Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback
- Thread starter willellis
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
GAP said:pure bafflegab..... :
But the problem is that most of us, Canadians, get most of our information from the TV.* Now we may say that it is fortunate that only a handful of us actually watch CBC but Sunil Ram and people with similar 'qualifications' pop up on Global and CTV, too - and on the American networks upon which too many Canadians depend for most of their information.
I'm not slagging Ram, he may actually understand the various situations and he's almost certainly even right now and again - but rather better, on average, than a stopped clock, one hopes. But he, like Saint Stephen Staples and several others are 'experts' without "tested" (peer reviewed) qualifications. One does not need to agree with a retired general in order to understand that (s)he has been "tested" in a highly competitive system and, like that system or not, has demonstrated a set of skills and knowledge that demand our attention. Folks like Ram and Staples, on the other hand, have pretty light resumes - light on documented, specialized credentials and accomplishments.
In my opinion we need more of the Douglas Blands** and if I want someone with no particular military experience (so he would be unbiased) I'll take a Marc Milner every time. Unfortunately, for Canadians, Profs. Bland and Milner and their ilk are, unlike Ram and Staples et al, busy people who cannot "down tools" and run to a TV studio whenever a network calls.
----------
* According to data I have seen over the past several years
** Whose resume doesn't mention that he was, for several years, an armoured corps officer - with extensive field and staff experience
Mercenary Armies:
From BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12647115
About "2-300 men" from Kidal region in Mali, left about a week ago (to the date of March 4th) in "40 vehicles who are in southern Algeria waiting to cross the border into Libya."
" 'They are being paid about $10,000 to join up and then I've heard they are being told that they will get $1,000 a day to fight,' the official said. "
Comment:
Can Gaddafi actually pay these mercenaries? I thought most of his assets were frozen via the UN Sanctions?
Is it a miss-communication and/or has Gaddafi secured other funding and/or has a large enough stockpile of $ . . .?
This also in, SAS Captured by "Rebel Forces":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12658054
What are these diplomatic missions about? I'd think it would be about business interests, resumption of oil production. . .? Offers of help to keep the oil flowing. . .?
I also don't understand soaring gas prices, other than opportunists taking advantage of a situation? I thought OPEC was about controlling the production to keep prices stable, respect of individual National interests-- couldn't they just ramp up production in other areas to compensate? Did they?
There's probably some panic, there are large foreign contracts among other OPEC countries in Libya, including ourselves. What else are the oil companies up to? Making other deals with governments, BP to pay less compensation for the Gulf spill. . .? I just don't like all the power they have, nonetheless we live with this.
Other mediating factor, obviously, the traders, marketplace.
From BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12647115
About "2-300 men" from Kidal region in Mali, left about a week ago (to the date of March 4th) in "40 vehicles who are in southern Algeria waiting to cross the border into Libya."
" 'They are being paid about $10,000 to join up and then I've heard they are being told that they will get $1,000 a day to fight,' the official said. "
Comment:
Can Gaddafi actually pay these mercenaries? I thought most of his assets were frozen via the UN Sanctions?
Is it a miss-communication and/or has Gaddafi secured other funding and/or has a large enough stockpile of $ . . .?
This also in, SAS Captured by "Rebel Forces":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12658054
What are these diplomatic missions about? I'd think it would be about business interests, resumption of oil production. . .? Offers of help to keep the oil flowing. . .?
I also don't understand soaring gas prices, other than opportunists taking advantage of a situation? I thought OPEC was about controlling the production to keep prices stable, respect of individual National interests-- couldn't they just ramp up production in other areas to compensate? Did they?
There's probably some panic, there are large foreign contracts among other OPEC countries in Libya, including ourselves. What else are the oil companies up to? Making other deals with governments, BP to pay less compensation for the Gulf spill. . .? I just don't like all the power they have, nonetheless we live with this.
Other mediating factor, obviously, the traders, marketplace.
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
OPEC can influence prices but they are set in the market by the iron laws of supply and demand. Demand is increasing at a helluva rate (look at car sales in India and China) and prices will, without fail, follow - unless, suddenly, miraculously, cold fusion works, or something like that.
Price fixing conspiracy theories are nonsense - wildly popular with a majority of Canadian but utter, complete, arrant nonsense all the same.
Price fixing conspiracy theories are nonsense - wildly popular with a majority of Canadian but utter, complete, arrant nonsense all the same.
I'm not suggesting price fixing (but I believe it's possible that happens-- there's always some criminal activity, not policed sufficiently, we find out after the fact. . . Enron?. . .), but just the chaos that naturally happens in the marketplace, creating the reality, by panic, etc.
If OPEC can stabilize prices-- maybe all countries are maximizing production already? But there is some on reserve. . .
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/opec-can-balance-for-libya-shortfalls-shell-ceo/127879/on
OPEC, short-term fixes, may still cause panic and stir.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7550
There are countries right now which can't transport their oil, while others still can in Libya, but it's said that's trailing off, but. . .
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/6906/Business/Economy/Libya-oil-ports-still-open-but-activity-tailing-of.aspx:
I wonder about the SAS mission, the diplomats and Rebel forces. . . in Benghazi-- wouldn't they be trying to make deals with the Rebels for safe passage of their Country's oil companies . . .?
If OPEC can stabilize prices-- maybe all countries are maximizing production already? But there is some on reserve. . .
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/opec-can-balance-for-libya-shortfalls-shell-ceo/127879/on
OPEC, short-term fixes, may still cause panic and stir.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7550
There are countries right now which can't transport their oil, while others still can in Libya, but it's said that's trailing off, but. . .
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/6906/Business/Economy/Libya-oil-ports-still-open-but-activity-tailing-of.aspx:
I wonder about the SAS mission, the diplomats and Rebel forces. . . in Benghazi-- wouldn't they be trying to make deals with the Rebels for safe passage of their Country's oil companies . . .?
Here is a case where an experienced journalist and commentator misread the situation in that he put 250 members of JTF2 on board HMCS Charlottetown en route to the Med. It seems he took the size of the crew for embarked troops. Now I don't know if any SOFCOM troops are on board, nor do I expect that anybody is going to tell me anytime soon.
The column from the Ottawa Sun is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.
Libyans' fight, not ours
To stick our noses — and commandos — in uprising would be wrong
By Peter Worthington, QMI Agency
Last Updated: March 7, 2011 2:00am
Right now a Canadian warship — HMCS Charlottetown — is heading for the Mediterranean to join an allied flotilla off Libya.
It won’t get there until later this week and it is a precautionary gesture in case there are more crises in the area, requiring the evacuation (protection?) of stranded Canadians.
And to show solidarity with our allies.
The Charlottetown is a multi-role frigate and has one Sea King helicopter aboard (let's hope it works, if needed). So far, so good.
We are told there are also some 250 soldiers on board the ship. But not conventional soldiers, like the Princess Pats, RCR or Van Doos, but JTF 2 guys — so-called Special Forces, or Black Ops commandos.
One wonders why.
The public knows very little about JTF 2. It's a secret army within the army, and many are skeptical about the whole thing. We (the public) are told that in Afghanistan they went behind the lines and did dark deeds that cannot be publicized. Cloak and dagger stuff.
Is that what their role would be in Libya, if necessary?
One hopes not.
The very last thing Canada should be contemplating is putting soldiers on the ground in Libya. Let Libyans resolve their own future.
Yes, Moammar Gadhafi is a delusional despot whose time has run out. He's acting in character by not trying to escape, and odds are that his fate is to be torn apart by the mobs.
If so, let it happen.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged $5 million in humanitarian relief for Libya. That's a pathetic amount and merely a gesture that is not needed.
Libyans are not among the poorest of Arabs, and the Libyan uprising is not motivated by poverty or destitution, but because people are fed up with a comic book caricature like Gadhafi oppressing them.
Those who think western countries should be helping depose Gadhafi are wrong. We helped prop him up when he was on top, so it's both hypocritical and cowardly to now help get rid of him.
Let Libyans run their own revolution.
The U.S. is being careful. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points out that we’ve no idea who is going to run Libya when (and if) Gadhafi is no more, or who's leading the charge.
It's not yet certain that Gadhafi will go. He's got imported fighters killing as many protesters as possible. (One hesitates to call them "mercenaries" because the true mercenary has a code that determines conduct; Gadhafi's supporters are more like thugs than soldiers).
Back to JTF 2 guys aboard the Charlottetown.
Is it anticipated that they may be required to infiltrate behind Libyan lines? One hopes not. If evacuating Canadians is the role, surely regular troops are better at that.
In Afghanistan, the JTF 2 (there is no JTF 1) were somewhat resented by other soldiers. No photographs are supposed to be taken of JTF 2 members, no interviews. They are supposedly anonymous and incognito. But they are recognizable by often being unshaven, wearing dark glasses, and wearing outfits that would get the sergeant major apoplectic if regular soldiers dressed that way.
When Jean Chretien was PM and briefly visited Canadian troops in Afghanistan, he had a bodyguard comprised of JTF 2. Did he really need protection from Canadian soldiers? It was kind of insulting to them.
Anyway, let's hope Gadhafi is history by the time the Charlottetown reaches Libya, and the only thing JTF 2 has to worry about is sunburn.
The column from the Ottawa Sun is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.
Libyans' fight, not ours
To stick our noses — and commandos — in uprising would be wrong
By Peter Worthington, QMI Agency
Last Updated: March 7, 2011 2:00am
Right now a Canadian warship — HMCS Charlottetown — is heading for the Mediterranean to join an allied flotilla off Libya.
It won’t get there until later this week and it is a precautionary gesture in case there are more crises in the area, requiring the evacuation (protection?) of stranded Canadians.
And to show solidarity with our allies.
The Charlottetown is a multi-role frigate and has one Sea King helicopter aboard (let's hope it works, if needed). So far, so good.
We are told there are also some 250 soldiers on board the ship. But not conventional soldiers, like the Princess Pats, RCR or Van Doos, but JTF 2 guys — so-called Special Forces, or Black Ops commandos.
One wonders why.
The public knows very little about JTF 2. It's a secret army within the army, and many are skeptical about the whole thing. We (the public) are told that in Afghanistan they went behind the lines and did dark deeds that cannot be publicized. Cloak and dagger stuff.
Is that what their role would be in Libya, if necessary?
One hopes not.
The very last thing Canada should be contemplating is putting soldiers on the ground in Libya. Let Libyans resolve their own future.
Yes, Moammar Gadhafi is a delusional despot whose time has run out. He's acting in character by not trying to escape, and odds are that his fate is to be torn apart by the mobs.
If so, let it happen.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged $5 million in humanitarian relief for Libya. That's a pathetic amount and merely a gesture that is not needed.
Libyans are not among the poorest of Arabs, and the Libyan uprising is not motivated by poverty or destitution, but because people are fed up with a comic book caricature like Gadhafi oppressing them.
Those who think western countries should be helping depose Gadhafi are wrong. We helped prop him up when he was on top, so it's both hypocritical and cowardly to now help get rid of him.
Let Libyans run their own revolution.
The U.S. is being careful. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points out that we’ve no idea who is going to run Libya when (and if) Gadhafi is no more, or who's leading the charge.
It's not yet certain that Gadhafi will go. He's got imported fighters killing as many protesters as possible. (One hesitates to call them "mercenaries" because the true mercenary has a code that determines conduct; Gadhafi's supporters are more like thugs than soldiers).
Back to JTF 2 guys aboard the Charlottetown.
Is it anticipated that they may be required to infiltrate behind Libyan lines? One hopes not. If evacuating Canadians is the role, surely regular troops are better at that.
In Afghanistan, the JTF 2 (there is no JTF 1) were somewhat resented by other soldiers. No photographs are supposed to be taken of JTF 2 members, no interviews. They are supposedly anonymous and incognito. But they are recognizable by often being unshaven, wearing dark glasses, and wearing outfits that would get the sergeant major apoplectic if regular soldiers dressed that way.
When Jean Chretien was PM and briefly visited Canadian troops in Afghanistan, he had a bodyguard comprised of JTF 2. Did he really need protection from Canadian soldiers? It was kind of insulting to them.
Anyway, let's hope Gadhafi is history by the time the Charlottetown reaches Libya, and the only thing JTF 2 has to worry about is sunburn.
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
kstart said:
Libyan oil, according to recent data goes here:
72% of Libya's oil goes to Europe, but the UK, which has its own oil, gets a fairly small amount.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The major issue with oil is while demand fluctuates quickly, supply is relatively fixed.
I'm talking the sort of supply you as the end consumer needs, refined fuels and petroleum products. In Ontario, there are only 4 refineries, so no matter how much crude oil there is (and there is actually lots, new fields like the Bakken in Saskatchewan and North Dakota are coming on line, and new technologies like "frakking" are increasing yeilds from old fields), there is a limited throughput of refined product. In the US, heavy and complex environmental regulations have discouraged the building of new refineries for more than 30 years, so not only is throughput fixed, but creaky old refineries break down and throttle supply of refined fuel.
Your local gas station has a fixed supply of fuel (the environmentally friendly tanks cannot be rapidly upgraded or replaced with bigger ones), so when demand increases on weekends and holidays, the gas station cannot increase supply to meet demand (unlike a grocery store which can shuffle stock on shelves, place bins on the floor etc.)
And as Edward says, we are involved in a market where decisions made in Shanghai or Madras can affect us at the speed of light.
Fix this end of the problem, and see how prices change.
I'm talking the sort of supply you as the end consumer needs, refined fuels and petroleum products. In Ontario, there are only 4 refineries, so no matter how much crude oil there is (and there is actually lots, new fields like the Bakken in Saskatchewan and North Dakota are coming on line, and new technologies like "frakking" are increasing yeilds from old fields), there is a limited throughput of refined product. In the US, heavy and complex environmental regulations have discouraged the building of new refineries for more than 30 years, so not only is throughput fixed, but creaky old refineries break down and throttle supply of refined fuel.
Your local gas station has a fixed supply of fuel (the environmentally friendly tanks cannot be rapidly upgraded or replaced with bigger ones), so when demand increases on weekends and holidays, the gas station cannot increase supply to meet demand (unlike a grocery store which can shuffle stock on shelves, place bins on the floor etc.)
And as Edward says, we are involved in a market where decisions made in Shanghai or Madras can affect us at the speed of light.
Fix this end of the problem, and see how prices change.
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
E.R. Campbell said:Libyan oil, according to recent data goes here:
72% of Libya's oil goes to Europe, but the UK, which has its own oil, gets a fairly small amount.
NOW I see why our gas prices jumped $.12 in less than a week. It's because the non existent oil Canada imports from the Middle East is under threat. Best excuse available, I suppose.
There is some Canadian Oil interests in Libya:
Petro Canada (now merged with Suncor) signed a 1 billion dollar signing bonus over to Gaddafi, in exchange for 30 year contract in oil exploration.
Terms of the agreement here: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/06/08TRIPOLI498.html
Libya also threated to nationalize Canadian oil:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/libyas-gadhafi-threatened-to-nationalize-petro-canadas-operations-wikileaks-114979969.htm
Petro Canada (now merged with Suncor) signed a 1 billion dollar signing bonus over to Gaddafi, in exchange for 30 year contract in oil exploration.
Terms of the agreement here: http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/06/08TRIPOLI498.html
Libya also threated to nationalize Canadian oil:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/libyas-gadhafi-threatened-to-nationalize-petro-canadas-operations-wikileaks-114979969.htm
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
If by any chance this passed, how much would/could the UK and France contribute to what would have to be a US-dominated operation (I would think). And would/could Canada contribute say 6-12 CF-18s?
Britain, France ready Libya no-fly zone resolution
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjK-uTaUi4eIZffTsS13LCaFVYQw?docId=CNG.49104d077a72cbffeafe9d3689e92793.af1
Mark
Ottawa
Britain, France ready Libya no-fly zone resolution
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjK-uTaUi4eIZffTsS13LCaFVYQw?docId=CNG.49104d077a72cbffeafe9d3689e92793.af1
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
MarkOttawa said:
This will be a conundrum for China. It traditionally, and for its own good reasons, opposes any actions that interfere with the internal affairs of any UN member. But their interests in Africa might make then change their minds if, and it's a big Big IF, most African countries want military intervention.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Meanwhile Tom Ricks
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99510/post-1023552.html#msg1023552
is now convinced in favour of a more, er, robust, US policy:
What Obama needs to do with Libya -- and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/what_obama_needs_to_do_with_libya_and_with_the_joint_chiefs_of_staff_today
Mark
Ottawa
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99510/post-1023552.html#msg1023552
is now convinced in favour of a more, er, robust, US policy:
What Obama needs to do with Libya -- and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/what_obama_needs_to_do_with_libya_and_with_the_joint_chiefs_of_staff_today
Mark
Ottawa
Found this on Combat Camera, pretty sure it's in Libya and the 130J.
http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=news&template=news-nouvelles_detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=679&site=combatcamera
Sounds like the camera man was picking up an ELT on landing.
http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=news&template=news-nouvelles_detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=679&site=combatcamera
Sounds like the camera man was picking up an ELT on landing.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,100
- Points
- 1,160
So, once again the world calls upon "The Great Satan", the "European Colonial Powers" and "Self-Interested, Interventionalist West" to step in and solve the internal problems of a troubled country. And when Western forces are in the country two years from now trying to keep rival tribes from eachother's throats and trying to build democratic institutions who will be the bad guys that get the blame for trying to impose their will on an "occupied" nation or for trying to gain control of their valuable natural resources?
How quickly could the problem of Libyan Air Force strikes be solved by the Egyptians or Saudis supplying the rebel forces with some shoulder-fired AA missiles and trainers? Send them some AT missiles to blunt the counter-attacks by pro-Gadaffi armoured forces? Much easier to ask "Big Brother" to do the work...and take the blame for any fallout.
The National Post editorial board is prepared to fight to the last European. Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
National Post editorial board: NATO should prepare for war in Libya
March 8, 2011 – 8:00 am
Pressure is growing for Western nations to intervene militarily in Libya’s emerging civil war. As we noted in an editorial published on Thursday — and as the embarrassing capture of a contingent of British special-forces troops over the weekend shows — there are good reasons to be wary about such a campaign. But Muammar Gaddafi’s apparent willingness to exterminate large numbers of his citizens in recent days has served to marginalize such concerns: Whatever the risks that attend military intervention, we must not permit a North African Srebrenica.
A first step for NATO nations would be to impose a no-fly zone over rebel areas in order to shield protestors and revolutionary soldiers from Col. Gaddafi’s air power. If we cannot bring ourselves to do even that, the West risks having no friends in whatever government replaces Col. Gaddifi’s. We also risk losing credibility in the larger Arab and Muslim worlds for our unwillingness to enforce the humanitarian principles we claim to hold dear.
The British and French governments have called for the imposition of no-fly rules. But both nations also have insisted on seeking approval in advance from the UN Security Council. Such a gesture would be useless: Neither China nor Russia — both veto-wielding Security Council members, and both guilty of their own human-rights violations — would permit any such resolution to pass. A more realistic approach would be to ask NATO’s council to authorize military action. This would mirror the approach taken in 1999, when the NATO bombing campaign against Serbian forces in Kosovo was performed without UN authorization.
The heavy lifting associated with the no-fly mission should be performed by Italy, France, Germany and Spain — which, collectively, import 90% of Libya’s oil exports. Britain, too, has a well-established trade relationship with Libya. It is in these countries’ interests to remove Col. Gaddafi as quickly as possible and stabilize the country around a new government. There are roles for Canada, the United States and other Western nations, too. Even as the Canadian air force seeks to acquire a controversial new multi-purpose fighter jet, our old CF-18s are more than a match for anything the Libyans have to throw up against them.
In the best case scenario, NATO will not have to fire a single shot or scramble a single aircraft — because Libyans will end Gaddafi’s cruel tyranny all by themselves. But failing that, we cannot stand by and permit a Libyan genocide to unfold.
National Post editorial board: NATO should prepare for war in Libya
March 8, 2011 – 8:00 am
Pressure is growing for Western nations to intervene militarily in Libya’s emerging civil war. As we noted in an editorial published on Thursday — and as the embarrassing capture of a contingent of British special-forces troops over the weekend shows — there are good reasons to be wary about such a campaign. But Muammar Gaddafi’s apparent willingness to exterminate large numbers of his citizens in recent days has served to marginalize such concerns: Whatever the risks that attend military intervention, we must not permit a North African Srebrenica.
A first step for NATO nations would be to impose a no-fly zone over rebel areas in order to shield protestors and revolutionary soldiers from Col. Gaddafi’s air power. If we cannot bring ourselves to do even that, the West risks having no friends in whatever government replaces Col. Gaddifi’s. We also risk losing credibility in the larger Arab and Muslim worlds for our unwillingness to enforce the humanitarian principles we claim to hold dear.
The British and French governments have called for the imposition of no-fly rules. But both nations also have insisted on seeking approval in advance from the UN Security Council. Such a gesture would be useless: Neither China nor Russia — both veto-wielding Security Council members, and both guilty of their own human-rights violations — would permit any such resolution to pass. A more realistic approach would be to ask NATO’s council to authorize military action. This would mirror the approach taken in 1999, when the NATO bombing campaign against Serbian forces in Kosovo was performed without UN authorization.
The heavy lifting associated with the no-fly mission should be performed by Italy, France, Germany and Spain — which, collectively, import 90% of Libya’s oil exports. Britain, too, has a well-established trade relationship with Libya. It is in these countries’ interests to remove Col. Gaddafi as quickly as possible and stabilize the country around a new government. There are roles for Canada, the United States and other Western nations, too. Even as the Canadian air force seeks to acquire a controversial new multi-purpose fighter jet, our old CF-18s are more than a match for anything the Libyans have to throw up against them.
In the best case scenario, NATO will not have to fire a single shot or scramble a single aircraft — because Libyans will end Gaddafi’s cruel tyranny all by themselves. But failing that, we cannot stand by and permit a Libyan genocide to unfold.
- Reaction score
- 5,959
- Points
- 1,260
Old Sweat said:
Why not? We've done it (stood by while a genocide unfolded) plenty of times in past. What, besides oil for Italy, makes Libya so bloody special? Something needs to stir up the Arab, North African, West Asian and, especially, the East Asian Muslims to throw off the shackles of Saudi financed fundamentalism and have a nice little reformation. Maybe a bit of internecine killing will do the trick.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Some good points from Roger Cohen:
Libyan Closure
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html
It really is quite remarkably repulsive that Western countries were sucking up like crazy to the Col. until just the other day--and are now leaping over each other to condemn him (they all knew what he was like) and demand that he go.
Mark
Ottawa
Libyan Closure
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html
It really is quite remarkably repulsive that Western countries were sucking up like crazy to the Col. until just the other day--and are now leaping over each other to condemn him (they all knew what he was like) and demand that he go.
Mark
Ottawa
Similar threads
