• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hilary: Boko Haram as serious as Benghazi

Faster horses

Well-known member
Hillary Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram could become at least as serious an issue as her decisions surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate Benghazi.

Much of the attention Thursday was on the announcement that the House will create a select committee to investigate Benghazi, but the same day, Daily Beast reporter Josh Rogin revealed details about her time as Secretary of State that raise significant questions about her broader record on issues of terrorism.

Rogin reported that from 2011 through early 2013, the Clinton State Department repeatedly rejected efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. In recent weeks, the group has exploded onto the world stage by kidnapping more than 250 girls at a Nigerian boarding school.

It is so clearly and vividly a terrorist organization that it seems indefensible that the Clinton State Department would have refused to designate it as such. A thorough investigation of the decision process that protected Boko Haram from 2011 until late 2013 could be devastating.
Hillary Clinton, Boko Haram and Benghazi: The Real Scandal
Now that Boko Haram has attracted worldwide attention for its vicious assault on young girls, political leaders, including former Secretary Clinton, are rushing to issue emotionally powerful but practically meaningless statements.

Hillary tweeted: "Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls"

Hillary's tweet contrasts vividly with her failure to stand up to terrorism in 2011 by naming Boko Haram for what it was.

The requests to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization were serious and came from very responsible authorities.

As Josh Rogin reported:

“What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

“’The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,’ said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. ‘The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.’

“In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a ‘safe haven’ for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.”

The protection of Boko Haram from designation as a terrorist organization is even more unbelievable when you read the description of the group’s activities in the American Foreign Policy Council's World Almanac of Islamism.

Consider the following highlights:
•Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful."
•The initial Boko Haram organization grew to an estimated 280,000 followers. In 2009 there was a huge fight with the Nigerian Army and over 1,000 followers and the founder were killed.

•A revitalized Boko Haram launched an attack on Bauchi prison on September 7, 2010.

•Since then they have carried out over 600 attacks killing over 3,800 people.

•Boko Haram's orientation can be discerned in its support for Taliban-like extremist Sharia and its designation of its original encampment in northern Nigeria as "Afghanistan."

•The Nigerian terrorists have allied with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and a number of transnational terrorist groups.

•On Christmas Day in 2011 Boko Haram staged church bombings.

•Boko Haram has deep ties with extremists in Saudi Arabia. Supposedly dozens have been trained in Afghanistan.

Given these facts it is amazing that Secretary Clinton's State Department refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, since clearly it was engaged in terrorist activities. Why would the department she led not call a terrorist group a terrorist group when it was in her power to do so, and, as Rogin reports, the FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and many members of both the House and Senate were urging her to do just that?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Funny how the Dems strategist that were on TV to defending Hillary today was crowing about everything she has done for women. :?


Yep she has done so much that she single handedly got 300 young Nigerian girls husbands as long as the guy can come up with $12 to buy one. as I hear that is what 9 year olds go for in the World Hillary is protecting. :x

#Bring back our girls HILLARY :x


Oh and let's not forget all those women Hillary helped when her husband was using them as perverted SEX TOYS.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest


When will folks like the Bush's, Obama, Hillary, Faster Horse's and the Tam's of the world learn- we can't be the policemen of the world-- and we have problems in this country that need to be taken care of...
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:


When will folks like the Bush's, Obama, Hillary, Faster Horse's and the Tam's of the world learn- we can't be the policemen of the world-- and we have problems in this country that need to be taken care of...

I thought we in Canada and the USA were Christians for the most part. Isn't it part of being a Christian when innocents are being harmed to help?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
In this case in Nigeria, I would have no problem sending police aid/drones, equipment if Nigeria requests it.... Because these folks are nothing better than a criminal cartel- wanting to sell these girls as slaves... And the US and many foreign countries have law enforcement mutual aid agreements to assist each other upon request in such operations... Much as we are currently aiding policing pirates off Somalia, Sumatra, South and Central America, Mexico , etc. ...I believe the slave trade is also banned under international law that we have signed onto...

Terrorism is also against international law...No?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Policing the world has had positive economic effects on the USA. In fact they have had positive monetary effects on the whole world.
The post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the postwar economic boom, the long boom, and the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century which occurred, following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s.

If anyone believes in Keynesian doctrines, they cannot argue that "Policing The World" provides economic stimulus.

In short, you cannot have both ways.

Are you as stupid as you seem? :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:


When will folks like the Bush's, Obama, Hillary, Faster Horse's and the Tam's of the world learn- we can't be the policemen of the world-- and we have problems in this country that need to be taken care of...

I thought we in Canada and the USA were Christians for the most part. Isn't it part of being a Christian when innocents are being harmed to help?

You'd think that after almost a thousand years of wars, pillaging, killing and invasions of country's in the name of Christianity we had with the Crusades we would have learned something... :???:
I don't think we need to stick our nose into every little civil war or criminal act being committed around the world... If it doesn't affect us- stay out..
But I do think you have a good idea- let Canada take care of the world for a few years, while we work on improving things for the home folks...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Policing the world has had positive economic effects on the USA. In fact they have had positive monetary effects on the whole world.
The post–World War II economic expansion, also known as the postwar economic boom, the long boom, and the Golden Age of Capitalism, was a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century which occurred, following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s.

If anyone believes in Keynesian doctrines, they cannot argue that "Policing The World" provides economic stimulus.

In short, you cannot have both ways.

Are you as stupid as you seem? :lol:



The Iraq War Could Cost More Than $6 Trillion

Michael Kelley and Geoffrey Ingersoll

Mar. 14, 2013, 4:09 PM

The Iraq war has cost the U.S. more than $2 trillion so far and with interest could swell to more than $6 trillion, according to a study released Thursday.


The study, part of the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, drew from actual expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments.

That $2 trillion figure comes from $1.7 trillion in war expenses and an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.

An extra $4 trillion factors in to pay interest through 2053. The study notes that because the Iraq War appropriations "were not funded with new taxes, but by borrowing, it is important to keep in mind the interest costs already paid, and future interest costs."

The study raises the total cost of the Iraq war from the $1.7 trillion cost (without interest) estimated in a 2011 Watson Institute report.

The new study concluded that both the war and the subsequent $212 billion reconstruction effort were failures as the war "reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious health care system" while "most of [the reconstruction] money was spent on security or lost to waste and fraud," according to Daniel Trotta of Reuters reports.

There are so many examples of waste and financial mismanagement in the war.

For example, when the U.S. invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, the country's government owed Washington approximately $4 billion dollars — partially leftover from America's "loans" during the Iran-Iraq War.

The debt was forgiven post-"liberation," part of a concerted push of then-governor of the war Paul Bremer. He argued it would help "boost" the fledgling free market.

Later, American spending topped $12 billion a month and private contracting companies grew exponentially, arguably while doing shoddy work both in combat and in services and construction.

The prevailing claim is that use of private contractors saved on military salary and benefits — a claim which casts the half a billion in benefits owed to Iraq War veterans in a more defining light.

Some of the war's critics had argued the war said it was about freeing up Saddam's oil, which had been nationalized under the Ba'ath Party. However, when oil rights were awarded (often to the lamentations of local people), most seemed to go to foreign non-U.S. entities.

Those companies ended up contracting Halliburton, an oilfield services company, for the lion's share of the oil field development. Halliburton, until 2007, owned a considerable stake of Kellog Brown and Root, one of the major contractors in Iraq allegedly responsible for misbehavior, abuse of funds, and less than adequate project completion.

In October an audit revealed that the U.S. owes Iraq $7 billion because of fraud, part of which came from U.S. Army diplomats losing gas receipts totaling to $1 billion.

The war's direct death toll is estimated to be more than 189,000, including at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians (some from chemical weapons). The authors of this study note that indirect deaths — due to war related hardship — may total "hundreds of thousands more than this estimate."

The obscene flow of money, violence, and consequent sectarian strife are still common in the country. Seventeen people were killed today in a Baghdad bombing, just five days short of the decade anniversary of the invasion.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-iraq-war-cost-2-trillion-2013-3#ixzz31KrpN9Z8

Tell me again how much money the country made off the war.... Just the other day I saw another article- where with Veterans costs and all- they had the cost figured over $7 Trillion...
All added to the National Debt because GW went against his advisors and cut taxes to fight the Bush Wars instead of raising them like we did with previous wars... GW just said "Charge it"...
And then on top of it- Al-Qaeda (that Saddam wouldn't let operate in Iraq) and some of the other terrorists got stronger because of the war- using our invasion as a recruitment tool for every pea brained Muslim who wanted his 72 virgins to join up....
 

Mike

Well-known member
You'd think that after almost a thousand years of wars, pillaging, killing and invasions of country's in the name of Christianity we had with the Crusades we would have learned something

Almost a thousand years? Do ever stop and think before you post?

On a side note...the Mediterranean Sea was the lifeblood of Europe at the time. The Muslims were blocking all shipping and trade. The Crusades helped open it back up.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Tell me again how much money the country made off the war.... Just the other day I saw another article- where with Veterans costs and all- they had the cost figured over $7 Trillion...

What you don't understand is that a huge majority of the money spent on war goes back into our economy. Equipment, salaries, weapons, etc.

If that $7 Trillion was all spent overseas, yes it would be wasted. But it wasn't.

Are you as stupid as you seem?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
You'd think that after almost a thousand years of wars, pillaging, killing and invasions of country's in the name of Christianity we had with the Crusades we would have learned something

Almost a thousand years? Do ever stop and think before you post?

.

OK- 738 years to be correct... :roll: 718 to 1456... That's still long enough that we should have learned something... :wink:

Age of Crusade

10.1 Reconquista (718–1492)
10.2 People's Crusade (1096)
10.3 First Crusade (1095–1099) and immediate aftermath
10.4 Second Crusade (1147–1149)
10.5 Wendish (1147–1162)
10.6 Third Crusade (1187–1192)
10.7 Northern crusades (1193–1290)
10.8 German Crusade (1195–1198)
10.9 Fourth Crusade (1202–1204)
10.10 Albigensian Crusade (1208–1241)
10.11 Fifth Crusade (1217–1221)
10.12 Sixth Crusade (1228–1229)
10.13 Seventh Crusade (1248–1254)
10.14 Eighth and Ninth Crusade (1270–1272)
10.15 Aragonese Crusade (1284-1285)
10.16 Crusades of the 14th and 15th centuries
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
You'd think that after almost a thousand years of wars, pillaging, killing and invasions of country's in the name of Christianity we had with the Crusades we would have learned something

Almost a thousand years? Do ever stop and think before you post?

.

OK- 738 years to be correct... :roll: 718 to 1456... That's still long enough that we should have learned something... :wink:

Age of Crusade

10.1 Reconquista (718–1492)
10.2 People's Crusade (1096)
10.3 First Crusade (1095–1099) and immediate aftermath
10.4 Second Crusade (1147–1149)
10.5 Wendish (1147–1162)
10.6 Third Crusade (1187–1192)
10.7 Northern crusades (1193–1290)
10.8 German Crusade (1195–1198)
10.9 Fourth Crusade (1202–1204)
10.10 Albigensian Crusade (1208–1241)
10.11 Fifth Crusade (1217–1221)
10.12 Sixth Crusade (1228–1229)
10.13 Seventh Crusade (1248–1254)
10.14 Eighth and Ninth Crusade (1270–1272)
10.15 Aragonese Crusade (1284-1285)
10.16 Crusades of the 14th and 15th centuries

Reconquista is not considered part of the "Crusades". It was an effort to retake Spain from the Moors.


1285-1096=189 Years. :roll:

Check the Timeline: http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

Looks like one day you would learn to quit making up chit and lying. You get caught everytime. :???:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Mike said:
You'd think that after almost a thousand years of wars, pillaging, killing and invasions of country's in the name of Christianity we had with the Crusades we would have learned something

Almost a thousand years? Do ever stop and think before you post?

On a side note...the Mediterranean Sea was the lifeblood of Europe at the time. The Muslims were blocking all shipping and trade. The Crusades helped open it back up.

Remember, moohamed = Christ in his world.

OT has no idea of what occurred during the violent forced spread of Islam.

His take on the middle ages is equivalent to making the Jews the instigator of WW II.

I have some family events to attend this weekend, but when I get a chance, I'll make sure to bring a little light to this progressive fallacy as well.

Get your distraction shoes ready.... :lol:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Almost a thousand years? Do ever stop and think before you post?

.

OK- 738 years to be correct... :roll: 718 to 1456... That's still long enough that we should have learned something... :wink:

Age of Crusade

10.1 Reconquista (718–1492)
10.2 People's Crusade (1096)
10.3 First Crusade (1095–1099) and immediate aftermath
10.4 Second Crusade (1147–1149)
10.5 Wendish (1147–1162)
10.6 Third Crusade (1187–1192)
10.7 Northern crusades (1193–1290)
10.8 German Crusade (1195–1198)
10.9 Fourth Crusade (1202–1204)
10.10 Albigensian Crusade (1208–1241)
10.11 Fifth Crusade (1217–1221)
10.12 Sixth Crusade (1228–1229)
10.13 Seventh Crusade (1248–1254)
10.14 Eighth and Ninth Crusade (1270–1272)
10.15 Aragonese Crusade (1284-1285)
10.16 Crusades of the 14th and 15th centuries

Reconquista is not considered part of the "Crusades". It was an effort to retake Spain from the Moors.


1285-1096=189 Years. :roll:

Check the Timeline: http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

Looks like one day you would learn to quit making up chit and lying. You get caught everytime. :???:

Stop using facts Mike, that just isn't fair.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lawmakers show little interest in sending US troops to Nigeria



By Peter Sullivan - 05/10/14 12:27 PM EDT

Lawmakers desperately want to help hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by a terrorist group, but not if it means sending U.S. troops to the country.

Boko Haram’s promise of selling the abducted girls into slavery shocked much of the world, triggering a social media firestorm.


First lady Michelle Obama highlighted the story on Saturday in the weekly address. “In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters,” she said. “We see their hopes, their dreams – and we can only imagine the anguish their parents are feeling right now.”
The situation also sparked a rare moment of bipartisanship in the House, where members promised to move legislation against human trafficking.

Still, lawmakers are mostly urging indirect steps such as sanctions, intelligence sharing and assistance to the Nigerian military, rather than the deployment of U.S. troops to get the girls back themselves.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), who joined other representatives outside the Nigerian embassy on Wednesday to denounce the kidnappings, does not want U.S. troops involved. She said Nigerian forces and the African Union should take the lead.

“We need to get the boots that are on the ground moving at the sole purpose of finding those girls, and no I don’t think our boots on the ground should be there,” she said.

Concern for the girls stretches across the ideological spectrum, as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leader of a wing of the Republican Party often against U.S. interventions, says the U.S. should provide help, at least in a limited way.

“I think, you know, in a very limited way, if there's a way we can help find those girls, it's probably a good idea,” he told The Hill.

The main exception to the preference against using U.S. troops has come from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “More can be done by this administration,” she told CNN on Tuesday. “I would like to see Special Forces deployed to help rescue these young girls.”

U.S. involvement is complicated by the knotty conflict between the Nigerian government and Boko Haram, a fight in which the U.S has previously resisted getting too involved.

In fact, a major roadblock to further U.S. action is the Nigerian security forces’ own human rights abuses. U.S. law restricts assistance to militaries that are guilty of violating human rights.

“To the extent that we are seen to be working with people who have carried out bad activities, we are associated with a part of the problem,” Johnnie Carson, who was assistant secretary of state for African affairs until last year, said in a call with reporters.

The ghosts of past U.S. conflicts in Africa are also at the front of the mind. The 1993 military action in Somalia that ended with the deaths of 18 marines began as a humanitarian mission.

The new prominence for Boko Haram in the national consciousness has raised scrutiny of the Obama administration’s decision not to designate the group as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” until last year.

Carson said part of the reason for the delay was that being targeted by the U.S. could actually help the group.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

Asked if the U.S. joining the fight against the group could have similar unintended consequences, Carson said “it remains a concern.”


The White House repeated throughout the week that it is not considering direct U.S. military action, though it has sent military advisers as part of a team to aid the Nigerian government with tasks such as intelligence and hostage negotiation.

Though President Obama tends to express reluctance to use military force, looking to avoid quagmires across the world, U.S. troops are playing a role in hunting the warlord Joseph Kony across Central Africa.

In March, the Obama administration sent military aircraft to join the approximately 300 U.S. troops in the search. They are only in an advisory role, though, and are forbidden from engaging Kony’s forces themselves.

Expanding the search beyond a single country’s borders has been key in that fight, said Bronwyn Bruton, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. The U.S. could play a role in encouraging Cameroon and Niger, which border Nigeria, to increase their efforts against Boko Haram. Bruton indicated U.S. military involvement would be less helpful.

“I would never underestimate the U.S. capacity to make a situation worse,” she said
.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/international/205753-lawmakers-show-little-interest-in-sending-troops-to-nigeria#ixzz31L0RSk3o
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


It looks like more and more are promoting the Libertarian/old Conservative view of keeping our rear ends out of every sh*t hole in the world- and not fighting everyones war for them ... The US has a bad history on that...

As 2 time Congressional Medal of Honor winner and United States Marine Corps major general Smedley Butler said:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

And that our leadership is taking up and following the recommendations of the experts in not wanting to aid these criminal groups in their recruitment by glorifying- or even give them any credibility by recognizing them as any type of legitimate group...


Rand Study: 'War on Terror' Not Working

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:59 AM

WASHINGTON — The United States should shift strategy against Al-Qaeda from the current heavy reliance on military force to more effective use of police and intelligence work, a study released Tuesday concluded.

The study by the RAND Corporation, a think tank that often does work for the US military, also urged the United States to drop the "war on terror" label.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, lead author of the study.


The US military has pressed in recent weeks for more troops to combat an intensifying Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan, but the RAND study recommends only "a light military footprint or none at all."

The study examined how terrorist groups since 1968 have ended, and found that only seven percent were defeated militarily.

Most were neutralized either through political settlements (43 percent), or through the use of police and intelligence forces (40 percent) to disrupt and capture or kill leaders.

"Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory," the report said.

"This has significant implications for dealing with Al-Qaeda and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-September 11 counterterrorism strategy," it said.

It argued that a US strategy centered primarily on the use of military force has not worked, pointing to al-Qaeda's resurgence along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks.

Policing and intelligence "should be the backbone of US efforts," it said. Police and intelligence agencies were better suited for penetrating terrorist groups and tracking down terrorist leaders, it said.

"Second, military force, though not necessarily US soldiers, may be a necessary instrument when al-Qaeda is involved in an insurgency," it said.

"Local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate than the United States has, and they have a better understanding of the operating environment, even if they need to develop the capacity to deal with insurgent groups over the long run," it said.

While the US military can play a critical role in building up the capacity of local forces, it should "generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," the study said.

— AFP
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
it really doesn't matter if the US was to go over and try to find these girls...OT would still claim it was a Christian "crusade" to save them from a life of muslim slavery.

He defends whatever Islam does and condemns Christians.

He is a Democrat progressive, through and through.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
iwannabeacowboy said:
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
OK- 738 years to be correct... :roll: 718 to 1456... That's still long enough that we should have learned something... :wink:

Reconquista is not considered part of the "Crusades". It was an effort to retake Spain from the Moors.


1285-1096=189 Years. :roll:

Check the Timeline: http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

Looks like one day you would learn to quit making up chit and lying. You get caught everytime. :???:

Stop using facts Mike, that just isn't fair.

Age of Crusade
10.1 Reconquista (718–1492)
10.2 People's Crusade (1096)
10.3 First Crusade (1095–1099) and immediate aftermath
10.4 Second Crusade (1147–1149)
10.5 Wendish (1147–1162)
10.6 Third Crusade (1187–1192)
10.7 Northern crusades (1193–1290)
10.8 German Crusade (1195–1198)
10.9 Fourth Crusade (1202–1204)
10.10 Albigensian Crusade (1208–1241)
10.11 Fifth Crusade (1217–1221)
10.12 Sixth Crusade (1228–1229)
10.13 Seventh Crusade (1248–1254)
10.14 Eighth and Ninth Crusade (1270–1272)
10.15 Aragonese Crusade (1284-1285)
10.16 Crusades of the 14th and 15th centuries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Well forgive me if I go with the Wikipedia's facts before I go with Mikes...
Lot more credibility with them ...
No big deal- anyway just Mikes way to divert away from the subject...
 
Top