| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Bush Administration
An Essay on the Changing Bush Foreign Doctrine as it relates to World Polarization -- the Educating of George W. Bush on Foreign Affairs by Cherrie Lynn Lippsett Polarization of the world has always lead to world wars if one powerful nation tries to forcefully implant its ideas and culture on other nations not open to those ideas and culture. This was the scenario that resulted in World War II. While Germany only implemented its beliefs within its own borders the rest of the nations of the world choose to look the other way and ignore what was happening in Germany. However, when Germany started invading other nations, exporting its ideologies, the world woke up and nations fearing they would be next, signed mutual military support pacs and eventually were at war with Germany. Up until the Bush I presidency the nations of the world kept this same doctrine of only attacking another nation when it invaded a neighbor. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 there was a feeling of euphoria throughout most of the world. It was signified by the collapse of the Berlin War-November 11/12,1989. Just about 14 years ago to the day. Does the world now have a new invisible wall being built on the planet by the foreign policy of the U.S.? An empowerment among world leaders as it was felt that the world could now solve all its problems through discussion, debate and compromise - not having to resort to World Wars. Then there was the Gulf War (during the Bush I administration) which at first blush looked to be a magnificent display of unity among the nations of the world. The world in unison retaliating against Iraq for the ruthless invasion of its peaceful neighbor Kuwait. But after the war was over and through the ensuring ten years of hardship for the Iraqis under the U.S. imposed sanctions via the UN the facts slowly trickled out. 1. The U.S. Embassador to Iraq, an April Gillespie, said to Saddam Hussein when he went to make sure the U.S. was going to do nothing if he invaded Kuwait, "We don't care what you do in the region." 2. Fact in the minds of most world leaders: the U.S. could have prevented Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. However, the U.S. in affect condoned the invasion. 3. Fact in the minds of most world leaders: the U.S. wanted to get their troops based in the Middle East to ensure military dominance in the area. 4. Fact in the minds of most world leaders: Bush I stated plainly in his inaugural address that the U.S. was going for world dominance in the phrase "New World Order" the implication of which was missed by all at the time of the speech. These became the sentiments first whispered among world leaders. Not just among what is thought of as reengage nations' leaders. These thoughts, through the years of the Clinton Presidency, festered within the minds of world leaders; then anger and rage as well as fear of the U.S. set in. As all watched the genocide of the Iraqi peoples caused by the U.S. imposed sanction through the UN and the constant bombardment of Iraq by the U.S. military these sentiments became a loud crescendo reported through documentaries on television to the peoples of the nations around the world. These documentaries were never shown in the U.S. I have ordered and watched three of these documentaries shown in Europe on television. The slant presented by these documentaries is completely different from the slant we get in the U.S. There was also, during the ten year period following the Gulf War, a great increase in the globalization of the world. Globalization is thought of in many parts of the world as an American corporations instigated phenomena to instill American values and culture around the world. The peoples of the world who had suffered due to globalization were bitter because of the affects of globalization on their countries. Slowly the globalization group combined with those believing the U.S. wanted world dominance and the theory morphed into the U.S. corporations and the U.S. government were working together to take over the world. In the minds of many of the people of the world we had replaced the now defunct Soviet Union as the one with the evil policies. No longer was the U.S. in the minds of the populace of the world the country that kept democracy alive in the world and fought the Soviet Union who was trying for world dominance and eradication of the rights and freedoms of the individual. U.S. dominance of the world no longer seemed like a good thing when the alternative of Soviet style domination was no longer a threat. It was during this period of changing views of the U.S. and its intentions in the world that the Clinton Presidency took place (1993-2001). President Clinton kept the world community intact and there was still a feeling of hope for the future of the world. Mr. Clinton's foreign policy was that with the U.S. leadership and gentle nudging the nations of the world in co-operation could solve all the world problems especially extreme poverty and illiteracy. Both problems, in the mind of Mr. Clinton, caused criminal elements (terrorists, drug kings, slavery, etc.) to thrive. It is said by many world leaders that while the U.S. rhetoric has for decades been human rights, Mr. Clinton was the first and only U.S. president to date who really ever truly believed in or cared about humanity and the rights of the individual. Of course some world leaders have said "Well Mr. Clinton had a woman as Secretary of State (Madeline Albright, the first and only woman Secretary of State for the U.S. to date) and maybe she influenced Mr. Clinton's beliefs as human rights are a women's issue." However we, who write this essay, know for a fact that Mr. Clinton himself did and still does believe in the rights of humanity. Mr. Clinton was deeply moved by the inhumanity in the world and still is. Facts which support the view of world leaders around the world that the U.S. has always used the rhetoric of human rights to rally its very Christian populace up to fight and support the fighting of its wars to supposedly deliver the citizenry of other nations from inhumane situations are: 1. Ford Administration -- In a report in the Albion Monitor, March 3,1999 by Lucy Komisar from papers released by the Clinton administration Kissinger went to Pinochet ( put into office in Chile by the U.S. government) and said to him (paraphrased) now you are going to hear in a speech by our administration that I talked to you about human rights now that we have gotten that out of the way lets get down to business. 2. Reagan Administration (from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute by Juilian Perry Robinson and Jozef Goldblat Bock). During the Iraq-Iran wars (1980-1988) the U.S. sent materials for making chemical weapons to Iraq. On March 30,1984 the U.S. government announced that it was instituting special licensing requirements for export to Iraq and Iran of particular chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons and that it had urged other governments to do likewise. 3. Bush I Administration duped Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait causing catastrophic human suffering and death in Kuwait as well as an environmental disaster. Then in 2000 some new Presidents of important countries came to power. To celebrate the new century perhaps? These men are proving to be of monumental consequence to the future of the world. One of these new world leaders was the second Mr. Bush (George W. -- who officially took office in January of 2001) selected by the Supreme Court of the U.S. rather than elected by its populace. The fact that the election was so hotly contested and the Supreme Court placed him into office along with the fact that he was the son of the double-crossing Bush I set off alarms in the minds of many of the leaders of the nations of the world. When many of the people from the Bush I and Reagan administrations were put back into influential positions these world leaders felt their fears were indeed justified. The original major premise on foreign policy of Bush II's administration was: Mr. Clinton was too weak in foreign affairs. He had cuddled the world and the rest of the world had lost respect and yes, some fear of the "mighty" U.S. The Bush II administration under the leadership of the powerful and very influential (within the Bush II administration) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield (previously Secretary of Defense under The Ford Administration 1975-77) immediately set about righting the perspective the world had of the U.S. The US's new foreign doctrine was forceful leadership of the world. And yes, even bullying if necessary, to get the rest of the world in line and push the world towards the US's view of how the world should be. The first to challenge the US's new foreign policy was China. This lead to the downing of one of the US's surveillance planes in Chinese territory in April of 2001 only 3 months after the Bush II administration took office. Although Defense Secretary Rusmfield vowed "we will fly our plane home" the plane was shipped back in crates. The Bush II foreign policy was not getting off to a good start. The world, at this point, was only balking though. Then on 9/11/01 the World Trade Center ( a sign throughout most of the world of the US's capitalistic society) in N.Y. City as well as the pentagon (the symbol of the U.S. defense department) were attacked and destroyed by "the capitalists own commercial airlines" under the control of Al Queda operatives killing over 3,000 civilians in N.Y. City alone. In the days after the attacks the CIA came out with this scenario and some of these facts were released in the "off beat" media but the main media never picked up on these facts. 1. The Jordanians in the summer of 2001 warned the U.S. government of a big terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The message: "A major attack was planned inside the U.S. and aircraft would be used. The code name of the operations was "The Big Wedding". Now being one that has noticed that the terrorists struck on 911 which is the US' code for help it seems the terrorists have a sense of humor although I would classify it as black humor. Now I also think the code name for the operation, "The Big Wedding" has significance. A wedding in the marriage of two different families. Maybe in this case groups or could it be countries or two different groups of countries? 2. The Russians twice warned the U.S. government of an imminent attack in the summer of 2001 as reported by President Putin of Russia in an interview with Tim Russet on MSNBC. 3. The Israelis obviously knew about the attack as they were there to film it. It seemed only our government was oblivious to the imminent attack. To add to this humiliation the Bush II administration reacted pathetically or actually not at all, to four commercial airliners being of course for over an hour. The Bush II administration did not send up fighters to shadow the off course airliners and then shoot them down. World leaders sent condolences and the populace of the world mourned with the U.S. citizenry. But Bush II did not seize the moment to repair relations with world leaders. Perhaps it was due to fear and shock. After all, Mr. Bush was flown all over the U.S. as it was thought he might have been targeted also. This ordeal had to be very frightening. It had to be a time full of fear and chaos for him. Poor Mr. Rumsfield was in the Pentagon when it was hit. It is apparent the U.S. congress experienced "shock and awe" also as Attorney General Ashcroft seized the moment and easily got Congress to pass the Patriot Act removing from many U.S. citizens the human rights the U.S. had always fought for the rest of the world to have and which its citizens as well as immigrants had always considered one of the hallmarks of the U.S. However the U.S. Congress -- or most of it -- has come to its senses without any detrimental long term effects and is now questioning the hasty passage of the Patriot Act as well as other actions (present and past) and policies of the Bush II administration. And well they should. Perhaps Mr. Bush and his administration was still in a state of shock and fear when Mr. Bush in speeches kept reiterating "The world changed on 9-11 when the World Trade Center was hit". Now anyone with any kind of rational logical reasoning abilities realizes the world didn't change drastically the moment the capitalist airliners hit and took out their own country's World Trade Center and Pentagon. After all it took at least four months to plan the attack. The world had actually been changing for ten years. Ever since the Gulf War and Bush I had deceived the world community. It was the Bush II administration's view of the world which had really changed after 9-11 not the world. As the knowledge that most of the world leaders knew of the plan for the attack and did not do much to warn the Bush II administration (in the Bush II administration's opinion) it became enraged. Maybe it was pay back for the father's duping of the world leaders and countries during the Gulf War. "Does not the bible say: the sons shall reap the results of their father's sins and transgressions. Bush II being a born again Christian should understand this." "It is a shame the American people were the ones who actually suffered for the actions of its leaders (past and present). But then it was a shame that the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis under sanctions, suffered for the actions of Saddam Hussein condoned by Bush I. The Americans at least picked Bush I as their leader." It is always the peoples of a nation that reap the ills of a poor leader or the good fortune of a good leader. Maybe a fault of "Western style democracies" is that the leaders (presidents, prime ministers) and their administrations have complete control over foreign policy. This was alright before the 1900's but as the world has become more intertwined foreign policy has become of more importance. In the present world foreign policy is the most important part of a government. Perhaps it would be better if the three parts of "Western style Democracies" (executive, legislative and judicial) had equal control over foreign policy as they do over domestic affairs. Then the peoples of a democracy would have better representation in foreign affairs and there would be the checks and balances within the government in foreign affairs as there are in domestic affairs. The in shock, fearful, humiliated Bush II administration in a state of rage and paranoia started strategizing. Their thinking, always suspect-- as is any person who sees things only in black and white, good and evil- came up with a simplistic solution for an intricate problem. People who only see in extremes can not see all the convoluted details in an issue. Now their foreign policy started morphing to and becoming "The U.S. will have freedom from fear." The simplistic thinking Bush administration now had a very simplistic mission, a simple vision (something that people who see only in extremes of good and evil-black and white could understand and get into). We will rid the world of terrorists so the U.S. can live with freedom of fear. Surely post traumatic stress syndrome and paranoia had set into the leaders in the Bush administration. Everyone realizes there is not and has never been a world in which people can live entirely without fear if they choose to obsess on the fears in the world as the Bush administration obviously wanted to do. Perhaps it was their fundamentalists Christian beliefs; believing in a world when Jesus comes back where all who believe will walk in peace and harmony with Jesus which implanted this notion of a world without fear within the Bush administration. But was the real policy of the Bush administration and its elite backers that they would not have to live in fear of the humiliation of another attack which they might not perform any better in than the first attack? I suspect the American people, like all people around the world, would be in a state of constant fear if they obsessed on all the calamities that could befall them as they go about their daily lives. Loss of life or property due to robbery, rape, duping by capitalist businesses and lost of their retirement savings, loss of income due to lost of job and there fore lost of health care and getting sick, or just no health care and getting sick. A worry which the citizenry in every other civilized nation of the world does not have to worry about (even the Middle East) as they all have universal health care. The Bush II administration's simplistic answer to the new foreign policy "The U.S. will live without fear" went something like this: Al Queda attacked us. Al Queda is evil. Al Queda is in Afghanistan, therefore the answer is simple. We have the most powerful military in the world. We will attack Afghanistan and get rid of Al Queda. A simplistic answer to a very complex problem and like most simplistic answers to complex problems faulty. It proved Mr. Bush and his administration still didn't understand the world of today. Further proof that sudden Post traumatic stress syndrome and paranoia had set in as well as proof the U.S. wanted world domination -- to make the world into their vision of the world with no input from other countries- was Mr. Bush's continuos repeating of the statement "You are either for us or against us." This often repeated statement was burned into the brains of leaders of other countries of the world. This statement alone lead to further polarization of the world. Indeed the pen is mightier than the sword when the written word is repeated over and over by a very powerful person. Or is it as we, the writers, suspect "what the pen writes and when people of importance utter these words it leads to the sword especially in this interconnected world where television immediately broadcasts utterances around the world". However the nations of the world in an effort to show the Bush II administration comradeship and with the unison mind of let bygones be bygones offered to join the U.S. and support them in their attack of Afghanistan. However the Bush II administration rebuffed the nations of the world a second time and said no we will go it alone. Perhaps after the humiliation of 9/11/01 they felt they must show the world the power of their military to save face. New policies were also installed on the "home front" to carry out this new simplistic vision of the Bush II administration "The United States will live without fear". The U.S. government was completely reorganized into a Department of Homeland Security (a cabinet level Department). A department conceived to and with the total responsibility of ridding the U.S. of having to ever face fear again. But the leaders of the new department realizing their task was impossible and they could only fail at it changed their responsibility to that of: The government of the U.S. will warn the states of imminent threats of terrorism. There by transferring the responsibility for seeing that no terrorism happened onto the backs of the already financially strapped states. The newly formed Homeland Security Department under the leadership of Tom Ridge set into place a color code of immanence of terrorists attacks which was released to the populace of the U.S. and the policing forces of the states. The rest of the world looked on in bewilderment and wonder as the color code was raised and lowered slightly continuously. The citizenry of the U.S. became as fearful and paranoid as their leaders with each heightening of the code. And yes, while I hate to admit it, there were some smiles and laughter around the world as Americans (reported on CNN) bought up all the masking tape within the U.S. After all the "rest of the world" had been facing and surviving terrorist attacks for the last ten years. Some countries for an even longer period. But yet there had been no revamping of whole governments and no color code going up and down at the least hint of imminent terrorists attacks by governmental information agencies to cause fear and paranoia among the citizenry of other countries of the world. The leaders of each country as they felt their position as leader decreed them to do took on the battle of terrorists privately and did not instill in their citizens any further fears than they already had to worry about. The leaders of other countries of the world "did not pass the buck for the protection of their citizenry from terrorism to the citizens of the country and the smaller less equipped regional governments of the country" to put it in simplistic American terms. If you don't think world leaders judge other world leaders by the policies they implement both in foreign and domestic affairs, you are mistaken. This is especially true of the U.S. as it leaves a big footprint in the world. Other world leaders watch what goes on in the U.S. in an attempt to analyze how the currently in charge administration will react when faced with certain situations. And yes to form opinions of other countries leaders as leaders. Then a year later amidst immense concerns and protests not only from other world leaders but also much of the populace of the world, the U.S. decides to unilaterally invade Iraq. The policy being that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. The mighty military of the U.S. won the war in short order. All in the world were glad of this as no one wanted the long suffering Iraqi people to suffer any longer than necessary. But there were not citizens waiting with flowers and such for the powerful conquering U.S. military as the Bush II administration erroneously predicted there would be. There has been great resistance, which has reached a crescendo now and is growing by leaps and bounds daily. The U.S. CIA has informed the Bush II administration that the citizenry of Iraq are now mostly in favor of the resistance as they feel the U.S. has not delivered what it promised. Just recently (November of 2003) The Bush II administration came out with a new foreign policy for freeing the U.S. of having to live in fear. And Mr. Bush was sent forth to articulate this vision. There will be democracy through out the world. We will wipe extreme poverty, which breeds suicide terrorists, from the face of the earth. Now it seems Mr. Bush and his administration are starting to get educated in foreign affairs but are not yet fully knowledgeable or maybe they just want to ignore the real root of the problems of the world. The adjective fast can not be used with the word learner when it comes to the Bush II administration. It seems the Bush II administration is drawing closer to the vision of Mr. Clinton. But the method used to try to implement a foreign policy is as important as the policy itself. It is left to be seen if the Bush II administration will continue to try to implement its new policy by intimidation and bullying. It is felt by many world leaders that the last military operation in Iraq named Iron Hammer is the Bush administration's answer. If we are right the U.S. has just taken a further giant leap in the polarization of the world and world war. The U.S. can not make the rest of the world live in fear of the U.S. to supposedly abolish the U.S. of having to live in fear. Now the vision of wiping extreme poverty from the world and democracy for the peoples of the world is a vision that most leaders of the nations of the world agree with. Especially since the Bush II administration added other countries of the world did not necessaryhave to have a western style democracy. What ever that means (oh the devil is in the details). It seems to most if not all the world which do not already have a Democratic country that there is not a thing as "Western style democracy". Now other people of importance in countries though out the world have the following statement to make: The democracy in England is different from the U.S. in that money in campaigns for elections of officials is limited. There is free air time for candidates and the period which can be campaigned over is limited by law. Now Russia is more in favor of this type of Democracy and will not let money and corporations rule the government of the people of Russia. One man-one vote will rule the day in Russia and money is only a possession and does not equal freedom of speech. Most of the Middle Eastern countries leaders are studying the different types of Democracies and tying to decide where they want to go with their countries. But all of the "Rest of the world" is asking you Mr. Bush, "What do you mean by the statement you don't have to have a western style democracy? It seems to us there is no such thing as one type of western democracy. Even more importantly Mr. Bush, " How are you and the U.S. going to rule and implement this vision?" "With force and bullying and impatiently trying to force change upon our countries when we feel we (the leaders of our countries and who know our countries best) feel we are moving as fast as the people can handle. Or are you going to in a friendly and manner of cooperation and support going to nudge us along as the Clinton Administration did?" "Mr. Bush, Look how far Russia and the Middle Eastern countries have moved towards democracy since the 1990's under the Clinton administration. We have all indeed come a long way in a short time. Do not forget Mr. Bush that it has taken your country over 200 years to give blacks equal rights. It took close to 200 years to give women the right to vote." "And more important than this grand vision of yours for the world is what are you going to do about Afghanistan that is falling back under the total control of war lords and the production of opium. Are you going to see your vision for Iraq materialize?" Are things going as you expected in Iraq, Mr. Bush?" "WE, the "nations of the rest of the world", want to extend a hand again for all of us to work together in a sense of harmony and cooperation. With a feeling of equality and an interest in the opinions and concerns of all. No more of this "You are either for us or against us", Mr. Bush. Come now, You are an intelligent man, You know we are all for what is in our own country's interest first just as you are. But that does not mean we don't care what is best for the world and that we do not feel extreme poverty should not be wiped out around the world. Now lets all be allies and work to eradicate extreme poverty in the world. Our peoples want democracy but we want what we think is the best type of democracy for our peoples and country which we do not feel is the U.S. type of democracy. We looking from the outside to within your country see many problems in it. Problems we want to circumvent and not have to deal with." "Don't bully and try to shove us Mr. Bush. Remember Bin Laden and many of his people were rich and could have lived in peace in a life of luxury. They were not the extremely poor. They are intelligent, educated with inquiring minds. And because of what they found out about the US's foreign policy over the last sixty years they turned to freedom fighting for their world. Not the whole world, just their part of the world. They prefer to live destitute, isolated lives and follow their ideology than to live in luxury and see all they love about their part of the world stolen form their peoples. There are many such people around the world-in South America, in Africa, and in Asia and the Middle East. People who hate the U.S. government because of what its foreign policy in the past and even in the preset has done and is doing in their countries." "While getting rid of poverty will cleanse the world of some of the smaller terrorists attacks, it will not rid the world of the ideologues such as Bin Laden. Therefore other attacks such as 9/11/01 will always be possible as long as one country tries to bully another country into the vision of the first country which is not the vision of the country being bullied. No country or peoples want to be something they think is wrong and no country will allow themselves to be bulled into being something they feel is evil." "Look at it this way Mr. Bush, terrorist are more desirable than another world war which could very possibly escalate to nuclear weapons and wipe out civilization as we know it. Many of us in the world feel this way Mr. Bush. WE are not, any of us in fact, fundamentalist Christians. None of us believe Jesus will come back and save all who are Christians or anyone in fact, Mr. Bush. But maybe wild west types and wild catter oil field types like to take that kind of gamble with their peoples lives and the world as a whole. The stakes are too high and the results of another world war are to devastating for the rest of us to wish it upon our peoples, Mr. Bush. We would rather put up with terrorist on occasion and work to keep the attacks to a minimum." Don't continue to MARCH! The world towards a world war which none of us want but will accept as preferable to being bullied and under the control of and having to become a clone of the U.S. The leaders of "the rest of the world", will not be bullied or terrorized into situations for their countries and peoples which they do not think is best for them. The "Rest of the World", will retaliate by what ever means seem reasonable and appropriate at the time." A word of advice Mr. Bush-"Walk softly, carry a big stick if your are filled with fear and scared and must-But walk softly." This essay is composed by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett and friends. The basic theory of what has happened in the world since the fall of the Soviet Union is basically the work of my life long friend and mentor, Sebastian. The theory has been stated to be accurate by all who have heard it. The fine points backing up the main theory have been presented by various people around the world who want to remain anonymous due to their positions in the world. All who want to use any of the thoughts, theories and ideas in the essay should give credit to Cherrie Lynn Lipsett. Here is what I, cherrie lynn, want to add to this essay: "Are we now not fighting the religious wars of centuries ago when the Christian crusaders invaded The Ottoman Empire (Islamic empire)? Are we doomed to a vicious cycle of destroying all material things we have built and perpetuating misery, fear and chaos upon the decent and innocent citizens of our planet? Can we honestly use the word civilized with the word human beings? Can we with certainty call ourselves intelligent? Do we dare call ourselves compassionate!" |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|