.N. investigators investigating allegations of sexual misconduct in Congo and sought to bribe witnesses to change incriminating testimony, a confidential U.N. draft report says.

      The 34-page report, which was obtained by The Washington Post, accuses U.N. peacekeepers from Morocco, Pakistan and Nepal of seeking to obstruct U.N. efforts to investigate a sexual abuse scandal that has damaged the United Nations’ standing in Congo.

      Washington Post

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 22 at 09:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Carter started a war?

      Jerry S—He tried, but he got scared when his Super Atomic Washington-Directed Rescue Plan went sour.  Before that, he tried to scare the Iranians by sending F-111’s to the Middle East while publicly declaring he wasn’t sending any munitions with them.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 22 at 09:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Addendum

      BUT the U.N. is still a useless, filthy, corrupt and complicit in crimes against humanity, organization.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 22 at 09:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. 88 anagallis

      Well I know that it’s improbable that Howard, a white Christian male, could become Secretary-General

      Correct, that job is being held for The U.S.A. and its first Black President.

      You see Billy, can be President of the world and Hilly, President of the U.S.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 22 at 09:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. What Howard has to say is entirely irrelevant, seeing as Australia will have a zero role to play in regard to the so called Iranian crisis.

      Australia has no presence on the UNSC.  Australia has no role to play in bombing the country when Bush decides it’s time.

      I’m sure The Bush administration means well in a love ‘em or bomb ‘em sort of way

      While Bolton is busily butchering the UN (ie. reforming it), Washington is staying the course with their usual in a love ‘em or bomb ‘em policy.  In other words, Washington’s policy remains the same – we’ll bomb you if you don’t comply and if you do, will bomb you anyway.

      Posted by Addamo on 2006 05 22 at 10:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. That’s right addamo, the yanks are the most psychotic and dangerous nation on the planet today.  Not like those lovable iranians, NKs, french, janjaweed etc.

      Posted by entropy on 2006 05 22 at 10:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. FOAD, Addamo. Go peddle your hatred somewhere else.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 05 22 at 10:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. When they came for the communists,
      I applauded;
      I am a capitalist/individualist.

      When they locked up the social democrats,
      I applauded again;
      I am a capitalist/individualist.

      When they came for the trade unionists,
      I snickered and applauded some more;
      I am a capitalist/individualist.

      When they came for the Jews,
      I loaded my guns and resisted;
      I am not a Jew;
      I am a capitalist an individualist,and an American.

      When they came for me,
      I was surrounded by Jews, Capitalist, Individualist, Americans, and some Australians too. (Grins largely as he aligns the sights.)

      I pick my friends carefully and judiciously.

      (Jooodiciously ??)

      Revisions by Frank

      Posted by Franklin on 2006 05 22 at 11:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. You’ve raised the bar, there Franklin. I suspect this “belle”apropisim will be quoted far and wide.

      (I’ve captured it in notepad and fully intend to trot it out on every possible occasion)

      I will attribute if you send me your particulars. Here it is folks, one time only—rruork(at)bigpond(full stop)net(full stop)au

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 22 at 11:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Washington’s policy remains the same – we’ll bomb you if you don’t comply and if you do, will bomb you anyway.

      Curses! Foiled again! That nosy kid figured out our Plan! (Puts out bomb fuse and restores it to cupboard before going off to sulk evilly in her red, white, and blue-decorated lair.)

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 05 23 at 12:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. #99
      Franklin, I wanna have your babies.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 05 23 at 01:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. #99 Frank,

      Well done.  Multitudes of kudos sent your way.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 05 23 at 02:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. Good old Johhny. Let him lead the troops into Iran as a final act of leadership, his first, in his career. He should still have his flak jacket in the cupboard at Kirribilli, and the army could find a couple old 303s for him. He might be able to find a couple soldiers to go with him, a couple of fat generals from Russell Hill. There’s no one else left. Or he could whoop it up the beaches just like Robert O’Hara Burke did at Crimea in the 1850s, after the troops had gone home. Or remember Ozymandius.

      Posted by themeda on 2006 05 23 at 03:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Looks like themeda is confusing his evil Western leaders. I thought Dubya was the guy to be tagged with the flak jacket smear, or has that become all-purpose now?

      Posted by PW on 2006 05 23 at 04:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hey, Addamo—why shouldn’t Australia be proud enough to help shoulder the burden of protecting anyone—ally or non-ally, for that matter—that is within range of a Shahab-3 (range:1300km, payload 750kg)?

      Or are you just miffed because Australia has no seat on the UNSC?

      (Oh, and by the way, the Shahab-4, based on Russia’s SS-4 “Sandal”, has a range of 1800-2000 km range, 1000kg payload)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 23 at 04:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. The Background Briefing show on the ABC had to have a go at Bolton, didn’t they?
      Someone who is strongly critical of the UN and is proposed by G.W. Bush has to be opposed.
      Bolton will tell it like it is, and has to be discredited, they think.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 05 23 at 05:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 100 No attribution required. Enjoy.

      Posted by Franklin on 2006 05 23 at 09:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. 99 Franklin

      bravissimo

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 23 at 09:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. we’ll bomb you if you don’t comply and if you do, will bomb you anyway.

      Refresh memory – who did we bomb who complied?

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 05 23 at 12:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Good old Johhny. Let him lead the troops into Iran as a final act of leadership, his first, in his career. He should still have his flak jacket in the cupboard at Kirribilli, and the army could find a couple old 303s for him. He might be able to find a couple soldiers to go with him, a couple of fat generals from Russell Hill. There’s no one else left.

      Holy crap! All of Australia’s soldiers are dead?!? When did this happen? Where?

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 05 23 at 12:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. 66 71 Yeah sure, yuck it up about sanctions.  Don’t forget what brought down the short-lived Castro regime, back in 1959 …

      80

      an Iranian blockade of the Persion Gulf, successful or not

      I’d bet on “not.”  That’s based on 50% (??) destruction of the Iranian “navy” during the Iraq-Iran war.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 23 at 12:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. MentalFloss

      “why shouldn’t Australia be proud enough to help shoulder the burden of protecting anyone—ally or non-ally, for that matter—that is within range of a Shahab-3 (range:1300km, payload 750kg)?”

      What do you suppose Australia could do if one of these things were launched? Intercept it in mid flight by highly pressurized beer kegs launched by military grade bungy ropes?

      “Or are you just miffed because Australia has no seat on the UNSC?”

      Not bothered either way, but it is a tad embarrassing watching our pigeon cheated military wanna be, prancing around the world stage as though what he says is of any consequence.

      Posted by Addamo on 2006 05 23 at 07:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. You are a fool if you think the firing of an ABM does not require an incredible level of tactical, logistical and long term strategic support—all of which Australia has and is providing to our allies.

      Or did you think thoses dishes in the Aussie desert were for cooking your soy-burgers? Or the ships sweeping the Arabian Gulf were fishing for snapper? Or the no-see-ums in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/Pakistan are hunting rabbits?

      And just to piss you off even more, you whacked out piece of shit:

      In my years in the US Navy ‘69-‘73, in all my Dad’s recollections from the War in the Pacific ‘41-‘45—EVERYONE from Grunts to Deck Apes to Rangers knew that some the most badass, toughest, most dependable and downright meanest motherfuckers in uniform anywhere in the world were (and are) Australian Soldiers.

      You are a complete and utter twat. My. Last. Word. To. You.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 23 at 09:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. #113 Pigeon cheated? Addamo…

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 24 at 08:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. #115: Second the motion, Crash.

      Please explain “pigeon cheated”. Educated guess (which, to my likely eternal mortification, I originally spelled “eduocated” before correcting): “pigeon chested.

      Posted by paco on 2006 05 24 at 02:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. Musta been a plastic pigeon,Paco.

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 25 at 07:51 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.