Today, I came across an Article regarding Bush's plan to go to the U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq. Two questions stood out from the press conference with the Spanish Prime Minister.
When asked on whether or not the motion to use force is basically the U.N. Security Council's "last chance at relevance", Bush said "Yes".
When asked on whether or not Bush will defer his motion to use force for two months if the U.N. Security Council insists, Bush said "No".
From these statements, I can honestly say that the U.N. is in big trouble. A week ago, Canada's PM Chretien said that if the U.S. goes about attacking Iraq without approval from the U.N. Security Council, it would effectively sound the death knell for the U.N. itself. However, there are bigger things in the picture.
To be specific, if the U.N. Security Council approves the motion for use of force, then the U.N. would be seen as nothing but the U.S.'s whipping boy. If the U.S. can persuade the U.N. to allow the use of force against Iraq, then it can basically do anything it wants while the U.N. would have no choice but to say yes. Even the U.N. would have approve a motion to destroy Canada if the U.S. so insists.
Likewise, if the U.N. Security Council defers the motion, then the U.S. (along with the U.K.) would go on attacking Iraq, without approval from the U.N. The U.N. would then be seen as irrelevant, if it cannot prevent the U.S. from attacking Iraq, then it cannot do anything relevant. Whole countries could do whatever they want without approval from the U.N. And yes, the U.S. could invade Canada, who cares about some fricken Security Council? Hence, the U.N. would be dead.
Catch-22? Opinions?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with your assessment there -- the UN is no longer relevant... in the arena of "power politics," anyway. The purpose of the Security Council to promote "international peace and security" no longer operates -- either to approve the US's position against Iraq (which in that line of reasoning probably could/should have been done months ago) or else to decisively stop the US from its rampant warmongering against Iraq.
The ironic thing is, one of the little-known functions of the UN Security Council (or the General Assembly, I'm not sure which TBH) is that it can declare one side of a conflict to be the "aggressor nation," and bring the full political and economic weight of the UN against that nation. For instance, at the beginning of the Korean War, North Korea was declared an aggressor nation and was slapped with full sanctions and authorized the organization of an international military force (US-led, of course) to fight. But the point was that EVERYONE was pitching in -- theoretically it was The World vs. North Korea there.
Now, in holding that same idea to be true, wouldn't that principle apply to the United States? (This assumes that the UN refuses to declare Iraq in material breach before the US attacks.) The US could/should be declared an aggressor nation. Of course, the realities of the UN and global politics in general means that idea has less than a snowball's chance in hell, but still, it makes you think...
And all of a sudden, Q's mention of the "New" United Nations in the TNG premiere doesn't sound so ludicrous, does it? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I agree that, if the US decides to override the UN and attack on its own, the UN's only sensical reaction could be to declare the US at fault, and defend Iraq. Of course, since that won't happen, the UN is, in fact, fucked.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Only if we're lucky.
God help us all if the UN finds the will power to try and oppose the Yanks, in which case I belive we are all, fucked.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I agree that, if the US decides to override the UN and attack on its own, the UN's only sensical reaction could be to declare the US at fault, and defend Iraq. Of course, since that won't happen, the UN is, in fact, fucked.
Signature material! Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
The UN needs one more superpower. Or one less. Balance of force, and all that.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Like the UN's record during 40 years of cold war was a string of successes. . .
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
If you get right down to it, the UN already got screwed in this regard back during Yugoslavia. Clinton and NATO made damn sure of that.
I was highly impressed and pleasantly surprised when Bush went before the UN. It was their chance to show they had a sack.
But, let's face it . . . no matter what one's opinions on the Iraq thing, the UN has, especially in recent years, consistently shown that it has no sack, unless the United States loans it one for awhile.
As a sounding board for nations to get together and talk, vent, or just bitch, it's superb. As a humanitarian organization, it ain't bad. But as anything remotely resembling a planetary government or even a quasi-pseudo confederation of nations, it is rather useless.
Don't get me wrong. I like the UN. But it's facing the same problems as faced by the League of Nations, or even the US pre-Constitution "Articles of Confederation" . . . there's simply not enough power put into play.
But really, the problem is not with the UN's charter. The charter's got sack. But the charter is just a piece of paper, too often ignored, and the existence of the Security Council, with its permanent members each with veto power, has become somewhat archaic.
