Sept. 17, 2009, is the day that the Obama administration yielded to Russian pressure and canceled the proposed missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Today also happens to be the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, when Russia gulped down its share of the territories assigned by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Everyone in Poland remembers that anniversary. Apparently the Obama White House does not.
44 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Sep 17, 2009 at 11:55 am
I suspect that Obama’s hand was forced when the Czech Premier leaked the plan yesterday. At that point, Obama could have stonewalled the media – which would have been counterproductive – or just gone ahead and announced it.
Poland can thank Jan Fisher if they’re unhappy about the timing.
2 deanoie // Sep 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm
And I’m sure the Russians will see Obama’s announcement as a non-too-subtle invitation to invade again. What a stupid comment.
3 sinz54 // Sep 17, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The timing is less important than the wisdom of the decision.
I don’t believe in making unilateral concessions to nations (Russia and Iran, in this case) that have never demonstrated peaceful intentions towards the U.S. The chances that they will reciprocate are slim to none. They’ve always been like that.
Most experts have stated that Iran will have a working ICBM in about 6 or 7 years. If the U.S. is serious about dealing with that threat, it will take just about that long to expand, test, and debug a long-range missile defense system. The day that Iran test-fires their first ICBM, you can’t just wave a magic wand and spring a working long-range missile defense system into place.
Long-range missile defense is not an alternative to a short-range missile defense system, the type Obama has now favored. It’s an adjunct to it. A proper layered defense deals with a full spectrum of threats. Obama doesn’t seem to care–because he’s put his faith in negotiation with Iran.
Good luck with that.
4 mlindroo // Sep 17, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Does anyone here realize how wildly unpopular Bush’s missile defense plan was with ordinary Poles, Czechs and Western Europeans, i.e. the very people it is supposed to defend against Iranian missiles…?
E.g. when Bush started negotiations with the Polish government in 2007, opinion surveys indicated 57% of the Polish population opposed the plan. Popular opposition in the Czech Republic to the proposed radar installation was even more widespread, with only 15% of the population supporting the initiative while two thirds of the country opposed. There is even a citizen initiative — “Ne základnám – No to Bases” — signed by more than 130,000 citizen which reportedly makes it by far the largest Czech popular initiative since the velvet revolution.
—
“A scheme that doesn’t work, against a threat that doesn’t exist, in countries that don’t want it” What’s how Zbigniew Brzezinski described it. SecDef Robert Gates apparently also prefers the new policy.
MARCU$
5 balconesfault // Sep 17, 2009 at 2:32 pm
sinz – I am really amazed that the aerospace engineer in you truly believes that there is any way we will ever be able to afford the necessary constant upgrades that any long-range system would require over time to deal with much cheaper adjustments made by one’s enemy.
From this engineers perspective, it seems that every 10 billion dollar investment on the defense end can be 80% circumvented by a 100 million countermeasure by the offensive side. Deploying ANY system is just locking in a long-term revenue stream to those who would constantly need to make sure the original investment isn’t stranded by rapid obsolescence.
25 years ago, I read one description of any long range ballistic intercept program – it’s like standing on the goal line of a football field at night, having someone throw a marble at you from the 20, and trying to shine a flashlight on it before it might hit you.
6 midcon // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I supported some of the original missile defense efforts including the Army Homing Overlay Experiment. It is as Balconesfault says for a one to one exercise, but it gets even worse. Imagine that there are many marbles (MIRVs) some of the marbles will explode when they strike, some are dummys. Which ones are the real ones? Which ones are the dummys? How many flashlights do you have? How many people do you have holding flashlights? How many people are throwing handfuls of marbles?
There are ways to reduce the numbers through the use of sensors that discriminate between real and dummy targets. But that adds to the time to acquire, sense, lock on target and fire. Well don’t get me started. Missile defense is important and necessary, but it is hard and expensive. While there may be systems which are ready to be deployed, we have to continue to perform research and development to find more robust and effective capabilities.
7 hormelmeatco // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:41 pm
balconesfault:
I think your football analogy is wrong. Replace the marble throwing with guns firing bullets. In order for missile defense to work, you’d have to hit their bullet with one you fire from your own gun. Make your opponent’s gun an automatic weapon if you want to take into account MIRVs like midcon mentioned.
All of that is not an exaggeration when you consider that ballistic missiles actually go faster than even that.
8 balconesfault // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm
hormelmeatco – well, to get technical about it … they might be shooting things faster than bullets, but they’re shooting them from a lot farther than 20 yards.
On the other hand, while this distance gives them a lot more airtime to be responded to and intercepted than even my hypothetical marble … there are still multiple problems.
a) to be effective deterrence against a rogue state, there has to be a general acceptance among everyone that the system is 100% foolproof. We’re talking crazy people who know for a fact that within an hour of a nuclear missle strike on a US city (or any of our allies) their country is going to be vitrified, right? So you’ve basically got to convince these crazies that there is 100% no chance that their missle will make it through. I mean, if they’re willing to sacrifice their entire population for a shot at killing some infidels, why would the odds bother them? It’s not like they’re ever going to be able to have much of a celebration, either way.
b) Even if an ABM system worked … I’m really not enthralled with the idea of a nuclear weapon being blown up in the atmosphere right above Europe. Hell, I’m not excited about one being detonated anywhere in earth’s atmosphere, for that matter.
9 hormelmeatco // Sep 17, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Balconesfault:
I know the analogy still has problems. I just wrote what I did to demonstrate the technical problems with all of it. As big a problem as it may be politically domestically and abroad, technically, it’s next to impossible.
10 BoolaBoola // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:01 pm
The dirty little secret about Missile Defense, which physicists and engineers know, is that it won’t work.
All the “successful” “tests” have been run under carefully scripted conditions. Sure, we can shoot down a missile, provided we know in advance where it’s launching, where it’s going, and when it’s gonna happen.
Sure, we need missile-defense. But we should also fully fund the Military Voodoo Program. Our friends will respect us, and our enemies will fear us, when they know we can kill them by poking wax images with pins.
11 EscapeVelocity // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Bye, bye Ukraine.
Carteresque. The reason we have Iran to deal with now.
Same ole Leftwing song and dance. Peace through weakness. It never pans out.
Lets unilaterally mothball our nukes, next. So the Iranians wont feel the need of their own.
LOL!
Brilliant!
12 EscapeVelocity // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Thos Russian arms sales to Irana and Venezuela are still going through.
Im sure that Russia will be parading around in Aircraft Carriers and Long Range Bombers, in the Carribean again soon, as well.
Keep up the good work Obama.
Next up, Obama’s UN adventure….where every ner do well in the world will cheer his greatness along with the Euroweenies.
13 sinz54 // Sep 17, 2009 at 8:32 pm
BoolaBoola:
I was an engineer before I fell ill.
And I didn’t “know” any such thing.
Would you like to try to prove your claim to me?
14 sinz54 // Sep 17, 2009 at 8:49 pm
balconesfault: You didn’t read my post very well.
I said that when negotiating with Russia, you don’t give up ANYTHING unilaterally.
And you seem to be forgetting that Iranian offensive missile technology is two generations behind U.S. technology. We know how difficult it would be to intercept the multiple warheads and decoys off a Peacekeeper ICBM or Trident II SLBM, the most advanced missiles in the U.S. arsenal. But Iran doesn’t have those. Iran has missiles believed comparable to what the Russians had–25 years ago. I haven’t looked into details yet, but with our own experience in offensive missile technology, we can have a pretty good idea what kind of future roadmap the Iranians might have in mind, and design our own defenses against that.
I’ve never understood what the alternative is when dealing with fanatics who are prepared to die for their cause. Do you honestly think that any U.S. military threat would deter a fanatical maniac like Ahmedinijad? What sort of deterrent might have deterred the hijackers of 9-11 from hijacking those four planes?
If you’re suggesting that Obama would order military retaliation, don’t make me laugh.
Obama hasn’t the stomach for confrontations. He’s proving that even on domestic issues (to the chagrin of some of his liberal supporters, who thought that Obama was a fighting liberal like Ted Kennedy instead of a weak sister like Jimmy Carter).
So we had just better hope that Obama isn’t faced with an offensive military move by either Iran or North Korea. Because I’ll bet my rent money that he’ll back down rather than, you know, do anything icky.
15 BoolaBoola // Sep 17, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Sinz54, yeah, what kind of engineer were you? Let me guess, your field was urban planning and building bridges, right?
When have we ever conducted a real missile-defense test–with an unknown launching point, an unknown target, and an unknown launching time? Never.
The whole idea has been a fraud, since Ronald Reagan started it going.
16 balconesfault // Sep 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm
BoolaBoola – nope – Sinz worked in the aerospace industry.
He’s right about current state of technology. Nonetheless, I still argue that any perceived enemies of the US will be able to create technologies to overcome our defenses that will cost 1/100th of what it will take to patch the holes.
And I also disagree on the “crazy Muslim” meme. Bin Laden could easily dig up a few crazies to fly planes into the WTC. He didn’t own a country. People who own countries tend to want to hold onto power – look at “crazy Saddam”, who was so reckless and crazy that he ended up destroying his own sophisticated WMD program in order to try to prevent a US invasion.
People who get control of countries like their jobs.
17 greg_barton // Sep 17, 2009 at 11:45 pm
So, Frum, are you also saying that Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs also yielded to Russian pressure? They unanimously recommended dropping the system.
So, I want you to clarify: do you think the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are taking direction from Vladimir Putin?
18 stuiec // Sep 17, 2009 at 11:51 pm
You’d think President Obama’s uncle would have mentioned this date in history during all those times he regaled young Barack with tales of his liberating Auschwitz.
19 stuiec // Sep 18, 2009 at 12:04 am
sinz54: the Iranians could use just two or three live nuclear warheads fitted to intermediate-range surface-to-surface missiles to hold all of the Gulf Arab oil states hostage.
Imagine Iran with a battery of 100 missiles, two of which have nuclear warheads. Then imagine the Iranian regime saying to the sheikh of Dubai or Bahrain, “Do as we say, or we will launch 100 missiles at your capital and your oilfields. You will not know how many carry nuclear warheads or which ones.”
Put yourself in the sheikh’s place. Would you accept American assurances that the US military can protect you from all 100 missiles? Could you take the risk of a nuke getting through and hitting your territory? And of what use would be Hillary Clinton’s guarantee that the US would retaliate against Iran to avenge you… AFTER you and your people have been annihilated?
With just that small number of warheads and by forcing the US to try to guarantee the security of all of the Arab oil states around the Persian Gulf, the Iranians would be empowered to tell the Gulf oil producers to cut production to the bone and let Iran sell all of its crude at $150 or $200 a barrel. And the only rational response for each Gulf Arab leader would be to choose to live on his knees as an Iranian satrap rather than risk his life and the lives of all his people.
20 greg_barton // Sep 18, 2009 at 1:39 am
I think the Iranian leadership knows that if it did nuke a neighbor it would be quickly turned to a smoking crater of glass.
21 Jim // Sep 18, 2009 at 1:40 am
But, isn’t every country in the arab world a theocracy to one degree or another? Because they haven’t enshrined the Separation of Church and State in their Constitutions, have they? If so, who cares? Let them murder themselves until there isn’t one left. The only question is, how can we help? Helping Saddam butcher Iran was a good start, wasn’t it?
22 mlindroo // Sep 18, 2009 at 5:20 am
> I said that when negotiating with Russia, you don’t give up ANYTHING unilaterally.
Even when the the thing you’ve just given up is utterly USELESS to your own side or to the Czechs and Poles themselves??
Missile defense proponents such as Max Boot always make a big deal out of the fact that European missile defense has nothing to do with the threat from Russia and everything to do with Iran. And a small battery of ABMs in Poland certainly won’t provide additional military protection to the Poles. Yet this is all about symbolic “resolve”, “prestige”, “not showing irresoluteness and weakness”, “standing resolutely with & encouraging our allies our allies in Eastern Europe” etc.. This is crazy! If something is expensive, illogical and a diversion from more pressing needs (=short range missile defense), the U.S. should nevertheless keep doing it SIMPLY BECAUSE IT ANNOYS THE RUSSIANS!
—
I have just read Powerline, Weekly Standard & Commentary and I am so glad these people no longer have much influence over U.S. foreign policy.
MARCU$
23 Jim // Sep 18, 2009 at 5:39 am
The Russians aren’t communists anymore. Does that mean that sinz wants to talk race theory now?
24 forgetn // Sep 18, 2009 at 7:49 am
AssHat for everyone:
You would think that some of you could have taken the trouble to read Sec. Gates statement, it was not that long after all… Let me see, the US will implement a missile program (actually current real working missile defense system), instead of a maybe, doesn’t even exist missile program.
Real protection Vs. Military Industrial Complex’s wet dream of billion dollar appropriation.
Let me see, which is best
25 ottovbvs // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:22 am
…..This decision which was backed by Gates and the Pentagon makes entire sense both technologically and politically. On the technological front stars wars missile defense doesn’t work and in any case the Iranians don’t have intercontinental ballistic missiles and are a long way from getting them. What they do have is intermediate range missiles against which ship based interception systems are relatively effective. On the political front the only people enthusiastic about this idea in the first place were conservatives in Poland and the Czech Republic, and here in the US. Their installation didn’t have majority support in either of these countries and the rest of Europe was opposed to the idea as was demonstrated by the statement from the NATO secretary general in support of this decision. At some point David you’re going to have to catch up with the real world because you sound more and more irrelevant, what the Nazi Soviet pact of 1939 has to do with this god knows, to what are our real national interests.
26 sinz54 // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:57 am
greg_barton:
By whom???
Not by Obama.
I can’t envision Obama launching nuclear weapons, even if the U.S. was about to be obliterated.
After all, he’s a modern liberal.
They think civilian casualties are just too icky.
27 balconesfault // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:09 am
I can’t envision Obama launching nuclear weapons, even if the U.S. was about to be obliterated.
I can. And I assume that 53% of the American electorate thought so too, or they wouldn’t have voted for him.
28 balconesfault // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 am
Re-reading Frum here … and seeing McCain’s comments … I’m wondering – when did Republicans come to believe that it was a good idea to be propogandists for our opponents?
There are a myriad of reasons why not moving forward with the deployment of an uber expensive defense system that may or may not have strategic value in countries that largely don’t want it is a good idea for America’s interests.
But you have McCain running around trying to give Putin a propoganda victory for it – free of charge.
Country first? Piffle.
29 mlindroo // Sep 18, 2009 at 10:03 am
Well…forget about the Weekly Standard, Commentary, NRO and Power Line. Here is El Rushbo’s take on what Obama’s recent “grand capitulation” supposedly means:-) (via Rod Dreher)
“…He got in bed with Putin; he got in bed with the KGB; got in bed with Medvedev, which is essentially getting in bed with Iran because that shield was also going to be some sort of protection for anything launched out of Iran. And he makes this announcement to Poland and the Czech Republic 70 years to the day of the Soviet invasion of Poland. This is not an accident, it is not a coincidence. …
So let’s take some things in order. The president, not only is he weakening our economy, not only is the president attacking the US economy, he is now weakening our foreign policy, he is weakening our military, he is weakening national defense. And it’s all being done on purpose. Obama turned 9/11 into a day of serving the state. … Barack Obama is bankrupting the United States. He is severely weakening our economy. We’re not going to be able to afford to defend ourselves even if we wanted to before this guy gets through. The dollar rapidly declining in value, as is America’s military might.
You know, I started the year by saying I hope Obama fails. I’m actually wondering, I’m asking myself, is it maybe that Obama wants America to fail so that he can rebuild it and remake it? Is it not eerie? “
30 balconesfault // Sep 18, 2009 at 10:34 am
What is remarkable is that Obama got Gates and McHugh to sign on to helping him weaken our military and destroy our national defense. He got Bernanke and Bair to stay over to help him destroy the economy, and Huntsman to come aboard to weaken our foreign policy.
Who knew that the Republican Party was so full of people who really wanted to harm America!
31 sinz54 // Sep 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm
balconesfault:
Wow, this is the 1970s all over again.
Back during the Carter Administration, SecDef Brown used to beg congressional Republicans not to raise the issue of how the military balance of power was tipping in favor of Russia and against America–because it would hurt Western morale and give further encouragement to Russia. (As if Russia’s own KGB didn’t already have a complete accounting of the relative decline of Western defenses.)
I happen to believe that the truth, however painful, is the best way. If canceling this system is a boon to Russia, then let’s face that truth instead of camouflaging it behind a smoke-screen of idealistic hopes.
Putin knows he rolled Obama on this one.
BTW: For a system you’re so convinced won’t work, the Russians were frantic to see it canceled. Were their scientists all stupid, or were they being prudent in being willing to deal with the worst case (for them, which would have been the best case for us)?
32 balconesfault // Sep 18, 2009 at 1:18 pm
There is no problem with Congressmen being critical of the Administration. Even making their case for why the missle defense system is critical for America is part of being the loyal opposition.
But McCain is simply running propoganda for the Kremlin when he declares it a “Win for Putin”.
The Russians didn’t like it simply because deploying weapons systems in former Soviet bloc countries was an insult to them. And besides the boondoggle factor for DOD contractors from a President who never met a military boondoggle he didn’t like, I think the childish “piss off Putin” factor was Bush’s main reason for pushing the program.
The only way to say Putin “rolled” Obama would be if Obama didn’t want to cancel the program independent of Putin’s wishes. The only “rolling” going on here is Putin getting a prominent US Senator to act as a promoter of Putin as some brilliant geopolitical tactician.
33 EscapeVelocity // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Barack Obama, Berlin, July 2008 – “In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.”
Politico, September 2009 – “Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed today that he declined last night to take a call from the U.S. informing him of the decision to scrap planned missile-defense bases in his country. Two U.S.-based sources close to the Polish government said Thursday that Tusk also rejected a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — on the grounds that, as the head of the government, he should speak to the president.”
(From the comments) “Rebuild our international relationships after eight years of unilateral action” much, Mr. President?
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
34 stuiec // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:56 pm
sinz54: SecDef Brown… hmmm… rings a bell.
Oh, I remember. Wasn’t he the guy who announced to the world the existence of America’s Stealth technology program? Which was about the most important and most secret military-industrial program of the 1970s?
Him and his boss Jimmy: not really so big on keeping America’s edge over the Soviets.
35 stuiec // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm
balconesfault:
I can’t envision Obama launching nuclear weapons, even if the U.S. was about to be obliterated.
I can. And I assume that 53% of the American electorate thought so too, or they wouldn’t have voted for him.
Yes, but if you’re the sheikh of Dubai, how much comfort do you get from America promising to avenge your death and the deaths of all of your subjects? Enough to stand up to Iran’s threats to annihilate your sheikhdom?
Fortunately, the Iranians did something very stupid when they funded a plot to blow up the Burj Dubai, the world’s tallest building. I would not be surprised if the Israelis were getting a backchannel message that, should their aircraft need an emergency landing & refuelling spot in the Gulf during a strike on Iran, Dubai would not be averse to letting them stop there.
36 greg_barton // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:02 pm
sinz, if you can’t envision it, then you simply lack vision. I can easily imagine Obama launching a nuke in retaliation. And that’s the difference here: I see him as human. You see him as a straw man.
37 sinz54 // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:21 pm
greg_barton:
You’re wrong.
I see Obama as entirely human.
I see him as that subspecies of human, called Late 20th Century Liberal Human: Morally relativist, transnationalist, nonjudgmental, supremely self-righteous.
In short, exactly the wrong type of human to be depending to keep America safe in a dangerous world.
38 sinz54 // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:23 pm
From the Financial Times:
That’s what you get for being nice to Russia. Demands by Russia that you be even nicer.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aea8e54e-a43b-11de-92d4-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
39 agentprovocateur // Sep 19, 2009 at 2:27 am
Dick Cheney scare tactics didn’t work for the GOP last year and they aren’t going to work as a legitimate argument now, either. What a sad, pathetic idea it is that the president will not do what he has to do to keep us safe. This message is especially ironic coming from many of the same people who supported a president who did fail in that goal on 9/11. What is it with some conservatives? Here’s a little newsflash–the Cold War is over, and we won. But some people seem to be unable to function without having a bogeyman out there to oppose. So, of course, when this new missile defense policy is announced, we see a knee-jerk reaction that the president is “weak” in defending our country and the new Stalin in the Kremlin has somehow won a victory. To echo what someone wrote up thread, is Defense Secretary Gates also “weak”? Does he also lack the balls to defend our country? This is all sounding very similar to the lead up to the Iraq War. We were told by armchair generals that we had to invade before Saddam got the nukes to destroy us all. Now we are told that we must stand up to Putin! Does anyone seriously believe that Russia will invade Poland? Or, on a similar note, we are told that we must do something about Iran! Even though any military option would be worse than the nonmilitary alternatives. Perhaps some people need to stop the bedwetting. While it is true that we live in a dangerous world, some people really do need to let go of their particular bogeymen.
40 mlindroo // Sep 19, 2009 at 6:57 am
Sinz54, on Obama:
> Morally relativist, transnationalist, nonjudgmental, supremely self-righteous.
> In short, exactly the wrong type of human to be depending to keep America safe in a dangerous world.
As if the morally absolutist, fiercely nationalist and judgmental, self-righteous George W. Bush’s decisions regarding Iraq were any better!!
I don’t know what world you and Frum are living in. The neocon approach was tried once, and the result was a disastrous and hugely controversial invasion of another nation for reasons that turned out to be false. It’s taken five long years plus enormous sacrifices in monetary and human terms to rectify that decision. And the key foreign policy decision of that era is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT REASON for the total implosion of political support for the Republican party during Bush’s second term, followed by the unlikely ascendancy of Obama and the Democrats.
—
Say what you will about Obama, at least he seems to be making rational decisions based on what the current threats are as opposed to paranoid fantasies about what Iran “might” be doing ten or twenty years from now. Geopolitical decisions that are costly/risky in military or diplomatic terms have to be based on the current realities as opposed to paranoid speculation and guesstimates about what the bad guys “might” be doing a decade from now.
MARCU$
41 balconesfault // Sep 19, 2009 at 7:32 am
The problem is that there are many in the Republican Party who are still infected with the Cheney gene … and thus still embrace the One Percent Doctrine in some form or another.
This starts filtering all the way down through every aspect of foreign policy. Every action by a foreign power that’s not specifically aligned with American interests becomes interpreted as hostility … every other nations desire to act for their own security, when that action isn’t performed in concert with America, becomes a challenge to our global hegemony.
It is good for America to have diplomats, and intelligence community, and military planners who do look at the world through such a filter, vigilant for things which may turn into real threats. It is not good for America’s future security or prosperity to have politicians who react to each potential threat as an existential threat to us and our way of life.
42 EscapeVelocity // Sep 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm
This starts filtering all the way down through every aspect of foreign policy. Every action by a foreign power that’s not specifically aligned with American interests becomes interpreted as hostility … every other nations desire to act for their own security, when that action isn’t performed in concert with America, becomes a challenge to our global hegemony. — balconesfault
That is just absolutely ridiculous.
43 mlindroo // Sep 19, 2009 at 3:21 pm
As far as I am concerned, these people (=the neocons and their various apologists in this forum) just ought to keep their heads down in shame. They were running the show for eight years ( although they complain Bush only paid attention to their advice in 2001-04 which is just as bad,really).
I think the results speak for themselves.
MARCU$
44 EscapeVelocity // Sep 19, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I agree the results speak for themselves….and they are very good.
You must log in to post a comment.