Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
"Let the bloody wogs sort themselves out"
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, November 13, 2006

That might've been an unexceptional sentiment in the corridors of Whitehall a century ago, but it's hardly the sentiment that has traditionally been that of the Democratic party. The times, I guess, are a'changin'.

The current Democratic party line is that they will push for troop reductions in Iraq "as a way of prodding along the paralyzed Iraqi government". Considering that the Democrats have spent the last two years telling us that iraq was a total write-off anyway, that we never should've invaded in the first place, and our policy there was doomed from the start, forgive me if I harbor some reservations about the truth of that reasoning.

In point of fact, the Democratic Party's leadership simply wants out of Iraq. That's what they repeatedly told us every day prior to last Tuesday, so I presume that, rather than post-election pontifications, constitutes the Democrat's real policy, and the reasons for implementing it.

Additionally, I wonder what will happen, and what the Democrats' policy prescription will be if, in the wake of a pullout, the situation in Iraq goes completely down the toilet.

Way back in the dim mists of time—1975, to be exact—the Democrats assured us that the "Domino Theory" in Southeast Asia was a fantastic falsehood, and that allowing th South Vietnamese to be defeated wouldn't cause any serious harm to American interests.

When South Vietnam fell, hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese, died in "re-education" camps, and hundreds of thousands of more fled the country as "boat people". Almost concurrently, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge, who immediately implemented a brand of totalitarianism so severe that the government wound up killing millions of people—indeed, about a quarter of the population—outright. By 1976, Cuba was sending troops to Angola, to help win that country's civil war in favor of the communists. By 1979, the communist Sandinistas overthrew the regime of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, and opened the country to thousands of Soviet "military advisors", who immediately began assisting them by supporting revolutionary movements in El Salvador and Nicaragua. By 1980, the Soviets themselves were invading Afghanistan, and filling up Eastern Europe with SS-20 nuclear missiles, while, at the same time, lavishly funding the Nuclear Freeze and disarmament movements. Every year after our retreat from Vietnam, the number of Soviet client states increased, while the number of free, or relatively free nations decreased.

So, I am less than credulous about assertions that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would have no long-term ill effects for the security of the United states.

Still, we have not arrived at the current situation in Iraq as a result of the machinations of Democratic politicians. The Bush Administration, supported by a compliant Republican Congress, pursued a minimalist strategy that failed to bring domestic peace and security to Iraq. Barring an extremely unlikely decision to re-invade the country, and keep 250k-300k troops there for a couple of years to sort it out all over again, that opportunity is gone for good. Increasingly, the options for doing anything else than withdrawing from Iraq are dwindling.

In an odd way, though, it's probably true that an American withdrawal would galvanize the Iraqi government into action. Indeed, I suspect that the Iraqi government is waiting for precisely that before springing into action. But, I suspect that the actions currently being contemplated have far more to do with bumping off Sunnis in job lots than they do with some humane ideal of national reconciliation.

While I hope it turns out otherwise, I fear we could be in for some grim times. The irony is that, while the Bush Administration has brought us to an unpleasant prospect in Iraq, the Democrats will probably put the final nail in the coffin. And, politics being what they are, if the consequences turn out to be unpleasant, it'll be Democrats who get the lion's share of the blame.

I think that for two reasons.

First, Republicans will claim loudly, to anyone who'll listen, that, "We would've won in Iraq if the Democrats hadn't pulled the rug out from under us. Just like in Vietnam." That may not be fair (it was Richard Nixon, after all, who implemented the policy of "Vietnamization"), but the Democrats' reputation for national security weakness makes it plausible, fair or not.

Second, the fact that the electorate wanted to throw the Republicans out because of dissatisfaction over Iraq, doesn't necessarily mean that the electorate is keen for a withdrawal from that country. The voters may just want to see if the end game in Iraq can be managed more effectively, in order to achieve something like victory (i.e. a stable, relatively democratic, and non-threatening Iraq), or, at least, not outright defeat. Moreover, even if the electorate does wish to withdraw from Iraq, if unpleasant consequences ensue later, the chances are that they'll blame the politicians they elected for those consequences, rather than themselves. In the search for convenient scapegoats, the voters rarely ever scapegoat themselves. That's not very fair, either.

But, then, who said life was fair?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Considering that the Democrats have spent the last two years telling us that iraq was a total write-off anyway, that we never should’ve invaded in the first place, and our policy there was doomed from the start, forgive me if I harbor some reservations about the truth of that reasoning.
We shouldn’t have invaded. With Bush in charge our policy was doomed from the start.

Now, do you seriously contend that the American public has not already answered these questions? Most people believe that it was probably a bad idea to invade Iraq. Most people also believe that Bush’s policy was pretty much doomed from the start. These are common sense people. They think trying to re-make an Arab society is stupid.

You need to get out more. BTW, you might want to know that an anti-war Democrat got elected Senator in Virginia.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"Let the bloody wogs sort themselves out"

Posted by: Dale Franks

That might’ve been an unexceptional sentiment in the corridors of Whitehall a century ago, but it’s hardly the sentiment that has traditionally been that of the Democratic party. The times, I guess, are a’changin’.
So now the Democrats - yes the Democrats - are the imperialists in the Victorian tradition. They are for letting the "bloody wogs" sort themeselves out.

Of course that assertion is premised on the notion that Dems are imperialistic. That they desire empire, and are content to let the "bloody wogs" sort themselves out.

So one would naturally believe that the Dems desire only heartless empire, invasion and occupation without regard to the locals.

And yet, here is what Dale has to say on that subject:
Considering that the Democrats have spent the last two years telling us that iraq was a total write-off anyway, that we never should’ve invaded in the first place, and our policy there was doomed from the start, forgive me if I harbor some reservations about the truth of that reasoning.
So now, the very same Democrats who - according to the above quote - did not want to invade Iraq in the first place - are the very same Democrats are the imperialists who wanted to invade and occupy Iraq in order to treat the locals as "wogs."

C’mon Dale. You aren’t stupid enough to lead us to believe this crap.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Of course that assertion is premised on the notion that Dems are imperialistic. That they desire empire, and are content to let the "bloody wogs" sort themselves out.
Uh, no. Imperialists would do the sorting out themselves.

The line has nothing whatsoever to do with imperialism. It’s all about complete callousness about the outcome. It’s not empire, but it’s certainly heartless.

Traditionally, Democrats have at least pretended to care about the plight of little brown people.

Now...not so much.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
The majority’s dissatisfaction with Iraq has been misread by the Democrats all along. What the people want is a decisive, less politically correct, aggresive strategy in Iraq, not a pull out.

The Democrat strategy is two-fol: getting us out of Iraq as quickly as possible while holding on to the hope of being able to sleep at night.
 
Written By: Fyro
URL: http://
First, Republicans will claim loudly, to anyone who’ll listen, that, "We would’ve won in Iraq if the Democrats hadn’t pulled the rug out from under us. Just like in Vietnam." That may not be fair (it was Richard Nixon, after all, who implemented the policy of "Vietnamization"), but the Democrats’ reputation for national security weakness makes it plausible, fair or not.
Hardly unfair.

First of all Nixon was far more liberal than most liberals like to admit, and so got pushed to the left far more easily than was good for him, on many issues, such as Vietnam for example.

Secondly, and that notwithstanding, does anybody seriously consider that Sans Democrat screaming, Nixon would have withdrawn us from Vietnam? It is not unfair to correctly label where the pressure was coming from for the action that was eventually taken.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
By 1980, the Soviets themselves were invading Afghanistan, and filling up Eastern Europe with SS-20 nuclear missiles, while, at the same time, lavishly funding the Nuclear Freeze and disarmament movements. Every year after our retreat from Vietnam, the number of Soviet client states increased, while the number of free, or relatively free nations decreased.
How did that nation building work out for them?

Yeah
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
There are lessons to draw from both Vietnam and Iraq, though they may be hard for some to swallow.

US support for the Lon Nol regime and American bombing of and invasion into Cambodia helped the Khmer Rouge gain support. If not for the American war in Vietnam, you’d not have had the killing fields and the mass atrocities in the region. American policy in the region destabilized Cambodia.

The lesson is that while it may appear that war is chosen for noble reasons and should be winnable, the reality is that making a choice to go to war creates numerous uncertainties and unintended consequences. In Vietnam the unintended consequences were millions dead in vain, a murderous regime in Cambodia, and scars on the region that would last over a generation. The consequences included divisions at home, a time of strategic weakness, and a sense that tens of thousands of Americans died with no cause. And while a few people may claim that we could have won, the conventional wisdom on Vietnam is overwhelmingly that it was unwinnable. Anyone can write alternate visions of what ’might have been,’ but there is only one reality, and that trumps theories of what could have been.

In Iraq we’re seeing the US enmeshed in a very costly war that has driven up budget deficits while dividing the country and harming America’s reputation. Moreover the way in which the US could not subdue Iraq has led many countries to believe that the US is weak; the level of fear of American power is decreased — witness Iran, North Korea and others thumbing their noses at us. Iranian hardliners won elections for the first time since the revolution, and Iraq could be poised for civil war — one which could spread, and could threaten world oil supplies. As bad as Saddam was, he could have easily been contained, and sooner or later he’d likely have been overthrown. Now Iraq is likely a future ally of Iran, and there’s not much the US can do.

The idea that the Democrats will be blamed by the public for what goes wrong in the aftermath is unrealistic. Already the blame is on the GOP, and already people think Iraq has gone into civil war and chaos. The idea that if we stayed longer we could have changed it is not going to get much credibility. So the key is how to extricate ourselves from this fiasco — a war we should have known better than to get involved in. The answer necessarily involves a mix of diplomacy with Syria and Iran (something Baker, Blair and others have mentioned — I was arguing for that long ago), and a reliance on international institutions to be involved at various levels.

Will that work? I don’t know. But the real lesson is that going to war is extremely risky. That’s why it should only be done in extreme cases when there is no alternative. It is too risky and unpredictable to be a tool of policy, despite what folk like Madeline Albright and Paul Wolfowitz might claim. The lesson is that while it may make sense in the abstract, the real human cost can become enormous, with no way to ’put back together’ that which has been broken.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Dale,

While you are looking at the ill-effects of our withdrawal from Iraq, have you evaluated the costs of staying in Iraq ?? Here is what has happened while we are in Iraq:

1. Chavez is acting uppity.
2. Ecuador elected a leftist
3. Ortega is back in ElSalvador
4. Russia is exerting its influence in Eastern Europe (for the people consumed by Iraq, the Orange revolution in Ukraine is dead. Yanukovich is back)
5. We have lost our allies in Western Europe (except Britain, which is a useless ally anywez)
6. North Korea went nuclear
7. Iran is on the path of nuclearization

Do you think that Iraq is worth all of this ??
 
Written By: Ivan
URL: http://
Considering that the Democrats have spent the last two years telling us that iraq was a total write-off anyway, that we never should’ve invaded in the first place, and our policy there was doomed from the start, forgive me if I harbor some reservations about the truth of that reasoning
They voted for it right, or did I miss that part?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ivan-

Do you think all of what you listed is due to Iraq?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Do you think all of what you listed is due to Iraq?
Almost all of politics is multicausal so Iraq isn’t the sole cause of much of what’s gone wrong. But America is no longer feared or respected, we’ve spent a lot of money, overstretched the military, and are stuck in something with no clear way out, and no reasonable chance for "victory." The public has turned against the war, and the Bush desire for an "opportunity society" has gone the way of LBJ’s notion of the "great soceity" — domestic visions destroyed by having an ill advised war overtake the agenda. Social security reform and other issues that were to define Bush’s second term have gone to naught.

So Iraq has been very costly on a variety of fronts. What do we gain? People talk vaguely of "honor" or "standing by an ally," but when these abstract notions are at such a high cost, including the number dead, one wonders if vague abstract goals are worth such a steep price, paid with things that are concrete and real.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
including the number dead, one wonders if vague abstract goals are worth such a steep price, paid with things that are concrete and real
.
I agree the Nigra’s aren’t worth it and Herr Hitler is Europe’s problem...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Coulda, shoulda, woulda didn’t prevent Humpty Dumpty from falling... And foresight didn’t enable those that setup artificial boundaries in the Middle East the wisdom of following existing tribal regions. And...

NEWSFLASH: Going to war is risky. Always has been, always will be.

But then, so is not going to war a risky proposition, just in different ways.

Every path has risks, costs and benefits.

The job now is to finish the job. There are no simple solutions. There never have been. And our strategy to date hasn’t been simple, nor guaranteed to succeed. Guess what, no human endevour is guaranteed to succeed or work perfectly. We can try to do better, we can try to be more efficient, but we are still only human.

A) More troops
B) Less troops
C) Same amount of troops (1) same mix (2) different mix

1) more aggressive behavior on our part
2) less aggressive behavior on our part
3) same as now

x) train troops faster but less quality
y) train troops slower but better quality
z) same as now

i) train more police
ii) disband current police and start over
iii) continue what we are doing now

Count me as a C2, 3, z, ii kinda guy...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
Do you think all of what you listed is due to Iraq?


Maybe or Maybe not. But these things are bad for our interests. While Iraq is consuming our national interest, the rest of the world is going bonkers...
 
Written By: Ivan
URL: http://
US support for the Lon Nol regime and American bombing of and invasion into Cambodia helped the Khmer Rouge gain support. If not for the American war in Vietnam, you’d not have had the killing fields and the mass atrocities in the region. American policy in the region destabilized Cambodia.
Ah the Chomsky view. I was wondering when you would bring that in.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Ah the Chomsky view. I was wondering when you would bring that in.
The view is held by more people than just Chomsky. Your "refutation" of that position seems to be a kind of side ways ad hominem. Chomsky, who has a lot of strange ideas, happens to have the same view, so therefore it can be rejected (sort of ’anything Chomsky thinks is automatically wrong’). Yet, of course, that doesn’t refute the fact that US involvement in Vietnam had a devastating affect on Cambodia.
I agree the Nigra’s aren’t worth it and Herr Hitler is Europe’s problem...
No one made that argument but you. It’s pretty amazing how some of you resort to irrational argumentation when confronted with a perspective different than your own. Humans tend to use reason to rationalize belief in what they want to believe, it’s rare that people are actually self-critical. And, given the multi-causal world out there, one can always construct an interpretation to fit ones’ biases. That’s why discussion and debate is important, it’s only by engaging and considering contrary views that one can truly learn.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Maybe or Maybe not. But these things are bad for our interests. While Iraq is consuming our national interest, the rest of the world is going bonkers...
I thought your sides point was that the US should not be the world’s policemen?
1. Chavez is acting uppity.
And we can prevent him from getting uppity? How.
2. Ecuador elected a leftist
You want the US to prevent people from getting elected
3. Ortega is back in ElSalvador
I thought leftists like the Sandanistas?
4. Russia is exerting its influence in Eastern Europe (for the people consumed by Iraq, the Orange revolution in Ukraine is dead. Yanukovich is back)
And that is different from the way things were before how?
5. We have lost our allies in Western Europe (except Britain, which is a useless ally anywez)
other way round. Most of Europe was being bribed and bought off by Saddam.
6. North Korea went nuclear
Thank you ex President Carter
7. Iran is on the path of nuclearization
Should we have invaded them?

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Chomsky, who has a lot of strange ideas, happens to have the same view, so therefore it can be rejected (sort of ’anything Chomsky thinks is automatically wrong’).
Perhaps you need to read up on Chomsky’s very shameful role in suppressing the news of the Cambodian genocide before saying that. Start with Sophal Ear’s dissertation.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Scott-

You like to hear yourself talk, do ya?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
capt. joe,

Dont miss the forest for the trees. My point was to that there are things that are happening in the world that are eroding our interests, right here, in our backyard, in what we considered 10 years ago, to be ’our’ hemisphere. Please don’t tell me that there is ’nothing’ that we can do about it.
 
Written By: Ivan
URL: http://
Dont miss the forest for the trees. My point was to that there are things that are happening in the world that are eroding our interests, right here, in our backyard, in what we considered 10 years ago, to be ’our’ hemisphere. Please don’t tell me that there is ’nothing’ that we can do about it.
Depends what you want done. Do you want us to go depose those leftists that Ecuador elected? Sometimes the options aren’t that good. It strikes me as being akin to the morons who run around with the "Free Tibet" signs. Ok, we asked China to free Tibet and they said no. Now what do you want us to do? Sure, we can do SOMETHING about it, but are the options really feasable?

But I think your main point is invalid.....we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"How did that nation building work out for them?"

Not so well, but that is because communism is not as efficient as capitalism. We can do it better. Everybody loves Coca-Cola, but nobody loves Kvass.

*********************************

Do you think that Iraq is worth all of this ??

You blame all of that on our presence in Iraq? You are gong to have to connect the dots for me.
*******************************

" But then, so is not going to war a risky proposition, just in different ways."

True, and if you do not go to war, you can avoid taking any responsibility.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
When South Vietnam fell, hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese, died in "re-education" camps, and hundreds of thousands of more fled the country as "boat people". Almost concurrently, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge, who immediately implemented a brand of totalitarianism so severe that the government wound up killing millions of people—indeed, about a quarter of the population—outright. By 1976, Cuba was sending troops to Angola, to help win that country’s civil war in favor of the communists. By 1979, the communist Sandinistas overthrew the regime of Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, and opened the country to thousands of Soviet "military advisors", who immediately began assisting them by supporting revolutionary movements in El Salvador and Nicaragua. By 1980, the Soviets themselves were invading Afghanistan, and filling up Eastern Europe with SS-20 nuclear missiles, while, at the same time, lavishly funding the Nuclear Freeze and disarmament movements. Every year after our retreat from Vietnam, the number of Soviet client states increased, while the number of free, or relatively free nations decreased.
And none of this caused serious harm to American interests. With the possible exception of Reagans gross over reaction to the the Sandanistas.

To be sure, it was tough on the Vietnamese and Cambodians, but then the same situation exists in Iraq today.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Perhaps you need to read up on Chomsky’s very shameful role in suppressing the news of the Cambodian genocide before saying that. Start with Sophal Ear’s dissertation.
Amazing. I make a statement that I am convinced is accurate: that the US involvement in Vietnam helped bring the Khmer Rouge to power; if we had never gotten involved there likely would not have been a genocide. I can back that up, we can discuss it.

Instead, you simply argue that Chomsky argues something similar and since Chomsky has said and done bad things therefore, somehow, that’s an attack on my position.

Do you realize how dishonest that kind of rhetorical strategy is? That’s like saying to someone who loves animals "Hitler loved animals too, and look what he did in the holocaust." Basic logic: claims are to be made and defended on their own merit. I didn’t mention Chomsky and have never read anything Chomsky wrote about Cambodia (I’ve read very little Chomsky actually, just some stuff about media theory long ago). Sheesh.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Dale:
First, Republicans will claim loudly, to anyone who’ll listen, that, "We would’ve won in Iraq if the Democrats hadn’t pulled the rug out from under us. Just like in Vietnam." That may not be fair (it was Richard Nixon, after all, who implemented the policy of "Vietnamization"), but the Democrats’ reputation for national security weakness makes it plausible, fair or not.
Nixon did "Vietnamization", but the Dems who controlled congress pulled the rug out from under the RVN government by shutting off aid and ammunition. The RVN may have fallen later (who really knows?) but up to that point they were holding their own against the NVA.
Dale:
Every year after our retreat from Vietnam, the number of Soviet client states increased, while the number of free, or relatively free nations decreased.
davebo:
And none of this caused serious harm to American interests.
That’s like saying that, because I replaced the window before the storm hit, that your throwing a brick through it was harmless. That there was no "serious harm" was due to a lot of effort on the part of a lot of people. It’s called "opportunity cost".

 
Written By: bud
URL: http://
Nixon did "Vietnamization", but the Dems who controlled congress pulled the rug out from under the RVN government by shutting off aid and ammunition. The RVN may have fallen later (who really knows?) but up to that point they were holding their own against the NVA.
Ever wonder what would have happened if the US had minded its own business, and let the elections that were scheduled to take place in 1956 be held. The US realized that even in free and fair elections Ho Chi Minh would win. That would have been a victory for Communism. But compared to the bloodshed that our choice to intervene caused, I suspect it would have been a much better situation than what happened.

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Amazing. I make a statement that I am convinced is accurate: that the US involvement in Vietnam helped bring the Khmer Rouge to power; if we had never gotten involved there likely would not have been a genocide. I can back that up, we can discuss it.
What you seemingly are willing to miss, is that what brought them to power was our going in there, and then not having the stomach for seeing it through to Victory... something that the former North Vietnamese commanders tell us, we were only a month or two from attaining. And to boot, had we stuck around and attained that victory, you can bet that a lot less Vietnamese would have died, too.

At whose insistence did we leave prematurely, Scott?

Apparently, that lesson wasn’t learned the first time.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
What you seemingly are willing to miss, is that what brought them to power was our going in there, and then not having the stomach for seeing it through to Victory... something that the former North Vietnamese commanders tell us, we were only a month or two from attaining. And to boot, had we stuck around and attained that victory, you can bet that a lot less Vietnamese would have died, too.
We were not a month or two from victory (eyes rolling). It was a stupid war, served no useful purpose and we shouldn’t have been there.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Nixon did "Vietnamization", but the Dems who controlled congress pulled the rug out from under the RVN government by shutting off aid and ammunition. The RVN may have fallen later (who really knows?) but up to that point they were holding their own against the NVA.
Ever wonder what would have happened if the US had minded its own business, and let the elections that were scheduled to take place in 1956 be held. The US realized that even in free and fair elections Ho Chi Minh would win. That would have been a victory for Communism. But compared to the bloodshed that our choice to intervene caused, I suspect it would have been a much better situation than what happened.

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider