Life After Empire
In 1922, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population,and covered more than 13,000,000 square miles: approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area. By 1956, after the disastrous attempt to hold on to the Suez Canal, the British finally abandoned the last of their imperial pretensions and settled into rebuilding their own country, culture and spirit. By 1964 the world was sharing in the joy of life after empire.
To read the analysis of David Sanger in the New York Times this morning, life in America for our children will be a pinched, pale shadow of itself.
For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country's influence around the world eroded.Or, as Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, used to ask before he entered government a year ago, "How long can the world's biggest borrower remain the world's biggest power?"
It seems to me the very basis of both Sanger's and Summer's assumptions (that the Defense Budget is off limits to cuts) are so flawed and filled with "the conventional wisdom" that we must step back and consider what life in America After Empire might be like. Let's start with this chart of comparative military spending.
In what way does this have to be the world's reality? Who named us the unpaid cop of the planet? The fact that this dominance of our discretionary spending by the Pentagon surprises even the military contracting fraternity.
"The defense industry is pleased but bemused," said Loren Thompson, the chief operating officer at the Lexington Institute, a policy group financed partly by military contractors. "It's been telling itself for years that when the Democrats got control it would be bad news for weapons programs. But the spending keeps going on."
So let's look at the reality of "discretionary spending. This chart is three years old, but the proportions have not changed.
Of course this chart and the official Pentagon budget of $708 Billion does not tell the whole cost of empire.
By the way, if you were to add up the real "defense" budget, including funds for the Department of Homeland Security, the Energy Department (which handles the U.S. nuclear arsenal), veterans' care, the State Department's planned near-billion-dollar expansion of its embassy in Pakistan into a mega-command post for the region and the planned doubling of the number of personnel in its already monstrous embassy in Baghdad for a similar purpose, and many other relevant things, you would be closing in on $1 trillion per year.
What if we took $300 billion from that $1 trillion and financed a "go to the moon" style program to make the U.S. Energy Independent by 2020? Just as the British realized their need "to hold the Suez Canal" was not strategic to their survival, we need to see that garrisoning the globe is a fool's errand.
According to the Pentagon's 2008 "Base Structure Report," its annual unclassified inventory of the real estate it owns or leases around the world, the United States maintains 761 active military "sites" in foreign countries. (That's the Defense Department's preferred term, rather than "bases," although bases are what they are.) Counting domestic military bases and those on US territories, the total is 5,429.
We need to put all of this on the table politically. Just who in Congress has the guts to form a coalition between progressives and libertarians, to really air the cost of empire and to imagine what America could be like once it shed its imperial burdens, is still an open question. But the conversation needs to start now.
Let it start here.
For starters, do we need 50,000 troops stationed in Germany?
February 2, 2010 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT ? This is the question of the century for sure. Ya...during the cold war they could justify it. But now ???
C
February 2, 2010 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see...we also have troops in Belgium, Japan, The UK, Italy, Greece and The Netherlands. To name but a few. And the last I heard we have not been at war or had any problems with any of those places since WWII.
C
February 2, 2010 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds like a Eurorail intinerary..... Not exactly strategic hotspots at this point.
February 2, 2010 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well not unless you want to rob a train.
C
February 2, 2010 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few points :
1.) The treasury pays out about four hundred billion per year in interest - this number heads ever higher.
2.) A nation weighted down by debt becomes cautious - loses initiative. Japan is there and we are headed there. We will not be flying back to the moon or doing anything bold.
3.) All the profits made from military spending ends up in whose pockets ? An enterprising young reporter could look around Washington DC, with a real estate agent, to find all the houses bought for five million or above. Find out who the buyers are. How hard is that ?
February 2, 2010 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, Let's be short sighted and assume that by mid century there will have been no existential threats to concern ourselves with, so you can go to the moon in hopes of finding energy solutions that will keep the tides on earth from rising 22 centimeters?
Is it possible that in the past half century the UK accepted that being a junior partner in the defense of European democracies, and their own defense was a logical decision if they wanted to create a bloated welfare state?
What these graphs show is how many developed countries trust in the idea that what you refer to as an American empire is not going to use aggression against them and is willing to protect them.
I don't know why every time the US discovers by experimentation the folly of trying to imitate the mistakes of a bloated welfare state of some European nation, the first thing they turn to for fiscal rescue is a threat to disassemble the security strategy that has helped these developed nations to remain solvent and relatively demilitarized.
The generation you refer to leeched off the hard work of their parents and is now stealing from their children. Like a lump passing through the body of a snake, when this generation passes from the society that has spoiled them rotten, the world will be a better place.
February 2, 2010 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here we have a full throated defense of the imperialistic, militarized, police state of an empire that we now have. I guess from your point of view the only problem is that we haven't invaded more countries to become their protectors? And allow them to economically flourish at the expense of America and Americans?
February 2, 2010 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here we have a response from the depths of the full throated snake. This too will pass.
February 2, 2010 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really a good one!! Do you mind if I take it down for future use?
February 2, 2010 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
America's Empire today and the defense budget that pays for it exists primarily as a conservative political agenda item for their next election.
Europe in particular in the meantime is perfectly willing to let America spend itself into international oblivion to keep "peace" around the world. In the meantime the European politicians do not have to defend their own nations or pay the price - politically and in taxes - to do so. That is money they do not have to tax out of their economies and which helps them live in a better standard of living in many cases than we do here in America. We put up with this out of fear of existential enemies ginned up to replace the old Soviet Union. How much of the threat the CIA warned us the USSR was after the 60's was cherry-picking worst case scenarios just to keep our defense budget high and to fend off the threat to conservatives of the demand for universal health care?
Since the USSR collapsed the conservatives have been upset at the loss of having the Cold War to demagogue on. So they dream up imaginary but barely possible existential dangers and fund the military to defend against those dangers.
The current threat, terrorists, really consist of little more than small groups of bandits from ungoverned territories, much like the Hole in the Wall Gang of old west lore. They are attracted to attacking the US because we interfere in the middle eastern nations to protect our oil supplies (needed desperately for our out-sized military to function) and because we are the protectors of Israel. Because of our protection the Israeli conservatives feel free to threaten the Palestinians instead of working to achieve a working peace that allows the Palestinians to live in a civilized manner.
But to look at the real reasons why we are so active militarily and especially in the middle east, look at Iraq. Whatever the reasons the Bush administration and PNAC NeoCons imagined or faked up for invading Iraq, a primary one was as a military war they were sure we could win that would also serve to keep conservatives in political power here in the U.S. It was going to be an easy victory. We had already defeated the Iraqis once and by 2000 they were much less powerful militarily. The important thing was that it was a show to get conservative votes here in the U.S.
Veteran's tend to vote conservative when there is a war, no matter how specious the reasons for that war. "They are in the government and MUST have classified information that justifies it! Vote them back in instead of those pansy weakling Democrats!" That was the core reason why the utterly incompetent and incoherent Bush was reelected in 2004.
Those are the primary reasons why the U.S. is spending so damned much we don't have on the military and why there are small violent groups out there in the middle east ready to attack us. They resent our presence and they get street-cred for attacking the biggest bully in the world. It means a lot to them in terms of funding and recruiting.
February 2, 2010 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly. For many "patriotic Americans" there is a mystique about our military...a mystique that has been 'taught'. All I remember growing up are the movies which glorified WWII. Don't get me wrong I think our troops did magnificently in WWII, they deserved to be honored for their heroism and sacrifices made in a war that had to be fought. But the over glorifying of the war itself has led to a culture which worships the warrior, instead of one which loathes war. We went to war in WWII to stop an countries which waged wars of aggression. We went from a culture which was very hesitant to get involved in war, even when justified to stop aggression, before WWII to one that wants to have the glory of being at war continually.
February 2, 2010 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't just that the mystique of the military that has been "taught." It's real. I'm retired military and the culture that you take care of those around you is extremely important.
It's my opinion that so many were drafted in WW II and that joining was something the best and the brightest were expected to go do so that they all learned that culture and brought it home with them. That lasted until the debacle of the Vietnam war. That useless war, avoided by the upper social classes, turned the American culture against the military. That turning away allowed the conservatives (who generally avoid joining the military like the plague anyway - probably because they'd be forced to work for the success of the group instead of themselves) to impress their conservative world view of individualism and everyone competing with each other on America.
If we saw fellow Americans as family we needed to help, universal health care would have been a reality years ago. That is the military culture - we take care of our own because they wear the green clothes. (I'll even extend that to the navy, though I don't understand the boat drivers.)
The conservative attitude that we are all individuals scrapping with each other to get ahead and should never share because it makes the ones we share with weak leads to the crap we see in modern conservatism. We shouldn't help others - they are just out to steal from us anyway. Put the poor in ghettos so they can't get to our gated community and pollute it.
And immigrants? They are really out to steal from us. [Conservatives will say this even as they hire such workers because they are off the books and cheaper. No rules for the strong in a society of individuals each scrapping for an edge.] The attitude flows over into the attitude towards foreign aid, too. Conservatives will not acknowledge that the Marshall plan created customers we could export to - well, back before the conservatives destroyed so much of the capacity of the American economy to build things.
Those of us from the military have a much better idea of the cost of aggression. The problem is that America has forgotten what was learned from the servicemen who came home from WW II.
Which reminds me. Do today's deficit hawks think we shouldn't have borrowed money to fight WW II? I seem to recall that the debt exceeded the annual GNP at least once. Not sure was really above the GNP but it was high, which is what ended the Depression.
February 2, 2010 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . our troops did magnificently in WWII, they deserved to be honored for their heroism and sacrifices made in a war that had to be fought.
1) They did no better than the Russkies and the Tommies and significantly, man for man, worse than the Krauts and the Japs;
2) 5% volunteered -- the rest were dragooned in; and
3) All of them fought -- to the extent they did fight -- to maintain what self-esteem they could after realizing that they were little more than cannon fodder.
Methinks Libertine needs a new avatar
February 3, 2010 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
King, those who are leeching off the hard work of their parents and are now stealing from their children are the conservatives who are destroying American productivity and the American economy to fund their idiotic dreams of an impossible empire.
For the last 30 plus years especially they have been playing accounting games shifting money around while shipping productive American jobs to cheap labor areas around the world. That process makes bankers rich, and the bankers have been buying off the CEO's of large businesses with out-sized and unearned salaries and bonuses. You'll notice how often the CEO's come in, lay off a lot of workers, and get super-sized bonuses for doing that. Bankers love it, and the economy and society are suffering badly from it. Who was the CEO nicknamed "Chainsaw?"
In the meantime the America middle class is being destroyed and the U.S. is beginning to look a lot more like the Latin America social and economic model - 10% wealthy, a few middle class hangers on generally tied to the wealthy and nearly 90% poor scrapping to earn a bare living. Europe is a much better economic and social model to resemble.
Imperialism often means that the best route into the middle class is through joining the military instead of learning and performing productive work. As the cost of education unreasonably climbs, it is becoming the ONLY route to a decent life.
February 2, 2010 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I'm reading your response, I'm really not sure what you are talking about. I think we just speak a different language.
I was not aware that Conservatives have a dream of an empire, at least in the sense that the left has been defining it for the last half century.
What exactly are these dreams you are referring to.
I'm not exactly what kinds of accounting games you mean. The Democrats have plenty of accounting games too. Obama counts TARP as an expense rather than net present value of a short term obligation. In this case about 12 months. By doing so he is able to blame Bush for a deficit that he voted for and then use the paybacks to hide the size of his deficit.
OK, let me try to understand.
You think conservatives want to conquer the whole world. You would prefer that Americans do mostly manufacturing jobs instead of high paying highly skilled labor, instead of having foreign workers do it even if it means higher cost of living for the lowest income quintile. You don't want the CEO of the bank that handles your life savings to make as much as Clay Aiken. And if a business is collapsing from bloated costs, you would rather see all the workers unemployed instead of a few.
Dunno.Since when is the middle class being destroyed. In the last generation the quality of life of the middle class has improved quite well. There are some members of the middle class that are leaving that quintile, but that is often because they move to the upper quintile that you would call rich. I'm glad when I hear rags to riches stories. How about you?
Again, I'm not sure where you get your statistics. Yes, there are economic problems in America. The Debt that the Democrats have run up and their mishandling of the economy has made our future look bleak, but in the past generation our people have done quite well. I am not sure why you refer to the top 10% as wealthy, but I guess its a matter of taste. That covers income earners that make about 100K, which is not enough to buy a home in cities like LA, San Francisco or NYC. When you say a 90% are poor and scraping, I'm not sure what your definition of poor and scraping" is, but I can say, I don't think 90% are. And then you mention a "few" in the middle class, they must be a small few since you already add up to 100%.
At G8 meetings, the leaders are all more conservative than Obama. Their economic models are moving to the right. If by model on them you mean move right or wait for them to catch up with us, then OK. These percentages you quote are not a class. The statistics are numbers not people that are tracked from year to year. Most people in the bottom one fifth, will make it to the top one fifth in income in their lifetime. That income mobility is one reason people come to this country.
You mentioned Latin America. Even our southern neighbors have benefited quite well in the last generation by their close proximity to us. If you want to see poor and scraping, Mexicans make 10 times what Haitians make. Haitians are poor and scraping.
My family and friends, and I'm sure you can say the same thing, have plenty of experience in the military. Not one of them would consider it unproductive work or anything but a learning experience, nor did they join to get rich or move up to the middle class. If you don't like the high cost of education, don't subsidize it, go after the professors salaries like Obama goes after Doctors and bankers. Professors charge too much, make them stop. Most people, and I mean most, take an economic hit to join the military and we owe them our gratitude for that sacrifice. I'd say the same thing for your friends and family that served for whatever sacrifice they endured. Your characterization that the conservatives have a plot to make everyone poor, so they must become soldiers, so we can destroy the planet is a bit far fetched and a bit stale, but after 50 years of hearing it, I'm sure it's not going anywhere soon. The unemployed Obama promised to save this year have taken government jobs in record numbers, so if you are looking for a forced government labor plot, I'm sure there are hints of that all around you.As I said, I think we speak a different language, but I respect your opinion. Thanks for your comment.
February 3, 2010 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
On what planet do you spend most of your time?
It sure ain't this one. Are you so dense or so unaware of history that I need to explain? Probably.
February 4, 2010 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardxx,
King is merely a propagandist. He doesn't engage in conversation or actual debate. He will tell you that Sarah Palin didn't lie about "death panels." He will tell you that it was okay for Bush to invade a sovereign Iraq because we invaded a sovereign Morocco in WWII. He will tell that Thomas Sowell is one of America's top economists when, apparently, his only long-term employment has been at the rightwing Hoover Institute. He will tell you that the Democrats ballooned the deficit when the numbers clearly point to Bush policies. He will also tell you that the current health care bill is socialism (and will lead us to the gulag) when that assertion doesn't even pass the laugh test. He's propagandist, a sophist, a liar and, who knows, a sadly delusional human being.
February 4, 2010 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, You continue to demonstrate that I have hurt your feelings. You have admitted that you discussed issues with me with a lack of sincerity and now you continue to lie about our discussions, because you lost every argument and ran away. Now you follow me around and toss grenades from the sidelines, because actually engaging me in a serious way demonstrates the fact that you can't back up your arguments. The idea of you clattering away on your keyboard every time you see a post with my name in it, shows that you feel injured and want to lash out emotionally. Wouldn't it just be more grown up, to realize you can't engage me in an adult manner and just take your ideas and walk away.
February 4, 2010 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha.
TJ, you're a bullshiter of the lowest order.
The notion that you "won" every argument is risible.
Which judge of those arguments made that decision?
You? Thomas Sowell? Another rightwing hack? Jim DeMint? Jeb Hensarling? Sarah Palin? Your wife?
I stopped arguing with you because it became obvious that you weren't willing to admit to even the most obvious points.
When cornered, you scurried off to quote some other rightwing authority...on some other, hardly related point.
Just as a small point...if you aren't going to admit that Sarah Palin LIED about death panels...when even Charles Krauthammer admitted in print there were no death panels in the bill... and Sarah Palin should leave the room...and you go scurrying off to dig up some Cato paper that presumably shows she wasn't lying (but didn't even realize it herself)...it shows you're willing to say anything for your team.
Your defense of DeMint's Waterloo comment as "just a policy disagreement" was equally disingenuous. Just utter, disingenuous bullshit. Your comments about Morocco were equally off the charts--and arrogant to boot.
It would be nice to find a conservative with a modicum of integrity with whom to debate the issues. But you're obviously not that person.
My feelings weren't hurt, TJ. It just became obvious that conversing with you was a waste of time. You aren't interested in honest debate; you're a bullshiter. Virtually every post you write shows it in way or another.
February 4, 2010 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, You obviously have an emotional nerve firing off, because as you are saying you won't waste time talking about me, you follow me around and type away and even the above eleven paragraphs show that you are going off. You claim my crime is that I won't agree with you and you resort to name calling, calling me a "Bullshitter", a "propagandist, a sophist, a liar and, who knows, a sadly delusional human being".
I regret that your response to disagreement is such and I think when you start to bring someone's spouse into your ad hominem attacks, mothers and children aren't far behind. I'm sorry that you feel that way. At one point I really found your ideas interesting.
February 4, 2010 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, TJ...talking with you is a waste of time.
February 4, 2010 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for useful information!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of download youtube
December 16, 2010 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean my children and grandchildren might end up living in a country more like Canada than the US today? That would be a good thing.
February 2, 2010 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a sense I don't even really acknowledge our debt to China. Its export economy was completely built on the back of our security umbrella -- China still can't even control high seas piracy and relies on us to do it. We should probably send them a bill.
February 2, 2010 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
SecDef Gates recently said:
As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined -- and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/print/63717
February 2, 2010 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taplin needs to go back another 50 years in his analysis to 1870. That was when Germany was unified. That was when cheap steel and steam power revolutionized rail transportation, the merchant marine and the Navy. Financial bubbles came and went as investments in new technologies were rapidly made obsolete. New types of battleships suceeded each other culminating in the Dreadnought class. The British Empire, from its zenith entered the Long Depression of 1873-1896 as it failed to compete with continental manufactures and globalized agricultural production. Tension with the German Empire steadily increased in the run up to World War I.
In the present version of this historical drama, the US plays the role of the Great Britian, while China appears as Germany. Even now the pit orchestra is warming up. Enjoy the show.
February 2, 2010 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many military bases do we have around the world?
February 3, 2010 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Defense" spending has doubled since 9/11/01.
Funny how that worked out for the terrorists, isn't it?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/forever-war/
February 3, 2010 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for naming one pillar of the current impasse that will lead inexorably to national degradation unless our staggering political system can break out of it. The other pillar is the refusal of rich people to pay taxes for the common good.
February 3, 2010 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
A coalition of "progressives" (paleo-liberals and religious pacifists) as well as "libertarians" (neo-liberals and secular pacifists) sounds easy to buy-off with set-asides and conceits:
A "Department of Peace", in the first case, or an extra-constitutional "individual right of gun-ownership" derived from the Anglo-Saxon fryd, in the second case.
A serious defense budget-cutting coalition could easily double our military preparedness at no more than half the present cost. But, it would include militarists and imperialists with some concept of the "common defense" and "general welfare", not to mention "commerce and industry".
The military-patriotic middle-class are, after all, the ones hung out to dry or die by what is a ruling-elite of multi-national concession-tenders and mercenary commissionaires. They have hired homoerotic/homophobic military managers and esoteric academicians to create a gaudy, fake appearance of "national security" while actually protecting nothing but the priviliges of an Anglo-American overclass.
A constitutional military establishment -- that would be the well regulated (Swiss-Roman) militia plus long-term hire (German) regulars -- would more likely take the Stockholm Peace Research call for "assertive action" in the face of "one-sided" war seriously today. They would support a merchant marine, not fleets of government-subsidized tax-shelters.
They would likely be collaborating today with the Swedish, German, and Swiss military -- not with the usual pirates and planters operating out of Londinium and the West Indies -- on the sort of light-infantry ordnance and doctrine it takes to carry out "domestic tranquility", "overseas commerce" and "peace operations".
This would be done in collaboration with various charitable and other non-financial organizations that operate around the world, staffed by actual pacifists, not just draft-dodgers and tourists.
They work outside the circle of rival Anglo-American, Russian, and, now, Chinese concession-holders or who have armed Anglo-American kleptocrats, aka "bankers", and prop-up Third World autocrats, aka "valued clients".
Of course, what we have after 75 years of Great, World, and Cold War is the BoWash parody of Horse Guards Parade, The Admiralty, Whitehall, and The Circus.
The second and third amendments were long ago set aside in favor of anglophile clap-trap by the very progressives and libertarians who are rather selective, highly discriminatory, and not very constant in their pacifism -- worthless when it comes time to consider the defense budget.
February 3, 2010 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm, presently, reading "Hoodwinked" by John Perkins (Who was the recent author of "Economic Hit Man." I think that a portion of the Chapter titled "Militarized, Paper Economy." is applicable to this discussion:
February 3, 2010 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really i admire this post, its useful information, I read this whole and carefully. This article covers the all required thing. I can say that you did your best, Please keep this continue.
Windows 7 Upgrade
September 6, 2010 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that we need to put all of this on the table politically. Just who in Congress has the guts to form a coalition between progressives and libertarians, to really air the cost of empire and to imagine what America could be like once it shed its imperial burdens, is still an open question.
Vadim, an employee of High Availability Server Software
December 20, 2010 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many believe that the Roman Empire fell because when they split in to the Eastern Empire, they could not afford a huge army without the wealthiness of the East. This has made them more vulnerable to...
advokat stavanger
February 1, 2011 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to talk with you and you give me great help! Thanks for that, I am wonderring if i can contact you via email when i meet problems?
billiga sista minuten resor
February 9, 2011 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is my first time i visit here. I discovered a lot of interesting things within your blog especially its discussion. ...
flyg maldiverna
February 14, 2011 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great informative post thanks for sharing.....
Custom Dissertation
Custom Essay
March 29, 2011 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to emphasize the good work on this , has excellent views and a clear vision of what you are looking for
Custom Research Paper
Custom Term Paper
March 29, 2011 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your posting is very good and theme base for which it is liking to every people. Thanks a lot!!!
Custom Theses
March 29, 2011 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. auto insurance quotes online Oscar Wilde
March 30, 2011 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A principle is the expression of perfection, and as imperfect beings like us cannot practice perfection, we devise every moment limits of its compromise in practice. buy insurance Mohandas Gandhi submit articles
March 30, 2011 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. online games to play for free John F. Kennedy imobiliare
March 30, 2011 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
May 1, 2011 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The day the USSR collapsed the conservatives have been upset at the loss of having the Cold War to demagogue on. So they dream up imaginary but barely possible existential dangers and fund the military.
Payday loans 300 | Payday loans
May 7, 2011 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink