Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 113

Thread: Iran Rejects Deal to Ship Out Uranium, Officials Report

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    05-20-10 @ 11:02 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    314

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Thank goodness, a leftist with a brain, this forum has precious few of them, as this thread exhibits by posters arguing that the US constitution prohibits the draft despite being pointed to the precise language in the document that it does...

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Except that you completely ignore the actual problems of the Middle.
    I lived there for 30 years, that is unlikely.

    Let's address your first post. Iran cannot destabilize Israel more than Israeli politicians are doing without nuclear weapons.
    I was referring to the endless terroism and suicide bombings israel has endured for decades by iranian poodles such as hezboolah, hamas and islamic jihad.

    And while Iran is acting upon its interests in the other countries, your definition would classify a large number of countries around the world as destabilizing other countries. Every country in history has used terrorism as a political method, not to mention murder.
    Pursuing interests is one thing, conducting suicide bombings murdering hundreds of people is another.

    You ignore the real problems of the Middle East. Getting rid of Iran's government does not fix the Dutch Disease problem which is arguably at the root of the problems of the Modern Middle east.
    Spare me, the colonialism ended decades ago, its funny how this pathetic argument has been quietly dropped from excuses for african incompetence and mal-government, the leftist sympathy for arab muslim failings appears bottomless.

    Removing Iran's government does not fix the millennia long cultural problems within the region and within Islam.
    So are you claiming that islam is not a religion of peace?

    I guess this is a fine example of the abject leftist racism against arab muslims, where they cannot be held to the same norms and demands of civil society.

    Removing Iran's government does not remove the corrupt regimes that are explicitly delaying progress in the Middle East.
    These regimes, while wretched, are not applying terrorism in other nations as a political method.

    And why the crocodile tears for un-free regimes, who treat their own citizens so badly, yet no complaints about iran who in the most recent fabricated "elections" murdered and tortured so many of their own people?

    In many ways, Iran government is more progressive then many other Middle Eastern regimes.
    This statement, while laughable to people like me who lived there, would probably get you killed if said aloud right now if overheard in teheran or ifshahan.

    1) How would we pay for this
    We already are, these troops are on active duty. You do understand that yes?

    2) How would we maintain this force
    Do not understand this question, as the divisions already exist.

    3) How would we maintain rotations for this force / 165,000 troops was not enough to secure Iraq, which was smaller, easier terrain and far less populated. 400,000 was. Iran's population is far, far, far more then Iraq's with terrain resembling Afghanistan's far more then Iraq's.
    The US would be going in to liquidate the regime leadership and its republican guard. This is a much shorter, more narror mission than what was needed - and occurred - in iraq.

  2. #92
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Take a look at clauses 1 and 7 of the same article and section.
    Clause 1 has to do with borrowing money. The IRS does not borrow money. It collects taxes. The governemnt borrows money from other countries.

    Clause 7 has to do with establishing Post Office's and Postal Roads. While I suppose they could technically I think technically they couldn't also as the draft was originally meant for the military. For the same reason that the 13th Amendment does not apply to the draft, the draft would not apply to clause 7. Not the original intent of what the draft was made for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes. There isn't a shadow of doubt in my mind that Obama isn't going to implement the draft. For that matter, there isn't a shadow of doubt about it in YOUR mind either. You know perfectly well it isn't going to happen.
    Thank you so much for telling me what I am thinking/not thinking.

    Contrary to what you think that I am thinking you are wrong.

    Take a look at this video. Ignore the comments made from the person that put this video together and just listen to what Rahm Emanuel and Obama say in it.

    Youtube link



    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then let's get back to the subject at hand before j-mac derailed it with this nonsense about the draft:

    For those of you bitching about A) not going to war with Iran, B) not building up our troops in Afghanistan quickly enough, C) withdrawing from Iraq: Where are all these extra troops going to come from?
    Which is what started the draft debate. It is possible that he could. You asked it was answered. Just because we don't agree with that option does not mean that it is still not a valid answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The "partisan hack" comment was addressed to j-mac, who IS a partisan hack by any definition of the word.
    Then perhaps you shouldn't have put it in a post directed at me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You can either propose a realistic solution or you can use your fantasies of nuclear war as a substitute for actually thinking about the issue. Your choice.
    Whats not realistic about it? Are you trying to say that we don't have the nukes to carry it out? Because as long as we do that makes it quite realistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That doesn't mean we have an infinite amount of military power to confront Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan all at the same time. Hell, someone on this thread even suggested starting a war with Libya too.
    Think my suggestion sort of nullifies your question. Along with the Draft answer.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #93
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by rogerredy View Post
    Thank goodness, a leftist with a brain, this forum has precious few of them
    If you consider me a leftists, then you are in the lot with Navy Pride who considers massive government, fiscally liberal policies and world police to be conservative policies.

    I lived there for 30 years, that is unlikely.
    Oh yay. Circumstantial evidence. Want to bet how far that will get you?

    I was referring to the endless terroism and suicide bombings israel has endured for decades by iranian poodles such as hezboolah, hamas and islamic jihad.
    And look where Israel is now. The most productive country in the Middle East with the exception of Turkey. Granted, much of that was built upon US handouts and welfare, but that's neither here nor there. In fact, the constant threats upon Israel have often acted as a stabilizing force shoving internally damning problems within the country to the backburner. It was often said that giving Israel months of peace could do what no Arab country could do: destroy it by internal schisms.

    Pursuing interests is one thing, conducting suicide bombings murdering hundreds of people is another.
    So now it's just "hundreds" that count eh? Care to examine the US role in Chile? How about what Venezuela is doing now? Or the clandestine operations of the SAS? Or the numerous historical incidents by countries over the years? You act like countries haven't done this. Unlike you, I can be objective in realizing that terrorism is not a tool limited to Iran.

    Spare me, the colonialism ended decades ago, its funny how this pathetic argument has been quietly dropped from excuses for african incompetence and mal-government, the leftist sympathy for arab muslim failings appears bottomless.
    I see you completely ignored what I wrote. Can you define "Dutch Disease" for me? Furthermore, explain to me how that removes blame on the government. And I do find it amusing how you implicitly argue I'm not blaming the governments despite me doing just that later in the post. Not a careful reader are you?

    So are you claiming that islam is not a religion of peace?
    Depends who's interpretation we're looking at. Some are. Some aren't.

    I guess this is a fine example of the abject leftist racism against arab muslims, where they cannot be held to the same norms and demands of civil society.
    Based on....what? Your inability to argue without labeling people in the hopes that that will somehow free you from providing an intellectual reply? You're going to get hammered here if that is all you have in your debate skill locker.

    These regimes, while wretched, are not applying terrorism in other nations as a political method.
    As a political method? So apparently terrorism is only terrorism when it's political. And you are wrong. Syria exports its radicals as a way of reducing political threats to the Druze Assad Regime.

    And why the crocodile tears for un-free regimes, who treat their own citizens so badly, yet no complaints about iran who in the most recent fabricated "elections" murdered and tortured so many of their own people?
    Generally, it helps to read the prior posts of people before making such accusations. Please research those threads before first assuming I never said anything on them. You clearly assume much to plug the gaps in your inability to debate, and it's painfully obvious. And you are off tangent. While those regimes are scum as is the Theocracy in Iran, this is a discussion about your claim that removing the Iranian regime would fix the ME's problems. As my point still stands, removing Iran's regime does not remove the others which are part of the problem thereby rendering your assertion false.

    I realize you likely came from a board which did not challenge you and therefore let whatever skills you had at the time stagnate and decay to nothing. You should realize that without a Rocky like training regime, you will be crushed here.

    This statement, while laughable to people like me who lived there, would probably get you killed if said aloud right now if overheard in teheran or ifshahan.
    Ever heard of a country called "Saudi Arabia?"

    We already are, these troops are on active duty. You do understand that yes?
    Wow. I'm not sure what to say to this. First, those troops, while on active duty, are not in combat. Combat operations and peacetime operations are two entirely different concepts. Peacetime doesn't result in huge uses of material. Peacetime doesn't involve in massive medical needs. Peacetime doesn't involve in extreme constant stress on soldiers. Peacetime does not in most ways resemble combat operations.

    Do not understand this question, as the divisions already exist.
    Tell me, do you think that the materials required to sustain a division in combat and occupation are the same as those to sustain a division that is not actively in combat and undergoing largely training operations in a friendly country?

    The US would be going in to liquidate the regime leadership and its republican guard. This is a much shorter, more narror mission than what was needed - and occurred - in iraq.
    Except to do that, we'd need to replace it with something else. And we'd need to hunt down the Republican Guard. Ever seen a topographical map of Iran? Because it sounds like you think it's rolling deserts. Furthermore, you really think that we could just roll in there and not have to worry about the massive population?

    Wow you are Rummy. Wishful thinking on the borderlines of delusions.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #94
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Iran Rejects Deal to Ship Out Uranium, Officials Report

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    last thing before bed....Look Kandahar, There was never wide consensus on a draft, Rangel knew that, but cynically introduced it anyway every few months during the Bush terms to bring heat for the number of deployments.
    If that's the case, why did you bring it up as a possible solution for where to get the troops necessary for Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as your proposed war in Iran?

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    it was a strategy by the demos to keep throwing everything at him, while trying to make him look inept. So my last question to you tonight, is, If it was good enough to dog Bush with for a couple of years in demos case, then why is it now out of bounds to raise when you ask where we would get the troops to support Dear Leader, Chairman Maobama's war of necessity in Afghanistan?
    Sounds like a stupid tactic no matter who is doing it. Unless you have a quote where I said "it was good enough to dog Bush with for a couple of years," then it's completely irrelevant to the question I asked - where should these troops come from? Hell, I never even HEARD of Rangel's resolution until about an hour ago.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #95
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Clause 1 has to do with borrowing money. The IRS does not borrow money. It collects taxes. The governemnt borrows money from other countries.
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang
    Thank you so much for telling me what I am thinking/not thinking.

    Contrary to what you think that I am thinking you are wrong.

    Take a look at this video. Ignore the comments made from the person that put this video together and just listen to what Rahm Emanuel and Obama say in it.

    Youtube link
    Rahm Emanuel talked about "universal service." And I've heard Obama refer to a "civilian security force" before; he isn't talking about a literal security force, he's talking about some kind of national service program. I don't think it should be compulsory either, but it's hardly a draft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang
    Which is what started the draft debate. It is possible that he could. You asked it was answered. Just because we don't agree with that option does not mean that it is still not a valid answer.
    If you offer up a solution to a question (i.e. Where are all these troops going to come from for a war in Iran), I tend to assume that you actually believe what you say.

    If people aren't going to defend their proposed solutions under scrutiny, then they may as well have not wasted time and suggested the idea in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang
    Then perhaps you shouldn't have put it in a post directed at me?
    Huh? Post #69, where you got that quote from, was clearly directed at j-mac.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang
    Whats not realistic about it? Are you trying to say that we don't have the nukes to carry it out? Because as long as we do that makes it quite realistic.
    It's not realistic because you know full well that no US president is going to violate our no-first-strike nuclear policy, due to the horrific consequences. So when you suggest something that you know with 99.999% certainty isn't going to happen, what you're really doing is abdicating the responsibility to actually analyze the issue and think critically about how best to handle it.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 11-01-09 at 11:30 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    05-20-10 @ 11:02 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    314

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Oh yay. Circumstantial evidence. Want to bet how far that will get you?
    It means I have lived there probably longer than you are alive. Speak farsi? I do, and know more about iran than you will ever.

    So now it's just "hundreds" that count eh?
    Are we really at the level of conversation where we need to post links to how many israeli suicide casualties there have been since 1993?

    Care to examine the US role in Chile? How about what Venezuela is doing now? Or the clandestine operations of the SAS? Or the numerous historical incidents by countries over the years? You act like countries haven't done this. Unlike you, I can be objective in realizing that terrorism is not a tool limited to Iran.
    When I see the SAS conduct suicide bombings of pizza parlours, paralyzing an entire country, and massive rocket fire to the tune of tens of thousands of katyushas fired THEN your absurd comments might hold some weight.

    Not a careful reader are you?
    You claimed western colonialism and foreign interference is causing mideast issues, this is garbage. Don't like the facts, don't post a response.

    Depends who's interpretation we're looking at. Some are. Some aren't.
    Hilarious nonsense, either the religion is peaceful in its interpretation or it isn't.

    Based on....what? Your inability to argue without labeling people in the hopes that that will somehow free you from providing an intellectual reply? You're going to get hammered here if that is all you have in your debate skill locker.
    The first sign an internet teen is failing in his argument is when he starts issuing threats - and there's strike one against you.

    As a political method? So apparently terrorism is only terrorism when it's political. And you are wrong. Syria exports its radicals as a way of reducing political threats to the Druze Assad Regime.
    First off, by definition all terrorism is political since it is a means of using violence to send a message/change a political situation.

    Second, the Assad regime is alawite, a shia sect, not druze.

    You clearly assume much to plug the gaps in your inability to debate, and it's painfully obvious.
    Continue the personal attacks, and I will put you on ignore. Clearly I overestimated what I'd hoped would be a thoughtful leftist, and was wrong

    And you are off tangent. While those regimes are scum as is the Theocracy in Iran, this is a discussion about your claim that removing the Iranian regime would fix the ME's problems.
    The US removed the Saddam regime in 2003, and in the last 6 years it has issued ZERO threats against its neighbors, conducted zero funding of foreign terrorists, and engaged in zero wars. Sounds like a good job to me.

    I realize you likely came from a board which did not challenge you
    You attack me for making assumptions about you, then do the same. Are you for real?

    Wow. I'm not sure what to say to this. First, those troops, while on active duty, are not in combat...
    The points you responded to regarding troop levels were answers to questions posed by a different poster, and not directed to you. I will await his response.
    Last edited by rogerredy; 11-01-09 at 11:43 PM.

  7. #97
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Rahm Emanuel talked about "universal service." And I've heard Obama refer to a "civilian security force" before; he isn't talking about a literal security force, he's talking about some kind of national service program. I don't think it should be compulsory either, but it's hardly a draft.
    You say toe mato I say ta matto. They want it mandatory. A draft is mandatory (when instituted). It is about serving in a military capacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If you offer up a solution to a question (i.e. Where are all these troops going to come from for a war in Iran), I tend to assume that you actually believe what you say.
    Suggestion, don't ever assume anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If people aren't going to defend their proposed solutions under scrutiny, then they may as well have not wasted time and suggested the idea in the first place.
    The proposed solution was in response to your question. Which as you've stated a few times already...

    And where are all these troops going to come from?
    A draft would cover it right? Does it really matter weather people actually want the draft or not? It is an answer to your question. You never specified that they have to actually want it when you asked the question originally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Huh? Post #69, where you got that quote from, was clearly directed at j-mac.
    AH I know what happened. I accidently copied that part and didn't realize it when I was copying a part of your post to respond to you. I put it seperate without realizing what I did. I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's not realistic because you know full well that no US president is going to violate our no-first-strike nuclear policy, due to the horrific consequences. So when you suggest something that you know with 99.999% certainty isn't going to happen, what you're really doing is abdicating the responsibility to actually analyze the issue and think critically about how best to handle it.
    Do you really think that a piece of paper would stop people from launching nuke strikes? And yes I do know that it would not normally be done. Still doesn't mean that it is not an option at all. As your post even suggests since you put 99.999% instead of just saying 100.00%.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #98
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by rogerredy View Post
    It means I have lived there probably longer than you are alive. Speak farsi? I do, and know more about iran than you will ever.
    Sure you do. Just like TD has a finance degree and Apdst has his own "business." By the way, I'm the Queen of Sheba.

    Are we really at the level of conversation where we need to post links to how many israeli suicide casualties there have been since 1993?
    Not at all. You just seem to want to classify the discussion at such a level rather then address the actual issue of usage of terrorism, thus suggesting you are not looking for an honest discussion.

    Btw, I noticed you ignored a fairly significant amount of my post.

    When I see the SAS conduct suicide bombings of pizza parlours, paralyzing an entire country, and massive rocket fire to the tune of tens of thousands of katyushas fired THEN your absurd comments might hold some weight.
    Got it. You only consider what you don't like to be terrorism rather then consider the acts of terror to be terrorism independent of who is doing them to whom. Typical.

    You claimed western colonialism and foreign interference is causing mideast issues, this is garbage. Don't like the facts, don't post a response.
    Please show me where I did this or you are lying. I noticed you utterly failed to define Dutch Disease. Considering the existence of Google, you may have looked it up and then realized, you were completely wrong in your assertion.

    I asked you before how Dutch Disease removes culpability from governments. I noticed you failed to answer.

    I can start getting nasty by bolding and coloring every time you fail. So either you start providing intelligent responses, or I'm going to highlight your epic failures.

    Hilarious nonsense, either the religion is peaceful in its interpretation or it isn't.
    Can you read? Some interpretations are. Some are not. How is that nonsense? Some interpretations of Christianity are peaceful. Some are not. Do you consider that "hilarious nonsense?" Do you consider the pacifists Christians who turn the other cheek to be hilarious compared to the ideology of Pope Urban II who called for Holy War? Some interpretations are peaceful and some are not.

    The first sign an internet teen is failing in his argument is when he starts issuing threats - and there's strike one against you.
    Merely an observation based on historical precedent. Apdst who thanked you knows this as he's been crushed, diced and pulverized time and time again. Point still remains that your entire argument here has been an attempt (lame one I might add) to label me rather then address my arguments. In fact, you ignored a sizable amount right off the bat.

    First off, by definition all terrorism is political since it is a means of using violence to send a message/change a political situation.
    Which means Syria counts. Furthermore, you are not privy to the secret actions of various Middle Eastern governments. Do you really think only Iran is using it? And the message does not need to be public to be political.

    Continue the personal attacks, and I will put you on ignore. Clearly I overestimated what I'd hoped would be a thoughtful leftist, and was wrong
    lol. Thanks for proving my point. You don't provide an argument, you just attempt to label. And ignore me all you want. Doesn't make your arguments valid or deal with the fact that you ignored a sizable portion of my post.

    You can't even define Dutch Disease in the presence of Google.

    The US removed the Saddam regime in 2003, and in the last 6 years it has issued ZERO threats against its neighbors
    So the same amount it did before the invasion. Got it.

    conducted zero funding of foreign terrorists
    That depends if you ask Iran.

    and engaged in zero wars. Sounds like a good job to me.
    Clearly, the term "civil war" doesn't ring a bell to you.

    You attack me for making assumptions about you, then do the same. Are you for real?
    Except that your failings are very clear. Remember, virtually your entire argument here is an attempt to label me rather then address my arguments. This is classic sign you came from a very weak board.

    The points you responded to regarding troop levels were answers to questions posed by a different poster, and not directed to you. I will await his response.
    Doesn't matter. You still made them.

    Good luck here. You are going to need it. Badly. In amounts that may not exist in this world.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #99
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,319

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Sure you do. Just like TD has a finance degree and Apdst has his own "business." By the way, I'm the Queen of Sheba.
    Anyone that disagrees with OC is an automatic liar about, everything. Great debating style. Why haven't you been banned yet?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #100
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iran rejects diplomacy: its time for war

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Sure you do. Just like TD has a finance degree and Apdst has his own "business." By the way, I'm the Queen of Sheba.
    You know OC when you basically tell a person that they are liars about thier own life all you do is make anything that you say not worth responding to.

    Ever.

    I'd think about that if I were you.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •