Pretty strong stuff from the Glasgow Herald about the causes of the attacks.
September 13, 2001 6:17 AM Subscribe
Pretty strong stuff from the Glasgow Herald about the causes of the attacks. I'd like to point out I don't necessarily endorse anything said here.
Interesting article. Pilger has a reputation here for saying things which are almost unpalatable at the time, but are accepted as being true - often even understated - a few years later.
posted by jfinnis at 6:42 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by jfinnis at 6:42 AM on September 13, 2001
Whether one agrees with what Pilger writes, or not, doesn't change the truth. Better find out more about the way US has been behaving to the rest of the world because a) you'll never find out from mainstream media in America and b) you'll never understand any of what is going to follow.
posted by acrobat at 6:49 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by acrobat at 6:49 AM on September 13, 2001
I simply don't have enough knowledge of the events to argue against it. But I was distraught when Britain duly followed the US in bombing Serbia. It's about time both Britain and the US stopped acting as policemen and presuming right is on their side. Every country is going to act in its own interest ultimately and fuck everyone else.
posted by Summer at 6:50 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by Summer at 6:50 AM on September 13, 2001
NOTICE: America has done more to secure liberty, freedom, and justice in the world than any other nation in history. There have been mis-steps, but they are so far outweighed by the GOOD the US has accomplished in the world as to be negligible. The fact that some people feel compelled to bring them up (such as Vietnam civilians killed during the war) as examples of "Why America Deserves This", in the face of the monstrosity that occurred two days ago, is despicable.
What happened to Iraq was brought on by the actions of Saddam Hussein. The US and allies did not decide to simply attack Iraq for no reason one day. Yes, some innocent people were killed in Iraq & continue to be affected by coalition actions, but the fact remains that Hussein -- and ONLY Hussein & his military -- is responsible for his country's misery. He could change this at any time, by simply choosing to stop terrorizing his own people, not threatening his neighbors with chemical weapons, transitioning to a humane government that allows freedom, democracy, etc.
Re: Bosnia/Serbia -- again, the US and it's allies did NOT start the trouble there. The wounds in that region were self-inflicted by genocidal madmen. Our coalition aimed to prevent further death & mayhem, and has met some measure of success.
Nothing the US has done in recent memory justifies what happened on Tuesday. Nothing.
This world has plenty of despots, madmen, and those who would inflict harm on innocent others. The US & other civilized nations have long stood to stop bloodshed and make the world a better place, and has done so quite successfully.
posted by davidmsc at 7:11 AM on September 13, 2001
What happened to Iraq was brought on by the actions of Saddam Hussein. The US and allies did not decide to simply attack Iraq for no reason one day. Yes, some innocent people were killed in Iraq & continue to be affected by coalition actions, but the fact remains that Hussein -- and ONLY Hussein & his military -- is responsible for his country's misery. He could change this at any time, by simply choosing to stop terrorizing his own people, not threatening his neighbors with chemical weapons, transitioning to a humane government that allows freedom, democracy, etc.
Re: Bosnia/Serbia -- again, the US and it's allies did NOT start the trouble there. The wounds in that region were self-inflicted by genocidal madmen. Our coalition aimed to prevent further death & mayhem, and has met some measure of success.
Nothing the US has done in recent memory justifies what happened on Tuesday. Nothing.
This world has plenty of despots, madmen, and those who would inflict harm on innocent others. The US & other civilized nations have long stood to stop bloodshed and make the world a better place, and has done so quite successfully.
posted by davidmsc at 7:11 AM on September 13, 2001
It's about time both Britain and the US stopped acting as policemen and presuming right is on their side
Then the world needs to stop asking us for help.
posted by owillis at 7:18 AM on September 13, 2001
Then the world needs to stop asking us for help.
posted by owillis at 7:18 AM on September 13, 2001
John Pilger is something of a joke in the UK, but I don't find this funny. This knee-jerk anti-western sentiment, with its icing of moral relativism is part of the same evil that led to the events on Tuesday.
posted by grahamwell at 7:26 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by grahamwell at 7:26 AM on September 13, 2001
Nothing the US has done in recent memory justifies what happened on Tuesday. Nothing.
Where exactly is Pilger justifying it?
Why is criticism of US foreign policy and the resentment it has created around the world, perceived as an endorsment of Tuesday's slaughter? Explanation is not justification.
As for the assessment of US goverment policies around the world, just to center on Iraq for the moment, US policies have significantly contributed to Saddam's rise, build up and, currently, the stability of his regime, while the "some innocent people" that have died, got sick, starved or were just burnt to a crisp in shelters, as a direct concequence of US and British policies number in the hundreds of thousands.
Again, these are NOT arguments justifying Tuesday's terror. A murderer is a murderer and the crime commited two days ago was perpetrated by demented mass murderers. No one, Pilger included, is suggesting otherwise.
posted by talos at 7:27 AM on September 13, 2001
Where exactly is Pilger justifying it?
Why is criticism of US foreign policy and the resentment it has created around the world, perceived as an endorsment of Tuesday's slaughter? Explanation is not justification.
As for the assessment of US goverment policies around the world, just to center on Iraq for the moment, US policies have significantly contributed to Saddam's rise, build up and, currently, the stability of his regime, while the "some innocent people" that have died, got sick, starved or were just burnt to a crisp in shelters, as a direct concequence of US and British policies number in the hundreds of thousands.
Again, these are NOT arguments justifying Tuesday's terror. A murderer is a murderer and the crime commited two days ago was perpetrated by demented mass murderers. No one, Pilger included, is suggesting otherwise.
posted by talos at 7:27 AM on September 13, 2001
The world isn't asking for our "help."
Nothing in the article was meant to justify the attacks. The article is about understanding why the attacks occured. And until Americans understand our place in the world, and how the world feels about it, we risk incurring further attacks of this nature.
posted by Loudmax at 7:28 AM on September 13, 2001
Nothing in the article was meant to justify the attacks. The article is about understanding why the attacks occured. And until Americans understand our place in the world, and how the world feels about it, we risk incurring further attacks of this nature.
posted by Loudmax at 7:28 AM on September 13, 2001
grahamwell:
John Pilger is something of a joke in the UK
Well, yes, among Times readers and Tory MPs.
And moral relativism? Can you cite an example of that in the article under discussion?
posted by talos at 7:32 AM on September 13, 2001
John Pilger is something of a joke in the UK
Well, yes, among Times readers and Tory MPs.
And moral relativism? Can you cite an example of that in the article under discussion?
posted by talos at 7:32 AM on September 13, 2001
Pilger's quotes about the number of Iraqi adults and children dead come straight from Saddam Hussein's Ministry of Health. They should be approached with skepticism.
If this disaster forces us in the west to accept our complicity in the atrocities across the world, then we may be able to avoid something like this happening again.
The terrorists aren't going to stop attacking us, and it's only a matter of time before they try to detonate nukes here. Regardless of what the U.S. has done to contribute to this situation, I think our national security has to be the overriding concern here.
posted by rcade at 7:33 AM on September 13, 2001
If this disaster forces us in the west to accept our complicity in the atrocities across the world, then we may be able to avoid something like this happening again.
The terrorists aren't going to stop attacking us, and it's only a matter of time before they try to detonate nukes here. Regardless of what the U.S. has done to contribute to this situation, I think our national security has to be the overriding concern here.
posted by rcade at 7:33 AM on September 13, 2001
Pilger is not a *joke*, he is one of the few people who are qualified to comment on the world political situation.
I notice davidmsc has no links to support his 'america..liberty, freedom, justice' argument. Also shows no depth of understanding.
Didn't bring much to the debate, mate.
posted by asok at 7:38 AM on September 13, 2001
I notice davidmsc has no links to support his 'america..liberty, freedom, justice' argument. Also shows no depth of understanding.
Didn't bring much to the debate, mate.
posted by asok at 7:38 AM on September 13, 2001
To re-quote from Glorious noise: "We don't pay attention to U.S. foreign policy, let alone understand it." Thank a news media that sticks the foreign briefing somewhere between the Hollywood report and the weather. That's about to change, I think, bringing together those on the right who want foreign aid to be hauled in, and those on the left who want greater scrutiny of arms deals and credit guarantees to the year's fashionable pocket dictators.
It's significant that Colin Powell, who's seen war in those far-away countries of which we know very little, is reportedly the one person keeping Bush from going apeshit right now.
posted by holgate at 7:50 AM on September 13, 2001
It's significant that Colin Powell, who's seen war in those far-away countries of which we know very little, is reportedly the one person keeping Bush from going apeshit right now.
posted by holgate at 7:50 AM on September 13, 2001
rationalizing the events that occurred Tuesday, is akin to claiming that the woman who gets raped brought it upon herself for wearing a mini skirt and too tight of a sweater.
posted by jbelshaw at 7:57 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by jbelshaw at 7:57 AM on September 13, 2001
A lot of actions the US has taken w/ regard to their handling of foreign governments and militias make me sick.
But not as sick as the vultures and ghouls who use the deaths of thousands of people (who do not have anything to do w/ US foreign policy, btw) to further their political stance.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:11 AM on September 13, 2001
But not as sick as the vultures and ghouls who use the deaths of thousands of people (who do not have anything to do w/ US foreign policy, btw) to further their political stance.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:11 AM on September 13, 2001
The US and UK and other Western countries trained and armed Saddam and Bin Laden and a host of other maniacs who were willing to combat the threat (real or otherwise) of Communism. As long as we continue to sell arms and our secret services are willing to deal with anyone to achieve their ends we will continue to have such problems.
posted by johnny novak at 8:23 AM on September 13, 2001
posted by johnny novak at 8:23 AM on September 13, 2001
I'm not as informed as Mr. Pilger, apparently, but I do know this much:
The U.S. stopped at the Kuwaiti border during the Gulf War. Bush could have pushed them all the way to Bagdhad, and effectively created another Disneyworld. He didn't. He had them liberate Kuwait, which, you may recall, was invaded without provocation to begin with.
I'm not saying the U.S. has been righteous, but neither has any other country. Every nation's history has skeletons in the closet if you dig deep enough. If you villify one nation, you have to make sure you're not standing in a glass house, y'know?
Which is why (I think) B-52s haven't been making a grand tour of the Middle East. Until they know something concrete (and Bush reads the polls) they aren't going to do a damn thing. Political blowback would be too costly.
posted by TeamBilly at 8:26 AM on September 13, 2001
The U.S. stopped at the Kuwaiti border during the Gulf War. Bush could have pushed them all the way to Bagdhad, and effectively created another Disneyworld. He didn't. He had them liberate Kuwait, which, you may recall, was invaded without provocation to begin with.
I'm not saying the U.S. has been righteous, but neither has any other country. Every nation's history has skeletons in the closet if you dig deep enough. If you villify one nation, you have to make sure you're not standing in a glass house, y'know?
Which is why (I think) B-52s haven't been making a grand tour of the Middle East. Until they know something concrete (and Bush reads the polls) they aren't going to do a damn thing. Political blowback would be too costly.
posted by TeamBilly at 8:26 AM on September 13, 2001
Let's just say he slightly over-eggs the pudding. To describe the US as the greatest source of terrorism on earth simply devalues the concept and leaves us adrift in a relativistic wash of claim and rebuttal. This is helpful to our enemies.
Robert Fisk, who makes many of the same points, never makes this mistake.
Here's something more considered from Polly Toynbee
posted by grahamwell at 8:54 AM on September 13, 2001
Robert Fisk, who makes many of the same points, never makes this mistake.
Here's something more considered from Polly Toynbee
posted by grahamwell at 8:54 AM on September 13, 2001
<.sarcasm>Right, and the British people deserve all of the bombings and murders they've recieved at the hands of the IRA because they're oppressing the Catholic masses.<./sarcasm>
I always thought that the Americans who donated money to the IRA cause were rather misguided. I now have a new appreciation for how the British felt about them.
posted by jaek at 9:15 AM on September 13, 2001
I always thought that the Americans who donated money to the IRA cause were rather misguided. I now have a new appreciation for how the British felt about them.
posted by jaek at 9:15 AM on September 13, 2001
jbelshaw, understanding the background of tuesdays events is what we should all seek to do.
the irish people have been opressed by england, for centuries. what would you do in their place? honestly.
i know the human race isn't too hot on this topic, but we must learn from history. recent, as well as long passed.
posted by asok at 9:24 AM on September 13, 2001
the irish people have been opressed by england, for centuries. what would you do in their place? honestly.
i know the human race isn't too hot on this topic, but we must learn from history. recent, as well as long passed.
posted by asok at 9:24 AM on September 13, 2001
asok: Not to be insensitive, but have you ever been to Ireland? Most people I know who live there tell me that it's not about religion or oppression or government, but about organized crime. But maybe it's just the people that I know, I don't know.
Also, having viewed a number of your comments in other threads, I'd like to offer some advice. Positions and decisions about our most important issues should not be informed by more than just history and reading. Of particular value are actual experience and practical reality, the "situation on the ground" so to speak. You remind me of an old college friend of mine who believed everything that they told him at university. A couple of years of real life cured him of that.
I always thought that the Americans who donated money to the IRA cause were rather misguided. I now have a new appreciation for how the British felt about them.
An excellent point, once which I hadn't yet considered. Thank you.
posted by gd779 at 9:39 AM on September 13, 2001
Also, having viewed a number of your comments in other threads, I'd like to offer some advice. Positions and decisions about our most important issues should not be informed by more than just history and reading. Of particular value are actual experience and practical reality, the "situation on the ground" so to speak. You remind me of an old college friend of mine who believed everything that they told him at university. A couple of years of real life cured him of that.
I always thought that the Americans who donated money to the IRA cause were rather misguided. I now have a new appreciation for how the British felt about them.
An excellent point, once which I hadn't yet considered. Thank you.
posted by gd779 at 9:39 AM on September 13, 2001
i have been to ireland.
i know very little about the situation as i have experienced most of it through the english press.
i agree that organised crime (read business) is probably a major factor in the continuation of the struggle.
so we move on to ask why can people make so much money outside the 'conventional' channels that it is worthwhile sustaining the situation as it stands.
i beleive the irish really do want their country back.
when i use the word history, i do not mean some misty-eyed view of days of yore.
most 'civilisations' have had a dominant period of less than 1000years, often terminated by great upheaval. the present worldwide economic and 'cultural' dominance of the us may lead to a homogenised global society. when the tide turns the whole world would suffer. not just a localised area (like europe, as in the case of the romans).
the longest lasting civilisation i am aware of is that of the various aboriginal cultures of australia, who lasted for at least 30,000 years. this was a sustainable civilisation.
posted by asok at 10:17 AM on September 13, 2001
i know very little about the situation as i have experienced most of it through the english press.
i agree that organised crime (read business) is probably a major factor in the continuation of the struggle.
so we move on to ask why can people make so much money outside the 'conventional' channels that it is worthwhile sustaining the situation as it stands.
i beleive the irish really do want their country back.
when i use the word history, i do not mean some misty-eyed view of days of yore.
most 'civilisations' have had a dominant period of less than 1000years, often terminated by great upheaval. the present worldwide economic and 'cultural' dominance of the us may lead to a homogenised global society. when the tide turns the whole world would suffer. not just a localised area (like europe, as in the case of the romans).
the longest lasting civilisation i am aware of is that of the various aboriginal cultures of australia, who lasted for at least 30,000 years. this was a sustainable civilisation.
posted by asok at 10:17 AM on September 13, 2001
rcade: I agree with you 100%...
but at the same time, I think after we have acted in the interest of our national security, we need to seriously look into the places where we have done wrong and allowed injustice to flourish. We need new plans of action in the Middle East, ones that will ensure long-term stability and not maintain the short-term status-quo.
posted by eric anders at 10:28 AM on September 13, 2001
but at the same time, I think after we have acted in the interest of our national security, we need to seriously look into the places where we have done wrong and allowed injustice to flourish. We need new plans of action in the Middle East, ones that will ensure long-term stability and not maintain the short-term status-quo.
posted by eric anders at 10:28 AM on September 13, 2001
regarding Iraq and sanctions:
AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, UN figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Overlap) That's not true. That's not true. And that's not what they show. Let me just tell you something. Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War, you said this ... how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer - $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer - $19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He's got more money now, $3 billion a year more than he had nine years ago.
If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it's because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children. We have worked like crazy to make sure that the embargo only applies to his ability to reconstitute his weapon system and his military statement. This is a guy who butchered the children of his own country, who were Kurds, who were Shi'ites.
He used chemical weapons on his own people, and he is now lying to the world and claiming the mean old United States is killing his children. He has more money today than he did before the embargo, and if they're hungry or they are not getting medicine, it is his own fault.
from an election night Pacifica interview.
posted by NortonDC at 11:04 AM on September 13, 2001
AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, UN figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Overlap) That's not true. That's not true. And that's not what they show. Let me just tell you something. Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War, you said this ... how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer - $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer - $19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He's got more money now, $3 billion a year more than he had nine years ago.
If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it's because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children. We have worked like crazy to make sure that the embargo only applies to his ability to reconstitute his weapon system and his military statement. This is a guy who butchered the children of his own country, who were Kurds, who were Shi'ites.
He used chemical weapons on his own people, and he is now lying to the world and claiming the mean old United States is killing his children. He has more money today than he did before the embargo, and if they're hungry or they are not getting medicine, it is his own fault.
from an election night Pacifica interview.
posted by NortonDC at 11:04 AM on September 13, 2001
>>rcade: Pilger's quotes about the number of Iraqi adults and children dead come straight from Saddam Hussein's Ministry of Health.
What evidence can you provide to support this claim? As far as I can tell, the facts cited in Pilger's essay -- including numbers dead -- have all been obtained and verified by the various UN agencies, and in many cases by officials in the US state department. See this page for relevant excerpts from UN reports and other official sources.
Regarding causation, I'll leave it to you to decide whether Bill Clinton is a more credible source than the United Nations:
"Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq.... What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq's ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population." -- UNICEF
posted by johnb at 11:55 AM on September 13, 2001
What evidence can you provide to support this claim? As far as I can tell, the facts cited in Pilger's essay -- including numbers dead -- have all been obtained and verified by the various UN agencies, and in many cases by officials in the US state department. See this page for relevant excerpts from UN reports and other official sources.
Regarding causation, I'll leave it to you to decide whether Bill Clinton is a more credible source than the United Nations:
"Sanctions are inhibiting the importation of spare parts, chemicals, reagents, and the means of transportation required to provide water and sanitation services to the civilian population of Iraq.... What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement towards food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place. All vital contributors to food availability - agricultural production, importation of foodstuffs, economic stability and income generation, are dependent on Iraq's ability to purchase and import those items vital to the survival of the civilian population." -- UNICEF
posted by johnb at 11:55 AM on September 13, 2001
As a native-born American, until Tuesday I lived with the luxury of never having known the traumatizing effects of such atrocities on my homeland. Though Mr. Pilger's article was unpallatable to read, it did remind me that as heinous these attacks undoubtedly were, they did not materialize without a history of violence preceding them. Although my heart is in mourning for the loss of innocent lives -and the loss of innocence in America's belief that we are exempt from such violence-, I can not say I feel vengeful. It is the escalating spiral of vengence which has lead us to this point. Where it shall end, nobody knows, but I pray that the West acts in accordance to justice, and not out of a sense of revenge.
posted by onehandclapping at 1:32 PM on September 13, 2001
posted by onehandclapping at 1:32 PM on September 13, 2001
What evidence can you provide to support this claim? As far as I can tell, the facts cited in Pilger's essay -- including numbers dead -- have all been obtained and verified by the various UN agencies, and in many cases by officials in the US state department.
I looked into this earlier on MetaFilter. Pilger appears to be extrapolating from a claim that 4,500 children a month are dying as a result of the embargo.
If you search Google for that term you will see it's being used all over the place to condemn the embargo, and the source is supposedly a World Health Organization report compiled from figures provided by the Iraqi government's Ministry of Health.
In that report, it appears that the 4,500/month figure comes from this table:
So what we have is a worst-case total no more recent than 1994 that comes from statistics provided by a dictatorship that's trying to end the embargo. The same dictatorship that "currently exports more oil than any other country save Saudi Arabia, earns more from oil sales than it did prior to the embargo, and has been using those earnings to replenish its military arsenal." (Source: The New Republic.)
That's why I view the claim with suspicion.
posted by rcade at 2:34 PM on September 13, 2001
I looked into this earlier on MetaFilter. Pilger appears to be extrapolating from a claim that 4,500 children a month are dying as a result of the embargo.
If you search Google for that term you will see it's being used all over the place to condemn the embargo, and the source is supposedly a World Health Organization report compiled from figures provided by the Iraqi government's Ministry of Health.
In that report, it appears that the 4,500/month figure comes from this table:
Table 7(a): Reported mortality in children less than 5 years old
from selected causes in Iraq (1990-1994)
----------------------------------------------------------
Year No. per 100 000
----------------------------------------------------------
1990 8903 257
1991 27473 884
1992 46933 1460
1993 49762 1495
1994 52905 1536
----------------------------------------------------------
Source: Ministry of Health, Government of Iraq
Note: 3 Northern Governorates excluded
The report only covers 1990 to 1994. The highest yearly death toll in children aged 5 and under is 52,905 deaths from 1994, which adds up to around 4,500 per month (4,408 to be exact).So what we have is a worst-case total no more recent than 1994 that comes from statistics provided by a dictatorship that's trying to end the embargo. The same dictatorship that "currently exports more oil than any other country save Saudi Arabia, earns more from oil sales than it did prior to the embargo, and has been using those earnings to replenish its military arsenal." (Source: The New Republic.)
That's why I view the claim with suspicion.
posted by rcade at 2:34 PM on September 13, 2001
asok,
unfortunately, you don't have an email address listed in your profile, or i would have emailed you to discuss this. I personally, am of Irish descent. I have read and studied about the troubles and Irish history. I don't approve of the violence on either side of the fence in Ireland. I'm not going to publicly go into my views any deeper than that here. Violence against civilians is never acceptable. If you happen to read this and want to discuss further, feel free to email me.
posted by jbelshaw at 10:33 PM on September 13, 2001
unfortunately, you don't have an email address listed in your profile, or i would have emailed you to discuss this. I personally, am of Irish descent. I have read and studied about the troubles and Irish history. I don't approve of the violence on either side of the fence in Ireland. I'm not going to publicly go into my views any deeper than that here. Violence against civilians is never acceptable. If you happen to read this and want to discuss further, feel free to email me.
posted by jbelshaw at 10:33 PM on September 13, 2001
asok,
unfortunately, you don't have an email address listed in your profile, or i would have emailed you to discuss this. I personally, am of Irish descent. I have read and studied about the troubles and Irish history. I don't approve of the violence on either side of the fence in Ireland. I'm not going to publicly go into my views any deeper than that here. Violence against civilians is never acceptable. If you happen to read this and want to discuss further, feel free to email me.
posted by jbelshaw at 10:35 PM on September 13, 2001
unfortunately, you don't have an email address listed in your profile, or i would have emailed you to discuss this. I personally, am of Irish descent. I have read and studied about the troubles and Irish history. I don't approve of the violence on either side of the fence in Ireland. I'm not going to publicly go into my views any deeper than that here. Violence against civilians is never acceptable. If you happen to read this and want to discuss further, feel free to email me.
posted by jbelshaw at 10:35 PM on September 13, 2001
« Older | Anti-Arab Violence Growing in U.S.: Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by barbelith at 6:27 AM on September 13, 2001