Potential Options Brainstorm (i.e. not all of these are good ideas, but they're food for thought):
1. Keep the Security Council, but make it an election event within the UN. Every X years, a new Security Council is formed.
(France is sure to surrender its seat without argument. )
Problems: Potential increase in gridlock. Potential under-the-table dealings. A possible solution would be to have five lists . . . you may pick a country from each.
1a. A variant . . . set up a second Security Council featuring elected nations to spread out the power a little. In the case of disagreements between the two, let it go to the Secretary-General, so he looks like he has a sack.
2. International election for Secretary-General. In an era of increasing globalization mixed precariously with increasing nationalism, this might provide a stronger voice for the UN.
After all, let's face it . . . the average Earth citizen doesn't know jack about Kofi Annan, besides that he's Secretary-General of the UN. The average human might be more inclined to listen to the guy who theoretically leads the world if they know that they took part in the vote for or against him.
Also known as the "I have a mandate from the people of Earth, bitch" idea.
Problems: Cost, especially in nations that don't already have a sound (or trustworthy) voting system. But, as far as campaign costs go, one could have a system set up early that would prevent people from spending money on it. Say, submit a write-up to the election board, and it'll get printed and distributed by the UN to newspapers, internet, and so on. Nothing paid for by one side or the other, no flashy "Vote for Saddam, he'll give you infidel whore-slaves!" buttons.
Setting it up fairly . . . it can't just be direct voting, or else China would always win. You'd almost have to do it on a country-by-country basis, with at least some weight for population.
******
Those might or might not help . . . but the fact is, something has to happen. The UN needs to show that it is not irrelevant, and that it has the sack to prove it. Right now, though, I don't think it has the ability to whip one out.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
"Having a sack," this is the in-lingo spoken by all the funky hepcats, yes? Groovy, daddy-o. I totally dig where you're coming from, in a far-out kind of way.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Like the UN's record during 40 years of cold war was a string of successes. . ."
Well, no. If you wanted to evaluate the UN's merits, its diplomatic track record wouldn't be the ideal place to start. As an august body dedicated to preserving peace and protecting human life it has, in fact, failed abysmally.
And why? Because the organization has been trampled over & shoved aside with contemptible impunity in EACH AND EVERY conflict to date, cold or warm. Add to that an utter lack of military authority and you realize in an instant the whole thing's a farce best mercifully cut short.
But a second, diametrically opposed superpower (say, China) might just bring about a long-overdue change in global attitude towards the UN, restore the O. to what it should be: an international force to be reckoned with, instead of a doormat to wipe the world's dirt on.
[ February 24, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I sure hope that the United Nations doesn't go the way of The League of Nations. That one didn't work out all that great according to my History teacher.
I think that the UN should stand up to Bush. He's nothing but a schoolyard bully. But in this case the schoolyard is the world... and the
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I sure hope that the United Nations doesn't go the way of The League of Nations. That one didn't work out all that great according to my History teacher.
I think that the UN should stand up to Bush. He's nothing but a schoolyard bully. But in this case the schoolyard is the world.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Of course, nobody seems to care that Iraq is, in fact, in material breech, UN declaration or no. The argument could be made that the UN is irrelevant because they refuse to do anything, not because they follow/are ignored by the US, and it'd make just as much sense.
On another topic, if the Korean war was UN vs. N. Korea, how did China's participation play into it? Or was the PRC not part of the UN at the time? I know they weren't given the Chinese seat until a couple decades later...
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
It is only a material breach because only the U.S. (and possibly the U.K.) says it is. The declaration is just not strong enough for the U.N. to declare. That is what has the U.N. in a precarious position. Basically, the U.S. has all the cards and hasn't shown its entire hand yet.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: On another topic, if the Korean war was UN vs. N. Korea, how did China's participation play into it? Or was the PRC not part of the UN at the time? I know they weren't given the Chinese seat until a couple decades later...
Yup. In fact, the only reason the war happened was because the Soviet Union had been boycotting the Security Council on account of American refusal to recognize Communist China as an actual country at the UN. Of course, as soon as the Security Council passed a resolution against NK the Soviets quickly kicked themselves and got back in so they could veto future situations.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I should add that the UN has had significant successes, only we tend not to notice them. I mean, shouldn't we be the teensiest bit glad that we didn't all get annihilated in 1967 over the godforsaken Sinai desert? Anybody ever heard of a place called Biafra? Aren't we pleased with the fact that the Cypriots didn't exterminate themselves?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Mr. Bush has made it quite clear that he doesn't care at all if the U.N. goes into Iraq or if it is just the United States. The U.N. is being maneuvered in this situation to provide a justification for King George's War.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: the godforsaken Sinai desert
Ironic.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The question is whether or not the UN will follow through when Blix makes his next report and tells them, again, that Iraq is still not cooperating and complying as required under the previous resolutions.
quote: Top U.N. inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei say Iraq still isn�t fully cooperating or providing evidence to answer outstanding questions about its nuclear, chemical, biological and long-range missile programs. To demonstrate that Iraq is cooperating, Saddam must not only show that he is doing more to answer those questions. He must also comply with Blix�s order to begin destroying all Iraq�s Al Samoud 2 missiles and the engines and components for them by Saturday.
I love that "begin" destroying the missiles order. "Yessir, we began destroying the missiles today. I unscrewed a screw on one of them this morning. By next October, I hope to have unscrewed a second screw."
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Oops. Sorry. I just noticed I double Posted. I got an error on the puter at school and didn't know if it went through. Sorry!
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I'm bringing this back up because a question needs to be addressed:
Of course the UN is still relavent. UNimporntant countries need a public forum to beg for our help amd bask in our benevalence.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
In that case, we might as well dissolve the UN now and get it over with. B)
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
No, I mean of course they are relevant now. I mean with the nation building and the non-aggressive, expensive and complicated stuff like putting Iraq back together again.
I mean before, like a few months back, when they were all, "Hey man, are you sure these guys have a bunch of weapons of mass destruction? Because we'd frickin' hate to go in there and not find them and wind up looking like a bunch of jack-asses or something." And the US was all, "No, dude seriously. Trust me. I can't tell you how I know, but I know. They are in there and they are gonna fuck everyone up unless we stop 'em." And the UN was all, "Fuck, man, I don't know. This is some serious shit. I don't think we oughtta just jump the mutherfucker without some proof." And the US was all, "Proof? Ah, fuck you guys. You're a bunch of pussies. Check this shit."... Back then, the UN was totally irrelevant.
But now it's hard. This whole reassembling the country whose infrastructure you totally destroyed thing. And expensive. We're gonna need some UN help on that. Nevermind that we said we'd deal with the consequences. The UN is still totally relevant. Oh, except that the UN is still irrelevant at deciding how the new Iraqi petroleum industry will be set up and by whom. But I mean aside from that, like, the other stuff? Still totally relevant.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The UN is relevant. It's the US that doesn't care one bit what they say; the only reason for a second reslution was to make the war look good in the eyes of the world. But, alas, even that probably would not make the war look good. The UN has kept some disputes at bay, and others not. It has had it's good times and bad times. I can almost guarantee we would not be having this discussion had Bush not decided to go to war.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The UN has been immensely successful at... hm...
I'll let you know when I think of something.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The US, in Iraq, has been immensley successful at...
Restoring order? No. Restoring Democracy? No. Finding WMD? No. Proving Saddam had them? No. Battling insurgents? Nope. Getting the rest of the Muslim world on our side? Nope. Restoring vital services to the Iraqi people? Nope. Killing/Capturing Saddam? No. Getting rid of his regime? Yes. Killing/capturing many regime leaders? Yes.
2/10. Not that good.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
But good enough for some.
And I don't see how the UN has any major role to play in the rebuilding of Iraq, what with most of the... services already contracted out to US multinationals before the war even began.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
See, Veers can't think of anything either! So he attacks! Oh, he is so clever!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, I'd say he's about as clever as Rob "I watched an episode of "L&O" so I'm a lawyer" Farquharhar.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Try reading a few issues of this it my help teach you of the accomplishments of the UN. I'm sure FOT just dismisses out of ignorance.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
It was either attack or be attacked, Fo2. I could have talked about UNICEF, or those many peacekeeping operations that the UN has undertaken, or the fact that some countries actually listen to the UN and look to it for aid. But, alas, it would have fallen on deaf ears, and I can bet that there would have been some link to some website saying how "disastrously incompetent" the UN was at keeping order.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Anyway, the real answer is: no, of course not. The only superpower around ignores them, and when other groups want to oppose said superpower they form their own coalitions to do so. It sure would be nice to have a functioning global civil society.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
I'm afraid you're a number of years too early for that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: It sure would be nice to have a functioning global civil society.
Really? Under who's control and with what goals? How could small countries have the same vote as countries with millions more in populations? How would strife be handled? I could sure see Britan or the US sending their troops to battle on befalf of, say...Iran. Sure. Globalization just means "money talks".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
How in the world did you get from "civil society" to "Imperial Government"? I've got this mouse. It isn't a very fancy one, but it works. Some Chinese people made it for me. I gave them some hard American currency in exchange. Then they gave me Jet Li. I gave them Real American Rock & Roll, and The Gap. They gave me SARS. We're in a society. The best part is, when I'm at odds with them, our respective governments hash out a compromise. Sure, it's civility at the point of an ICBM, forced into shape by the haphazard rulings of the World Bank, but it beats endless decades of grinding horror. It's also proving to be completely inadequate at handling the 21st century, and if I'm a citizen of the Congo having problems with my Zamibian neighbor, instead of long and boring documents written by poorly-dressed bureaucrats I get a short and exciting machete to the limbs. I think the downside here is obvious.
And of course, one only has to watch the news to see what potential replacements might come about. The neocons' Pax Americana v2.0. Global Europe. The United Islamic Caliphate. And so on.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're right: it does'nt work: Small countries have (as a rule) nothing the West needs or wants.
The only way to make a World Government work would be to make altruism the rule of law. That is to say, America, Japan and United Europe all "pay it forward" for a few decades and hope for the best with no intent of ever being paid back. Currently when we really help out a struggling counrty it's with the express notion that they owe us....or more to the point: we own them.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, once again, if you're reading something about a "world government" you are not in the same thread I am.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The UN rescued South Korea. That was a good thing.
Veers is right, UNICEF, at least, is a good thing.
As to whether the peacekeeping missions are "successes" or not, I suppose it depends on how you describe successes.
If success = stop people from wantonly killing each other for a while, then the UN has succeeded many times, and failed a few times (Most notably, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, and the Congo)
If success = stop people from killing each other, and then implement a successful long-term strategy for maintaining peace, and then LEAVE, and have it not disintegrate, well, the UN's successes are somewhat more limited.
But then again, so are the US's. Our last big success in that arena was probably Imperial Japan. The UN's might have been Cambodia.
On yet another hand, many UN successes are actually US successes by proxy... and many UN failures can be said to be US failures by proxy. The same holds true for other UNSC permanent members.
If it wasn't for the fact that the Permanent Member UNSC vetoes override the danger of "tyranny by tyrannies," (ie. less-than-democratic nations ganging up to form a majority) I'd say it was probably time to eliminate that privilege.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The idea of a world community is possible, but to be honest, I don't think it's realistic until more nations are on something that comes close to equal footing economically.
But as for the UN... well, may I point out the Cuban Missile Crisis from some 40 years ago? Granted, that was mainly resolved privately between the US and the Soviets, but it still provided an international forum for discussion -- which, I'd wager, at least offered an opportunity to talk first before launching the nukes. That alone would make the organization worthwhile in my book.
As for today... well, I know I commented on this earlier, but I might as well offer more ideas. Given the UNSC's rubber-stamp action to legitimize the "coalition" occupation of Iraq as an official occupation (using that term) only made the Council look weaker, and makes it nothing more than an approval arm of the US/UK clique.
Now, I think that in some ways, there's a very big misconception about the United Nations. Or perhaps a confused sense of purpose that makes it ineffectual.
Simply put, the United Nations has no capability of enforcing its decisions. At all. The organization of the UN is based in part on the "discussion forum" ideas from the old League of Nations, but I believe that the current UN has the same fatal flaws that the League did -- that it can't enforce its resolutions on its own. The sole reason that the League crashed and burned while the UN has plodded along is because nations are more willing to use military force in this day and age, having learned the lessons of the appeasement policy.
The UN is an excellent body for discussion and cooperation, but this takes place primarily in the realm of social issues, and to a lesser extent in economics. There, the various members can discuss the plan of action, but it's all still completely voluntary -- and the members are more willing to cooperate. (Bush and the Kyoto Treaty being an exception, but you get my drift, I hope...) In the realm of "power politics," on the other hand, there's frequently much less cooperation, much higher stakes, and greater likelihood of nations choosing to go their own way.
Consider that the UN's greatest successes have developed when just about the entire body stood united. The Korean War (yes, I know the USSR was boycotting then, but the point is valid), Gulf War I (prior to its weak conclusion).
But when you've got true factions involved with a more equal balance of power inside the UN, there's a much greater likelihood of one side going its own way. Why doesn't Delaware or Maryland suddenly just decide to start trading with Canada on their own because they want more timber at a lower tariff rate than Congress legislated? Because the Federal government would enforce the laws, specifically the part of the Constitution which says that individual states may not form separate relationships with foreign governments. It's enforced.
Until the UN can actually enforce its rulings -- and that will never be able to happen in the current organization of the body -- then it won't be able to prevent these kinds of disagreements. And the UN will be caught in between.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Uh, once again, if you're reading something about a "world government" you are not in the same thread I am.
Uh because you posted this:
quote:It sure would be nice to have a functioning global civil society.
"global civil society" sure sounds like world government to me, and after all, that is the idea behind the U.N. (with the former Allied Powers controling it).
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
glob�al of, relating to, or involving the entire world.
civ�il of or relating to citizens, of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious) affairs; adequate in courtesy and politeness.
so�ci�e�ty a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct; companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse; an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another.
It's like that REM song, with the Shiny and Happy People.
Orwell stay back.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I just wanted to say: Good luck. We're all counting on you.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I need to have more society with the ladies, I will tell you that right now.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Don't we all...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes, you do.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: I need to have more society with the ladies, I will tell you that right now.
Quality over quantity, my freind.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yeah, but by "more" he meant "any" or "at all." 8)
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I am open for all the world to see. I bleed tears.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I didn't know you even had a speculum.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"In high school you were voted most likely to get high / In my yearbook you drew black drops from a bloodshot eye"
I'm superconfused here. How is a global society being conflated with the idea of a world government? Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries was held in place by an exceedingly baroque system of treaties and countertreaties and countercountertreaties. Instant global civil society. One which happened to collapse in an exceedingly messy way, but these things happen. New ones get created.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That quaint 19th century baroqe system was funded with the sweat and blood of europe's "colonies" like India and all was well...if you happened to be a blue-blooded aristocrat (as opposed to the 99% of the population living in the squalor and filth that was the industrial revolution.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, yeah...and? The last global civil society we had was predicated on the threat of thermonuclear armageddon.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
As long as humanity is fixated on our differences rather than our similarities, a viable global society or government remains impossible. Just the most common objection to any such thing - "there might be enough people who are different to me to vote for something I wouldn't want" - highlights that.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Well those people just won't have any place in our harmonious global civil society then, will they? We'll run 'em out on a rail (-gun).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's why I always liked the "mass kill" option on "Scorched Earth."
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: That's why I always liked the "mass kill" option on "Scorched Earth."
Scorched Earth. I remember that game!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
For the last time, "global civil society" does not mean "happy bunnies living in Fluffytown Junction." Or is this just some conspiracy to drive me mad?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Great name! We'll call our country "Fluffytown Junction" and then run all them dissidents out on a rail!
Sol, you miss the point that your "global civil society" has never been civil and it's "society" is only a pretense to regroup between armed conflicts and oppressions.
We've never known a world that talks out it's problems without at least the threat of armed response to back up their P.O.V.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
*grin*
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Jesus. Through what pair of goggles do my posts read "world in which everyone is nice to each other because they want to be"?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The post right above this one?
Insane yet?
Now?
Now?
There is no such thing as a "global civil society".
Now?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hands = thrown up.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I WIN!!
Sol's gone crackers! Let's divvy up his stuff whiile he's in the asylum! Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Dibs on his Gloria Estefan LP collection and bunny slippers!!
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Simon isn't one for such... worldly possessions. B)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
In call his TNG DVD's but you can have his lifesize Milli Vinilli poster (it's got these odd stains on it). Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Anyone who wants can go to Wired.com and enjoy my inspirations, rather than me bothering to explain anything anymore.
In my dorm room I had but one poster, which was of a segment of The Garden of Earthly Delights painted by Hieronymus Bosch, which I bought at the local record store because I liked it, but also, let's be honest, because it was the weirdest poster available.
I also have a poster of a chimp sitting on a motorcycle, but it is in a drawer somewhere.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"Hang in there!" or "Sit on that!" or something.
"Don't be eaten by insects!"
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)