View Poll Results: Is Obama A War Criminal

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    46 53.49%
  • No

    37 43.02%
  • Other (please explain)

    3 3.49%
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 113

Thread: Is Obama A War Criminal

  1. #71
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,372
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    So you think its OK for scamming tea bagging conservatives to upset a poll.....
    It's a public poll, therefore the public votes. Being pissy about it because you don't like "tea baggers" is no more valid then me disliking moonbats who use the word "tea bagger" as some epithet. I thought a pinko-libbo would know about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Neither Truman, nor Reagan, Bush, and now Obama are "war criminals".
    Thanks for weighing in... I assume you voted in the scammed poll appropriately.
    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Who cares what scamming-fools think ?
    Apparently you do.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  2. #72
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Saw your other response first.

    I have thougth it through. That rationale doesn't hold up and it has nothing to do with duty, obligation or long time security. In fact, we likely hurt our long term securityy more than we helped it. The expense alone hurts more.
    You might have thought this through, but not with the tools you need. It seems your thought process is peppered with denial or with headlines. It had everything to do with obligation and long term securty. History did not begin in February 2003. We spent an entire decade building our obligation to deal with our mess. It was a denied obligation that culminated in 9/11.

    And just what do you base this damage to our long term security on? This is based on what? Immediate sensationalism in the newspaper? The fact is that 9/11 was orchestrated by people throughout the region. Al-Queda recruits from throughout the region. Therefore, for our long term security, the Arab world needed a hand out of their designed path to hell. With a continued UN mission over starving Iraq, the exponentially growing radical base throughout the Arab world would continue to have their "excuses." What hurt us was allowing a civilian named Rumsfeld and his coven of misfit theologists to dictate military mission. he mission was sound inthe handsof a military planner, which is what General Zinni and CENTCOM had devised over a decade. It was Washington dimwits with absolutely no military experience that made this expensive in treasure and blood. If you had thought it through honestly, your gripe would be about the execution, not some fancy that after a decade of starving these people out and aiding in Al-Queda's radical voice that we had no obligation. And don't cop out and state that we should have just invaded Saudi Arabia, because we didn't invade the Soviet Union to defeat that theology either.

    An unhealthy Middle East is exactly counter to our long term security and despite Washington's willingness to ignore it, the military and CIA had been pointing this region out since Somalia. And with Iran looking to kick off a tribal/religious nuclear Cold War in the region, we can use as much democracy leaning help in the region that we can get. Saddam's Iraq was not the solution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And then we added injury to injury. After all that was done. All those deaths. We brough them war?
    You seem to keep dismissing the key issues here. We brought them exactly what their culture demanded. We brought them what we denied them in 1991 and what Europeans denied them for two centuries. We brought them opportunity and ourselves a way out of the UN mission that led us to 9/11. Simply pretending that we have to be on our death beds or be attacked to deal with obvious issues that lead us into very few choices is not honest. Our entire history is one of preservation and this most often meant conflict without your idea of imminent national danger. Keeping regions "peaceful" and opening up sea lanes and such for free trades never came after our being attacked. And let's be even more honest. If slaughtering themselves was their way of expressing decades of pent of rage once the dictator's bayonet was removed then so be it. Culture is fate. As you have seen, they have grown tired of slaughtering themselves and now seek a progressive future. In the mean time, they have all in this region looked in the mirror and recognized that the biggest threat to Muslims are fellow Muslims.

    Until we wean off of oil we are stuck to what this regional culture can do. If they are to be nothing more than slaves to dictators and oppresive regimes for the sake of resource flow to the world, then let's stop bitching about supportng dictators. However, if we are better than our Cold War ways (forced by Soviet behaviors), then we have to start looking at long term security without the expense of the people we pretend we don't enslave by our "containment" missions. In the mean time, maybe we will lighten the radical load and make their streak of extremism more manageable, which is the ultimate goal to our long term security. Until 9/11, none of you would even know of the threat that is the Tali-Ban. Until 9/11, Al-Queda was just some thug organization that murdered those nothing military members abroad in their missions. But you people assume to know that merely containinng the Hussein regime indefinately would bring good things eventually? No you hjaven't really thought this trhough. You made an uniformed conclusion years ago and now you stick to it. Even the French government knew enough to throw in a consulate building into Iraq in 2005 so that they could steal some future inflluence in the region.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We didn't fear Saddam, and most his killing was over, not that his killing bothered us on the whole. We would never invade for that reason as evidenced by us not invading while he was doing it.
    Are you doing this on purpose? Who gives a **** about Saddam Hussein? This is why you are hung up. The man and his supposed WMD was the simple explanation to do the necessary. The issue is Iraq and it's location in the heart land of extremist central. The region is the threat..not one neutered dictator who murdered and tortured while we supported his preservation and gave Al-Queda a legitimate gripe about our depravity. Leftists all over the world agree on America's hypocracy and why we should wither away into the trash heap of history. But when it comes to identifying where we are imperfect these same worthless human beings pretend to need a better excuse to do what is righton many levels. These are the pundist who make your headlines and report the sensationalism that warps opinions that conclude false analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post

    An no, it hasn't. Democracy was already moving in the region. Iraq may actually have hindered movements in Iran. Back then it was pointed out that Iraq played a role in helping their present leader take power. Iraq helped Iran in a lot of ways. Like I said, it hurt our long term interests far more than it helped.
    This is your opinion. It is not the truth. First of all, Iran is not apart of the Arab world, which have been 95 percent of our extremist threat since Khomeini died. I don't know what you are basing your assumptions on, but they contradict the cultural experts, the local regions, intelligence reports, and even some headlines (when they feel like printing good news.) From Cairo to Islamabad, the modernists have been gaining steam since they watched Iraqis vote for the laws that would govern them (a first in Arab history.) Muslims groups have protected Christina celebrations in Egypt. The House of Saud have given into pressure and allowed low level elections as well as giving women more freedom (the first to drive a car was a few years ago). Because women have been allowed into schools and into leadership positions in Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Jordan, Al-Queda has been them targets making this modernist voice even more determined. Freedom of expression has loosened in Egypt and -to a lesser degree I grant you- in Saudi Arabia (but even they have to start somewhere). Did you know that in 2005, President Bush refused to give Egypt their annual allowance unitl they released a political author who was jailed for talking against the Egyptian "Pharoah?" (Ironically, he is also fond of talking crap about oppressive America.) Our influence, with the aid of progressing Iraq, into encouraging social change throughout the region has exponentially grown since we removed the the thorn of the desert and gave Iraqis their opportunity to prove to the world that they are good enough to offer hope towards. With every milestone, the people throughout this region gain hope and envy to create what they currently do not have in their own Arab countries. And in the end, our religious enemies come from locations where ignorance is bliss, there's a lack of education, and they have no way to express their political views other than the sword (or a good old fashion coup, which we deny them). You are confusing our long term security with what you see in the short term immediate headlines. Washington did this throughout the Cold War and pretended that we had no agenda for the decade leading up to 9/11. Long term security is exactly what Iraq was about. Even President Clinton knew this, which is why a 9/11 scenario under his watch would have sent us through the door as well. Of course, I'm inclined to believe that he would have allowed themilitary to do what it does best rather than relying on a coven of civilians who couldn't recite the rank structure.

    But back to Iran......even Iranians are largely seeking for a way to invite the Western world into their country if only the religious zealots who oppress them would give them a chance. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Iranian government speaks on behalf of the people. It speaks on behalf of the religious zealots who only lose power if the people start to speak for freedom. Think Middle Age Catholic Church and you have exactly what is going on in the Middle East. We break this, we break the Middle East threat. This also means that bombs alone will not solve our problems, so don't think I'm a warmonger. I just know that in this world, some people just need killin so that everyone else can breath easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    In any case, I've heard nothing I consider valid enough to justify the cost, the human misery associated with 7 -8 years of war.
    That's because you assume that only Rumsfeld's answer to the mission was possible. The rediculous cost was due to Rumsfeld bungling, not the mission. If they had gotten out of the way, CENTCOM would have wrapped this up years ago and cheaper the cost and in treasure and blood. You should analyze the mission..not the civilian execution of it as the only way.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #73
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,808

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Iraq is not our country. While countries may have helped us during our revolution, they did not come and free us from England. We made the choice to break free. Iraq did not pose any significant threat to us. Not to our security. Nor were we under any obligation to free them, or mold them, or bring more injury to them.

    And no, the cost of the mission was always going to be high. Bush the sr was correct when he said going in was easy, leaving would be hard.

    As for Iran, they were doing that before Iraq, and moving rather quickly to a more friendly government. Iran's less desirable elements need a reason to push the hardliners forward. That's just one of the reasons they helped us going in. We enabled the less dersireable elements an opening, not to mention making Iraq more friendly for them.

    Iraq was always a bad idea. A reckless one. No rewriting of history or new rationale will change that. In fact, no outcome there will change that.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #74
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Those who mattered? A double cone of silence secret reasoning? Well, I can't speak to that, but the public reasoning did not. And as I said, that wouldn't justify invading either. The reasons to invade must be serious, and limited. Imminent threat comes to mind. Stopping genocide comes to mind. Little else.
    By "those who mattered" I meant those who expressly deal with foriegn affairs, cultural issues, and wider national threats. Seeing the man in Iraq as compared to seeing the regional threat are two different things. Public reasoning needs little more than a sensational headline and some extremist chain e-mails. I don't place too much faith in a people who use these things to determine national policy. Besides, aren't they too busy flipping channels or deciding whether or not to fully respect homosexuals? Foriegn affairs are for other positioned people to figure out, because the average public reasoning is void of the facts, history, and the efforts continually going on.

    Most of our national conflicts came from neither imminent threat nor attempts to stop genocide. Your way of life has been built by missions that have contained and/or stabilized regions and trade routes. Good men have died for over two hundred years fighting in "wars" that have had everything to do with making sure you have all the luxuries Disney Land has to offer. Of course, the Gulf War was the only war in history where we drew a line in the sand and threw ourselves a false victory parade only to go and set up the mechanisms that would lead to 9/11. And still people deny the obligation to finish this even for their own sake. One may wonder what mechanism would have been set in play had we simply reached the German border and merely "contained" the dictator.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-27-11 at 03:12 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #75
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,062

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    I stated various times that it's stupid to call Bush a war criminal. So I find it even more ridiculous to call Obama one.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #76
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Iraq is not our country. While countries may have helped us during our revolution, they did not come and free us from England. We made the choice to break free. Iraq did not pose any significant threat to us. Not to our security. Nor were we under any obligation to free them, or mold them, or bring more injury to them.



    As for Iran, they were doing that before Iraq, and moving rather quickly to a more friendly government. Iran's less desirable elements need a reason to push the hardliners forward. That's just one of the reasons they helped us going in. We enabled the less dersireable elements an opening, not to mention making Iraq more friendly for them.

    Iraq was always a bad idea. A reckless one. No rewriting of history or new rationale will change that. In fact, no outcome there will change that.
    Stubborn to the end. There's no rewriting of history here. Just your quest to only heed the sophmoric interpretation of it. I made the argument and you simply shut down because you need your protest. You've placed too much emotional investment behind it to simply think it through now. Like it or not, Iraq was always about more than just Iraq. I keep stating this, but you keep pretending the argument is solely about Iraq as if it is an island without a region. Were it just about Iraq, then **** em. But the fact that we made them our problem for a decade under UN starvation embargo makes them our obligation. Instead of finishing our mission in 1991, we chose the destiny of these people and the region. The ironic thing is athtprotestors used "soveriegnty" as the excuse to turn our backs as if we hadn't already been executing missions in the north since '95, bombed them four seperate times, and dictating the national condition since '91. You are in denial and you have yet to make an argumnent about how Iraq wasn't apart of this 9/11 mission. Try as you may, even Mr. Bin Laden stated it was (protestors, leftists, and pundits tend to ignore this part of the letter while embracing with affection the rest).

    But this is the new America. Americans want us to turn our backs on allies now. They want us to deny our obligations and turn backthe clock to isolationalism. They want us to some how pretend that someone else will stepin top protect sea lanes, trade routes, and keep regional stability. That some how we can preach about democracy and still maintain Cold War prescription and celebrate dictator thrones (secretly of course because no Internet exists). I just don't get it.

    And by the way, our enemies in the region since the end of the Cold War has been Sunni Arabs.....not Shia Iranians. Bringing up Iran's path prior to 2003 does nothing to explain away the very wider region of religious zealousy and terrorist organizations that are bent on destroying their local governments and disrupting American mission abroad. However, even before 2003, the Iranian government was actively persuing nuclear ambitions. Thisprogram goes back to the Shah, then Khomeini, and so on. They merley placed a nationalistic mouth piece behind the microphone to protect their religious powers from the people. And I get all of this from book reading...not headline reading. Vali Nasr writes a great book on the Shia culture within the region (focused on Iran). People, removed from the study, will always assume that the simplest answer will suffice them to perfect wisdom. The invasion into Iraq is their simple Ahmedenijed answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And no, the cost of the mission was always going to be high. Bush the sr was correct when he said going in was easy, leaving would be hard.
    Yes..it was going to be high. I stated nothing contrary. I did state, however, that it did not have to be so costly. Tapping into Bush Sr. tells me that you do indeed lean on TV and politicians for your wisdom into these matters. General Zinni writes a very good book about the lead up to Iraq and he expressly writes that the Rumsfeld coven called the living CENTCOM plan "old and stale." The truth was that it called for far more troops and money than the Rumsfeld coven felt would pass Senate approval. Therefore, they chose the "No Plan" and pretended that social order and democracy would magically erupt from the ground once Baghdad fell. Of course, stupid civilians in Washington fell for it and our military was forced to execute a plan we knew was garbage and the whole tally cost even more blood and money as the result. You witnessed the results on TV and I witnessed the results in Baghdad. I witnessed it again the next year during Fallujah I and II. Had the CENTCOM Plan been approved, the military would have executed properly and not been forced to ignore every rule of Occupation 101. Therefore, it would have been less costly in blood and treasure. This is what I was getting at. Stop seeking the quick "nu-uh." I'm trying to discuss this with you without getting frustrated. Nothing is more irritating than an untrained civilian that knows exactly what the military should do. You may as well be a Secretary of Defense for President Bush.....or a President Bush for that matter.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-27-11 at 03:43 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #77
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,808

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Stubborn to the end. I made the argument and you simply shut down because you need your protest. You've placed too much emotional investment behind it to simply think it through now. Like it or not, Iraq was always about more than just Iraq. I keep stating this, but you keep pretending the argument is solely about Iraq as if it is an island without a region. Were it just about Iraq, then **** em. But the fact that we made them our problem for a decade under UN starvation embargo makes them our obligation. Instead of finishing our mission in 1991, we chose the destiny of these people and the region. The ironic thing is athtprotestors used "soveriegnty" as the excuse to turn our backs as if we hadn't already been executing missions in the north since '95 and dictating the national condition since '91. You are in denial and you have yet to make an argumnent about how Iraq wasn't apart of this 9/11 mission. Try as you may, even Mr. Bin Laden stated it was.

    But this is the new America. Americans want us to turn our backs on allies now. They want us to deny our obligations and turn backthe clock to isolationalism. They want us to some how pretend that someone else will stepin top protect sea lanes, trade routes, and keep regional stability. That some how we can preach about democracy and still maintain Cold War prescription and celebrate dictator thrones (secretly of course because no Internet exists). I just don't get it.
    I didn't shut down. I have limited time and often have to be quick. I read your argument and it did not convince. i tried in a short space to explain why. And no, I don't see Iraq as an Island by itself, but rebutt with we made the region less stable and benefitted Iran more. The idea that changing Iraq would change the region was always flawed. Still is. We can't effectively remake the world with force. Nor should we. This misguided belief has been held by many a conquer, and I would not want our country to be listed with any of those.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,808

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    [QUOTE=MSgt;1059246891]
    By "those who mattered" I meant those who expressly deal with foriegn affairs, cultural issues, and wider national threats.

    Most of those people opposed going into Iraq. We have a lot written on this by those type of people.


    Seeing the man in Iraq as compared to seeing the regional threat are two different things. Public reasoning needs little more than a sensational headline and some extremist chain e-mails. I don't place too much faith in a people who use these things to determine national policy. Besides, aren't they too busy flipping channels or deciding whether or not to fully respect homosexuals? Foriegn affairs are for other positioned people to figure out, because the average public reasoning is void of the facts, history, and the efforts continually going on.

    Most of our national conflicts came from neither imminent threat nor attempts to stop genocide. Your way of life has been built by missions that have contained and/or stabilized regions and trade routes. Good men have died for over two hundred years fighting in "wars" that have had everything to do with making sure you have all the luxuries Disney Land has to offer. Of course, the Gulf War was the only war in history where we drew a line in the sand and threw ourselves a false victory parade only to go and set up the mechanisms that would lead to 9/11. And still people deny the obligation to finish this even for their own sake. One may wonder what mechanism would have been set in play had we simply reached the German border and merely "contained" the dictator.
    I think I address this in my other respnse.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #79
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Most of those people opposed going into Iraq. We have a lot written on this by those type of people.
    Those type of people have been largely silent after the media moved on. Noticed that? Most of them were as foolish as those who were trying to use WMD to legitmize the effort. Nothing beats a set of good books on culture, history, and regional awareness. Never trust a politician's wisdom about military affairs and never trust a think tank or intel statistic/analysis that errs on the side of caution. It's always safer to predict failure than success and this is what the American public has been blasted with since 2001. In the end, all of them are silent about Iraq. There was no grand Iraqi civil war. No refusla to vote. No failure. No apologies. These same fools have merely moved over to predict failure in Afghanistan and the samesheep are swallowing it up.

    Predict Vermont in the Middle East and you will always be dissapointed.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-27-11 at 04:17 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #80
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-21-15 @ 06:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,036

    Re: Is Obama A War Criminal

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I didn't shut down. I have limited time and often have to be quick. I read your argument and it did not convince. i tried in a short space to explain why.
    Alright, alright. Not trying to get frustratedhere. I just don't see how you can't see the commen sense in this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And no, I don't see Iraq as an Island by itself, but rebutt with we made the region less stable and benefitted Iran more. The idea that changing Iraq would change the region was always flawed. Still is. We can't effectively remake the world with force. Nor should we. This misguided belief has been held by many a conquer, and I would not want our country to be listed with any of those.
    This is a pointless argument because Iraq is not the world. Nor have we ever conquered anybody. We have never assimilated or colonized. We have never kept captured territory. Iraq is no different. However, remaking the world is exactly what we have been doing since World War II. Notice how we were the most powerful nation on earth after World War I and still insisted that Europeans form into the League of Nations? Notice how we were themost powerful nation in history after World War II and still insisted on the creation of the United Nations? In both events, we proved what a powerful nation should do, which is empower the weak and unite the globe. For the decades after World War II, "McWorld" infected every corner of the earth and people enthusiastically invited the American way of life into their borders and jumped on our path. Globalization is largely due to the American will to change the world.

    But back to Iraq, we are hardly forcing the wotld to change by force. Considering that the entire Middle East has had a modernist streak about it since the beginning of European colonialism, we are hardly forcing Iraq ro change. We just removed the thorn that held the region in check. I dare you to apply some common sense here..... Do you honestly believe that Al-Queda bombs and insurgent savagry upon their own fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't had an impact on the regional Muslims as a whole? That modernist voices haven't been using this to further their social goals against their oppressive governments (governments that give their radical crowd no way other than violence to express themselves)? That somehow, A-Queda's complete inability to recruit throughout the Arab world is not somehow contributed to this social and political change inside Iraq and their willingness to murder in the name of religious perversion and oppression? These are the dramatic changes that have gone on. In the end, we may owe our long term security to all those Muslims that were forced to look in the mirror everytime another 10 or 20 died from another Muslims hands. Before the Internet and international television, Muslims could look the other way and seek the foriegn devil to blame. Now they can't. Only peoplen the West keep harping on their inabilities to be responsible for themselves and blame Western cultures for daring to remove their dictators and oppressions.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-27-11 at 04:12 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •