27
Feb
08

Sign that things in Iraq aren’t going well

Hi. I’m Dwight. I’m a regular here on the WHYS blog and would like to run my thoughts on Iraq by you. I’d welcome your comments.

In the midst of all this election mud flinging, there are a few stories of importance being missed. There is one in particular that bothers me. How come nobody is talking about the fact that Turkey invaded Iraq last week. The Iraqis government is not happy about it, but seems powerless. The AP version of the story can be found here.

Didn’t the whole Iraqis citizenry vote for a government? As an American I can tell you that most people will agree that our government’s first responsibility is to provide military protection against foreign invading forces. What kind of sovereign nation with control over its own destiny has another country’s invading forces running operation inside of its borders?  How can a people be expected to give loyalty to the government if the government can’t stop a foreign army from entering and fighting with their population?  What if Ireland popped into England and blew up a few cities with no response from London?  What if Canada invaded Maine with no response from Washington.

The current administration routinely touts the success of the latest media catch phrase, “The Surge”. How can they say they are “meeting their objectives” when another country is invading one area of the country they are “liberating”? The Kurdish region has been cited as the biggest example of success in Iraq. A typical report can be found here.

If your most successful region is being bombarded by a foreign military, what does that say about your chances of standing up for yourself? Why can’t the US troops stop them? If you combine this recent example that things are not so rosy in Iraq, with a few other indicators, it should lead to questions.

One of these that seemed to also slip by this week was that “Muqtada al-Sadr extends cease-fire“. What?

Ok so you have a foreign government invading and dropping bombs on cities in the north AND you have a band of non-governmental renegades vowing to “extend” the cease fire, for now. Could you imagine if a private militia in say Waco Texas decided that it would operate outside the laws of the US government? My guess is that they would burn the compound down.

A “ceasefire?” How about the Iraqi government declares him a criminal and arrests him? That is what most working government would do. From a little while back we see yet more evidence that things are not going well in Iraq. The US strategy changed to arming the people who were recently shooting at our soldiers. (US arms Sunni dissidents in risky bid to contain al-Qaida fighters in Iraq.)

This was to the opposition of the Iraqis government.

So even the US’s own political machine is undermining the validity of the elected government. Were the Sunnis the people that the US originally invaded Iraq to remove from power? Al-Qaida has never made up more then 3% of the overall attacks in Iraq. The truth is that they have increased attacks throughout the Middle East and the world 10 fold or more since the US has went on the offensive against them and made them famous. If this is success, I sure would hate to see failure. 

The lowering of troop casualties, decrease in troops, ceremonial handing off of empty cities, and talk of elections seems to have a dishonest feel. This whole thing reminds me of this stuff you can buy for your car that is an “engine treatment”. The engine treatment is designed to last just long enough to sell the car to the next sucker. Try to come back on them and they will say, “It worked fine when we sold it to you.” It will be you that people are cursing as they see the obnoxious trail of white smoke you left behind. It will be the democrats that catch the blame for the civil war and poor intelligence finding of this administration.

But then again the media is biased and only highlights the negatives. 


21 Responses to “Sign that things in Iraq aren’t going well”


  1. 1 Brett
    February 27, 2008 at 16:41

    “What kind of sovereign nation with control over its own destiny has another country’s invading forces running operation inside of its borders?”

    This is a result of Iraq’s inability to deal with the PKK. Turkey has been more than forgiving and courteuous in the route it has taken to deal with this problem. They have given plenty of warning of their intentions if the PKK were not stopped from commiting acts of terrorism in their country.

    “How can they say they are “meeting their objectives”

    They claim innocent deaths are down, insurgent deaths are up, and incidents of bombings and other insurgent activities are down.
    Its like acts of accounting that hide real problems by focusing on highlights or ignoring other numbers.

    “Could you imagine if a private militia in say Waco Texas decided that it would operate outside the laws of the US government? My guess is that they would burn the compound down. “

    And make a preemptive attack on the compound, and use gas and weaponry against innocent children inside killing, gassing, and burning unarmed men women and children despite their documented plea for a ‘cease-fire’ and to stop so they could exit. Later to be found that their was a ‘lack of communication’ or ‘interrupted communication / communication gaps’ between ATF, local law inforcement, and other parties involved.

    US intervention in Iraq is a failure, it is not working, it has never been working. Signs that things haven’t been going well have been shown throughout the invasion. We should have stopped and said “HEY! Wait a minute!” after Bush declared ‘VICTORY!’…. and nothing changed.

    I guess it’s all in how you look at it though. If you ignore certain aspects, and only focus on others, then you can make that call for yourself on whether its a success or failure. It all depends on your criteria.

    If they keep telling everyone how well and rosy things are in Iraq, maybe the sheep will believe it, maybe not, who knows.

    Brett ~ Richmond, Va.

  2. February 27, 2008 at 17:15

    Hi Dwight. If you want me to describe the current security situation in Baghdad to you, then I’ll say “Fluctuating. No war but at the same time no peace”. Sometimes hope seems too close, other times it seems too far away. There’s still killing in Iraq, but it happens in a more silent way than it used to be before. You may want to check out my blog ‘The Untold Story’ at dijlarq.blogspot.com . With my love. Yours forever, Lubna.

  3. 3 Bentley Hall
    February 27, 2008 at 17:44

    It is a shame to think that there is no good answer to this conflict. As the Presidential elections come closer we will be looking at a republican candidate that will be a third term for President Bush or a Democratic candidate that will be left holding the bag no matter what they do. Iraq is not going well, costs many lives and social damage both iraque and american, and is draining the US economy of $250,000 per minute to wage (all borrowed money). No one wants to held resposible for this failure, but it is Bushes’ war. History will be harsh.

    Bentley – Portland, Or.

  4. 4 viola anderson
    February 27, 2008 at 17:50

    Had you bothered to read the report chaired by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, you would realize the exceedingly dire state Iraq was in before the surge and that the surge and other initiatives stemming from that report have been implemented and have improved the situation in Iraq. You need to recall the almost daily bombings that were killing so many civilians. The situation has improved. It’s interesting to note that after the fall of Saddam–which was the objective of the war, not the destruction of the Sunnis–the U.S. was encouraged to decrease or eliminate its military presence or be accused of planning to be permanent occupiers. The decrease of American troops in post-war Iraq did not do the country any good, especially since a basic mistake was made in disbanding the Iraqi army and throwing out the largely Sunni civil service workers. The Baker-Hamilton report looked at all the factors and came up with many recommendations. Sometimes, when there are many warring factions in a country, it requires a strong outside force to provide enough security that a militia such as Moqtada al Sadr commands can safely stand down. Remember, there are groups in that part of the world who want a strong Iraq but there are also groups who view a weak Iraq as an opportunity to acquire a country for their own ambitions. I expect that neither the U.S. nor the Iraqi government wishes to conduct military operations against the Kurdish separatists who, at this time, seem to concentrating on Turkey. It is a dangerous situation. Hopefully, the Turks will exercise good judgment.

  5. February 27, 2008 at 18:07

    Hi again Dwight. Here are some stories of importance which are being unfortunately ignored by the media in your country and surely in other Western countries. 1-On Wednesday the 23rd of Jan. 2008 the dean of the college of dentistry-Baghdad University Dr.Munthir Murhij was assassinated in Baghdad. 2-On Sunday the 17th of Feb. A ‘SECURITY’ force broke into the college of dentistry-Baghdad University and arrested the former dean Prof.Dr.Osama Al Mullah, Prof.Dr.Riyadh Utman and 3 college employees and took them all to unknown place. ‘THEY’ have also beaten one student. 3-Today the peer of Iraqi journalists Shihab Al Tamimi died at the age of 75 years. On Friday the 22nd of Feb. he was seriously wounded when ‘THEY’ shot him in Al Waziriya district in Baghdad, and today he’s gone. With my love. Yours forever, Lubna.

  6. 6 VictorK
    February 27, 2008 at 20:01

    The US’s removal of Saddam gave the people of Iraq a golden opportunity to live under a democratic, constitutional, secular government and to benefit from their vast oil wealth. Unfortunately, the people of Iraq blew that opportunity completely.

    I really don’t understand how George Bush is to blame for that. I think his intentions were good (even allowing for the WMDs nonsense) and he was prepared to put in the resources to realise them. My criticism of him is that his intentions were overly idealistic and failed to take into account one small detail: the nature of the country and people he was dealing with. The same mistake was made in Afghanistan. The odd thing is that while he was governor of Texas and runnig for the presidency he gave an interview in which he condemned the folly of trying to transplant the American model of government into countries that provided a poor historical and cultural soil for it to take root in. His subsequent enchantment by the neocons and his 180 degree flip-flop on this issue is one of the great political mysteries of the age.

    There can be no doubt that the surge did improve things. But the logic of that improvement is that the US will have to remain in Iraq for decades (if not permanently), commit trillions of dollars to the country (and perhaps more) and accept that tens or hundreds of thousands of American lives must be lost in what is ultimately an unwinnable conflict. It is an agreeable fantasy (but one with disagreeable and chilling implications) that the Iraqis will ever be able to provide their own security effectively.

    There is an alternative course of action that can guarantee US security at a fraction of the extravagant cost in blood and treasure of the present policy on Iraq. But that alternative course will probably never get a look in as long as the neocons,with their global democratic fundamentalism,have the ear of the American President.

  7. 7 Chernor Jalloh
    February 27, 2008 at 20:08

    First and foremost,may I extend my condoleneces to a very brave young girl in Baghdad,Lubna.

    Hello Dwight,

    Iam very happy to read your piece which contains the war in Iraq.To be frank with you,America went to war to remove a dictator,Saddam Hussein,who was accused of having WMD and a leader that sponsored terrorism,but later on the US found out that,it had got the wrong information from one of the most important intellengent officials in the world(CIA).At first Muktad Al sadr and many other Iraqis were relieved to see the US as liberators,and infact the US was viewed by many like a Messiah from heaven.But,as time went on there was suspicion that the US and its allied forces were only there for the Iraqi OIL!Again, the US was pretty confidence that the tactics(surge)was the best way to defeat both Al-Qaeda and other insurgency groups that are opposed to foreign occupations,which has cost both sides dreadful incidents.Sectarian violence is on the increase,teachers,nurses and many people are all victims of this senseless war.The more the US ask for aid from congress to counter insurgency or so-called terrorists in Iraq,the more the value of the dollar falls against the Euro.This is terrible!Solutions must be found to end the bloodshed in Iraq,because know one knows who is who and hell is breaking loose.

    The US is not ready to intervene between the Turkish government and the PKK terrorist groups that are hiding in mountains in the Kurdistan region.The whole world called the PKK as terrorists and they are causing bad havocks in Turky by killing innocent civilians.The PKK groups said they want anindependent state of their own and they must not carry attacks on ordinary people.The only role the US suppose to play is to supply information and it cannot kill two birds with one stone.That is virtually impossible.

    To reply to your theory on Iraq,this is the way I see it. I wish the people of Iraq will oneday live in peace.Thanks to everyone.

  8. 8 George USA
    February 27, 2008 at 22:31

    Dwight- Thank you kindly.

    Each and everything you point out and imply is rock solid true.

    With the elections coming up here an “Engine treatment” has been bought.

    What really concerns me are your remarks coupled with Lubna’s report of the academics still being killed and “disappeared”.

    Thank you Lubna for your first hand account of the killings at the University.

    It makes you wonder- if the presidential elections could motivate an engine treatment to Iraq momentarily, why wasn’t it done before?

    The media may feed us a diet they chose here but the up side is the election has taken the place of celebrities to focus attention away from two wars and how they are going.

    Election trivia beats celebrities any day.

  9. 9 melvin
    February 27, 2008 at 22:35

    Well Iraq: President bush declared “mission acomlpished”
    30 days after invasion of Iraq!
    So what is he doing there now?
    Building a $ 500 000 Million dollar Embassy that the Employee form the STATE DEPARTMENT DONOT want to be stationed IN! Why is the Vatican getting $ 1 Billion Dollars of the OIL monies? Read Outrage by Dick morris?
    Where is SADDAM GOLD!
    to get a good grip on the inside Story Why and how: http://www.spirituallySmart.com
    Heaven help US.

  10. February 28, 2008 at 04:42

    one factor that US missed out and pay for the consequence is the failure of reading the mindset of the Arab iraqis. Iraq consist of tribe elders, clans and warlords.The coalition forces themselves were caught in confusion when sectarian violence flare up and fighting between various factions among themselves and the coalition forces . US never envisage this, she think by toppling Saddam they do iraqis a favour. She is wrong,one thing for sure, US would provide tons of assistance to them but it cannot buy their loyalty, their allegiance shift like the desert dune. If there is a lesson to be learned, go back and take a look at Arab history.

  11. 11 dave
    February 28, 2008 at 09:06

    Hello all

    I live in the UK and just wanted to say my piece. Firstly, thank you Lubna….that is a very interesting and heartfelt account.

    The way I see it is that that American media is no different to any other in the west, certainly here. There is a crass importace based on the ethics of the conflicts in Iraq and in the region in general, as it suits the candidates currently fighting out the election. The media portray this,

    In general, this will be the defining moment of Bush and Blair’s administration, and history will not look kindly at them

    To blame the Iraqi people for not grasping opportunities is senseless..How much more can a people take before they are so trodden down that the will to revolt or to suddenly see the road to democracy is lost in a fog of poverty and bloodshed.

    we (the west) coupled with Saddam’s vicious dictatorship have ripped a proud nation apart in a thirst for Westernisation and oil.

    I dont see it getting better anytime soon, and whoever takes over in the White House, has Bush albatross around there neck, Messrs Obama, Clinton or McCain you have been warned.

    Love and peace to the citizens of Iraq

  12. 12 VictorK
    February 28, 2008 at 10:54

    At the end of WWII Germany had suffered far more material devastation than Iraq had after the toppling of Saddam. The eastern state of Prussia was annexed and abolished by the Allies and most of its terittory was handed to Poland and Russia. Millions of Germans from Prussia and contiguous regions were expelled and obliged to flee as refugees to those parts of Germany occupied by the Western powers. Russia occupied the eastern third of Germany and installed a puppet communist regime that held power there for half a century. If they had chosen, the Germans could have responded to all of this with an ‘insurgency’. They didn’t. Instead they co-operated with the occupying forces. The result was a reasonably prosperous and stable, though unfree, East Germany, and the free, ordered and immensely rich West Germany.

    Could Dave, Lubna or anybody please explain to me what compulsion the people of Iraq were under not to co-operate just as fully with their occupiers? If they had, there could have been elections within a couple of years of the occupation and a full withdrawal of occupying forces shortly after that, since they would have been obviously superfluous in a peaceful Iraq. An insurgency on the scale of what’s happening in Iraq cannot occur without the tacit consent of many Iraqis, if not their active support. Several polls have in the past revealed significant popular support amongst ordinary Iraqis for the insurgents, and several important players on the Iraqi political scene have expressed support for attacks on coalition troops.

    Occupied Germans and Japanese didn’t engage in the madness of slaughtering their professional and academic class in the way that Iraqis are. Such barbarism is not an inevitable fruit of occupation. It is a result of the character of the occupied.To blame the US for the violence and chaos in Iraq is the height of absurdity when it is Iraqis who are doing the killing.

    The unavoidable conclusion is that Iraq is a country that belongs in the same category as Somalia: there is no hope for it. Few nations are presented with the kind of opportunity that the Iraqis had for peace and prosperity, and few have squandered it more completely (though it’s still an open question as to whether Iraq really is a nation). The elephant in the room that people are pretending not to notice in all of this is Islam. We hear a great deal about the decadence of the West, but very little about the far greater and chronic decadence of the Islamic world. In the West decadence takes the form of nihilism, or else of a belief in the faddish and the frivolous. In the muslim world decadence takes the opposite form: an excess of belief, fanatical belief, belief that trumps realities, belief to the point of madness, belief in serious things by petty and frivolous people. This is why Islam has become a kind of death cult inspiring suicide bombings in Bagdhad, London, Bali, New York, Madrid, etc. The homicidal fanaticism that Islam generates is the reason why Iraq is a mess today. The insurgency is a Jihad, even though the Western media is careful not to use that word. Why else does it appeal to and win the sympathy of muslims across the world? And since Iraq is set to be a muslim country for the foreseeable future, the violence and killing that have almost overwhelmed it are going to be permanent features of Iraqi life for a long time to come.

    There are only two possible cures to the social chaos in Iraq: the return of a Saddam-style dictatorship, or the triumph of a Taliban-style regime (i.e. the victory of the Jihadists). Paradoxically the US and its allies aren’t really serious players in any of this since though they possess the resources they lack the will to bring peace to the country. The failure to deal with an open enemy of the coalition like Al Sadr, and to gush with thanks and gratitude when he declares a ‘ceasefire’ (!) is an indication of the weakness of the coalition.

  13. 13 dave
    February 28, 2008 at 12:08

    Victor

    I think you make some interesting comments. However I fundamentally disagree

    To compare Iraq and post war Germany is ridiculous. We are talking about different worlds.

    iraq has been battered into submission by an evil dictator who reigned terror and fear upon his people but also by successive US administrations who compounded the matter by issuing sanctions against iraq, plus bombarding the country night after night with airstrikes

    If you cannot see that the US and the west have played apart in this country’s destruction then you need to take your blinkers off (imo)

  14. February 28, 2008 at 12:42

    Hello VictorK. How are you doing today my good friend ?! Let’s not forget that one of the most brutal dictators in the World, Saddam used to hold Iraq firmly in his fist with the help and support of many Western governments including the US and the UK governments until 1991. Along 35 years of brutal dictatorship Saddam managed to leave his impression on every aspect of life in Iraq. He managed to make Iraqis treat him and his regime as GODS. He managed to disrupt the social, cultural, academic and even religious structure of the Iraqi society. He favoured Sunnis over Shiites. And during the years of the sanctions hunger was killing us slowly everyday. When I was a little child I slept many many nights with no dinner. The current violent nature of the Iraqi society is acquired, not original, and is an ultimate result of the horrific legacy of the Saddam’s age. We excuted the man, but sadly we couldn’t excute his legacy till now. My mind is pessimestic, but my heart is optimistic. After all, the country that taught the whole world how to write is surely able to get through this. With my love. Yours forever, Lubna. PS, Chernor, Goerge, and Dave. THANKS A MILLION to all of you my precious friends.

  15. 15 VictorK
    February 28, 2008 at 15:09

    Lubna & Dave: thank you for your replies.

    Unfortunately neither of you have explained just why there is or needs to be an insurgency in Iraq.

    Dave: the point of my comparison with Germany is that the situation there after the end of the war was much worse than the situation in Iraq. Every material problem the Iraqis have encountered was faced by the Germans, including hunger. In addition, as well as having part of their country stolen from them forever, the Germans were also faced with occupation by a nation that was there implacable foe (a Russian general actually ordered his troops to rape German women in the Russian-occupied sector of the country, in retaliation for the previous rapes of Russian women by Germans). The Japanese had nuclear devices dropped on them, with far greater loss of life than even Iraq has seen. The people of each of those countries had a choice and in both cases chose co-operation over insurgency (though the grounds for insurgency in Germany and Russia were probably more compelling than those in Iraq). The people of Iraq also had a choice and the consequences of their decision are with us today. Hitler, btw, was responsible for far many more deaths than Saddam ever was, yet there was no corresponding legacy of rampant violence in Germany after he left the scene. It just won’t do for Iraqis to blame all their present problems on a corpse, or for critics of the West’s role to pretend that Iraq’s real problem is anything other than violence by Iraqis.

    If the US army was to withdraw today does anybody really believe that Iraq would suddenly find itself at peace? The killers would have a field day, or the equivalent over many months, with all effective opposition to them gone. Yet the blame for the violence seems to be placed on the US, despite the near certainty that in their absence the violence would escalate.

  16. 16 dave
    February 29, 2008 at 16:39

    Hi Viktor

    Hope you are well….

    Ia m not saying that Germany dodnt suffer the same difficulties, however we are dealing with completley different socities and and ALIEN foreign invasion.

    If the US pulled out tomorrow, or course there would still be violence and the country is in a situation that no one can predict what would and could happen

    What i do know is that the country has been used by the west as an allie against Iran and then butchered by the US with santions and military strikes when it became an enemy

    Please look at the reason why people are driven to take up arms against the invading force. Whilst the American intercentionist policy exists around the globe, more Iraq’s will be spawned

  17. 17 Alex Dabri Sarpong
    February 29, 2008 at 21:19

    Every true peace maker goes through alot of heal before he or she achieves what he or she wants or soemthing positive.eg. is the former UN Secretary General who complained of being a peace hostage in kenya but finally has gotten a result.
    I think the most important issue we all have to accept here is that the fact that Saddam of Blessed memory was not good,a dictator,etc under no circumstances should US (Bush) has gone in to over trow him.Now Saddam has people who were loyal to him and for th fact that thier leader was killed didnt mean their solidarity for him was over.Some we know flew the country,others stayed and fought back and we are now seeing that what is happening in Iraq now is getting worse each passing day with the killing of very innocent people.I think the most important thing for th US to do is to pull out of Iraq and allow the UN to take control of Iraq without any influence and pressure from any super powers.
    So US(Bush) pull out of Iraq and let the UN takeover to restor the image and trust of the Iraqs because they allowed US to come over because they were expecting something from them as far as development were concern but it has failed.
    When his is implemented I beleieve all the umpasses will stop.

  18. 18 David Malinda
    February 29, 2008 at 22:35

    Sign that things in Iraq are going well!!!

    Well Well Well. What a rubbish. It is like this, If some one with terminal cancer (one week to live) does not inform any one, people may think this person will be in this world for many years to come. There is nothing going well in Iraq and definitely nothing will ever go well when the country is occupied by foreigners

  19. 19 zainab
    March 5, 2008 at 04:22

    what did George Bush do in Iraq?
    1. he brings terrorism, and a hypocritic government.
    2-more wars:in many fronts at one time(with Iran, Syria, Turkey…etc)
    3- more death
    4-occupation by different countries (by America, Iran, Syria, and maybe by Turkey after a few days)
    5-no security
    6-bombers and bombing cars(to kill civilians)
    7- more local and outer immigrants (refugees)
    8-more prisoners
    9- more orphans
    10-more widows
    11- more miserable conditions
    12-increasing poverty
    13-backwardness
    14- no electricity
    15-no work
    16-no education
    17- no future
    18- no no no…
    and to summarize all the above one can say NO LIFE.
    actually i don’t know the reason why did he do that? we are not those who are responsible for september 11. we are not his enemy. why does he reveng from us???
    well since there are american soldiers here on our land, it is their responsibility to keep our interior and exterior security.
    but instead of that we see the bomb cars almost every day innocent people are killed for no reason. for example:those innocent people have killed in their way to visit Imam Hussain (Peace be upon him) and the American Embassy is accusing Al Qaida( don’t they have another things to say we are hearing this statement since 2003).And another thing as i said, they are supposed to keep our borders, but instead they keep it open for all. and Turkey invaded us.
    please i want two things from the Americans:
    first to bring us back our peace
    and second, to leave us taking the hypocrites who came with them.
    and of course we will be grateful to them.

  20. 20 zainab
    March 9, 2008 at 09:07

    hi again,
    this is what has happened in my city (Sadir City)today,at dawn the were great explosions and after that there were sounds of shotguns. at the morning we can hardly get out of our houses. because the American has blocked the main roads. this is almost the everyday action. so it is too difficult for the people(especially students) to go to their destinations. so imagine how can we study in this condition?

  21. 21 Dr.A.K.Tewari
    October 4, 2008 at 18:04

    Hello, All Concerned,
    War any where in the world is certainly an undesirable event. It is a great loss of humanity as well as environment. But unfortunately it is also a necked fact that history of mankind is full of war. The on going war in different part of the world and particularly in Iraq is not due to merely clash of interest but it is due to lack of ability to save one interest through civilized mode. Those who do not have tricks other than weapon (Crude) they ultimately take resort to terrorism. Most of the Muslim countries are still dwelling in the 14th centaury basically due to their religious commitments. The result is that their petro-dollars again get siphoned to weapon suppliers (USA). The 9/11 episode is the result as a back- fire of the events that occurred in the past whether it was creation of Taliban against USSR or Pak against India. Now it appears that entire west particularly USA has realize their mistakes. It is also a reality that it is USA as a sole world power has potential to break the Back –Bone of the world wide terrorism. The initiative taken by Bush and Blair in now irreversible and it has to accomplish its mission at any cost not only in Iraq but in each nook and corners of the world. Ofcorse, it may have an impact on the economy of the involved countries but this cost is now inevitable and have to bear by them.In due course if the cost will beyond their capasity the other will come farward to share the burden but the cost of retreat will be much more than the cost being incurred.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: