The Jewish Lobby

[rory_20_uk]

Israel was flying American planes which were crucial to their air superiority which won them the war.

[Lemur]

Israeli interests have been sold to America as American interests, when they most likely are not.

This. Precisely this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This. Precisely this.

Agreed. This is the most frustrating part

[PanzerJaeger]

I was referencing your "arab hate" comment. US support of Israel makes for great propoganda but it is a small part of the larger machiene at work.

The Arab world is capital poor, rescource rich and ruled by despots who use a religon to strike fear and hate in the hearts of the populace. Until real changes come internally there will always be an underclass ready to lash out at whomever they think is responsible for their plight.

The men who buy into this propaganda are young, unemployed, and due to the precarious status of women in there country have few prospects for love or a family. The US could hand out Ice cream every thursday and it would be turned against us.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure if you're in a position to speak to the motivations of such a broad spectrum of people.

Regardless, our subservience to Israeli foreign policy goals in the region contributes greatly to the anti-Americanism rampant in the Middle East. That would be fine if we were getting some discernable benefit in return. You have yet to identify that return.

The Arab spring got allot of press but it seems to be turninig into a carsouel of strongmen, Israel is light years ahead of anyone else in the region and democratic states tend to cure many of the ills that plauge the Arab states right now.

Sure, but why does that mean we should support them? Israel certainly isn't willing to export democracy to the rest of the reason, unless it is done with American money and American lives.

This element of your argument doesn't seem entirely thought out. It may have made since in the Cold War, when the very concept of democratic government was locked in a power struggle with authoritarianism and all democracies had a vested interest in standing together, but that time has long ago passed.

Again, what American interests are served through our support of Israel?

I would still take the IDF any day of the week, not to mention I don't want our ace in the hole to be SA in the region. I'm well aware of the secertain differences in Islam but push comes to shove and those differences get swept under the rug. Not the same with Israel

The IDF was never the amazing fighting force it has been made out to be, and has grown ever more complacent over the years since Yom Kippur. It hasn't had to contend with a real enemy in decades, and its recent performance against Hezbollah reflects that. It is still a capable force, but the assumption of superiority over Arab militaries that is common in the West is a mistake.

On the other hand, after the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia invested heavily in its military both technologically and, critically, in training - which was always the problem when the Arabs faced the Israelis. The Saudi Arabian military is far more 'American' in its structure and capabilities than the IDF. (Note, also, that I am not advocating for Saudi Arabia here - I'm only using the nation as an example for comparison. )

Of course, this whole discussion is completely irrelevant, as you will never see Israeli soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. The IDF could be the most potent, capable, and powerful military force in the world and it would still be of absolutely no benefit to the United States.

Just like with Israeli democracy, it is great for Israel that they have a modern military (paid for in large part by the US), but what does that do for America? One could argue, for example, that Britain's military is a clearly identifiable benefit in our alliance with that nation. Unlike Britain, which, by the way, pays for its own military, Israel will not commit the IDF to US conflicts, rendering it useless in any discussion of the costs and benefits of our alliance with the country.

However, curbing Irans ambitions is not just about the military.

Certainly not. It will require quite a bit of diplomatic capital as well, of which Israel has none in the region.

I was under the impression that Israels was ready to strike with or without US support until they were talked off the ledge

It is highly doubtful that they can do it on their own, although the perceived need is so pressing that they may have overcome their technical difficulties. In 2008, at least, they needed American equipment to do it.

and without 9/11 none of your contentions could've happened. I would love to see links, as a quick google search yeilds nothing repuetable. And if Bush truly did forgo inspectors, and send American boys to die b/c he vauled his presidency over the truth, that seems like a unuiqely American issue

And without Zionist Jews, none of it would have happened either.

Here are some more links:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/630/op14.htm

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...old_you_so_but

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=zIrFUBs7G6kC

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/02/steve-...he-should.html

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/488

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-92996109.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-threat_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyah...-dream-1.91911

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features...sition-1.13755

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0304/03042517DS.asp

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-94998618.html

http://www.forward.com/articles/5719/

http://www.slate.com/id/2073093/

http://www.forward.com/articles/9335/

And http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/ka...07/03/20/aipac

But AIPAC showed its true power -- and its continuing ability to steer American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction -- when a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before using military force against Iran.

The pro-Israel lobby's victory on the Iran bill is almost unbelievable. Even after the nation repudiated the Iraq war decisively in the 2006 midterms, even after it has become clear that the Bush administration's Middle East policy is severely unbalanced toward Israel and has damaged America's standing in the world, Congress still cannot bring itself to stand up to the AIPAC line.

The fact that AIPAC, which is ranked as the second-most powerful lobby in the country (trailing only AARP, but ahead of the NRA) virtually dictates U.S. policy in the Mideast has long been one of those surreal facts of Washington life that politicians discuss only when they get near retirement -- if then. In 2004, Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings had the bad taste to reveal this inconvenient truth when he said, "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here." Michael Massing, who has done exemplary reporting on AIPAC for the New York Review of Books, quoted a congressional staffer as saying, "We can count on well over half the House -- 250 to 300 members -- to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants." In unguarded moments, even top AIPAC figures have confirmed such claims. The New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg quoted Steven Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign-policy director who is now awaiting trial on charges of passing top-secret Pentagon information to Israel, as saying, "You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin."

Until 9/11 and the Iraq war, this state of affairs was of little concern to anyone except those passionately interested in the Middle East -- a small group that has never included more than a tiny minority of Americans, Jews or non-Jews. If the pro-Israel lobby wielded enormous power over America's Mideast policies, so what? America's Mideast policies were always reliably pro-Israel anyway, for a variety of reasons, including many that had nothing to do with lobbying by American Jews. And the stakes didn't seem that big.

But in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq war, that all changed dramatically. 9/11, and the Bush administration's response to it, made it inescapably clear that America's Mideast policies affect everyone in the country: They are literally a matter of life and death. The Bush administration's neoconservative Mideast policy is essentially indistinguishable from AIPAC's. And so it is no longer possible to ignore it -- even though it is a notoriously touchy and divisive subject.

The touchiest aspect of all is the role played by pro-Israel neoconservatives in laying the groundwork for the Iraq war. Much of the media has been loath to go near this, for obvious and in some ways honorable reasons: It feels a little like "blame the Jews." But that taboo has faded as it has become clearer that "the Jews" are not the ones being blamed for helping pave the way to war, but a group of powerful neoconservatives, some but not all of them Jewish, who subscribe to the hard-right views of Israel's Likud Party. This group no more represents "the Jews" than the Shining Path represents "the Peruvians."

They are a fairly important peice on the chess board in a part of the world where we don't have many peices. Any other ally in the region comes with a nasty strain of anti americanism and a voltaile social base only held in check by tyranny, not a very good basket to put your eggs in.

1. Other than being a lightning rod for regional hatred, are they really important beyond their own borders?

2. Do we really not have many pieces? Before the Iraq War and the Arab Spring, the US had nearly complete hegemony in the region, with the few stragglers completely isolated and impoverished. Even after all that, we still have plenty of 'allies', 'proxies', or whatever you want to call them who are far more pliable and useful than Israel.

3. A chess piece implies that it can be played. Which nation is the piece and which is the player in our relationship?

What rescources we have left? Do I need to talk you off the ledge? You can also stop trying to convince to your cause with inflammotory rhetoric, allot of your arguments bring up valid points, then you end a post like this and it makes me think your insane

My words were very deliberate. What would you call a group of citizens in one country solely focused on promoting the interests of another at the expense of the former - going so far as to compel their fellow citizens into a war to further the interests of their favored country? I would call them a traitorous, contemptible fifth column that needs to be rooted out, exposed, and deported.

Israel is self sustaining and has its own economy not based on a single commodity good. The average citizen in Israel is better off than the residents of any of the countries leading to further political stability. Israel has and never will harbor dangerous islamic terrorists and is even more committed than america to rooting them out.

Israel's armed forces are the premier in the region and could likely and has in the past defeat entire coalitions of middle eastern countries.

I see no true realpolitik reason we should ever support anyone else in the ME.

Then I must question your understanding of the concept.

The very essence of realpolitik is putting aside ideological and moral judgments in favor of mutual gain.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. As Strike stated, most of us in America consider the nation repugnant in more ways than one - but we deal with each other because we both get real, tangible, and important benefits from the relationship.

In contrast, you've stated a) why Israel is a much nicer country to live in than other Middle Eastern nations and b) a description of the IDF based more in myth than reality.

While a and b are great, they do not actually constitute any sort of rationale for our one sided relationship with the country. Instead of coming up with positive attributes that describe Israel as a nation, you and Strike need to come up with positive attributes that describe our relationship with Israel. I'll return to a familiar refrain - what do we get out of it?

Mein Führer, it doesn't help to say all that with a PanzerJäger in your sig!

I admit it has an unsavory air about it, but I was a big supporter of Iraq because I thought it was in America's interest. I don't like to be played, by Zionist Jews or anyone else.

[Centurion1]

Then I must question your understanding of the concept.

The very essence of realpolitik is putting aside ideological and moral judgments in favor of mutual gain.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. As Strike stated, most of us in America consider the nation repugnant in more ways than one - but we deal with each other because we both get real, tangible, and important benefits from the relationship.

In contrast, you've stated a) why Israel is a much nicer country to live in than other Middle Eastern nations and b) a description of the IDF based more in myth than reality.

While a and b are great, they do not actually constitute any sort of rationale for our one sided relationship with the country. Instead of coming up with positive attributes that describe Israel as a nation, you and Strike need to come up with positive attributes that describe our relationship with Israel. I'll return to a familiar refrain - what do we get out of it?

Egypt is a perfect example of why a stable government is infinitely preferable in terms of realpolitik. Mubarak was american backed and he led the country to disaster. Now the country is wracked with insurrection and its is increasingly more probable a fundamentalist Islam party will emerge from the wreckage. Then all our money and aid is wasted because we have yet another enemy in the region. Israel is under little threat of being seized by enemies of America and are therefore a safer long term bet to hedge on. You know business a safer commodity even if the possible return is lower than another commodity is often preferable to purchase and invest in.

What do American's get out of it?

99% of Hamas efforts are focused on Israel. Terror organizations and the people within them do not just disappear. If america withdrew support and Israel fell then Hamas would not pull a Cinncinnatus and return to their fields. It would just create more American focused enemies. Hezbollah is an even more likely case. With a weaker Israel they would be able to focus more attention on America. FTR the same applies to every single terrorist organization in the ME.

Israel is a true hater of terror and actually aids us. You can give me your bull about how Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are really ratcheting up their efforts in stopping terrorists but I see a different story. They tell us these things and then when we discover the most hated man in America living next to a military academy in a mansion it leaves me a bit skeptical. If the Israeli's found out about that we wouldn't get the joy of killing OBM. What we would get is a delivery from Mossad with his head inside for proof.

Also you don't know the extent of our military sharing and intelligence sharing. My father was recently in Israel on business to see how they retrofitted a certain aircraft and later adopted similar hardware as a result.

And as Louis said your usage of the term "Zionist Jew" and Jew controlled-etc makes your whole argument unsavory though I know it isn't meant in such a manner. I mean I keep expecting you to link a video of you frothing at the mouth and propagandizing about the Jew controlled media.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well, you've served on the ground there, so I'll go with your personal experience. Maybe my point wasn't coming across clear enough (writing posts at 3 AM), but I completely agree with your final assessment:

I re-read what you posted and what I posted, and I came off as a condascending ****, I am sorry for that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Re-posted as per Hooahguy's request.

Dear PJ:
I have been recently made aware of your post in the backroom about the Jewish lobby.
I have also noticed that you are grouping AIPAC and Jews in one group.

I want to tell you something. I love this country. It has given me everything I could ever want. Except a girlfriend who sticks with me longer than a year, but I guess thats my problem.
Anyhow, I love this country, and thats why I plan to fight for it. I plan to enlist in the US Army after I return from my year abroad. I plan to take an oath to defend this country, this country, not Israel, from all threats, foreign and internal.

That being said, I vehemently protest your grouping of Jews and the Jewish Lobby. Yes, the vast majority of Jews are pro-Israel, but thats to be expected. But to say that Jews are out to destroy America is just flat-out wrong.
Most love America, and while you have every now and then the nutjob who does want to put Israel before the US, most are apathetic about it all.

Dont get me wrong. I truly believe that the Israel lobby is way too strong. It needs to be curtailed.
But do not group AIPAC with Jews. Jews are not trying to take down this country. This is not the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Best regards,
Hooahguy

PS: PJ, if you would be so kind as to post this in the Backroom as to make my position clear, that would be appreciated.

I discussed this with him over Steam, but just to be explicitly clear, I am refering to Zionist Jews in this thread. As discussed in my original link (that I guess no one actually read; that's ok) Zionist Jews =/= Jews. They are a powerful minority within the greater, mainstream Jewish population in America. Their loyalty lies with Israel, despite their American citizenship, and they have no qualms about using American power to further Israel's interests.

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro‐Israel to include letter‐writing, financial contributions, and supporting pro‐Israel organizations. But not all Jewish‐Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 percent of Jewish‐Americans said they were either “not very” or “not at all” emotionally attached to Israel.60

Jewish‐Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are run by hardliners who generally supported the expansionist policies of Israel’s Likud Party, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process. The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more favorably disposed to making concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups—such as Jewish Voice for Peace—strongly advocate such steps.61 Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both support steadfast U.S. support for Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States. As one activist with a major Jewish organization wrote, “it is routine for us to say: ‘This is our 14 policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.’ We as a community do it all the time.”62 There is also a strong norm against criticizing Israeli policy, and Jewish‐American leaders rarely support putting pressure on Israel. Thus, Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of “perfidy” when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid‐2003 urging Bush to pressure Israel to curb construction of its controversial “security fence.”63 Critics declared that, “It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.”

Similarly, when Israel Policy Forum president Seymour Reich advised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to pressure Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip in November 2005, critics denounced his action as “irresponsible behavior,” and declared that, “There is absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security‐related policies . . . of Israel.”64 Recoiling from these attacks, Reich proclaimed that “the word pressure is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.”
Jewish‐Americans have formed an impressive array of organizations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and well‐known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington.65 AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL‐CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington’s “muscle rankings.”66

[Papewaio]

You know normally it is the smaller country that has to pretend that it's larger allies interests are its interests.

Political judo or just a fact of who needs who more?

[Strike For The South]

While I haven't had time to formulate an articulate a response worty of my reputation I would just like to say I do not support Israel on any grounds other the geo political and I read your link

Love me?

[Centurion1]

While I haven't had time to formulate an articulate a response worty of my reputation I would just like to say I do not support Israel on any grounds other the geo political and I read your link

Love me?

Here is a cookie and a pat on the head

[Lemur]

20 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives will be using this congressional recess to tour Israel. WHAT THE FUDGE. Do we give this kind of slobbery-mouthed kissing to any other ally? I mean, seriously, what the hell are the congresscritters thinking?

Eighty-one congressmen, or about 20 percent of the US House of Representatives, will visit Israel over the next three weeks during Congress’s summer recess, with the first group of 26 Democrats scheduled to arrive on Monday.

The Democratic delegation will be followed by two Republican ones, bringing a total of 55 Republicans.

[...] The week-long trips are sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, a charitable organization affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which brings large delegations of congressmen here every other August.

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) will head the Democratic delegation, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) will lead one of the Republican groups.

[Ronin]

I mean, seriously, what the hell are the congresscritters thinking?

they are thinking about re-election.

come on..that one was low hanging fruit.

[Adrian II]

20 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives will be using this congressional recess to tour Israel.

It's because of the goils.

AII

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.

Well that's pretty heavy on implication certainly. But I mean, Susan B. Anthony made a significant effort in her daily life to "bend" U.S. domestic policy so that it advanced women's interests.

"Interests" is much too murky a word to rely on for serious talk.



Congressman visiting Israel, good, I would hope our congressman have some first hand experience of things like that.

[Lemur]

Congressman visiting Israel, good, I would hope our congressman have some first hand experience of things like that.

And do you imagine that an all-expenses-tour paid by a lobbying group is the best possible way for them to get "some first hand experience"? Really? I hope they take some money from Merck and Abbott to go visit the Caribbean as well, so that they can learn about the issues surrounding prescription drugs.

[Kralizec]

I call . I don't believe it, there's no way that the Iranian government would deal with the same Taliban that murdered the Iranian diplomats at Mazar ê-Sharif less than a decade earlier. Perhaps that the Iranian government funded some Shi'ite splinter group, but it doesn't make any sense for them to fund the Taliban as a whole. There's one sentence I find troubling in particular:



The Taliban aren't just "Sunni militias", they are hardcore Sunnite fundamentalists to the extreme. It would not make any sense for them to forge even a temporary alliance with the Iranians, as the Shi'ites are worse than non-believers, they are apostates. Or something. I find it hard to believe.

A different explanation might be that there is a lot of corruption within Iran itself. It might be that the government either didn't know or didn't care about weapons smuggle to Afghanistan.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were mortal enemies according to their respective ideologies, but they cooperated for several years on a variety of issues - culminating in the partition of eastern Europe per the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, and ending only when Germany invaded the USSR by surprise.

On several ocassions you yourself have pointed out that the Iranian government isn't entirely composed out of near-suicidal, foaming-at-the-moath lunatics. Iran may have had pragmatic reasons to support Afghan insurgents, such as undermining an ally of the USA (the current Afghan republic)
I'd also question the ideological purity of the average "Taliban" bloke, or members of other splinter groups. I recall reading somewhere that during the Afghan-Soviet war the Arab volunteers (OBL's ilk) weren't always popular with the local Afghan insurgents because the former had a "holier than thou" attitude. They probably would have no qualms with using weapons from one "enemy" (Iran) in combat against another, more relevant enemy (NATO).

[rasoforos]

Re-posted as per Hooahguy's request.
Their loyalty lies with Israel, despite their American citizenship, and they have no qualms about using American power to further Israel's interests.

Says someone with a Panzer as a sig, german origin, and well documented Right Wing views...

Why does the US support Israel? Its Realpolitik! Simple as that. For the same reason it was no problem selling F-15 planes to Saudi at the same time. For the same reason Osama bin Laden was made into a freedom fighter and then into a terrorist. Its what made the U.S a superpower in the first place. The ability to promote the country's interests without moral or cultural burdens. From my point of view there is absolutely no need for endless posts on a matter where things are simple.

[Slyspy]

The argument being made is that the support of Israel is not in the best interests of the US. Or that, at least, the level of support is disproportionate to the benefit received. If this is the case then such support ceases to be Realpolitik.

[Vladimir]

Says someone with a Panzer as a sig, german origin, and well documented Fascist views...

Why does the US support Israel? Its Realpolitik! Simple as that. For the same reason it was no problem selling F-15 planes to Saudi at the same time. For the same reason Osama bin Laden was made into a freedom fighter and then into a terrorist. Its what made the U.S a superpower in the first place. The ability to promote the country's interests without moral or cultural burdens. From my point of view there is absolutely no need for endless posts on a matter where things are simple.

Godwin?

[Montmorency]

Louis already did it in this thread, except humorously.

[Centurion1]

gah

[Vladimir]

Louis already did it in this thread, except humorously.

Shoot! Thanks for the correction.

To contribute something meaningful: For all their faults supporting the Jewish lobby is far better than supporting those directly opposing them.

[Lemur]

supporting the Jewish lobby is far better than supporting those directly opposing them.

I do not understand why it is in our national interest to support either. Where is it written than we must choose sides in the Israeli/Palestinian Axis of Stupidity? Why is any of it our fight?

[Hax]

Also, false dilemma. "With them or against them", well, international politics don't really work that way.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I do not understand why it is in our national interest to support either. Where is it written than we must choose sides in the Israeli/Palestinian Axis of Stupidity? Why is any of it our fight?

This. When presented with the choice between Israeli hardliners and Palestinian hardliners, pick 'none of the above'.


Why should the world revolve around a conflict about three square miles of Middle Eastern desert?
I mean, why not let global politics be held hostage by the etnic conflicts on New Caledonia? The same size after all. Or, have the UN Security Council occupy itself nearly fulltime with the Western Sahara? Much more desert, plenty of displaced people, complicated history of post-colonialism and occupation. Why not send twenty percent of US members of Congress to this part of the desert? Surely it is worth studying?

The Middle East conflict is the concern of the world simply because it is the concern of the world. Because Western and Middle Eastern governments, for different reasons, have been pushed into taking a position in the conflict, until it became an automatism. It has become unquestioned, natural, to have a strong opinion about the Middle Eastern conflict One looks a provicial for not having intimate knowledge about, a strong position in the conflict.

But why should that be? What if it isn't any of our concern to begin with? I mean, in the Eastern Congo they seem to manage to keep up their conflict for decades on end perfectly fine without outside involvement. They don't seem to need us to sustain their conflict.



Louis - 'if only they would've had a good psychiatric hospital in Jerusalem, the world would've been a peaceful place the past three thousand years'.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Godwin?

Nobody out-Godwins Louis.



Louis - confused fascist antifascist.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... the Western Sahara? Much more desert, plenty of displaced people, complicated history of post-colonialism and occupation. Why not send twenty percent of US members of Congress to this part of the desert? .... [/I]

Sounds good. Anyway you could arrange for them to stay?

[rasoforos]

Godwin?

My dear Vladimir this topic had reached 100% Godwin ab initio :)

[Vladimir]

My dear Vladimir this topic had reached 100% Godwin ab initio :)

Ahh. New Latin phrase. Thanks.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ahh. New Latin phrase. Thanks.

Pax vu biscum.