***The whole sordid story of the 100,000 `private contractors’ —- at least 48,000 of these —- mercenaries —— private gunmen working —- heavily-armed desperados are a law unto themselves and under no supervision.***
Are they even American? There was some noise that quite a few of these clowns are bused in from other places… like Isreal, South Africa, etc.
Just like Al-Qaeda has a fluid workforce of people from all over… here is another fluid workforce of yahoos from all over.
Posted by The Questioner at February 12, 2007 03:25 PM
I’m currently working with one of the foreign yahoo’s, who was a private contractor in Iraq for a year. (We’re both Canadian).
Far from your, or Erics description of them as out of control renegades, this guy was a professional soldier prior to working in Iraq, and ultimately left Iraq due to what he characterized as “the absolute corruption of the occupation forces, contractors, and Iraqi power structure”.
He also stated that he hadn’t encountered anybody who actually believed in the mission.
I still believe that both Afghanistan, and Iraq were just pre-staging efforts for what the Bush Gang consider to be the ultimate enemy, Iran.
Posted by Mr. Ted at February 12, 2007 04:04 PM
I guessed right about the topic of the next (this) article.
A number of Israeli soldiers (reconnasciance and hunter-killer teams), as well as business interests, entered Irag after the invasions. They came by land in white vehicles. Yep, this country is going to be a satrap of Israel. Bet the new Iraq sells oil via pipeline to Israel on the cheap.
Posted by ghawley at February 12, 2007 04:21 PM
I just think it’s depressing. There is no solution in site. To bad if the army would say NO to bush, that would be the end of everything in the US.
Paying Millions for just a few liters of oil, while in the land of the free, some people live like in a 3rd world country. Even in Canada is the same thing, just look at the Indian reserves up north.
Now they have serial numbers for the Iranian weapons, lol, do they have the print out of the serial numbers from the Iranian factories? It’s sadly funny. I bet there is Chinese, Russian, etc.. Who ever sells weapons they are selling them there. It’s about money, nothing more. Sad that our technology has evolve but not us.
My 2 cents anyway.
Posted by WhoFan at February 12, 2007 06:45 PM
Republican cronyism, Halliburton et al., mercenaries, corruption. It all comes down to the conquest of private enterprise over all spheres of life. They don’t care about “wasted” public money. Any transfer of wealth and power from the public to the private realm is a good thing in and of itself. It’s not waste or theft or corruption, it’s privatization.
But we are surely seeing, and will continue to see, that government policy devoted entirely to private interest inexorably leads to disaster.
Posted by hyperbolus at February 12, 2007 10:18 PM
We have a very sick puppy on our hands, I think we should extend Dr Bush’s term for another 4 years to put the poor beast completely out of it’s misery.
Thirty-Six Sure-Fire Signs That Your Empire Is Crumbling
By David Michael Green
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0202-26.htm
Posted by oldfan at February 12, 2007 11:38 PM
Remember: ALL wars are justified……as long as they are started by the U.S. or Israel.
Oh and just to make sure you all got it right:
American soldiers = terrorists
Insurgents = freedom fighters
Posted by hedagem at February 12, 2007 11:40 PM
Chris Floyd | The Anglo-American Dirty War in Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021307J.shtml
Chris Floyd writes, “With the Anglo-American coalition so deeply embedded in dirty war – infiltrating terrorist groups, ‘stimulating’ them into action, protecting ‘crown jewel’ double-agents no matter what the cost, ‘riding with the bad boys,’ greenlighting the ‘Salvador Option’ – it is simply impossible to determine the genuine origin of almost any particular terrorist outrage or death squad atrocity in Iraq.” Go to link above.
And:
Ray McGovern | Bush and Cheney Playing Role of Kevorkian for Israel
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021307M.shtml
Ray McGovern writes: “President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are unwittingly playing Dr. Jack Kevorkian in helping the state of Israel commit suicide. For this is the inevitable consequence of the planned air and missile attack on Iran. The pockmarked, littered landscape in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and the endless applicant queues at al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruiting stations, testify eloquently to the unintended consequences of myopic policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv.”
=====
Hedagem, you have the math right.
Whofan - “Too bad the army won’t say NO to Bush…”. Hmm, I never thought about it before, but why not - here goes:
A military coup would excise the nation from their destructive leadership. Hell, US federal-level democracy is largely a sham anyway. Once Calligula and his advisors are put in irons, a pullback from his military and pilfering follies would ensue. The military would then step down (act of faith) to enable responsible government to take over. Hey, this model was/is applied by the US to many other “dysfunctional” sovereign nations (including democratic ones) so why not apply it to themselves? I especially like the idea of meting out Iraq-style justice to what would then be the former ruling elite.
Posted by shazam at February 13, 2007 12:37 PM
Oldfan - the 36 signs of demise was entertaining. Thanks for that.
Posted by shazam at February 13, 2007 12:40 PM
I find the whole issue of cost of the Iraq war to be irrelevant. The U.S. has long been one of the most socialist states on the planet in terms of government spending. That’s why they have such a huge debt to begin with. The only difference between the U.S. and a true socialist state is where the money is being spent, and who benefits the most from the spending.
Further, it is a relatively simple matter for the U.S. government to simply renege on their debt. They’ve done it before. As to dealing with irate creditors afterwards, that’s what bombs and missiles are for, which the U.S. has already shown their willingness to use whenever they feel like it.
Posted by Weary at February 13, 2007 03:58 PM
I find the whole issue of cost of the Iraq war to be irrelevant … it is a relatively simple matter for the U.S. government to simply renege on their debt. … As to dealing with irate creditors afterwards, that’s what bombs and missiles are for[.]
This is a hugely oversimplified analysis. When the U.S has used bombs and missiles in the recent past, it has been largely against powers who could do little to retaliate; those powers who can do little to retaliate generally don’t act as creditors.
Not since World War II has the United States fought against a power that was its military equal, or even near its military equal. In the Korean war, the U.S army stumbled into a conflict with the Chinese Army; one can read in the history books how well that war went…
Where Japanese and Chinese banks finance most U.S debt, the idea of deploying “bombs and missiles” rings pretty hollow. For one thing, the Chinese are more than happy to shoot back, and invoke massive damage in so doing. Moreover, if the Chinese perceive that we are not good for our debts, they’re not going to be all that interested in trading with us; maintaining a deep trading relationship is of little use of you’re a buyer refuses to pay his invoices, and holds you up at gunpoint if you press the issue. The Japanese and Chinese have the capacity to do irreparable harm to our government were it to cancel its own debts, and use of force is simply not an issue when dealing with at least one mature nuclear military power with almost 4 times your population.
One might even argue that the entire effort in Iraq was a strategic step towards controlling energy resources that flow to India and China; a sort of “back door to dominance,” so to speak. Clearly this strategy has failed, and made us even more vulnerable to the nations we perceive as competing strategic threats by driving us further into debt, and raising the levels of government inefficiency and corruption not seen since the Civil War reconstruction era.
The cost of the Iraq war is quite material indeed. More important than that, however, is the brutal realization that empire corrupts. In order to restore some semblance of transparency and accountability to American government, the whole operation needs to bring home the troops, and re-federalize. Clearly, the recent trend towards centralization of government powers, coupled with the imperial ambitions of a foolish president, have already done us irreparable harm.
Posted by chatman at February 13, 2007 04:41 PM
Chatman, yes the attack on Iraq and control of mid-east satraps is part of a global US stratgey to keep China and India down. But it is also a way for israel to dominate the middle east. Iraq (aka US puppet) will soon be begging for Israeli expertise to help repair the damage. Aside from that, right on bro.
And about the “empire corrupts” comment. Abraham Lincoln said: “To reveal a man’s character, give him power”.
I like my coup idea more and more. Of course simple ideas are catchy and the devil is in the dtail, but still, it has an appeal. Question is, would a self-serving military-industrial complex bite the hand that feeds? even if warranted by concern for the nation.
More pertinent Lincoln quotes:
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.”
“Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong.”
Posted by shazam at February 13, 2007 06:05 PM
yes, agree.. very depressing
a criminal war pursued by duped troops and vicious mercenaries with widespread war-crimes and looting
using mercanaries is another way of hiding the casualities and avoiding scrutiny.. they also get to do what they want.. are mercenaries subject to Geneva convention rules?
the future payback for the States in perpetrating this and other crimes and follies has got to be massive.. unless there is a truly incredible spiritual awakening or something!!
Posted by Evan Palmer at February 13, 2007 06:09 PM
OK Shazam, I know I am not one to talk about long posts, but that quotation list, while interesting, is a little much!
As for a coup d’etat, I’ll pass, thank you very much. That’s just a way to transfer power from one incompetent authority to another, without actually decentralizing it. Besides, I know a lot of principled soldiers who would never consider it; any professional and responsible military should eschew politics, and at worst, should simply not comply with bad orders, rather than seize government altogether. Now THAT would be interesting.
I think the key to better government in the U.S is to restore transparency, local autonomy, and give the people a stake in what happens. The way things are now, few people actually know enough or care enough to participate in government. And as this administration’s blatant incompetence is brought to the fore, Americans are increasingly desensitized to the deluge of bad news, even as the news gets worse and worse. That’s not to say that the media could not do a better job of reporting stories like this, rather than obsessing over nonsense like Anna Nicole Smith.
I think the key is to find a way to restore balance to the federalism that was supposed to keep a runaway central government (in this case, an executive) in check. Congress abdicated their responsibility in passing the Use of Force Authorization, and hence surrendered their war powers to a president who is manifestly incompetent. The States and the People need to work to take it back.
Finally, It should come as no surprise that a man such as George W. Bush would not be troubled by the unaccountable loss of $12 billion… he’s a man that has never earned a much for himself, and instead relied on his family’s pedigree and wealth to build a successful political career; leeching off the taxpayer by raiding the treasury is just another example of his failure to understand that such resources come through the sacrifice of ordinary taxpayers he has likely never met nor cared about.
That said, a restoration of federal principles, and a withdrawal of American international imperialism, might serve us well; we could find a way to craft more transparent and accountable government that serves people here, rather than killing people abroad.
Posted by chatman at February 13, 2007 07:21 PM
My apologies to all for posting such a lengthy list of war quotes. I thought I was just copying the ones on the screen. In my haste to leave for a dinner with my Valentine, I simply made the copy and paste.
Chatman, you are as reasoned and informed as ever.
Cheers.
Posted by shazam at February 14, 2007 08:39 AM
Interesting that Eric would compare the cost of this war with World War I, Korea, and Vietnam. Those three wars were all failures:
- Germany rose up again less than 20 years after WWI and conquered Europe.
- North Korea is still causing trouble for its neighbors today.
- We abandoned South Vietnam militarily in 1973 and economically in 1974, allowing the North to conquer the South in 1975.
I have my own take on the money spent in this war: Just like the more expensive World War 2, this time we’re fighting to WIN.
Posted by jkwilson at February 15, 2007 01:12 PM
WIN what jkwilson? A deserted island!
Posted by oldfan at February 15, 2007 02:54 PM
Jkwilson:
After an amortized cost of over $2 trillion spent in 4 years in WWII, the Americans had successfully defeated two militaries of comparable or superior strength, on different sides of the globe. Now, I grant you that most of the work against Nazi Germany was done by the Soviet Union, but compare the figures; we’ve been tied up in a land war without end in Iraq for the last 4 years, and things look worse today than they did 4 years ago. The Iraqi enemy, unlike Nazi Germany or Japan, threatened little more than its own blighted people. Yet, with a vastly superior military force, we still have made NO progress.
If this is your idea of fighting to win, I think I would rather fight to lose.
Germany’s rise after WWI was not due to any military inefficacy, but rather, was a consequence of the fact that the U.S was floating all of Europe’s debts on money that didn’t exist (hyperinflated stock market), and because America was unable to modify the terms of the Versailles treaty to be more forgiving to Germany and Austria. That failure, coupled with a worldwide economic recession in the 30’s, left Germany ripe for the fascist revolution.
As for Vietnam, it does not appear that Vietnam today suffers much for the eventual defeat of South Vietnamese forces.
North Korea is an impoverished and famine stricken nation whose worst threat against its far more powerful neighbors is its ability to occasionally kidnap fishermen. I read recently that they even gave up their precious but inefficient nuclear program in exchange for resumption of food aid. A pathetic nation led by a nutcase who threatens no one other than his own people; the South Koreans certainly are not too worried, considering they have 700,000 crack troops, and are further protected by the nuclear umbrella of the U.S 7th Fleet, or China.
That said, look at what we have accomplished in our willingness to “fight to win.” In 6 years of fighting “terror” (which is much akin to fighting “evil,” “the bad guys,” or some other unnamed and nebulous foe), we have failed to define any clear enemy, capture or kill any of the original planners of the 9/11 attacks, or truly defeat poorly armed (though increasingly, better armed) groups of Islamic tribesmen or irregular militias in Iraq or Afghanistan. The costs of all of this activity, aside from the outright deficit spending, has been transparency in government, a massive increase in institutional corruption and malfeasance, a death of rational political discourse, and inflexibility in our ability to deploy military and economic resources to deal with real crises; we’ve also convinced the majority of the global community that we are an irresponsible power. In so doing, we’ve left the Chinese, Europeans, Indians, and anyone else with superpower ambitions else to attempt to fill the role of a responsible power.
You should read the link that Oldfan posted about crumbling empires. If you don’t see the coming fall of America from the throne of global supremacy, you haven’t been paying attention. We unaccountably spent $12 billion on bribes and payoffs to Iraqi officials who are more than likely agitating against us today in Iraq. That kind of corruption is Roman in scope and callousness. What’s worse, in the administration’s confusion about where the insurgency gets its money and power, it fails to look in the mirror and bring accountability to its own ability to secure capital, military equipment, and explosives that are either sent in to the region, or previously secured by Saddam Hussein.
Posted by chatman at February 15, 2007 06:35 PM
hedagem, there is apparently no limit to your repugnance.
Re: “Insurgents = freedom fighters”
http://newsfromrussia.com/images/newsline/baghdad.JPG
This is the wreckage from a suicide bomber- I mean, “freedom fighter” - who blew up his car outside a hospital as U.S. troops were handing out candy and food to children, killing 30 people and injuring about 40.
Yup, that noble “freedom fighter” killed 30 innocent Iraqis and injured 36 others (4 “terrorists” who were handing out candy were also injured).
This brave soul you so admire was all about freedom – the freedom to liberate the limbs of 30 innocent Iraqi civilians from their bodies.
Posted by Bino at February 19, 2007 11:46 AM
And here are some accounts from Iraqis about the great American heroes who fight for the freedom of Iraqis.
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq2.htm
Posted by Weary at February 19, 2007 02:53 PM
Both repugnant, are they not, weary?
Or are those “freedom fighters” who pull men out of their homes in the middle of the night and execute them in front of their screaming wives and children for being the wrong strain of Islam not as reprehensible?
I love the moral double-bookkeeping around these parts. It’s what keeps me coming back for more.
Posted by Bino at February 19, 2007 04:03 PM
Are you talking about your own moral double-bookeeping, Bino?
Posted by Weary at February 19, 2007 04:25 PM
There are two types of “insurgents” in Iraq:
a) There are the true “insurgents” aka Freedom Fighters who kill amerikan soldiers aka terrorists.
b) And then there are the fake insurgents, the ones who apparently only attack innocent Iraqis, which are the ones who are financed by the U.S. and Iraq.
You see, the Iraqi “insurgency” is financed and controlled by the U.S. Without the (fake) insurgents who create chaos in Iraq, there would be no need for the U.S. to stay.
Posted by hedagem at February 19, 2007 06:41 PM
Correction:
b) And then there are the fake insurgents, the ones who apparently only attack innocent Iraqis, which are the ones who are financed by the U.S. and ISRAEL.
Posted by hedagem at February 19, 2007 06:42 PM
Bingo says: “Or are those “freedom fighters” who pull men out of their homes in the middle of the night and execute them in front of their screaming wives and children for being the wrong strain of Islam not as reprehensible?”
Those are NOT “freedom fighters”. Those are U.S. controlled Iraqi militia groups. You can be sure of one thing: the real freedom fighters ONLY attack american terrorists. Any attack on Iraqi citizens is carried out by U.S. supported groups. Hey, remember the two British soldiers who were caught planting bombs and shooting into a crowd while dressed up as arabs? Noticed how nobody is asking any questions about that anymore? That’s what happens when you have TAMED the media.
Posted by hedagem at February 19, 2007 06:46 PM
Bino:
It’s fair to say that not all insurgents are freedom fighters, but many of them are. It’s not fair to paint all Iraqi insurgent movements with the same brush, though I do find it disturbing that so many of these groups have begun focusing their attacks on civilian soft targets, instead of those targets I would consider legitimate.
Even members of our military (some of whom I know quite well) don’t refer to those who violently challenge American occupation in Iraq as “terrorists” any longer; they are legitimately fighting occupation forces that do a lot more harm than good. Even some American soldiers are increasingly coming to realize this fact.
Moreover, for each act of American military benevolence (OTW, or Operations other Than War), there is a commensurate counteraction where American troops act recklessly, or worse, in prosecuting the aims of the occupation. While our forces aren’t as repugnantly brutal as the Israelis, we have a lot more troops, and a great deal more firepower. Add the growing fatigue of American soldiers unfamiliar with and tired of fighting low intensity wars in a foreign land, and… well… you get the picture. Most of us are already getting them through various media outlets.
Instead of trying to categorize and equate in Hegadem’s crude manner, it is more constructive to think of each side as combatants; better yet, why label them at all? Look to the side that created the problem, the elements to allow problems to persist, and determine how to best resolve the issue.
I think the best solution is to pull American troops out, and let the Iraqis work out their nationhood. There is a perception that American troops are the only think keeping anarchy at bay, but I increasingly think that they are a big part of the problem; Iraqis are already killing each other in spades; we contribute our own cash and weaponry, and foment even more killing. Pull out, and let Iraq and its neighbors resolve the nationhood crisis. I realize that we foolishly created the crisis, but our current approach makes things worse, rather than better.
In Iraq today, there’s an entire generation of fatalistic and shell shocked kids who think that car bombs, summary executions in the middle of the night, indefinite arrests, and “precision strikes” involving HE rounds and 500lb bombs is normal life. It’s no wonder that so many are willing to blow themselves or others up in the name of a cause. Both sides have lost sight of the ultimate value of human life.
While I know you like to differentiate “terrorists” from organized militaries on the basis of intent, I don’t find the distinctions meaningful, particularly when the organized militaries have so much more firepower.
Opening up a clinic or giving kids stuffed animals and lollipops every other weeks doesn’t wash the blood off the hands of American commanders who order tanks or aircraft to deploy HE weaponry in civilian zones, or mitigate the effects of events like Haditha, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, or recently reported incidents of rape and murder by men in uniform. This madness needs to stop with the people who created in the first place.
Posted by chatman at February 19, 2007 08:21 PM
Hegadem:
Two points:
I find your categorization of the insurgent movements to be persuasive. That said, while I realize we finance many of the Shia death squads that commit many of the more heinous Iraqi-on-Iraqi attacks, I have not read that we finance Sunni groups that employ the use of massive and coordinated car bomb attacks. While I don’t doubt that this is possible, I would appreciate seeing some evidence that the U.S and Israel are involved.
Secondly, I wonder why it is so easy for you to come unhinged when Bino posts. A single post by Bino reduces you to the maturity level of a sputtering adolescent; “soccer with the heads of Palestinian babies?” Spare us the melodrama.
It speaks more of your character than Bino’s when you make multiple posts entreating the rest of us to ignore him, and then fail to do the same yourself, resorting to childish ad hominem attacks. Such attacks would be entirely unnecessary if you made compelling arguments instead; I invite you to do so.
Posted by chatman at February 19, 2007 08:28 PM
Questioner:
I don’t appreciate hypocrisy. Bino’s discourse is not always graceful or reasoned, but one can say the same for his detractors; it is the essence of the pot calling the kettle black to sanction the childishness of those who would attack him at every turn with such mindless insults, and then accuse him of bringing down the blog. Who gets so upset about someone’s opinion on the internet that he’s reduced the blubbering insults like this?
Bino is as entitled to his opinion, and to reasonable discourse, as anyone else. It’s not that I stick up for him in particular; I stick up for the notion of civil discourse. Hegadem entreats the rest of us to ignore Bino (see the last article), yet he himself is unable to restrain his urge to stoop to grade school insults when Bino’s perspective or commentary doesn’t suit him.
What’s wrong with the “reason or ignore” doctrine? That’s the province of rational adults. You’ll forgive me if I prefer reasoned discourse. Eric has demonstrated many times that doesn’t like ad hominem attacks on this blog. We are here as his guests. We owe him the courtesy of (1) staying roughly on topic and (2) not sullying ourselves with pointless drama, cheap insults, and internet-based psychoanalysis of people we’ll never meet.
I think I’ll pass on your invitation to compare discussions on things that matter to an English game with wickets and bowlers; I never cared for the game, or most others. I guess that’s why I come here; discussing the fate of nations is more topical and more interesting to me than discussing the fates of their respective cricket, soccer, or Olympic teams.
Finally, I hardly think pointing out Hegadem’s blatant hypocrisy and lack of self control rises to the level of being “unhinged.” This will be (I hope) my last post dealing with the personalities on people on this blog… back to the issues… please.
Posted by chatman at February 20, 2007 02:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkYfYa8ePI
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 20, 2007 04:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVbu1zBid-o&mode=related&search=
Posted by _RealityBites_ at February 20, 2007 04:46 AM
Chatman… a few thoughts:
I wasn’t calling YOU unhinged… I was saying that Bino is unhinged. Hagadem called it like he saw it…. that Americans are behaving like terrorists.
This is a majority view in the world right now. Only a person with rabies would attack Hagadem personally for his opinion like Bino did.
How many people will Bino convert to his point of view by his gratuitous insolence and immaturity?
Now then….
My dear fellow… I was asking you to appreciate Cricket… not exactly like playing marbles in the street.
You are no doubt aware that India and Pakistan would be radioactive pancakes today if it hadn’t been for Zia-ul-Haq and Rajiv Gandhi’s “Cricket diplomacy” in.. I think 97, 98?
Cricket teaches one about life itself on multiple levels. It is a game where persistence triumphs over “flash”. You play cricket like baseball and you’ll be gone (look up Shahid Afridi the Twerp).
Americans are in all this doo-doo because they don’t understand Cricket. Germans went tits-up in WW2 because Hitler hated Cricket.
As for us being “guests” over here…. well, if Eric wasn’t used to foul language he wouldn’t be commenting on international politics. How can one have a reasonable exchange of views when international politics has turned into a free for all depending on who has the bigger gun?
Some of us call it like we see it. It really is that bad out there.
Posted by The Questioner at February 20, 2007 05:16 AM
Err… 87, 88… or was it 86?
Posted by The Questioner at February 20, 2007 05:19 AM
Questioner:
See the note that Eric posted on his most recent piece. Regardless of what you or I might presume Eric is accustomed in discussing international politics, he has made it clear time and time again that the course of conversation in this section should be polite and respectful; that applies to Bino and at least one of his detractors (Hedagem in this case). I know you don’t like Bino, but try to perceive the problem neutrally; Hedagem’s “saying it like it is” commentary has no made him appear wiser or more noble than the blogger he resents.
I really don’t want to see the blog disappear, so I would urge everyone, Bino included, to moderate their discourse, regardless of what you might personally think is appropriate fodder for discussion.
Posted by chatman at February 20, 2007 12:51 PM
It makes me laugh that some guy posts the most disturbed stuff ever (masturbating to video of police beatings? playing futbol with a child’s severed head?) as a result of my counter-post (which contained not a single profanity, I’d like to add) and suddenly I’m the issue.
What a joke. Also, what a perfect example of how morally bankrupt and hypocritical many here are - typically those who act the most righteous.
If nothing else, at least that disgusting post packed with vile imagery and even more vile idiocy was deleted. You know, something tells me that had my little friend not resorted to such pathetic inanity, we wouldn’t have that footnote on Eric’s newest entry.
Let’s not be afraid to place the blame where it belongs, OK?
Posted by Bino at February 20, 2007 02:58 PM
Bino = zionist neocon troll. His credibility is down the drain. Feel free to ignore all his posts.
Posted by hedagem at March 30, 2007 08:42 PM