tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post8137887266446819157..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Nacht und NebelFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-13244072065151506582010-10-08T12:46:53.346-07:002010-10-08T12:46:53.346-07:00seydlitz89 said...
"In regards to the Tea P...seydlitz89 said... <br /><br />"In regards to the Tea Party, I too think that they are sincere, at least those with rational thoughts in their heads."<br /><br />My opinion of them is summed up by an (apocryphal?) letter written home by an American SGT in Germany, during the summer of 1945:<br /><br />"The Nazis all got back into their flying saucers and returned to Mars - if you believe the people hereabouts."<br /><br />We see massive right-wing rallies screaming about small government, blah, blah, blah...after 8 years in which Bush's only sins were electoral failure, not the vast clusfterf*ck he created.<br /><br />These people watched and helped Dubya & Co trash the country, and cheered him on.<br /><br />There's not a one of them who's honest.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-75407574490546421732010-10-01T11:57:12.392-07:002010-10-01T11:57:12.392-07:00seydlitz89:
What have you got against Jane Mayer ...seydlitz89:<br /><br /><i>What have you got against Jane Mayer btw?</i><br /><br />Me personally, IIRC she still supports the worldwide miltary effort to combat terrorism.<br /><br />Otherwise, she's good at what she does, and seems to me to be honest.<br /><br />Like Love, Truth hurts.<br /><br />BTW, is this a record for a thread here? 51 comments?<br /><br />:)<br /><br />bbbasilbeastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16742974441216737132010-10-01T04:41:10.930-07:002010-10-01T04:41:10.930-07:00now-Retired Patriot-
Thanks for the kind words. ...now-Retired Patriot-<br /><br />Thanks for the kind words. Yes, if the US "system" has become totalitarian as I suspect, this refusal to play and operate by their rules would be perhaps the best option for those dissenting. Totalitarian states seemingly have this deterministic quality, whereby their very rigidity causes their collapse. When the GDR collapsed, those closest to the centers of power were the worst off, whereas those farthest . . . were best able to pick up the pieces and provide an alternative, at least initially.<br /><br />Enjoy your well-earned retirement!seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-4107949027720871732010-09-30T13:28:50.954-07:002010-09-30T13:28:50.954-07:00@jim,
in many ways, the jocks rule the roost acro...@jim,<br /><br />in many ways, the jocks rule the roost across all parts of the government, economy and culture. Jocks and celebrities are our Mammon. Stir in failed/failing education and a dash of narcissism and indeed, we've probably crossed the event horizon and remain completely unaware that the bottom has fallen out.<br /><br />@seydiltz, great points about living through places and times in which active resistance is not possible. Orienting action towards truth and refusing to even acknowledge the lies. There's a lot to be said about this strategy.<br /><br />now-Retired PatriotServing Patriothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14984393452206039835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-87037018978276388072010-09-30T10:42:45.144-07:002010-09-30T10:42:45.144-07:00BG,
My belief is that the selection process has ki...BG,<br />My belief is that the selection process has killed SF b/c it allows the jocks to rule the roost.<br />Thinking was not a prime event in the old deployed 5th , but at least it was on the horizon, if one ever wanted to use it.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-40931984141712440912010-09-29T21:57:44.885-07:002010-09-29T21:57:44.885-07:00Meanwhile, back on topic, Greenwald has a fairly g...Meanwhile, back on topic, Greenwald has a fairly good summary of the arguments that this IS tyranny.<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/29/sullivan/index.html<br /><br />And made me aware that one isn't the loneliest number when it comes to assassination; seems that there are at least four U.S. citizens on the "hit list".<br /><br />Greenwald's final graf poses the real question about this issue: <i>"...if the President has the authority to order American citizens killed without a shred of due process under those circumstances, what doesn't he have the power to do provided he simply accuses them of being an Al Qaeda Terrorist? Al Gore asked the same question in 2006: under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?"</i><br /><br />I'm still not sure if we can answer this in a way we'd like to hear...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-49405600783387656082010-09-29T20:26:16.339-07:002010-09-29T20:26:16.339-07:00Drivel was bad word choice on my part. I'll h...Drivel was bad word choice on my part. I'll have to read it again, but it seemed to me to be one of those one-sided hit pieces that are all too common these days. I have a pretty strong distrust of them generally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-24160732127247978212010-09-29T16:56:16.400-07:002010-09-29T16:56:16.400-07:00Andy-
What have you got against Jane Mayer btw? &...Andy-<br /><br />What have you got against Jane Mayer btw? "Conspiratorial drivel"? Come on, she wrote a fact-based article as she usually does which simply brought up a whole series of questions. She's nothing like Judith "Rummy gave me a clearance" Miller who was a blatant propagandist and actual propagator of "conspiratorial drivel" . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-62216716406077756362010-09-29T16:54:56.393-07:002010-09-29T16:54:56.393-07:00Andy-
Actually the millionaires I was referring t...Andy-<br /><br />Actually the millionaires I was referring to are Beck and Palin, not the Kochs who may be bankrolling the movement, but are not leading it. That was TT's view, not mine. Maybe I'm speaking too early in regards to Palin being a millionaire, but the money she must be racking in now? What I thought interesting about TT's view was how the reform movement has in effect been neutered so easily.<br /><br />Consider this quote from Walter Lippmann's "The Phantom Public" of 1927:<br /><br />"Since the general opinions of large numbers of persons are almost certainly to be a vague and confusing medley, action cannot be taken until these opinions have been factored down, canalized, compressed and made uniform. The making of one general will out of a multitude of general wishes is not an Hegelian mystery, as so many social philosophers have imagined, but an art well known to leaders, politicians and steering committees. It consists essentially in the use of symbols which assemble emotions after they have been detached from their ideas. Because feelings are much less specific than ideas, and yet more poignant, the leader is able to make a homogeneous will out of a heterogeneous mass of desires. The process, therefore, by which general opinions are brought to cooperation consists of an intensification of feeling and a degradation of significance." <br /><br />I remember Shuler's comment and I too agreed with it.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-41894778502314882112010-09-29T06:51:20.700-07:002010-09-29T06:51:20.700-07:00Al,
Yeah, it's definitely not enough to be &q...Al,<br /><br />Yeah, it's definitely not enough to be "anti" at least over the long term. If the tea party wants to remain a relevant force they will have to do more than run against things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-18493951915986731732010-09-29T06:49:50.035-07:002010-09-29T06:49:50.035-07:00Seydlitz,
I've heard people make similar argu...Seydlitz,<br /><br />I've heard people make similar arguments to Tom Thumb's, but there is little evidence for such allegations. Most of it strikes me as projection. I read the New Yorker piece on the Koch brothers and almost all of it was conspiratorial drivel. For example, I'm not sure how it's possible to centrally finance and control what is a highly decentralized movement - at least no one has yet explained how that would be possible, particularly if done in secret, as is alleged. Central control requires some kind of national hierarchy, which doesn't really exist yet.<br /><br />So I think Tom has it backwards. The Koch brothers would probably like to seize control and are trying to do just that, but so would many others. I think that's really what we're seeing - a lot of conservative establishment people jumping on the tea party bandwagon hoping to influence/usurp it and ride the wave for their own ends. It was that kind of competition that destroyed the reform party and I think the same result is likely here.<br /><br />BTW, I thought the best comment to Lexington Green's original essay on the Beck rally was written by a great blogger named <a href="http://zenpundit.com/?p=3524#comment-21132" rel="nofollow">Dave Shuler over at Zen's place</a>:<br /><br /><em>I agree that Lexington Green is a smart guy. However, when I read his post over at chicagoboyz my immediate reaction was that I doubted that was the motivation behind the rally but was pretty sure that Beck & Co. would be happy to back that interpretation out of it after the fact.</em>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-21197450556410722912010-09-29T04:24:33.377-07:002010-09-29T04:24:33.377-07:00Andy-
In regards to the Tea Party, I too think th...Andy-<br /><br />In regards to the Tea Party, I too think that they are sincere, at least those with rational thoughts in their heads. But look at their "leaders". Millionares with a BIG interest in maintaining the status quo, or rather the shared assumptions of what passes for the right. Actual reform would collide with most of what the leaders take for granted . . .<br /><br />"Tom Thumb" commenting on Lex's essay on Insurrection put it in very plain English . . .<br /><br />"The Tea Party is a very well crafted counter-insurgency. It is centrally financed and centrally controlled. <br /><br />The intent of the movements founders is to split up the inevitable backlash that was going to come from Bush's TARP program, aptly names the bailout for billionaires.<br /><br />It successfully slit the reform movement that was inevitable. Centerists and leftist will not join the Tea Party, it is too far to the right. It has complicated the messaging of center and left of center groups that want real reform. <br /><br />It is a brilliant move by the Koch brothers and other billionaires to turn the reform movement (that would have otherwise had a very broad base) against itself. There are thoughtful people that want reform; but that do not want to be associated with the Tea Party loons.<br /><br />The Tea Party has also sucked up all the media coverage of reform movements and directed it to pictures of people running around in costume, and signs that beg for both grammar and consistency."<br /><br />http://rightnetwork.com/posts/1001642110seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-2261960673401560932010-09-29T03:03:15.134-07:002010-09-29T03:03:15.134-07:00Correction: $2B is over 10 years, not per year. S...Correction: $2B is over 10 years, not per year. Still lots of money.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-17358140197755693192010-09-29T03:02:14.717-07:002010-09-29T03:02:14.717-07:00Chief,
Here is a supporting argument for your sta...Chief,<br /><br />Here is a supporting argument for your statement about how expensive this whole thing is:<br /><br />http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-brigades-in-europe-cost-billions-093010w/<br /><br />$2B extra a year to keep brigades in Germany. Why do we still have brigades in Germany? What you guys aren't seeing, or perhaps you've heard, there is some significant belt tightening going on right now, and especially over the next couple of years. It is going to be interesting to see what gets cut. We already know JFCOM is gone, and contractors are being cut by 30% over the next 3 years. But why not also re look at our global commitments?bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-26368149890334858022010-09-28T16:21:01.269-07:002010-09-28T16:21:01.269-07:00Andy
I also see the Tea Partiers as Anti-. Howev...Andy<br /><br />I also see the Tea Partiers as Anti-. However, most of the ones I know not only have no significant "pro-" objectives, but really don't have clarity in what they are "Anti-" over. The "I don't want the government taking over my Medicare" crowd are a prime example.<br /><br />Back in grad school, we learned the "textbook" approach to leading the public in policy formation:<br /><br />1. Establish Issue Awareness<br />2. Cultivate Issue Understanding<br />3. Formulate Approaches to Issue Resolution<br />4. Evaluate and Compare Approaches<br />5. Allow the electorate to make an informed choice.<br /><br />Unfortunately, many of the issues we face are very complex, and require a hell of a lot of time and effort to accomplish the above. Snippets and sound bites are much less painful. <br /><br />Can our society really come to reasonably informed choices as long as they see no clear and present danger in many of the policies they espouse? 19 guys armed with box cutters turned our country on its head because they stirred irrational fear in many, many minds. As long as folks are in their comfort zone on other issues, they are not going to take the time to understand what's going on.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-12586043867797691512010-09-28T14:45:38.423-07:002010-09-28T14:45:38.423-07:00Seydlitz,
I have a slightly different view of the...Seydlitz,<br /><br />I have a slightly different view of the tea party. I think most of it is authentically anti-establishment, but I think it will ultimately be destroyed in the same way the Reform Party was destroyed in the 1990's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-62717143431466235642010-09-28T14:30:43.190-07:002010-09-28T14:30:43.190-07:00sheer-
"I say, this is a calculated redirect...sheer-<br /><br />"I say, this is a calculated redirection towards a totalitarian state with the rich and wealthy deeply entrenched as influential guidons that will inevitably lead to a dictatorship."<br /><br />That is how I read it. We see the current "insurrection" of the Tea Party movement actually being easily manipulated to support the status quo. They simply are unable to get beyond their own self-serving assumptions.<br /><br />As to Pluto's question as to what to do, I think we are doing it. How did the Refuseniks deal with the USSR? The "anti-socials" in the ole GDR? Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia? They simply refused to live by the lies they were told. They acted as if the lies did not matter and they oriented their actions towards the truth as they saw it. They sought out the like-minded and formed unofficial groups. And they didn't attempt to hide what they thought. Active resistance was not an option, was seen by them as counter-productive, rather passive resistance. They were also willing to deal with the consequences, come what may. Perhaps something along those lines . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-51324863937883328072010-09-28T13:51:35.567-07:002010-09-28T13:51:35.567-07:00Chief,
Oversight is a critical issue. I don'...Chief,<br /><br />Oversight is a critical issue. I don't have much of a window into it, but I tend to think it is more lax than it ought to be. Of course, my direct experience, limited though it is, reflects well on oversight. Two of the units I've been in supported domestic disaster operations, the biggest one being Katrina. As an intel person, I wasn't overly restricted, but there were definitely people looking over my shoulder and a set of rules I had to follow as I supported the effort. I tend to think, however, that oversight is probably more lax overseas. Maybe BG has something to say about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-78340696691589418122010-09-28T12:38:52.736-07:002010-09-28T12:38:52.736-07:00Al: I would argue that this doesn't require a ...Al: I would argue that this doesn't require a huge realignment of American brain housing groups. This is one of those simple connect-the-dots "First they came for the Jews..." sort of thing.<br /><br />I was thinking of this today while reading Glenn Greenwald going all freaky about the Obama DoJ's request for decryption tech for stuff like Facebook, e-mail, and text messages (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html). <br /><br />I think the Greenwald post is a good example that a big part of the problem is that there's just so MUCH of this going on and it's very difficult to figure out if there are tigers in the woods or if that is just the shadow of a pussycat blown up by bad lighting and moving foliage.<br /><br />To me the bottom line is that there are some very reasonable acts we can and should take to prevent or apprehend people doing stuff that is hazardous to our health. Cops having the ability to listen in to conversations is a good thing, just like using stoolies and other forms of intel gathering is a good thing.<br /><br />And, with overseas enemies, sometimes a little toxin in the night can be a good thing, too.<br /><br />The crucial part here is oversight. BG's comments suggest that there are WAY too many folks - good people, smart people, otherwise-honorable-people - who have gotten it into their heads that this sort of snooping and killing is something that just "happens", and that if they are the ones who just make it happen, so much the better.<br /><br />I'm not worked up about the feds spying on Blackberries. I'm not even all that worked up about feds putting a round in someone's ten ring. There is some truth to the saying that we citizens sleep peacefully because hard men stand ready to do dirty deeds for us.<br /><br />But the ability of those deeds to run wild, to lead to things like tyranny, coups, stupid foreign policy - that's a problem. We need to have as many people as practical involved, to provide as many good ideas and good input as possible. And we need to make sure those people work from the starting point that the only real existential threat from all this islamic to-ing and fro-ing comes from within, from ourselves. Osama can't do to us in his wildest jihadi fantasies the damage we can do to ourselves by forgetting that the worst kind of tyranny, the deadliest because it is the hardest to argue against, is done by brave, smart, well-intentioned people who "just want to get the right things done".<br /><br />Dick Cheney and Reinheard Heydrich were freaks, aberrations. The greatest danger to life and liberty isn't the sneering villian but the earnest, decent man who just can't see how going just the teensy bit further in order to catch the villian could ever, ever, be a problem.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-64296298936213949302010-09-28T09:12:37.641-07:002010-09-28T09:12:37.641-07:00bg wrote: Does anyone here truly believe that aver...bg wrote: <i><b>Does anyone here truly believe that average American considers the rule of law as the "Greater good?" </b></i><br /><br />More importantly, what is the general notion of the "Greater Good" in America? When thinking about that question, my mind goes back to the writings of Canadian historian Pierre Burton, who compared the founding documents of the US and Canada. For Canada, government exists to ensure "peace, order and good governance". For the US, government exists to ensure the inalienable individual rights of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". In Canada, the collective well being trumps individual desires. In the US, the underlying concept is that the individual trumps all. How do you define a "Greater Good" in egocentric terms? Even our Constitution, as amended, speaks more of "Rights" than "Responsibility".<br /><br />So, why would the average American care if the "Rights" of someone else are abridged when it brings no responsibility home to him or her? As long as their individual "Rights" remain intact, who cares? As long as a policy poses no clear and present danger to Joe Sixpack or Wally WallStreet, it's a non-issue.<br /><br />We may claim to be a nation of laws, but for the typical person seeking "Life, Liberty and Happiness" only those laws that limit their personal pursuit of same are of concern. Until we accept that we all are responsible for the rights of others, which in itself means that individual rights are thereby inherently limited, we'll continue to see the abuses and aberrations we rail against here.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-75587268298329127692010-09-28T09:02:18.017-07:002010-09-28T09:02:18.017-07:00"So why do we act this way with "Al Qaid...<i>"So why do we act this way with "Al Qaida"? Same reason, the actual nature of the threat, which is seen as mostly hype, as cover for something else. If Al Qaida were the actual global threat as portrayed, our actions would have been quite different . . . going into Iraq because 9/11 provided an excuse? No way.<br /><br />Current US policies in regards to what we are talking about reflect not outside threats imo, but rather possible public reaction to US foreign policies . . .</i><br /><br />And so we come to that moment, Seydlitz, where we must stare at the wreckage we have wrought on both the world and our society and ask ourselves, "what is the purpose of the unseen given the actions that are open to all to view?"<br />I say, this is a calculated redirection towards a totalitarian state with the rich and wealthy deeply entrenched as influential guidons that will inevitably lead to a dictatorship.<br />Since you have cautioned me on the use of Nazi Germany, I then point to Julius Ceasar...but with less panache, and more menace.<br /><br />I say we have crossed the event horizon, and the hand must be played out now...there is no going back, and there is nothing we can do Pluto, to stop it.<br />We are caught in the cyclone, and it must burn itself out.<br />Whether that takes a year, a decade, or a century I have no idea...however, as noted with the aforementioned examples...the Nazi's lasted little more than a decade, and Julius Ceasar...what...less than five years?<br /><br />We are stuck...and all we have to arm ourselves with is knowledge, rhetoric, wisdom, and moral outrage...that, my friends, is a pretty useless arsenal to affect change on a society hell-bent for a "Strong Leader."sheerahkahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16694622087244891222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-78303957718126694372010-09-28T05:18:57.193-07:002010-09-28T05:18:57.193-07:00I've been following the discussion with great ...I've been following the discussion with great interest and finally have a comment that somebody else hasn't already made.<br /><br />So what can/should the members of the Milpub do about this? Personally I'm thinking about ducking and waiting for 20 years or so. It isn't very responsible but I simply can't think of another constructive thing to do.<br /><br />Here's a link to an article about FBI raids on the homes of anti-war protesters looking for evidence tying them to terrorists. It looks to me more like their goal is harassment rather than evidence. Considering how ineffective the anti-war movement has been, it is a major statement about the paranoia of the government that they feel the need to bother doing this. Maybe it was suggested by a bored junior field officer looking to score some brownie points.<br /><br />http://www.startribune.com/local/103722074.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKUUr<br /><br />The government is not only on the slippery slope, it is getting close to the bottom (which is much more slippery than the top was). I think that moment of no return will come when:<br />a) A car crossing the US-Canadian border is hit by a Hellfire missile fired by a drone<br />b) We discover that the people in the car had wandered across by accident and were innocent<br />c) The government successfully argues in court that its actions were legal and gets permission to continue firing missiles at vehicles inside the USPlutohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04036751798841079048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-14966039914093214952010-09-28T04:58:27.500-07:002010-09-28T04:58:27.500-07:00World War II? How about another analogy? Soviet ...World War II? How about another analogy? Soviet Union during the Cold War . . .<br /><br />The Soviet Union DID have the capability to smuggle in say five suitcase nukes into the US and detonate them in five different US cities. It would have caused massive damage and confusion. In addition they HAD numerous active spies who provided them with very accurate and useful information. The Walker family especially offered them the key to whiping out the SLBM arm of our strategic triad.<br /><br />Given the actual level of the potential threat, how did we respond? Did we target the Soviet leadership? Seize their assets abroad? Execute any of their spies without trail?<br /><br />No. Because the actual nature of the threat did not call for that, such actions would have been seen as absurd, actually playing into the hands of Soviet propaganda . . . <br /><br />So why do we act this way with "Al Qaida"? Same reason, the actual nature of the threat, which is seen as mostly hype, as cover for something else. If Al Qaida were the actual global threat as portrayed, our actions would have been quite different . . . going into Iraq because 9/11 provided an excuse? No way.<br /><br />Current US policies in regards to what we are talking about reflect not outside threats imo, but rather possible public reaction to US foreign policies . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-91039082024192091622010-09-28T04:43:00.799-07:002010-09-28T04:43:00.799-07:00Andy-
My problem is with his point of departure. ...Andy-<br /><br />My problem is with his point of departure. Such radical policies are programmed for failure, especially given the lack of focus/resources/concepts at the strategic level from 2001-2008 in this specific case. Instead Moreno ignores the political aspect completely, at least in my reading.<br /><br />That would be the most important lesson we should take from this sorry charade.<br /><br />Chief-<br /><br />Only non-state actors commit "terrorism", that is the official definition we go by.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-29069320956157729532010-09-27T22:36:34.144-07:002010-09-27T22:36:34.144-07:00Ah, Chief gets to the heart of the matter.
A pant...Ah, Chief gets to the heart of the matter.<br /><br />A pantsload of cash and something to keep professional soldiers busy.<br /><br />It really is a self-licking ice cream cone and is swallowing the Union.Aelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788190394672505925noreply@blogger.com