| Author |
Message |
    
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 88
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 12:02 pm: |     |
Make no mistake - I am sure the costs were run. It is just another example of presenting the "facts" as you want them to be rather than as they are. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3340
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:16 pm: | |
Memories are so short. Before the war the Administration plan was to use oil revenues to rebuild Iraq and felt that Halliburton, Bechtel, etal would have the oil flowing in a month or so. If the Bushies really believed this or not is an open question. One way or another there was more war damage than expected, looting and vandalism so this was forgotten, at least in the short term. Not to mention that pipelines are very vulnerable to attack by “terrorists”, of which there seem to be at least three sets running around the new Iraq.
First we have the Saddam loyalists, mostly Sunni I expect, who don’t have a future in the soon to be formed Islamic Republic of Iraq, the goal of all the Shiite Ayatollahs and Mullahs, the younger of whom are organizing their own militias and make the second armed opposition group. Thirdly we have the outside militants who are heeding the call of OBL and others to go to Iraq and wage Jihad. You can’t keep score without a scorecard. At least in Vietnam we were pretty sure everyone we were fighting worked for Uncle Ho.
Iraq is also an urban country. Afghanistan isn’t, nor was Vietnam which at least allowed us to use our airpower up to and including carpet bombing. When a convoy gets attacked in Saddam City the correct military response is probably to level a couple of blocks. We can’t do that because of collateral damage and the fact the world is watching us. Does this sound like Vietnam redux to anyone but myself?
It is hard to form any sort of interim government in a country that was extremely efficient in eliminating all political opposition. If we had attacked Iran, where there is an organized at least semi-democratic opposition, things might have been different. In Iraq we don’t have that luxury. Someone, either the UN or the US gong it alone is going to have to run the country for a very long period of time.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 47
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
I think World War two was estimated to cost 112B at the time. They were off, of course, by a factor of 75%. Then, the Marshall Plan on top of that. The hew and cry at that time? Why wasn't there any?
|
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 33
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
A big part of understanding international politics is recognizing things for what they are as opposed to how we would like them to be. Another part is being able to describe them in argument without emotionally-laden adjectives (you know who you are).
No one should be surprised that the French government is concerned about French, just as no one should be surprised that the U.S. government is concerned about the interests of the U.S., as they are perceived by the party in power.
|
Paul Surovell
Citizen
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:36 pm: | |
Strawberry,
I hope the day comes when Pres. Bush does the right thing, and I will be the first to applaud him. But today is not that day.
The idea that Bush admin official Armitage floated that the US might consider a UN force headed by a US general is a non-starter, because it's an obvious ploy to get the UN to lend its name to the US-controlled occupation and Provisional Coalition.
The US has to truly step aside and give the UN control of peacekeeping and the transition to Iraqi self-government, if it wants support from the other UN powers.
The US should participate in the process not as an occupier but as a member of the Security Council in accordance with the UN Charter.
French Foreign Min. Villepin reiterated his position (cited in my last post) today in response to the Armitage statement:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3351456 |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 48
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:45 pm: | |
Paul -- where has that UN approach worked while the situation is 'hot'? |
xavier67
Citizen
Username: Xavier67
Post Number: 243
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
June 25th, 1950 to July 27th, 1953.
Otherwise known as the Korean War. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3342
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
Yep, with the US providing the leadership and most of the military force. First MacArthur was the UN commander and after he was relieved by Harry, Ridgeway. I don't think there was ever any arguement from the UN about appointing another American as UN commander. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 50
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:20 pm: | |
EXACTLY. The US calls the shots -- not the UN. The US has always been against giving up ultimate control to the UN. It's "come on in -- all of you -- I'll tell you where to go." No argument? French are resisting that on that very point, in the wires today. |
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 34
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
More exactly, the U.S. government selects the shots from a range of possibilities agreed to in advance with other national governments, and formally endorsed by their representatives at the U.N.
Presumably, this would require such things as the treatment of prisoners in accordance with international legal norms, transparency in the granting of contracts for reconstruction, and other measures to reinforce confidence in the occupation government. |
OK, it's Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 407
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:01 pm: | |
Peanut, you sound like a very scared person. I'm sorry that you feel that way. It can't be pleasant.
If the war is against radical Islam, why do you suppose our leaders have not said so flatly? They wouldn't get away with saying it. If the war on terrorism makes any sense, it's about behavior, not beliefs. It's rather like child rearing. "I don't care how you feel, I care about what you do." There are -- or should be -- no laws against any beliefs.
Hence, it is neither a worthy goal nor a tractible one to iradicate radical anything except behavior, and even that sounds like a holy war. "We must destroy the infidels."
My nephew used to love the Power Rangers. My brother in law pointed out why he hates it: the difference between the bad guys and the good guys is the color of their suits. You're convinced that Muslims (or radical Islamists) are the bad guys and we're the good guys. Why is that? If we're trying to iradicate them -- or anyone for that matter -- then what makes us so good? Oh, I remember: we're trying to get rid of the bad guys; that makes us good. Do I have it right?
And Saddam is not an Islamist by any stretch.
Tom Reingold
|
buzzsaw
Citizen
Username: Buzzsaw
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
"You're convinced that Muslims (or radical Islamists) are the bad guys and we're the good guys"
Mr. Tom, you group Muslims and radical Islamists together so quickly. I think there is a big difference. IMO, we are the good guys compared to RADICAL ISLAMISTS.
|
OK, it's Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 408
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
No, I don't lump radical Islamists and Muslims together. In fact, I'm part Muslim. I fear radicalism as much as anyone else. I fear that buzzsaw does that sort of lumping.
I don't believe in any good guy/bad guy ideology. That's why I don't believe in any Macchiavellian approach.
There will always be radical views. I don't believe in trying to iradicate all people who hold them. It's too, um, radical.
Tom Reingold
|
vermontgolfer
Citizen
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 69
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
OK,
Is it OK then for us to accept the radical Islamists who want to kill all of us, or do I have it wrong. Please, unfortuantely, whether you like it or not, there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' out there. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5066
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
It was a waste sending Taliban fighters to Guantanamo. We should have made them work at Disneyland. |
OK, it's Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 410
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:43 pm: | |
No, it's not OK to accept their plans to kill us. We should defend ourselves against those who attack us. We should defend any attack, as soon as an attack occurs.
I feel that Bush's policies are a greater threat to our society than Al Qaeda's. As tragic as 9/11 was, it's small compared to prolonged war or poverty. That's not to say that a loss of ANY ONE life is not horrific, especially given the way those people died. But I don't feel Al Qaeda has the plans or the ability to destroy our society. And to the extent that they WANT to, I don't believe our policies are effective at stemming the radicals' actions.
And I don't believe Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda. I feel this action was a "do something, I don't care what, but just do something" sort of thing.
Tom Reingold
|
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 35
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
There was a post earlier in this thread stating that the only way the U.S. could win was by killing everyone in the category of radical Islamist (whatever that category might be).
A self-identified radical Islamist reading that post (and finding similar ideas being widely expressed in the U.S.), might well conclude that killing all the U.S. extremists was the only hope of survival.
There's no way out down that path, I'm afraid. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 98
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 6:15 pm: | |
"threats"? and "kill as radical islamists"?
is this the "whole" story, or just the fascist spin?
since 9/11, i believe the only americans known to have plotted large-scale terrorism were the jewish defense league, which tried to kill a u.s. congressman of arab descent and to blow up a church and kill hundreds. big-time murdering terrorists, but "curiously," in bush's bullcrap world, jdl is not listed as a terrorist organization by the u.s. state department, and is free to raise funds to finance its murderous mayhem. cops know they are terrorists and murderers, but the state department won't touch them.
by the way, just to show you how small the world will get when these right-wingers have killed everyone they don't like, the congressman they tried to kill was darrell issa, who bankrolled the california recall petition and might give the republicans the biggest political heist of the century. |
FreeTibet
Citizen
Username: Freetibet
Post Number: 19
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 7:57 pm: | |
Hey Rheingold, statements like "I feel that Bush's policies are a greater threat to our society than Al Qaeda's" remind me of the years gone past when similar statements of "I feel that Reagan's policies are a greater threat to our society than Communism". They were wrong, you are wrong. PERIOD.
"History is never wrong, just the people that try to forecast it"
- Misu Ton Hon
|
vermontgolfer
Citizen
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 70
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 8:58 pm: | |
OK,
I don't know about anyone else in this country but I'd feel a whole lot better defending against an attack, before it happens, not after it happens. Then, I might not be around to do anything about it.
Whew! Where's The Straw Man when you need him.
|
deadwhitemale
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 377
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 10:30 pm: | |
Hello, hello, parallel universe resident.
Are those Arabs, Pakistanis and Black Muslims who have plead guilty or been foung guilty after trial of terroristic related support activities well after 9/11 all members of the "jewish defense league?"
Probably they are the four thousand Israelis over whom NJ State Poet laureate Leroy Jones/Amiri Baraka waxed poetic.
Anti-semitism is as American as apple pie.
And you baked a weakly flavored, watered down, poor excuse.
Tastless, to all the senses.
DWM |
buzzsaw
Citizen
Username: Buzzsaw
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 10:59 pm: | |
Mr. Tom
Stop take a minute, and think.....
You say: "I fear radicalism as much as anyone else. I fear that buzzsaw does that sort of lumping. "
I say: "Dude, you are the one that did the inital written lumping. Then you go on about fearing me (sad) and then you go on to say some dribble about bush being more of a threat than al qaeda (really really really sad).
You are the one with the fear. Unless you are the soy bomb and you are a joke.
Wake up.
|
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 36
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 11:39 pm: | |
The pre-emptive attack against a serious opponent is not always successful in the long term. Pearl Harbor is an obvious example. Another is the opening attack of the French on the Germans at the outset of the Franco-Prussian War (1870), which led to the capture of the French Emperor Napoleon III at Sedan and the cession of Alsace-Lorraine to Prussia in the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt.
A more successful pre-emptive attack was made by the Japanese against the Russian naval base at Port Arthur (now Lushun, China) Naval Base at the start of the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War. Japan won this war decisively, something which cannot be said of its later conflicts with China and the Allies (primarily the U.S.).
The West Point History Department (http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/home.html) has lots of good material (including maps), and it's encouraging to see that professional soldiers are supposed to be learning this stuff. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 99
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
dwm-
i'm honestly aware of no such thing "after". i'm aware of guilty pleas for attending training well before 9/11. can you fill me in with a link or two?
it's not anti-semitic to point out that terrorism is not exclusive to muslims. it's vile racism for you and your ilk in here to continue to use this canard as you continue to post the most horrible suggestions as to genocide of muslims.
it is murdering terrorism for a group of thugs to heavily arm themselves, get a bulldozer, go onto someone else's land, raze their house, shoot and kill any members of the family who resist, and build a fence and thus steal the land. this is what the "settlers" do, and this is what likud has refused to stop and has promised to do more of.
and these are facts. facts are not anti-anything- they are facts. and these facts are known inside israel and deeply trouble literally millions of jews in the peace movement there- they are not "anti-semitic," likud.
and it remains a fact the jewish defense league is a wholly terrorist organization, inexplicably exempt from state department scrutiny.
i also don't hear anyone in here saying we should kill all white catholics who are sympathetic with the irish republican army.
no, only the muslims.
palestinians are no less diverse a group of people than any other group of people whose land, homes and businesses are being taken from them and whose people are being murdered by an unlawful occupying army led by a convicted killer and flaunting international law and united nations resolutions. most palestinians are somehow not killers despite this, something i'm not sure decrepid white republican cocksmegma could themselves do in similar circumstances. under a more benign situation, we had a civil war in this country, and after that war some of these cretins got together and formed the ku klux klan, murdering terrorists who in their heyday were no less popular in george bush's south than is hamas in the west bank today. |
algebra2
Citizen
Username: Algebra2
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 8:32 am: | |
Hello,
You sound like a moron. Cool it with the hate message. We got it, you dislike Israel. Next subject please. |
OK, it's Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 419
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:36 am: | |
FreeTibet, thanks for straightening me out. Wow, all it took was for you to say I'm wrong, and now I see the light. Thank you. No reason to offer your opinion on why I'm wrong. I obviously have to take your word for it, because your wording is so sure.
Vermontgolfer, I can name a few hundred other countries who might attack us. I guess they're next, right? Keep in line before they get out of line, right? For that matter, it's not the countries' governments who are organizing the attacks any more, so we ought to feel free to attack all countries, because we can expect to find radicals everywhere. And if innocent civilians get killed in those countries, hey, at least it makes life safer in the important country on the planet. Much safer.
Tom Reingold
|
OK, it's Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 420
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:43 am: | |
buzzsaw, perhaps I chose my words badly. My point is that there is a difference between radical Islamists and Muslims. Most Muslims are decent people, just as most Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are decent people. I was trying to say that bombing the sh*t out of countries that have radicals will 1. not solve the problem and 2. bomb the good guys.
Besides, all countries have radicals.
Of course, some governments do aid and enable radicals, and we should address that. Why are we so chummy with Saudi Arabia? There's plenty of evidence that they are encouraging terrorism, but we're so afraid of that country, it seems.
Tom Reingold
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 680
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
Hello, do you think there is any solution, or do you just enjoy provoking people. I actually agree with you that Israel's settlement policies are wrong. I also think its wrong to try to kill a terrorist by firing missles from helicopters into crowded cities. What I am waiting for is for you to agree that its wrong to blow up a bus full of innocent people. We are way past the point where tyring to decide who committed the original sin in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is useful (if it ever was). The problem now is that both sides are allowing the extreamists to drive the process. Israel has unrelastic demands of the Palestinian authority in terms of controling terror (something Israel was never able to do when it ruled the West Bank and Gaza). On the other hand it is far from clear that the PA is really sincere about trying. As long as Palestinians keep blowing up buses and Israel keeps appropriating more land by force neither side is in the right and there is little hope for anything but more war.
All that being said, I do not thing there is an absolute moral equivalence between the two sides. While Israel's policies often hurt the innocent, Palestinian attacks are utterly indiscriminate and vicious in a way that Israel generally is not.
As for the question of whehter being opposed to Israel is anti-semetic. I think one has to ask why Israel gets some much attention, UN resolutions, boycots, etc., when there are far worse regiems in the world. Would you rather by in Chechnia or the West Bank. Other than a few concerts where is the outrage over Tibet. We pour aid into represive regiems all over the world. Why so much more focus in Israel? Could it be all those Jews? |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 11:43 am: | |
ashear-
people who blow up buses are murderers, and deserve to die. i've stated that, includingmy support for capital punishment, very clearly.
settlers who kill peple to steal their land are also murderers. you seem not the least bit perturbed that none in here will agree with this. they support a likud government that has refused to prosecute for murder settlers who kill palestinians. how is that a "democratic state" when palestinians are not treated as human beings in the eyes of the law?
likud's policy is one of expulsion, by deadly force if necessary. sharon has said in israel that israel has biblical claims to the west bank, he has said settlement activity will increase, and he ahs called for 1 million more jews to immigrate to israel.
all of these statements after the so-called "road map to peace."
some of you must think palestinians are pretty stupid to ignore these statements by sharon, who was elected in a relative landslide, and to believe the west bank in its entirety will ever be returned to them by its unlawful military occupiers. and both likud and labor have indicated assimilation is out of the question, as jews would then be an electoral moinority in israel. so the palestinians would have to be pretty stupid to believe they are not going to be expelled, or killed if they resist.
the likud in here can admit to the expulsion reality, as their racist lumpings of all palestinians and all arabs together betrays their tribal sense of superiority.
it's not at all clear to me life in the west bank is better than almost anywhere else on earth, in terms of human dignity. i'nm aware of the fact outside nations have responded to israel's lawless aggression by providing resources to those entrapped there. they may eat better than those in somalia or be warmer than those in chechnya. but they may not be freer or have more optimism in terms of the lives of their children. |
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 37
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 12:33 pm: | |
Labelling Hello as anti-Semitic is like labelling anyone who disagrees with the U.S. Government (Republican or Democrat) as anti-American. It's cheap and demeaning, especially if it comes from someone who could address the issue on its merits if they chose to do so.
Time to go back to some of Yitzhak Rabin's speeches, and remember when and where he died. |
FreeTibet
Citizen
Username: Freetibet
Post Number: 20
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 4:12 pm: | |
I just wish Hello would say GOODBYE.
Antisemitism has no place on this site (and apparently neither does pro-conservatism).
But I am happy that Reingold finally saw the light. you are welcome ....
"A man will never find happiness until all his teeth fall out"
- Bawa Wawa |
OK, it's Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 427
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 4:16 pm: | |
I apologize for feeding the trolls. I'm very sorry.
Tom Reingold
|
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 9:12 pm: | |
free tibet-
crocodile tears. and false. neither you nor ANY of the others in here had one critical word to say about the following post:
(by OK It's Straw Man, Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 9:46 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine a Palestinian state..
Questions: How many years before they figure out how to build indoor plumbing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this says everything an educated person needs to know about the level of trash in here, |
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 38
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:05 pm: | |
In response to FreeTibet, it would be refreshing to see a conservative position argued with intelligence.
There's a lot to be said for genuine conservatism if it's intellectually honest.
|
michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 354
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 2:06 am: | |
First of all spend 20 seconds, tops, speaking with Paul Surovell in person. Stop wasting your time here on line until you have had the pleasure.
Second, I'm circulating a petition asking for a resolution to be passed by our township committee that would forbid that body to waste one iota of the taxpayers money discussing, debating, talking about or in any way entertaining frivolous resolutions completely out of their jurisdiction. Can't stop people from saying their mind at open mike time but that's it. Thanks for your concern, we are not constitutional lawyers, we are not national security advisors, and if you don't mind, we have some township work to do now. Thank you and have a nice day.
|
montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 41
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 1:14 pm: | |
Michael's idea sounds like an excellent exercise in democracy. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3348
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 7:34 pm: | |
Michael, your petition basically wastes the time of the committee on a national issue.  |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 766
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
Hello:
I don't know where you get your information. I will not attack you personally, I will respond to you. I have little sympathy for the "settlers", but they don't go in, shoot people, and tear down their houses. The simply squat on unoccupied land, and build houses. They are encroaching on what is considered Arab land, but they do it initially in a peacefull way.
The Israeli government has prosecuted and imprisoned Jewish extremists who have attacked Arabs and plotted terrorism against Arabs. The Israeli military has disciplined Israeli soldiers who have acted improperly against Arabs.
Sharon and any Israeli politician with half a brain accepts that there will someday be a Palestinian State. But when Palestinian terrorists continue to murder innocent civilians,how do you expect them to respond? |
Paul Surovell
Citizen
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 3, 2003 - 3:29 am: | |
cjc:
Sorry I have not answered your question about the effectiveness of UN peacekeepers. I need to do a little research to give you a substantive answer. Hopefully I can do that over the weekend.
Michael,
Your suggestion that people spend 20 seconds "tops" speaking with me in person is very timely.
South Mountain Peace Action will have a literature table in front of the Maplewood Post office (and probably in South Orange as well) on Saturday morning from 10-12.
I will prepare a 20-second soundbite for anyone who wants to follow Michael's suggestion.
We will also have available "Be About Peace" lawn signs, which are free (donations accepted) and an excellent publication by Fairness in Accuracy & Reporting (FAIR) on media coverage of the war on Iraq.
Regarding your petition, are you concerned that we are going to ask the Township Committee to endorse our statement on the occupation of Iraq?
If so, fear not. As we stated to the TC during our presentation of the resolution against the war in February, we do not plan to approach the TC on a regular basis, and in fact the last time we did so was in the 1980s when the Republican TC unanimously approved a resolution for a bilateral US-Soviet Nuclear Weapons Freeze.
See you Saturday?
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page