• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Way to Silence the Islamofascists

Your comment about a foreigner commanding US troops is not entirely correct as there is a Canadian General that runs NORAD half the year among other incidents.

The UN is toothless because they can't do anything without input from a plethra of countries some of which don't agree with the west or US.  Hell they have terrorist countries that are a part of the U.N.

The Taliban worked out of Afganistan and that is why there was no real problem for them to be invaded.  Iraq on the other hand seemed to be an excuse.
 
The only US troops deployed are under auspices of NATO not the UN, such as Kosovo. In actual fact the UN shies away from using Security Council member's forces for any of it missions, due the perception of bias.
Actually, I am wrong, the US did supply forces under the UN (in name anyway) for the Korean War. I think this was the one and only time, but I stand to be corrected.

I can't disagree that the UN has been ineffective in a lot of areas, but can anyone say that we would have been better off if it had never existed. At least antagonists can face each other. Think the Cuban missile crises for one.

 Was the invasion of Iraq because of disregard of UN resolutions, or a regime change? The UN resolutions dealt with WMD. I do not think the world thinks of the US as the scum of the earth because of the invasion. I think that's a little melodramatic. The problem was that the US unilaterally decided it would enforce its will, and the perceived arrogance that goes with that (you're either with us or against us attitude). Canada put forth a resolution that set a firm deadline (end of Feb or Mar, can't remember which one) and would have given UN inspectors more time to complete their inspections. It was ignored by the US in favour of its own timetable. (Conspiracy theorists could say that the gov't knew there were no WMD, and therefore no reason to invade).

Muslims nations will always condemn the US, not some much on religious issues, but as much as its continuing blind faith and support of Israel, instead of brokering a workable solution that both sides can/will have to live with. It is this perception of taking sides that is causing the US grief.

Again the issue is getting confused, as the UN can do something about Iraq (and has been asked by the US to take a role) and nothing about Bin Laden, as he is a private person.

The world did not condemn the US for Afghanistan becase this was a direct result of 9/11 and understandable. The reason for invading Iraq was/is less clear, defiance of UN resolutions, self defense, nation self interest, immemint danger, war on terror, regime change, oil, all the above, none of the above. And if the US can unilatunilateralye a nation for a pretext of any of the above, can it it do it to any other nation, being the biggest kid on the block. It makes people nervous.
 
Not to nudge the conversation to the side, but this article yet again from Stratfor is interesting. 
The last paragraph touches on something different.  Russian troops?

If true, it places another SC member in the heat of things, a target like the Philipines, and the
shows the cautiousness of the US.  Interesting if the Russians go into Iraq, will they be a target for
terrorism?  Why would they go in?  Are the terrorists and guerillas accumulating more enemies?

As Samarra: A Haven for Iraqi Insurgents?
www.stratfor.com

Summary

Islam Online claims nearly 40 percent of the population of the Iraqi city of
As Samarra has evacuated ahead of a possible U.S. offensive. The city has
been relatively calm since the end of fighting during Muqtada al-Sadr's
uprising of March and April. The calm was created by the return of Iraqi
insurgents to power and the lack of U.S. troop presence. Stratfor has reason
to suspect the city could begin exporting violence to the surrounding area --
something that could force pre-emptive U.S. military action.

Analysis

In the time since the March and April uprising by supporters of Muqtada
al-Sadr, the city of As Samarra, a mixed Sunni/Shiite city in the Sunni
Triangle, has been relatively quiet. Stratfor believes this calm is due in no
small part to the return of Iraqi insurgents to power. An attack on U.S.
forces July 7 that killed at least five U.S. soldiers followed the first
deployment by the U.S. Army into the city in more than two weeks; it was met
with stiff resistance by Iraqi guerrillas who had taken over the streets.

Like Al Fallujah, As Samarra became a haven for Iraqi insurgents following
disengagement by U.S. troops. Iraqi police have proven unable and/or
unwilling to interfere with the operations of the guerrillas. This has
created a situation in which Iraqi insurgents can recoup, rearm and plan
operations outside of their As Samarra sanctuary. The United States is forced
to decide whether to allow this to continue.

Sunni tribal sources told Stratfor that the guerrillas -- inspired by the
perceived success of the insurgents in Al Fallujah -- are preparing to defend
As Samarra against a possible U.S. offensive. Iraqi police have been largely
ineffective in stopping the guerrillas because the insurgents in As Samarra
are mostly tribal warriors motivated by nationalism. It appears that the
guerrillas in As Samarra have crossed religious lines and that the Shia and
the Sunnis -- many of them former members of the Iraqi army -- have joined
forces against the U.S. military.

Additionally, Stratfor has been told similar situations are developing in
other Iraqi cities, including Tikrit, Balad, Al Khalis and smaller towns
throughout the Salah al-Din province. Tikrit is reportedly the least
vulnerable to guerrilla control because its leaders have remained largely
neutral. As Samarra is the heart of the resistance in the province, but the
insurgents are actively exporting equipment and fighters throughout the
province in an effort to drive the U.S. military farther and farther away
from Iraqi cities -- and eventually out of Iraq.

The U.S. military command is all too aware of the current situation in As
Samarra. A U.S. Army lieutenant colonel said July 15 that no one is "sure who
controls the city," a sentiment echoed by more than one source within the
U.S. military.

The United States is keen to reduce the number of casualties being taken by
U.S. forces throughout Iraq, but particularly in the Sunni Triangle. It is
the desire to reduce the U.S. military's profile and vulnerability that has
driven the military disengagement from cities like Al Fallujah and As
Samarra. Although the disengagement has left U.S. troops far less exposed to
the kind of fighting that engulfed Iraq in March and April, the United States
is forced to rely on largely untested and often unreliable Iraqi forces to
maintain security in the abandoned areas. The consequent failure by the Iraqi
police and military is forcing the United States to re-evaluate its policy of
disengagement, at least in the short term.

U.S. military commanders are loathe to return to offensive urban operations
-- the kind that resulted in the deaths of more than 70 U.S. Marines in Al
Fallujah in April -- but are also increasingly wary of the possibility of
safe havens within Iraq that are being used by insurgents to launch attacks
throughout the region. The return to a full-scale offensive assault against
insurgents holed up in the city is unlikely, but the possibility of U.S.
checkpoints and a blockade of sorts are possible.

Stratfor sources in Kuwait said the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit -- that
arrived in Kuwait on July 7 -- could be headed north for just such a mission
and have been instructed not to shy away from combat.

It is doubtful that checkpoints and blockades will return Iraqi security
forces to power in As Samarra, and it is doubtful that it will have any
substantive effect on limiting the Iraqi insurgency. The United States is
prepared to try anything to avoid engaging in costly urban conflict again,
including the possibility of importing Russian troops to the Sunni Triangle.
 
For the sake of a follow-up article, Stratfor describes a possible Russian deployment in Iraq.
I definitely think Russia would be in for more trouble if it moves into the Sunni triangle
and risk attacks from Sunni militia and other militant groups.  I feel Russia is more interested
in the development of Iraqi oil industry than in American good will.  But you need one for
the other.  Attacks on Russian troops in Iraqi or on Russian interests abroad will only make
another enemy for Islamofascists. 


Russia: Putin Considers Sending Troops to Iraq
July 16, 2004
www.stratfor.com

Summary


Moscow is considering a request by the Bush administration to send
Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, just before the U.S.
presidential election. The move would be of enormous benefit to
U.S. President George W. Bush and a risky venture for Russian President
Vladimir Putin, who faces his own Islamist insurgency in Chechnya and
public opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq. Torn between his desire to
support Bush and his need to address domestic concerns, Putin will d
elay his final decision to the eleventh hour.


Analysis


Moscow and Washington are quietly negotiating a request by
the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or
Afghanistan this fall, Russian government sources tell Stratfor.
The talks are intense, our contacts close to the U.S. State
Department say, and the timing is not insignificant. A Russian troop
lift to either country before the U.S. presidential election would give
U.S. President George W. Bush a powerful boost in the campaign.


Sources close to Russia's Security Council tell Stratfor that Russian
President Vladimir Putin has agreed to the request "in principle"
and has directed the Russian General Staff to work up a plan by the
end of the month. Before making a decision, however, Putin wants
to make sure all logistical and international legal questions are
resolved -- perhaps with United Nations involvement -- and he will not
move without a formal U.S. request. It is a tough decision for Putin,
who will carefully weigh the risks and rewards and likely make his decision at the last possible moment.


Stratfor sources in the Russian Energy and Industry Ministry also say the
Prime Minister's office has issued a directive to the ministry to prepare
a Russian "wish list" for Washington seeking some level of quid pro
quo, including steps to return Russian oil companies to Iraq and a
pproval of Russia's joining the World Trade Organization.


If a troop agreement is reached, the Bush administration would
enjoy not only a timely spike in the polls during the campaign s
eason, but also the strategic, long-term benefit of having a sizable
contingent -- as many as 40,000, Stratfor sources say -- of
Russian troops relieve beleaguered American forces and free
them up for regional purposes beyond Iraq. Getting a major
troop contribution from any country, particularly one that was
originally opposed to the war in Iraq, would be a boon for
Washington, which is starting to recognize the limits of its unilateral
approach. A Russian troop commitment could not only stifle the
development of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance against U.S. policy
in the Middle East but also could prevent -- over the long term -- the
formation of a troika among Russia, China and India to counter U.S.
dominance.


And the Russian Army, although certainly not as formidable as it was
at the height of Soviet power, is a skillful and resolute ground force
seasoned by 10 years of fighting Chechen guerrillas (superb fighters
and mentors to Islamist insurgents worldwide). Formations considered
for the Russian deployment include three mechanized infantry divisions
and one airborne brigade, Russian military sources say. The current
general staff scenario has Russian troops spread across Iraq, but
Washington would likely want them concentrated in the Sunni Triangle
where the insurgency continues to grow. It is not even necessary for
the Russian troops to win militarily in Iraq; Washington would not
expect that. Tough street fighters, they could effectively tie down
and distract Iraqi insurgents while the Americans regroup for strategic
missions in the region.


Nevertheless, for Russian President Vladimir Putin, sending Russian
troops to Iraq poses far more risk than reward. For one thing, fighting
Islamist militants in Iraq would raise Russia's profile as a target for al
Qaeda and other jihadists far beyond the scale of Chechen guerrilla
activity. A flood of volunteers from a 25-million-strong Islamic
community in Russia and foreign Islamic nations-- angry with Russia's
major contribution to an Iraq war on Washington's behalf -- could turn
all the Russian North Caucasus, predominantly Muslim, into one vast
combat zone.


The move could also disrupt Russian society, which has opposed the
Iraqi war from the outset, and generate a meaningful challenge to
Putin's power. And while the Russian general staff believes it is possible
to deploy 40,000 Russian troops, it would definitely put a strain on
the Russian army, particularly given its ongoing commitment in Chechnya.
Stratfor sources also suggest that some Russian officers would be
unhappy with the deployment and might even refuse to go.


Given a move that would be serious high-stakes poker for Putin, why
would he do it? Betting on a Bush victory in November, Putin wants
Bush to maintain a positive attitude toward Russia in general and Putin
in particular during a second term, when Bush would be free to conduct
whatever foreign policy he wants to. Also, Putin's mission in life seems to
be to irrevocably link post-Communist Russia with the United
States -- economically, politically, militarily.


Meanwhile, as long as the Russian people -- who have been grudgingly
tolerant of Putin's pro-Western stratagem so far -- can remain patient
and relatively undisturbed, the risks in Putin's mind could be worth taking.
Someday, if he is slow and prudent with his policies, Putin envisions a
tipping point for Russia, when rising consumerism and ties to the West
will forever link Moscow's fate with Washington's. His hope may be that
sending Russian troops to Iraq would help forge that link.


However, Putin is aware that if he miscalculates the degree to which he
can test Russia's patience, having troops in Iraq could cause a huge
domestic backlash, cost him his power and return the nation to its
anti-American past.


 
Just a few thoughts:

1-Do we really want a 'Tit-for-Tat' mentality when it comes to deciding a response to Terror? Should the US troops in Iraq start behaeding it's POW's? Obviously not. You lose the moral authority when you respond to brutality with brutality. That's what happened at the Iraqi prison, and is still happening in Cuba.

2-There is a huge difference between the 'War on Terror', Afghanistan, and Iraq.
The US was attacjed by Bin Laden, not Saddam. Bin Laden's troopies were based largely in Afghanistan (Saudis I know, but the camps were in Afghanistan), so that war was justified. You'll remember that Canada supported/participated in that. Iraq, however, is another story. The justification for war was crap. No WMD=no basis for war=invaders not liberators. They should finish it now that they're there. You can't crash a party, sh*t on the floor, and then say, "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that....see ya". They should pacify/quell the rebellion, hand over power, rebuild the basic infastructure, and pull pin.

3-In WW2, France was liberated, Germany was not. Liberation is the ousting of an occupying force, not the ousting of a dictator BY an occupying force.

4-The US should finish the war in Iraq, and get out while they can. They are in for a world of hurt if they stay. As patriotic as the US is, and as determined as the average Yank is, it pales in comparison to a people who feel their way of life, their culture, and their religion are being exterminated. If the US continues, the WTC/Pentagon attacks will be minor compared to the carnage that these savages will bring.

5-Some see this war as a war of Christians vs. Muslims. Think of this. According to both religions, everyone who dies in Iraq is a child of god. All are equal to god. The 17 yr old Iraqi with the RPG who gets cut down deserves to live in peace just as much as the 17 yr old American with the M60...or the 17 yr old with textbooks for that matter.

6-Muslims are not the enemy, Iraqis are not the enemy, the savages who murder innocents, regardless of national stripe or religion, are the real enemy. Whether they be Iraqi, Afghan, Yank, Palestinian, Israeli, whatever.

By the way, I love Americans (most of them), I just don't care for their Govt, so please, don't paint me with the 'Anti-American, left wing crack head' label.

Cheers
 
Hey Ignorant Yank. Have you ever heard of El Salvador? Panama? Chile? Guatemala? Peru? Columbia? Afghanistan? Iran? Ecuador? Vietnam? And Iraq? What do all these countries have in common? The United States of America trained terrorists and support(ed) terrorists in all of these countries. Have you ever heard of "The School of The Americas" or the  "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperationâ ? Your country has created and trained more terrorists than any other, yet as a nation you have no idea why the world hates you. Death squads killing children and assassinations of elected political leaders, way to go guys.

Now you are bogged down in a country that you bombed every day for over a decade. You invaded it for no real reason other than oil and holy s**t the people have attacked are pissed at you. So you keep stomping around pissing more people off by killing their relativesYup go figure. Sounds allot like Vietnam, you invade and install your puppet dictator but for some reason no one is happy and they keep fighting you. Stop handing out weapons like halloween candy. I feel sorry for all the combatants. I mean they are fighting for their countries and /or freedom and the originator of this thread is sitting at home wasting carbon. Until you can open a book without pictures and look at your nations history for what it is you should stay in your little nest of ignorance. Or we could give you an ultimatum you know like a history quiz do you know why Texas an Hawaii are part of the US now? Invading and overthrowing governments come to mind.
If the Chileans waged a terror war against your country would they be in the wrong? I mean you started it. What about mexico and a ten step plan to giving them back their water?

You piss me off
 
When are we going to start seeing all of this oil that they invaded for?
 
You are already seeing this oil. It is in the system but it will not affect the price on the world market right now due to the lack of security in the region. Apparently all of the Iraqi oil platforms in the Gulf are running at full capacity and the rest of the country is coming back on line very quickly. This is very good for all oil producers as would you rather sell your oil at $10 or $40 a barrel?
Remember overproduction and the depression of the price of oil caused the invasion of Kuwait.
 
Oh, I see - I understood you to mean that the US invaded Iraq to steal the oil....

::)
 
Yet another point of view:


Debunking The War For Oil Theory
by John Hawkins
As I read the latest & greatest piece of diarrhea to be penned by one of the 'war for oil" crowd, I was struck by how shallow and ill-thought out this theory it is.

In fact, when I called it the "war for oil theory" in the title of this editorial, I probably gave the whole idea more credit that it's due. That's because there's really nothing more to the whole "theory" than,

A) The United States uses oil
B) Iraq has a lot of oil
C) Bush & Cheney are former oilmen

We're actually lucky that Cheney never owned a Major League baseball team and that Iraq doesn't have any talented, young players or we'd probably be treated to the "war for baseball" theory by the anti-war left.

But "war for baseball" makes about as much sense as "war for oil" when you think about it. Just ponder the OBVIOUS question that the proponents of the 'war for oil' theory never ask. That question is, "What are we accomplishing with a war for oil that we couldn't achieve more easily via peaceful means?"

-- We can't be going to war to get Saddam to sell us oil because he already does.

-- Do we want him to sell us MORE oil? Well then all we'd have to do is ask. Iraq is desperate to acquire more revenue.

-- Do we want to increase the price of oil to make the oil companies more profitable? Again, that's easy to do. We could simply destroy the Iraqi oil fields in retaliation for their attacks on our planes in the "no fly" zone. That would cause a large temporary spike in the price of oil.

-- Do we want to get more oil on the world market so we can buy cheaper oil? We could easily convince the UN to remove the sanctions and Iraq would quickly double their oil production. They're currently producing way under capacity.

-- Do we want to get the oil field contracts that the French and Russians have? Behind the scenes, Bush could have offered to have the sanctions lifted if Hussein would have torn up the contracts he had with the French and Russians. If we didn't want the sanctions in place they'd be gone and the contracts Saddam made with the French and the Russians? They don't mean anything when you're dealing with a dictator like Hussein -- unless you've got a military capable of enforcing the deal. Also, just as a side note, the war, the occupation, and aid we'll give Iraq will end up costing us much more than those oil fields are worth even if we would have gotten them all (which we won't).

-- Do we want to control the country that has the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world so we'll still have a source of oil after much of the rest of the planet has gone dry? Well, this makes no sense at all in world where relationships between nations change regularly. Think about how our relationships with Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, & Germany have changed just since 9/11. The only way we could insure that we would still have access to Iraq's oil decades from now would be to make them into a US colony with a puppet ruler who actually takes orders from us. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks this is going to happen despite the fact that we're not doing it anywhere else in the world today?

The reason I've had to toss out all these different options in the first place is because there is no consistent, rational theory coming from the 'war for oil' people. They themselves don't even understand what they mean by "war for oil".

If you want to expose how little thought these people have put into this, just use the Socratic Method on them. I'm sure your conversation will sound something like this...

Anti-War Protestor: This is a war for oil! That's what this all about!

You: Why do you say that?

Anti-War Protestor: Because Iraq has oil and we want it! Bush and Cheney, they're oilmen!

You: So how does invading Iraq help us get their oil?

Anti-War Protestor: After we invade, we can just take it!

You: So you're saying we're going to invade Iraq and just take over their oil fields? Then we're never going to pay Iraq for their oil? That doesn't sound very likely....

Anti-War Protestor: I'm not saying that...we will pay for the oil but...

You: But, we already pay for the oil. How is that different from what we're doing now?

Anti-War Protestor: We'll have all that oil under our control!

You: How will it be under our control?

Anti-War Protestor: Iraq's leader will be a puppet of the United States! They'll have to sell us oil!

You: But they already sell us oil. So why should we...

Anti-War Protestor: He tried to kill Bush's daddy! That's what this really about!

The 'war for oil theory' isn't a serious theory for people who pay attention to foreign policy. It's really nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan that through parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don't like Bush, and those who don't really understand foreign policy.
 
The author of this thread reminds me alot of this f_cking idiot

http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=208&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

 
I would never agree with an act such as the one discussed here. But I can understand how others would.

Meanwhile I think this guy Bill O'Reilly is a little off the deep end.
 
Great post about who started the terrorists off int he first place Gunnerlove.
 
Come in Gunnerlove. Come in. This is the Evil Empire calling. Do you read me? We are trying to reach your country of Utopia but we can't seem to find it on any map. We understand you may have oil there. Do you think we can send one of our terrorists in to smoke some of your crack peace pipe and discuss some terms for free trade?

 
Who started the terrorists? Which ones? There are allot of them.
As far as my location it is in Canada another Nation where the US controls 90 percent of the oil production.
Now look back to the time before the US invaded Iraq and look at oil exports from the county. Wow next to nothing. Is it because of the trade embargo imposed on Iraq. So why would the price of oil go up if Iraq was not providing any to the world market. Well thats simple uncertainty increases commodity prices. Now oil is flowing and big money is being spent by the US government and made by US companies like Haliburtan. So there is more oil on the market but the middle east is more of a mess than it was before the invasion so prices are staying high. Oil companies do not work for the consumer, or on the consumers behalf they work for the shareholder, live with it.

Free trade? sure lets talk softwood tarifs.

Then we could go into town and look at some books in a library. And we could get you some BC Hydro.
Or you could meet some of my friends, you know the nice girl I work with who lost her mother and father in El Salvador, or my buddy who lost his grandparents in Chile, or........

"Your" government is "Your" biggest problem. I should state that I do not hate Americans or wish them any harm, but I hate your current government and most of your past governments. You as a population are being taken for a ride and are to patriotic to look past the flag at your nation and your nations place in the world. The current cuts to education are making it less likely that this will ever happen.

Ignorance is bliss and happy people don't rock the boat.

Lets just say I am not in Utopia but it is a good book.
 
Come in Gunnerlove. Come in. This is the Evil Empire calling. Do you read me? We are trying to reach your country of Utopia but we can't seem to find it on any map. We understand you may have oil there. Do you think we can send one of our terrorists in to smoke some of your crack peace pipe and discuss some terms for free trade?

Man... you're killing me!!! YOU are the stereotype that America bashers in Canada love to hate!! You made no attempt to argue the "School of the Americas" comment with anything more then an accusation that Gunnerlove is smoking crack. You might as well just have said "I'm right and you're wrong because thats just the way it is." Give me something that I can take a look at and say "well you know, he does have a point there".   muskrat89's post was exactly what you should be bringing to the table (good post muskrat!).

I don't really have an opinion either way about right and wrong in regards to the US and its beef with the Mid-East. I'm just getting tired of Americans trying to tell me they're right because thats just how it is. It's not the fact that you're at war thats pissing most people off - heck, I'd be pretty pissed too if someone crashed a plane into the Air Canada Centre. But you need to take on this problem with a different attitude and accept some responsibility. Accept that fact that you're cleaning up your own damn mess and the world will be a heck of alot more sympathetic to your cause.
 
I would like to say I am always right and have all the answers but I would be lying, no one has all the answers and is always right. I would strongly suggest that anyone who comes across a piece of information (in this forum or elsewhere )that is new to them research it before slashing it to bits, dismissing it or accepting it as a truth.


Forums such as this are a great place to "think out loud" with a very limited liability, and that is both the best and worst aspect of this medium. Often times in these forums you run into two people on different sides of the fence who just end up insulting each other, and that is not constructive. 


If you limit your sources of information you will never be informed.
 
Ghostwalk and Gunnerlove, sorry for not going more in depth on my "Utopia" reply but I was literally out the door on Thursday and I was so stunned at GunnerLove's blame game and blind hatred of Americans that the only thing I could think of was that this person was living in a country that doesn't exist. Or Gunnerlove's mind must be so warped that he/she must be smoking crack. So I thought my reply pretty much summed up my feeling at the time. Just got back into town and read your replies and yes, I do love a good arguement because I certainly have major problems with my own government as well, and indeed in some of the areas that Gunnerlove brings up, however, I cannot argue something that Gunnerlove simply gives a blanket blame to. In other words, giving an all-encompassing statement that Americans have caused all the evil in the world. How do you talk rational to someone with that type of reasoning? A statement like that has no intelligence value for me to argue. So, why waste my time now?

I would cordially invite you to jump posts and move on over to the "Shoe Bomber" post. Where Gunnerlove has introduced his outlandish statements there and pretty much has been taken to task. I would group my opinions with the majority of the posters there who are convincing "Caesar" that his comments are just AS off the wall as GunnerLove.

 
The other day, I had a mentally handicapped person I volunteer with come up to me and tell me he thinks George Bush started the war in Iraq.  He also told me that Saddam didn't do anything, and didn't hurt anybody.

And there are highly educated, intelligent people who think Saddam started this war and that all muslims are evil.
 
Did you tell him that Saddam killed 300,000 of his own people over his 30 years of rule? And how many of his own citizens did President Bush kill during his 4 years of rule?
 
Back
Top